Yahoo Introduces Competitor for iTunes

LadyDeath writes "After a year in development, Yahoo has launched its competitor to Apple's iTunes and Napster To Go, a subscription and download music service priced at only $4.99 per month. Tracks are offered in 192Kbps WMA, and can be transferred to portable devices. Perhaps most interesting to the Slashdot crowd is that the Yahoo! Music Engine is built on an open platform that facilitates plug-ins - both DLL and Web based. Podcasting and video playback plug-ins are already available." Update: 05/11 13:06 GMT by T : ian c rogers, formerly of Nullsoft, just led the build of the media player, and writes with information about "the the plugin architecture it supports as well as some of the 20 plugins that are already available for it. I've posted my thoughts on why someone should or shouldn't use the Yahoo! Music Engine on my blog."

Comments

DRM

[MrJules]

...devices supporting Microsoft's Janus digital rights management technology. jon.... Jon?

Re:DRM

[pcmanjon]

Yes?

Re:DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems quite reasonable to me. I mean, let's say the average subscriber is 20, and keeps this service until they are 100. That's 80 years at 5 bucks a month, or around 5,000 dollars. That'd buy you 5,000 songs which you can do with what you want, or you could listen to a MILLION (and that number will probably go up quickly) songs whenever you want, for the same price. And in the latter case, you get to pay in installments of $5/month, and enjoy the whole library for the entire 80 years. To own the 5,000 songs and enjoy THOSE the entire 80 years would require an upfront payment of 5 grand.

Another bonus of the subscription service: when they add a thousand more CDs to the catalog, you don't pay anything more than that 5 bucks a month, and boom, you have access to all of them. Every time they add another 100 CDs to the library, it's like you got them for free.

Who cares if it's DRM'd, as long as you can listen to what you want when you want. The only major downside of DRM, if it's unobtrusive enough, is that you can't give away the music to others. But big deal - anyone not willing to shell out a measly 5 bucks a month doesn't really like music anyway.

And while the music is lossy, 192k WMA is like 384k MP3 - which doesn't even exist, since 320k is the maximum quality (at least on any software I know of). Whatever loss there may be isn't going to be discernible by 99 percent of the human race. The other 1 percent, if they're that picky, can always buy CDs, sacrificing library size for an infintesimal increase in audio quality.

I think this is really a fantastic deal. I would not be shocked if this takes off big-time, with a side effect being an increasingly substantial dent in iPod market share since those stuck with iPods won't be able to get this deal. On the other hand, the iPod folks can keep shelling out a buck a song from iTunes and there's nothing wrong with that. After all, Steve Jobs needs a new Porsche every couple of years.

I have not yet bought a portable music player; I've been holding out for one with 100+ gigs of storage, and there aren't any out there. But when there is, I will make sure that it works with this Yahoo service. If that rules out Apple making any money from my expenditure, well, that's their problem, not mine.

Re:DRM

[Breakfast Pants]

If it takes off the music companies will want more money for their catalogs. So your whole premise is that the introductory price will never rise (and I'm not talking about inflation).

Re:DRM

[Otto]

I mean, let's say the average subscriber is 20, and keeps this service until they are 100. That's 80 years at 5 bucks a month, or around 5,000 dollars.

This doesn't account for inflation over those 80 years, nor the price hike that happens about a year from now because Yahoo Music can't get enough subscribers to justify the low price of the service.

Every time they add another 100 CDs to the library, it's like you got them for free.

Yep, a whole $5 a month worth of free.

Who cares if it's DRM'd, as long as you can listen to what you want when you want.

Exactly! So what if you're forced to use Microsoft certified hardware and Microsoft certified software? So what if you decide to switch to another service that all your music, even the music on your portable device, gets automatically deleted thanks to the Microsoft Janus DRM? So what if you get tied into the service just to keep your existing music working, even though you don't usually listen to new music and download maybe only one or two new songs every month (like, in fact, most people over the age of 25 do according to the most recent polls).

The only major downside of DRM, if it's unobtrusive enough, is that you can't give away the music to others.

Yeah. I mean, who needs to share their interests with their friends anyway?

And while the music is lossy, 192k WMA is like 384k MP3 - which doesn't even exist, since 320k is the maximum quality (at least on any software I know of)

a) 384 kbps MP3 does exist. It's called "freeformat" and MP3 can go up to 640kbps.
b) 192k WMA is closer to 160k MP3, if you're using the proper encoders (read: LAME).

Re:DRM

[klubar]

I think Steve is beyond the new Porsche every year and up to the new Gulfstream business jet league.

Re:DRM

[Anomylous Howard]

So are you enjoying your job with the Yahoo! marketing department?

P.S.
"192k WMA is like 384k MP3" -- WTF????

Re:DRM

[aaarrrgggh]

Looking at artist (read label) compensation, if an "average" player holds 1k songs, $5/month is half a penny per song. The only way a label can make a subscription service attractive is if it just their own catalog.

There is no possible way that Yahoo can maintain this price point long-term without subsidizing it.

Re:DRM

[Andy Dodd]

"The only major downside of DRM, if it's unobtrusive enough"

And therein lies the problem.

To this day, no one has pulled off DRM that is by any means "unobtrusive enough".

In fact, no one ever will. There simply is no technical way to provide redistribution prevention without royally screwing the user.

The best one can do is some form of watermarking. In addition to DRM which restricts playback only to Apple-approved software/hardware (read: iPod or nothing if you want portable playback), iTMS-purchased music contained your Apple ID and hence could be tracked back to the original purchaser if redistributed. IMO, this was a Good Thing, because previously DRM removal tools such as Hymn would not remove the identification info from a file since there was no legitimate reason to do so. Unfortunately, this has changed, as Apple made iTMS 4.7 refuse to play un-DRMed songs that contained Apple ID atoms. Funny, they claim the DRM is for anti-piracy, but they cripple their player when the *one single* anti-piracy element of the DRM is left in. Every other aspect of the Apple DRM is about control and vendor lock-in, not anti-piracy.

MS Janus DRM is even worse...

Re:DRM

[angst_ridden_hipster]

Yeah. I mean, who needs to share their interests with their friends anyway?

I thought the whole point of those headphone thingies was so no-one could talk to you, and thereby discover that you have no friends.

At least, back in the day, that's what Walkmen were all about.

Re:DRM

[Politburo]

The real answer to your points (based mostly on assumptions, btw) is this:

As long as the consumer knows up front that Yahoo may change the price at any time, that continued subscription is required to keep what you've 'bought' (I don't know if this is even true for the Yahoo service), then what the hell is your problem? Just don't subscribe if you don't like those terms.

Regarding copying for your friends.. that is not 'fair use'. If a service doesn't let you (easily) copy music, that may be a draw back of the service, but it is not the human rights violation that some make it out to be. It's a condition of the music companies license to the service.

The whole bit about MS deleting all your music? Please. Let's talk about reality. MS certified hardware? Hilarious. Why do you kooks always assume that 'Trusted Computing' is a given? Furthermore, why do you think that MS will deliberately piss off all of its customers?

Re:DRM

[ColMustard]

Well, the situation certainly isn't "ideal" yet, but buying a song for a buck and stripping the DRM is still the best way to get music that I've found. I don't buy a lot of music because 99.999% of it is pure crap, but this sure beats buying a $20 CD.

As for vendor lock-in, it's pretty much a non-issue with hymn, as is the DRM.

As for this new Yahoo service, I think it's great. I wouldn't consider using it until the DRM is cracked, but competition was never a bad thing.

Re:DRM

[tfoss]

Who cares if it's DRM'd, as long as you can listen to what you want when you want. The only major downside of DRM, if it's unobtrusive enough, is that you can't give away the music to others.

That's the thing, though...with DRM you can only *hope* that you can listen to what you want, when you want. You have agreed to let someone else have control over that decision. Boing-boing post explaining why that is, generally, a bad thing...and pointedly about preventing competition, not preventing piracy.

-Ted

Re:DRM

[Otto]

As long as the consumer knows up front that Yahoo may change the price at any time, that continued subscription is required to keep what you've 'bought' (I don't know if this is even true for the Yahoo service), then what the hell is your problem? Just don't subscribe if you don't like those terms.

I agree, however I feel it necessary to point out that they're not exactly advertising those terms real loudly, are they? I didn't notice the fine print on Napster ToGo's commercials that said "unsubscribing makes your portable player delete all the music you put on it by itself" or anything. I think that it's not widely understood, by the consumer, that the new "Plays For Sure" players will auto-expire your subscription music after some amount of time. It's not an obvious thing to expect to happen.

Regarding copying for your friends.. that is not 'fair use'.

I would argue otherwise, but even if it's not fair use, I would suggest that the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (section 1008) makes non-commercial use like this immune to civil actions alleging infringement of copyright. So while it may or may not be Fair Use, it's also not illegal to do.

If a service doesn't let you (easily) copy music, that may be a draw back of the service, but it is not the human rights violation that some make it out to be. It's a condition of the music companies license to the service.

True, and I never said otherwise.

The whole bit about MS deleting all your music? Please. Let's talk about reality. MS certified hardware? Hilarious. Why do you kooks always assume that 'Trusted Computing' is a given? Furthermore, why do you think that MS will deliberately piss off all of its customers?

What? You think I'm making this shit up? It's made very clear in the Windows Media 10 SDKs. it's what the whole frickin' Janus DRM is about. It happens [i]right now[/i] if you use Napster ToGo or this new Yahoo Music Service in combination with a "Plays For Sure" player device. It was [i]expressly designed[/i] to do exactly that. This isn't paranoia, it's an honest statement of the facts of the matter.

These services only work on MS Certified hardware. The "Plays For Sure" logo is the certification program Microsoft runs to certify any given player. Look it up! They're not even trying to hide this stuff. They make it's a *selling point* of the Janus DRM for crying out loud.

Re:DRM

[22RealMcCoy]

The question is, how much do the artists get? When Apple sells a song for 99 cents, the artist gets 11 cents. Should not the artist sell it off their own site, charge less, and make more? Or sell directly to yahoo, or itunes, rather than giving 90% to the middleman. As THE WHO said, "Meet the new boss--same as the old boss." "WE WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!"

Re:DRM

[22RealMcCoy]

I forgot to add: these philosophies empower artists with a blend of Opne Source CMS & DRM: http://22surf.org/ & http://authena.org/

Re:DRM

[assassinator42]

I suppose you have major gripes with services such as netflix also then, right? It's even worse, you can only have a few out at a time, compared to all you want with yahoo or napster to go, and you also have to return them when you're done. Why shouldn't you get to keep the DVDs? Oh, right, because it's a subscription service. Yahoo music unlimited is a subscription service as well. I think it's a good deal, you can listen to as many songs on the service you want for just $5 a month. I'd get it if my portable music player had Janus.

Re:DRM

[xtapalapaquetl]

I mean, let's say the average subscriber is 20, and keeps this service until they are 100. That's 80 years at 5 bucks a month, or around 5,000 dollars.
This doesn't account for inflation over those 80 years, nor the price hike that happens about a year from now because Yahoo Music can't get enough subscribers to justify the low price of the service.

What if Yahoo attracts enough users to charge $5/month just because it's such an attractive price. If inflation is 5% constantly, then we're looking at a future value of $63,775 at the end of 80 years of using Yahoo music. Assuming you can earn a constant 6% return for the next 80 years, the present value of this amount is only $602.81. My point is we don't know if what the price will be, what inflation will be, inflation, etc. for the next 80 years. But given my assumptions, the present value would be an excellent deal to anyone, meaning that Yahoo could have enough customers to support their cheap price.

Exactly! So what if you're forced to use Microsoft certified hardware and Microsoft certified software? So what if you decide to switch to another service that all your music, even the music on your portable device, gets automatically deleted thanks to the Microsoft Janus DRM?

So what? You've paid $5/month to listen to music in those periods you paid for it. You're simply misunderstood if you assume any of the music is yours to keep when you stop using Yahoo Music. I also do not see why Yahoo Music (based on Microsoft's WMP) would conflict with any Microsoft certified hardware in the future. You are paying for DRM music, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume Yahoo Music will work on Windows_FUTUREBUILD.

The only major downside of DRM, if it's unobtrusive enough, is that you can't give away the music to others.

This original point is flawed. Even if iTunes sold its music in mp3 format, you're still not supposed to give it to friends. You could, but the business model goes to hell when everyone can just buy it once and send it around to everyone (p2p).

Re:DRM

[jbolden]

The artist doesn't own the music. The real middle man here is the record company. The iTunes of the world would be thrilled to act as a middle man direct to artists and cut the record companies out. The question that still needs to be resolves is:

How high would US music sales be without the substantial marketing the record companies employee to create "hot music". 90% of the current level, 50% of the current level, 5% of the current level. If 90 it pays to get rid of the record companies if 5....

Re:DRM

[Skynyrd]

I have not yet bought a portable music player; I've been holding out for one with 100+ gigs of storage, and there aren't any out there. But when there is, I will make sure that it works with this Yahoo service.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/2240358613635558/

Get out your check book.

Re:DRM

[phpsocialclub]

Elliot is a freak, but he loves mudwrestling,

KidAG

Re:DRM

[witort]

a) 384 kbps MP3 does exist. It's called "freeformat" and MP3 can go up to 640kbps.

640kbps ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:DRM

[Otto]

I suppose you have major gripes with services such as netflix also then, right?

Other than the inefficency of using the postal service for movie rentals, not really, no. I'm not a Netflix customer, however.

However, the comparison is more than a little stupid, as in one case you're getting a physical product, and in the other case you're not. The situation is fundamentally different. You don't "return" this songs from Yahoo/Napster/whoever, your software deletes them. Call me crazy, but I don't want my software doing things like deleting stuff without asking me.

Re:DRM

[Otto]

You're simply misunderstood if you assume any of the music is yours to keep when you stop using Yahoo Music.

And that's my point. It is not beyond reason for a customer to not expect his own hardware to automatically delete his music just because he hasn't let the damn thing call home in a while.

I also do not see why Yahoo Music (based on Microsoft's WMP) would conflict with any Microsoft certified hardware in the future.

I don't see why it would either. I do see, however, that these services simply do not work with non-Microsoft-Certified hardware. I can't build an interoperable device and neither can anybody else. You're locked into Microsoft with these services. Furthermore, you're locked into that service itself, since you lose your music if you switch to another service.

Even if iTunes sold its music in mp3 format, you're still not supposed to give it to friends. You could, but the business model goes to hell when everyone can just buy it once and send it around to everyone (p2p).

Oh? Boohoo. Too fucking bad. Find another business model that doesn't rely on artifical restrictions on what I can do with the music I paid for.

Re:DRM

[Frodo Crockett]

And while the music is lossy, 192k WMA is like 384k MP3

BWA HAHAHAHA!

Nice troll.

Oh good, yet another

[bodger_uk]

pointless DRM based lossy music service. Just what we all need. When will "they" realise that this isn't going to cut the mustard?

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Vo0k]

The problem is, either it's DRM'd or "very few songs". The condition for obtaining permission for selling many of the songs (from RIAA) is that they are DRM'd.
But in the other hand, I wonder if they could go with a hybrid service - DRM only what has to be DRM'd, release the rest as "open". (even if that "only" was to mean 80% of their catalogue)

Re:Oh good, yet another

[bodger_uk]

It's not so much the DRM that bothers me (although it does) it's the formats they put it in. DRM me a lossless format and away we go.

Obviously, I realise the DRM would be cracked in minutes, and we would all have perfect copies of tracks we could do what we liked with, but don't tell me this has occured to the *AAs!?

Re:Oh good, yet another

[natrius]

pointless DRM based lossy music service.

It's mainly a subscription based service. It doesn't matter if it's lossy, because you're never converting the music to another format. Ever.

When will "they" realise that this isn't going to cut the mustard?

I'm willing to bet that this does cut the mustard for most people. If you use Windows and have a WMA player, this service seems fine as long as you don't mind all your music self destructing when you stop paying. But honestly, at $5 a month for music, I'd be willing to pay that for quite some time. That's the lowest monthly bill I'd have, and I'd get to access a huge library of music on demand.

Too bad I use Linux and have an iPod shuffle.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[justforaday]

"They" will realize it doesn't cut the mustard the moment that "you" realize that 99% of the consumers out there don't care whether it's DRM'd (so long as it's not incredibly prohibitive) or whether it's in a lossy format. Ever realize how most people can't tell the difference between FM and a CD?

Re:Oh good, yet another

[unclethursday]

I'm willing to bet that this does cut the mustard for most people. If you use Windows and have a WMA player

But, given how much market share the iPod (in all its incarnations) currently has, the prospect of being a Windows user with just a WMA player seems unlikely. If the iPod was just for the Mac, then yeah, you'd be right. But with the iPod also working with Windows, it gave the iPod the market share it now has... which is somewhere around 70%-75% or so of hard drive music players.

Sure, there's more "choice" for Windows users with the ability to buy multiple brands of players with WMA support... but this choice hasn't been cutting into the iPod's market share, or at least not in any noticeable way as of yet.

I don't have any sort of portable digital music player, but if I did, I'd get an iPod, and for various reasons. It's compact and easy to use; it has a decent battery life; and since I have a Mac, it can easily act as a FireWire external hard drive if I need it to. The music I have on my iBook is 4.59 GB... so I could get myself a 40 GB iPod and still have 35 GB of space for other things besides music. I could currently back up my entire hard drive's contents (music included) and still have almost 11 GB left over on a 40 GB iPod.

I can't think of any WMA players that would let me do that, or at least none that would let me do that easily.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Vo0k]

The evil genius behind some of DRM is that it's hardly crackable (except with some serious quality loss.) If it's in software, it probably will be crackable. If in hardware, much harder.
The idea is that you get all the data encrypted. You can copy, share, spread, mangle, edit it, whatever - it's useless like that anyway. When you want to play it on a DRM-based device, you must first connect to a key server. Your device identifies itself, a secure handshake is performed (man in the middle won't help much, public keys of the device and the server have been exchanged at the manufacture time), then receives the key to decrypt the song, so it can be played. Of course the key may include additional instructions like limit, so you can play it within next 10h and then it should be disabled, or you can play it once only (pay per view), or such, and the device must obey them (otherwise it wouldn't be DRM-approved). In software you should be able to intercept the key, then bundling it with the song, or releasing it decrypted you could keep copying it. For embedded devices it's much harder because you won't be able to authenticate as the keyserver or the device and the key is transferred by secure means. All you can do is to re-encode the analog output, i.e the video or audio that is being sent to screen/speakers. With obvious quality loss. Anyway, still, to obtain the key you must "purchase" it by some legal means, i.e. the DRM'd song contains unique ID with a flag "paid", then you get the key and the ID is removed from the "paid" list so when the key expires for some reason (i.e. pay per view), you need to pay again. Also, someone else with a copy of your song won't get the same key again without paying again...

Re:Oh good, yet another

[natrius]

But, given how much market share the iPod (in all its incarnations) currently has, the prospect of being a Windows user with just a WMA player seems unlikely.

Right. I don't think the business model is very sound because the iPod is fairly entrenched. It's still a pretty attractive service if you don't have an iPod.

I can't think of any WMA players that would let me do that, or at least none that would let me do that easily.

Maybe not Firewire, but all the hard disk WMA players can do the same thing. I don't know about the battery life.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[hostyle]

I hereby nominate you for Internet Argument Olympics President for 2006. Will anyone second it?

Re:Oh good, yet another

[shutdown -p now]

How exactly would a portable player connect to a remote key server?

Re:Oh good, yet another

[dsginter]

When will "they" realise that this isn't going to cut the mustard?

"They" will allow non-DRM formats when people stop sharing them with a few million of their closest friends. That's pretty much the only reason that Joe User would want a non-DRM solution. And yahoo would find it quite difficult to make people delete all of their music after unsubscribing from their service using the "honor system" alone.

It isn't like their going to give in and let everyone have the music for free.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Tim C]

If you're willing to swap Firewire for USB, the iRiver hd-based players support WMA (as well as mp3 and ogg) and meet the rest of your requirements.

Mine (an iHP-120) came with a CD, but I've never even unwrapped it. The player presents itself as a mass storage device and Just Works.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Anonymous Coward]

When you want to play it on a DRM-based device, you must first connect to a key server.

So besides limiting the user on his computer, they can also get data on exactly how and when you use their products? You usually get a shiny Google Toolbar or a pack of smileys for giving away information like that.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[JFitzsimmons]

Actually, the consumer does care. I've talked to plenty of people that have a story that goes like this:

"My Dad downloaded some songs for me from iTunes music store but I can't play them on my computer."

I've never actually had to deal with DRM'd music myself, but I'm under the impression that more than one computer can be authorized for some tracks. Either way, this is another step that the user doesn't understand ("why can't I just copy my files over the wireless network the nice ISP set up for us?"). So while they lose business from the "know what we're doing" techies like we have so much of on slashdot, they're also losing business from the middle-class family that doesn't know much about computers but has plenty of disposable income and several computers in the house. I don't know about Microsoft's DRM but I suspect it isn't simpler than Apple's.

In conclusion, the user does care about DRM, they just don't know what it is, or why it is there. The see the symptoms and that is a major turn off because they don't really know what is causing it. On the other hand, I would guess that you're probably right about lossy vs lossless; they don't care.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Perl-Pusher]

I'd bet that most Americans still haven't heard of the Ipod

Maybe not most, but all of the ones that still get birthday and christmas presents from Mom & Dad do. Anobody who watches TV, especially MTV knows what an iPod is. Most consumers over forty probably don't have an iPod, but there is a huge probability their kids do.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[wvitXpert]

I've had a bad experience with iRiver's MP3 players (flash based), and would never buy thier products again. YMMV.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[wytten]

How could you tell the difference when the source of most material on FM radio *is* CD?

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Reignking]

It isn't DRM I had a problem with yesterday -- it was DMB (Dave Matthews Band). I've never bought a CD that had DRM on it. The music files are WMAs, which IRiver can support, yet I can't figure a way out to transfer it to my H300. I'm sure I'll find the answer soon, but for anyone not remotely savvy with technology, they'll probably just give up (and return it, hopefully).

Re:Oh good, yet another

[badriram]

I know the iPod is wonderful, i see it everywhere. However, Apple is keeping it closed, however WMA is open (as in anyone can implement it without much trouble). In the long run, I am willing to bet that Apple with loose its charm with Teenagers and all (come on Pres. Bush is using it).

The other reason i think it is fine is, I can get car stereos based on WMA, I PDA does it, and I can bet the next xbox will too. I think this allows the online stores to use WMA.

Plus it is not like they are going to fairplay(Apple wont let them) and it will be a waste to build their own.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[reconflux]

wow. how original. please teach me your ways.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[CUGWMUI]

I believe some DRM schemes intend for the key to be downloaded/applied at the time of transfer from a computer to the portable player. Of course, this probably won't allow time-based playback limitations to be effectively enforced.

Most of the prevalent DRM schemes are really intended for downloading media via the Internet onto a computer, so there is an implicit assumption of having a computer intermediary capable of enforcing (certain) DRM restrictions.

If you want to listen to music on the go without getting a computer involved, the music companies probably want you to buy a CD!

Re:Oh good, yet another

[captaincucumber]

It doesn't matter if it's lossy, because you're never converting the music to another format. Ever.

That's where you're wrong, cowboy. You have to convert it to analog audio to listen to it. It's lossy, so it sounds like crap.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[hesiod]

> yahoo would find it quite difficult to make people delete all of their music after unsubscribing from their service using the "honor system" alone.

Why the hell should the files be deleted at all. The thought that after you paid for something, that a company has given itself the right to deprive you of what you bought, just because you decided to stop doing business with them, is offensive.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[The Infamous Grimace]

How could you tell the difference when the source of most material on FM radio *is* CD?

Because the remote analog FM signal, regardless of source material, doesn't produce as high a quality sound as a local CD.

(tig)

Re:Oh good, yet another

[badasscat]

So what? The MP3/digital portable audio market is still in it's infancy. I'd bet that most Americans still haven't heard of the Ipod, and quite a few still don't know what MP3's are.

The current market research doesn't necessarily agree.

Oh, sure, you could argue "only" 22 million Americans is not that big of a number, percentage-wise, but you have to realize that those 22 million Americans also have friends and family members, and once you do, you'll also realize that it's highly unlikely anybody in this country has not heard of the iPod.

It's also more remarkable that this survey did not even include teenagers. So the numbers are likely considerably higher than even that already impressive number.

The mp3 player market is not in its infancy. This is a fallacy that a lot of Apple's competitors seem to like to tell themselves to help them sleep at night. It's a young market, yes, but it is already pretty saturated. It's very hard to get 22 million adult Americans to buy anything collectively, let alone something that was considered a luxury product for ubergeeks just a couple of years ago.

Nokia and others are betting the other way; that the market for standalone digital audio players is going to start to level out soon, and the remaining market (primarily comprised of those who don't need the capacity or battery life of the higher-end players) will turn to cell phones for their music. Obviously, this will still lock out services like Yahoo or Napster.

That's not to say these companies can't make money selling music to the small market they have. But they will never be a serious threat to Apple and the iPod. Sorry, but that's just the reality. Apple is entrenched in a market that has become saturated faster than any I can ever remember.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[conigs]

Just to clarify, it's very easy to transfer iTunes DRM'd music from computer to computer. It's just a matter of "authorizing" it by entering the purchaser's e-mail and password. I never had a problem.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[will-el]

> The other reason i think it is fine is, I can get car stereos based on WMA.

But these need to compete with the ipod adapters from BMW, Nissan, Volvo, Mercedes Benz, and the aftermarket adapters from Monster Cable, Axxess, ipod2car, Clarion, Alpine, ...

There's a whole ipod ecosystem this needs to displaced.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[fearofcarpet]

"They" will allow non-DRM formats when people stop sharing them with a few million of their closest friends. That's pretty much the only reason that Joe User would want a non-DRM solution. And yahoo would find it quite difficult to make people delete all of their music after unsubscribing from their service using the "honor system" alone.

Then there are those of us who are pissed off at having to purchase our entire music collections over again every 15 years when the medium changes. DRM just ensures that after WMA (or Microsoft) goes the way of the Dodo you'll have to buy all your music again in whatever flavor-of-the-month CODEC/DRM combo is considered uncrackable by the industry. When DRM goes hardware you're double screwed 'cause in 10 years when your DRM capable media player craps out on you and you can't find it in eBay... Guess what? Time to buy all your f*cking music AGAIN and you get to buy a brand-new media player while you're at it! Yaaaaaayyyy.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[The Infamous Grimace]

And yet most cds with 'decent' music on them are recorded and mastered in the analog domain and sound pretty much like crap anyway.

Interesting. Any references? Also, doesn't the FM signal cause even more degradation? For instance, I've heard that MP3 player FM transmitters such as the Griffin iTrip, while great in theory, generally produce poor sound.

(tig)

Re:Oh good, yet another

[jacksonj04]

Umm... you mean like when you convert your digital CD to analogue to listen to it?

File to analogue isn't classed as a lossy step in the process, since it really depends on your equipment. I have some headphones which I can't tell the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps because they're such poor quality, but at the same time I have headphones I can tell the difference between 320kbps AAC and Apple Lossless (I'm an iTunes man, so shoot me).

End story is that *everything* goes digital to analogue, but that only loses quality when it hits any analogue equipment such as speakers or analogue cabling.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[amliebsch]

Use WMP10. Make sure you are plugging in your iRiver using the "Media" port, not the "Data" port.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[amliebsch]

That's why the "celestial jukebox" model is using is better: because you never have to buy the music. You listen to it without buying. They could change their codec to whatever they want, and you can continue listening to the same music for the same price.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Queer Boy]

If you're willing to swap Firewire for USB, the iRiver hd-based players support WMA (as well as mp3 and ogg) and meet the rest of your requirements.

Oh, don't forget "and use come craptastic Jukebox software" since the iRiver doesn't work with iTunes.

Total package, man, total package. Apple's always been about it.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Queer Boy]

"My Dad downloaded some songs for me from iTunes music store but I can't play them on my computer."

You forgot to add "without entering the account information it asks for when it pops up the authorisation dialog"

Dude, we ALL know how it works. iTMS songs don't just "not work" you get the authorisation dialog that pretty clearly tells you what to do to get it to play.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Reignking]

Actually, that is what I had been using. I've had no problems w/ syncing until this DMB DRM...

Re:Oh good, yet another

[EdipisReks]

what kind of headphones are you using? i have a set of Sony CD3000's being run out of a Single Power PPX3 w/solen 1 upgrade using a matched pair of NOS National 6CG7's for output and a Cryo RCA Cleartop 6FQ7 for gain and a quite nice Yamaha universal disk player or Airport Express. using this equipment, i can't tell the differnence between 320kbps AAC and Apple Lossless when they are converted to AIFF and burnt to a cd, or when played out of my Airport Express in their native file types. i've done as good of a double blind as possible, given my resources and my easy to bore friends, and i absolutely cannot tell any difference. i have pretty good ears.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[starrsoft]

When you copy the song from your computer to the player, it is set to work for only 30 days. After the 30 days passes, the song will stop working until you hook it up to your computer again and the player checks using the computer's 'net connection to the remote key server.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Unknown Lamer]

The digital->analog degradation is completely different than the degradation that happens with a lossy codec. With FM you lose the top 3kHz of the signal (which a lot of people have trouble hearing anyway...if you can hear an 18kHz test tone then you haven't gone to enough concerts in your life ;-) ) but otherwise the signal is unchanged.

With a lossy codec certain frequencies are removed entirely. It's a lot easier to notice this since things are literally just not there whereas with the FM signal it's all there (except for the top 3kHz) it's just a little fuzzy.

The quality difference between a cd and a clean FM signal are small for most music (Queensrÿche is noticeable affected as the singer disappears entirely from their songs when broadcast over FM radio).

Analog Loss != Lossy Codec Loss

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Moofie]

Dude, the person you're arguing with obviously considers themself an audiophile.

Unless you can come up with an MP3 player with tube amps and virgin silver-braided oxygen free interconnects that sounds "warm" like LPs, you're wasting your time.

I do have a nice shiny rock you can argue with, though! At least it's sparkly.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[nospmiS remoH]

Kind of ironic that the best possible sounding audio is 100% analog. This is to say, music sounds the "best" at a live, acoustinc performance (no digital microphones or anything) where someone sings with their own (analog) voice and I listen with my own (analog) ears. ANYTHING other than that and there is loss somewhere when compared to the original sound.

Of course, the human brain is really more digital so I guess there is some "loss" of expression and meaning in going Digital(brain) -> Analog(voice) of the artist and then Analog(ears) -> Digital(brain) to my memory. Whoa. I need to sit down and let that sink in ...

Re:Oh good, yet another

[damiam]

You haven't bought any music. Anyone who thinks that the record companies would let you buy thousands of CDs for $5 is an idiot. You're very clearly subscribing to the music. When you stop paying for your cable subscription, can no longer watch cable TV. When you stop paying your Yahoo music subscription, you can no longer listen to Yahoo music. It makes perfect sense to me.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[MBGMorden]

They're not, because that's not the case. Sure it won't "cut the mustard" for the average Slashdot reader or computer hacker, but the average populace doesn't have the same morales and values as us. Most of them don't care about DRM unless it's extremely intrusive, and most wouldn't understand what a lossy format was if you sat down and explained it to them.

Like it or not, we have very little power to change the direction this is going.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[fearofcarpet]

I'm sure the industry would LOVE it if everyone had to pay a monthly fee in order for their portable media player to function! Listening to music could be like using a pay phone; insert $0.35 to listen to your playlist for 20 minutes.

The problem I have with on-demand music (the "celestial jukebox") is that you can only listen to what they decide to host. If it isn't cost effective to host Muddy Waters because the target demographic consists mainly of teenagers, then they'll stop hosting it. So if you have, say taste in music, and don't want to listen to the latest crap some corporate spokes-bimbo is churning out you're thrown to the wolves and forced to comb those space filling anachronisms we call "record stores" for decent music.

Unfortunately any centralized for-profit digital media dissemination will lead to the same sort of marginalization you see in big-budget Hollywood productions. The "celesial jukebox" would have to be the worst though because they can't rotate their selection without effectively un-selling you the songs. At least under the iTunes model they can host a small collection of obscure music that rotates. That way crank-pots like me can buy them when they pop up.

In Happy Land there would be no need for DRM because we'd just use PayPal to kick down cash to the artists we like and everyone on Earth would share their music collections with each other freely. In Reality Land there is a paradigm shift in media dissemination that is, in a beutifully Darwinian fashion, going to un-do the last two decades of media consolodation that has led to a culture in which movies make it into the black from marketing before even being released. Artists have become products of corporations that own them from their cameo on the Mickey Mouse Club all the way down to the cross-marketing with their subsidiaries. All this DRM crap is just the industry scrambling to retain the technological strangle hold they've had for decades. They freaked out when the record was invented, claiming that the radio business would fold if people could just buy the music and listen at home. They brougth a case all the way to the supreme court when the VCR was invented, claiming the movie industry would collapse if people could just keep copies of them at home. Now they're passing legislation to crimminalize file swapping and suing 12 year olds, claiming that the Internet is going to cause the recording industry to collapse... And when Yahoo offers us heavily encrypted music in a proprietary (and very Linux un-friendly thank you very much Mr. Bill) format for $5 a month we're supposed to stop downloading unencrypted music in high quality open source formats... Ok, ok, it is a step in the right direction. $5 a month is really cheap :)

Re:Oh good, yet another

[trekstar25]

Total package, man, total package. Apple's always been about it.

Right, especially back when Apple required PC users to use MusicMatch to transfer songs to the iPod. If that doesn't count as "craptastic Jukebox software," I don't know what does.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[hesiod]

> Anyone who thinks that the record companies would let you buy thousands of CDs for $5 is an idiot.

Absolutely. However, that argument is completely worthless, since there are no CDs involved in this. You are making a point to an argument that was not raised.

> When you stop paying for your cable subscription, can no longer watch cable TV.

When I cancel my subscription, Caomcast doesn't come and erase all my fucking video tapes!

It only "makes sense" to you because you chose that point to argue. If you chose the other side your arguments would probably still make sense. It doesn't mean they are RIGHT.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[trekstar25]

If it isn't cost effective to host Muddy Waters because the target demographic consists mainly of teenagers, then they'll stop hosting it.

But that's unrealistic - a service loses virtually nothing by hosting more artists. Disk space is essentially free now for these large corporations, and they aren't paying Muddy Waters anything unless someone buys some.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Ahnteis]

Why do you need itunes ON YOUR COMPUTER to play songs ON YOUR PORTABLE? The (at least newer -- dunno about older) iriver's require NO software other then a modern operating system that recognizes a portable drive. Drag the songs over in file manager of choice. Works on mac, linux, windows.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[harlows_monkeys]

pointless DRM based lossy music service. Just what we all need. When will "they" realise that this isn't going to cut the mustard?

iTMS proves that it does cut the mustard.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[KillerDeathRobot]

Yeah, I have an iTrip, and while the sound isn't horrible or anything, it sounds noticeably worse than a CD or the iPod by itself (and I'm not normally the type to notice these things).

Re:Oh good, yet another

[larytet]

A couple+ of ideas

Open the box, fetch the wire going from/to AD converter (most likely 1 or 2 pins of CPU in the device) connect it to any recording device. adjust voltage and impedance. you are ready to go.

portable device cannot connect to the Interent. not today.

There are electronic microscopes too. ROM inside of the chip is readable and if ROM is separate you can put logic analyzer in between. once broken it's over. i am not telling that it is going to be easy, but people broke Dish smart cards. it's only matter of how popular the service is.

Code can contain backdoor (something for debug only)

Re:Oh good, yet another

[JFitzsimmons]

Well, apperently we don't all know how it works. I have never used iTunes; And if I did I certainly wouldn't use it for buying music. So really, I had no idea, and he had no idea, especially because he was probably trying to play the file in WMP or Winamp. Either way, it is very difficult to market something that is designed to punish the user - people don't like it.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[jacksonj04]

Generic Sony Earbuds vs. Sennheiser PC155s

tbh I think the reason I can tell is that all my CDs are ripped as lossless, whereas all my AACs are from other sources (origin mostly unknown). I know that means it isn't fair, but my point still stands.

Nice setup by the way.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[poot_rootbeer]

When will "they" realise that this isn't going to cut the mustard?

I guess it will be when the biggest "pointless DRM based lossy music service", the iTunes Music Store, loses so much money for Apple that they shut it down.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one, were I you.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[th3space]

I'm always amused by things like this...a band that has for years encouraged the trading of their music amongst their fans (provided they weren't ever charging one another), puts out albums that are nearly impossible for their fans to put on whatever device they so chose.

Now, I know this was likely the labels decision and everything, but the sharing of DMB music, or Phish music, or Widespread Panic, or Grateful Dead, or any other jam band that built a reputation off of word of mouth and tape trading hasn't ever really cut into their selling potential...if anything has cut into DMBs sales, it has been the degradation of the music since they nixed the original Lillywhite Sessions. But hey, doing that helped me save a lot of money, given that I no longer felt the compulsion to buy more DMB albums.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[no_opinion]

That's not the point. DRM is required to enable subscription. How else would you offer a subscription without DRM? Clearly open MP3s wouldn't work.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[mother pussbucket]

I'll reserve judgement on this until the next gen phones come out. If you could fit a mini's harddrive or a gig+ of flash into the phone it might make a good gym/workout/running/beach companion.

Biggest downside would be battery life. If my mini dies mid-workout I'm annoyed. If a cellphone dies because it's been playing tunes all afternoon, that would be a *Problem* for most people.

Having the ability to hear/answer calls while wearing my in-ear buds would be a plus.

I'd still expect to load my songs via my Mac. I can't imagine Verizon wouldn't charge for the time it takes to download wirelessly, even if they were providing a for-pay music download service (cable modem + firewire would probably be quicker; fullscreen music site has to beat a phone display).

As to ease of use... No clickwheel, nogo. I've used a Rio and I won't go back.

I'll see what Apple/Moto come up with.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[BishopBerkeley]

You have to wonder if the record industry would rather have wma as the industry standard or any of the other open standards. For the artists and the record industry, this has to be the dilemma. If you use an open standard, your product might be easier to steal, but if you stick with a proprietary standard, the licensing fees will eat into your profits.

Of course, record labels are going to change no matter what happens, because digital distribution is the way of the future. The question is what will consumers want. I like iTunes/iPod because it is flexible. It manages and synchronizes several formats that I like. Arguments that Apple's system is a rigid one are valid, but in reality is remains the most flexible system of them all.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[aBlooMoon]

Don't forget Metallica, the biggest backers of bootleg tapes in their early years turned largest opponent of Napster.

And remember: Napster Bad!

Re:Oh good, yet another

[lidocaineus]

While I am not a fan of software required to use something like a media player, the convenience and ease of use of using iTunes is so dramatic when paired with an iPod, that "dragging and dropping" appears quaint in comparison.

Have a new music track? Drop your iPod into the dock (or insert the cable) and it's in. Shuffled around some playlists? Already done on your iPod. Edited a SmartList to only include tracks imported between August 2002 and January 2004 beginning with the letter "I" and under two minutes long? Same deal. Bought some CDs? Insert into computer, rip, and plug in iPod. Killed that track that reminds you of the car accident you were in because you talked to your ex-gf while cruising through a red light? Auto deleted from the iPod.

The iPod is meant to be iTunes carried around. Other companies take it the exact opposite approach: that's the problem with other players - they are portables with software hacked on top of them (or lack thereof, as in drag and drop files). Showing up as a portable drive is convenient for various file operations such as backups and file transfers (and yes, the iPod does this). It is not nearly a good enough solution for anyone who has a large collection of music to manage and doesn't want to deal with actually organizing it. That's what computers and software are good at - let them do it.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Tim C]

Compact is in the eye of the beholder; my iRiver, on balance, was about the same volume as my last mobile 'phone (a Nokia 3650 iirc). Also, from inspection (ie I've no measured it) while it *may* be 25mm in the leather case (although I doubt it), it's definitely not that thick itself. Does your figure for the iPod include a case?

As for eas of use, I've never used an iPod, but I can't imagine a media player being much easier than the iRiver; certainly it's not hard to use.

As for requirement 4, I specifically disclaimed that, but thanks for pointing it out again anyway.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Decimal Dave]

I'd sure like to see you put DRMd WMA music on your player if you aren't running Windows. Where are you going to get the decryption key?

At least with iTunes, you have more control over the music than you'd have just dumping the files there manually. The iPod preserves your desired volume and equalizer settings for each song, along with some other nifty tweaks like custom time in/out points.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[trentblase]

When I cancel my subscription, Caomcast doesn't come and erase all my fucking video tapes!

Hilarious! Actually when I cancelled my subscription Comcast didn't even come unplug my cable feed.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[hesiod]

You mean you still had service after? That'd be nice...

Re:Oh good, yet another

[th3space]

I had tried very hard to forget Metallica, thank you very much...oh well, back to the drawing board. ;)

Re:Oh good, yet another

[hesiod]

> why don't let each and every one decide for themselves?

I have no problem with that. My problem is that it's not immediately obvious what will happen when you unsubscribe. I'm sure plenty of people will sign up for a month or so, buy some stuff, cancel and be extremely frickin mad that the things they bought are gone. The whole "everything's a fucking 'service' or 'license' now" phenomenon is a pretty new thing, and people outside of technology aren't used to it.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Tim C]

I don't use any special software to use my iRiver. I use WMP to listen to music on my PC, but that's because imho iTunes sucks. Now perhaps I didn't give it enough of a chance, and perhaps the iTunes/iPod/iTMS integration is the real deal-maker, but as I don't have an iPod, iTMS wasn't available in the UK at the time and I don't use it now that it is, it's a non-issue for me.

My main reasons for using WMP are the online track information search (which I assume is also available in iTunes), and the toolbar mode, which utterly rocks.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[EdipisReks]

tbh I think the reason I can tell is that all my CDs are ripped as lossless, whereas all my AACs are from other sources (origin mostly unknown). I know that means it isn't fair, but my point still stands.

your point doesn't stand. the AAC that you made are no better than the original files, and probably worse. rip an original CD with both lossless and 320 AAC and then try to do a blind ABX. i bet your results are different when some controls are added.

Nice setup by the way.

thanks! i'm a bit broke right now, but it was worth it. tuberolling is an extremely rewarding experience :)

Re:Oh good, yet another

[meme_police]

And how does your player know it's been 30 days if it has no clock?

Re:Oh good, yet another

[DA-MAN]

"They" will allow non-DRM formats when people stop sharing them with a few million of their closest friends

No they wont! It's not their mentality. They want to be the only ones who can make copies. Remember they fought the cassette, they fought the vcr, and they're fighting now. They want to be the only ones with the right to publish anything, period!

That's pretty much the only reason that Joe User would want a non-DRM solution.

Not true. I know many users who hate the fact that they can't share their music within the office using iTunes music sharing without giving their user/pass. They hate the fact that companies treat them like criminals after paying. And they hate the fact that pirates don't deal with this bullshit and get higher quality music for free.

And yahoo would find it quite difficult to make people delete all of their music after unsubscribing from their service using the "honor system" alone.

That's not the point. The point is that these companies say "All the music you want for x/month". They don't say that after the service is cancelled, the files will be deleted. You and I know to check for that because we have half a brain, however Joe User is suing Blockbuster for false advertising with regards to "No More Late Fees" because they thought they were allowed to keep movies for the rental price. Remember Joe User is retarded, and unless there are big signs next to "All the music you want for x/month, all music will be removed if account is cancelled" then there will always be trouble.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Dysart]

"When I cancel my subscription, Caomcast doesn't come and erase all my fucking video tapes!" Yes, and you're perfectly free to attach a recording device to your computer and record this music to a CD. They won't come and erase those. They will, however, eliminate your access to the original source. The analogy works. "It doesn't mean they are RIGHT." They have a right to offer whatever service they want to, with whatever terms they want to. You have a right not to participate.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[gabebear]

it has a clock

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Johnny Mozzarella]

I'd be willing to pay that for quite some time.

The article suggested that $5/month was an introductory price for the first year. After that it will probably go up to $10-12 bucks.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[Vo0k]

Connect to AD output, you get crap. Thing is lossy compression, twice, results in total crap. Get a CD. Sounds fine. Encode as MP3. Sounds fine. Decode and burn to CD. Still sounds fine. Encode to MP3 again. Sounds like crap. The DRM'd formats are compressed already. Recompressing them will result in huge quality loss.
Of course if you could tap into the AD input, we're home. Except you won't, it will be inside the chip.
The portable devices can't connect. The PC can. So if you want to upload any songs, you plug it into the PC and it manages all the networking stuff, providing only a neat high-level tunnel to the remote host.
Sure there are electronic microscopes and if you can actually read -data- of the ROM with them (not just the physical structure of the memory device), you can crack DRM, just by recovering the secret key of your device. Then you could authenticate any arbitrary device with the keyserver using that key.
Code with backdoors won't be approved as DRM-compatibile. Most probably, since the code is all there, the backdoor may require some manufacturer secret key. Good luck obtaining it.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[jacksonj04]

No, the point that everything goes digital to analogue at some point and it's the equipment at that end which determines the loss in quality, top of the range kit had less loss in quality than Generic Speaker X.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[hesiod]

> you're perfectly free to attach a recording device to your computer and record this music to a CD.

That would sound like a method of circumventing DRM, and therefore it's a "circumvention device," to get around the DRM restrictions that are involved. That's illegal. Therefore, technically, I don't think I am "perfectly free" to do it. Of course, I may very well be wrong.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[trentblase]

Yeah, but actually I was still paying for broadband through them. So really they "forgot" to install the filter (low-pass I believe as cable modems use the lower channels).

Re:Oh good, yet another

[larytet]

firs of all you are right. i understand what you say and i agree that data protection can be done in a way that it's very hard (close to impossible) to hack.

let's be realistic though. let;s describe the setup. you mentioned PC. fine. let's imagine a PC and a regular mother board and regular multimedia chipset on it. what can prevent me of hacking A/D on this board or producing and selling ready to go mother board with such hack. the moment this or that service is getting popular you will see "accessories" from 3rd parties.

let's say that the government requires that this or that chip will be installed on the motheboard before you have permit to sell it. i am not sure that such thing can be enforced. but who knows may be we are moving in this direction. i would like to hope we are not

let's say that the service is not provided without "set-top" box connected to the PC, like some USB device with all encryption/decrypiton keys. such device can be made unique. it's clearly possible. how marketable the solution is ? to listen music on PC (not to record, just listen) you need some physical plug and $6/month on top of it. CD-rip is simpler than that.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[larytet]

if you are a HW engineer let's team together and create an open source chipset compatible with some popular mother board and/or USB with A/D hacked. let's make it in a way that device can spoof device and manufacture IDs when connected to the PCI bus.

there is external sound blasters, right ?

Re:Oh good, yet another

[dangitman]

I'd bet that most Americans still haven't heard of the Ipod, and quite a few still don't know what MP3's are. To

I'd bet that more Americans know what an iPod is, than know what an MP3 is. Seriously, even Letterman makes iPod jokes. It's the most desired consumer product out there at the moment. Only people living under a rock haven't heard of the iPod. Even the President has one, it's a mass-cultural icon.

Re:Oh good, yet another

[dangitman]

There's a gigantic segment of blue-collar America that doesn't own a computer or know (or care) what mp3s are.

Right, they may not own a computer or know what an MP3 is, but they know what a fucking iPod is. Some people without computers even buy iPods and have their friends load it, or use a commercial iPod-loading service. Maybe you haven't been out much. I bet those people who you deride as "blue collar" know what the fuck an iPod is.

wow technology

[xintegerx]

$60 a year for music? I bet that this will encourage the prices of WMA players to drop, and hackers cracking the WMA format. By June 2005, we will have unlimited mp3's for $60 a year. Maybe somebody will create a file sharing network that will decrease the price even further.

Re:wow technology

[natrius]

If you're paying $60 a year for music and buying a WMA player, what does hackers cracking the DRM have to do with anything?

By June 2005, we will have unlimited mp3's for $60 a year.

The only thing different from what's available now is "mp3". If you have a Windows computer and a WMA player, the restrictive DRM still lets you do everything you need to, namely play music. It's nice to be the first guy to say "I can't wait until they crack this," but chances are, nothing will change for you when they crack it.

$60 a year for music is cheap, especially for people like me who don't appreciate the value of building up a music collection yet. If their DRM allows you to do everything you plan to do with the music, then buy it. Novel concept, eh?

If the DRM doesn't allow you to do what you want, buy music from likeminded artists.

Re:wow technology

[hesiod]

> the news report I saw on this service, was it cost 60US a year, PLUS .99 per song

They were wrong about that, according to the updated "blog" link:

CHOICE! If you don't like the idea of subscribing to your music, you can rip CDs, play downloaded music, or even spend $0.99/track if you'd like. Whatever your preference, we make it work. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING TO HAVE FUN WITH OUR PLAYER.

Re:wow technology

[hob42]

If you have a Windows computer and a WMA player, the restrictive DRM still lets you do everything you need to, namely play music. It's nice to be the first guy to say "I can't wait until they crack this," but chances are, nothing will change for you when they crack it.

I used to figure the same.

Well, two years ago I bought some WMAs from an online store, and I've since upgraded to a new PC. Several unanswered emails and disconnected telephone numbers later, these WMAs are now worthless bits of data on my harddrive. This is problem inherent in DRM, and practically requires that people crack the platform.

Re:wow technology

[amliebsch]

That's why you should never buy DRM files, ever. Lease them, instead; this is the model Yahoo and RTG and NTG are offering.

Re:wow technology

[Dachannien]

The point is that you can spend $60 a year, legally download as much music as you want, and then use whatever third-party utilities become available to crack the DRM with zero risk of being caught and sued by the RIAA so that you can (a) space-shift your music and (b) cancel your Yahoo or other subscription music service account.

I suppose if you actually like the current state of the music industry and the product it's putting out, you'd still pay the $60 a year, but a lot of people are only interested in yesteryear's music.

Re:wow technology

[CrazyTalk]

I know where you can get all the music you want for FREE. Millions of songs. Auto-shuffle capability. Also provides news and weather. Players available for under $10. It's called "Radio"

Call me crazy, but...

[pyite]

I don't know how a music service that's intended to provide music for "portable players" can succeed when its format doesn't support the player that has 70 - 80% marketshare. It just seems like a losing proposition from the get-go.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[rokzy]

half by number of player models maybe, but not half by number people have actually bought.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Vo0k]

1) Which WMA? They are quite incompatibile. 2) It means it won't work for at least half of us. 50% of the customers out in the cold. Compare that to IE-only websites...

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[samael]

When that portable player doesn't allow anyone else to support them, what else do you suggest?

And Apple survives on 5% of the home computer market - why can't Yahoo survive on the 20% of the portable player market?

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[rokzy]

>When that portable player doesn't allow anyone else to support them, what else do you suggest?

this is the biggest load of BS ever. please explain yourself. why can't other people support mp3 constant, mp3 variable, AAC, wav etc. ?

the only thing that you can be sure of is that if you have DRM WMV the only people legally using your service are Windows users. seems like yahoo is the one denying support from people.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Rhone]

when its format doesn't support the player

That's quite an interesting way of putting it. I don't think I've ever heard of a format not supporting a player/program/whatever. I would have thought that it's the player that doesn't support the format, but maybe I'm just weird.

If Apple cares about their customers enough, they can release firmware updates to allow iPods to play WMA. (Well, assuming firmware updates are possible with iPods... maybe I've just been spoiled by my Neuros.)

On a side note, one of my roommates wants to buy an iPod soon. Knowing that he doesn't have a lot of money to spare, I started telling him about other mp3 players that would be a better deal for him. His response was, "Yeah, but I want to use iTunes."

How come we bash Microsoft's monopolizing tactics but praise Apple for doing pretty much the same thing with iPods and iTMS?

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[pyite]

How come we bash Microsoft's monopolizing tactics but praise Apple for doing pretty much the same thing with iPods and iTMS?

Because, as has been said a million times, there's nothing monopolistic about the iPod. You can play MP3s on the iPod JUST FINE. Don't sell WMA, and you'll be alright. And don't say that the RIAA won't allow it, because emusic.com has been selling non-DRM plain vanilla MP3s for some time now.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[unclethursday]

How come we bash Microsoft's monopolizing tactics but praise Apple for doing pretty much the same thing with iPods and iTMS?

Without owning an iPod or other digital music player, I can only speculate.

I would assume it's for ease of use. iTunes synchs up with iPods, and allows for quick playlist changes and updates as well.

I don't know if other digital music players do this, or if they plan to. But I do know, from seeing my friend's synch up their iPods, that the ease of use for moving songs from PC/Mac to the iPod is a definite plus for people. No finding the folder and manually dragging the files, just choose the files you want, and they head on over to the iPod. If the other players don't have this ease of use, well, then Average Joe Users might not like them.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[1010011010]

How come we bash Microsoft's monopolizing tactics but praise Apple for doing pretty much the same thing with iPods and iTMS?

Because Microsoft cares about control and winning at all costs, whereas Apple cares about making a good product.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[BenjyD]

You're comparing two different figures: Apple's actual market share, and Yahoo's potential market share: i.e. the percentage of people who *could* be customers.

The *potential* market for Apple computers is anyone looking for a computer (100%), and they get 5% of them. The potential market for Yahoo is 20%, and they will then get some fraction of that.

Of course, discussing market share figures like this assumes that only people with portable music players buy music online.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[samael]

The only reason Apple is allowed to sell mainstream music is because they support DRM.

Yahoo will not be allowed to sell mainstream music without DRM. They cannot use DRM on the IPod. Therefore they cannot sell mainstream music for the IPod.

It's not complicated.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Lars T.]

Because they don't sell portable players.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[NeMon'ess]

What makes you think Apple would license AAC to any store or portable-player company for any less than exorbitant fees? What good does it do Apple if people can play AAC music bought from Napster on a Dell player, unless they get huge license fees that no company is gonna pay? Apple has a huge share of the player market, and locking people into the iTunes store is the most profittable thing they can do. It also get many of those buyers thinking about buying a mac.

Meanwhile you're dreaming if you think RIAA will let anyone sell unprotected mp3s, and just about nobody wants giant-sized .wavs.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[mobby_6kl]

Which music player has 70-80% market share?

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[cassidyc]

and so by "Making a good product" Apple then controls, and is winning at all costs...

sigh

CJC

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Rhone]

You can play MP3s on the iPod JUST FINE. Don't sell WMA, and you'll be alright.

I didn't say you can't play MP3s on an iPod. I said you pretty much need an iPod if you want to use iTMS. (Maybe not necessarily, but at least for a casual user like my roommate, using other players with iTMS is not feasible.)

And don't say that the RIAA won't allow it, because emusic.com has been selling non-DRM plain vanilla MP3s for some time now.

Last time I checked emusic.com, which admittedly was a while ago, they were only selling music from non-RIAA labels.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Gerad]

It's simple: because Microsoft is a convicted monopoly, and actions that are allowable if somewhat morally questionable when you're a normal company become illegal when you're a monopoly.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Edgewize]

...and locking people into the iTunes store is the most profittable thing they can do. It also get many of those buyers thinking about buying a mac.

Apple has admitted, on several occasions, that they make very little money off of the iTunes music store. Their RIAA fees and operating costs eat up almost all of the 99 cents per song. The iTunes music store is nothing more than a way to sell iPods. (As an added bonus, iTunes introduces people to Apple's look-and-feel and creates a few more potential iMac buyers.)

If Apple let other companies license iPod-compatible DRM, they would not be abandoning a major revenue stream. And if the licensed songs still had to be transferred via iTunes, there would be no loss of side benefits either.

As long as iPod+iTMS is the popular choice, Apple sees no need to open their DRM. But I bet that they will cut licensing deals in a heartbeat if they start hemorrhaging market share.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Skuto]

>What makes you think Apple would license AAC to any
>store or portable-player company for any less than
>exorbitant fees?

Apple cannot license AAC, they don't own it. It's an open standard.

Apple does own the DRM scheme they apply on top of it.

But iPod's can play unprotected AAC's, too.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Mr Smidge]

.. whereas Apple cares about making a good product.

Apple are a business too. A more balanced statement might go like this:

Because Microsoft cares about control and winning at all costs, whereas Apple also cares about making a good product.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[jokell82]

You do realize that AAC is an mpeg-4 standard that Apple does not own, right? Anyone can use it, including Napster and Dell.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Lussarn]

So tell me something genious. How the heck can anobody else sell non DRM mp3 when Apple is not allowed to do that. Or is all this talk about Apple adding DRM to the songs because RIAA wants it not true. Your argumentation seem to imply that Apple does it in order to control the music in some absurd way.

All this bullshit with Apple and their non licenceable DRM will only lead to them marginalize them in this market also. Just as the did in the PC market, just as they did with firewire/USB.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[croddy]

Actually, most available statistics suggest that Apple's iPod has between 25% and 35% market penetration in the HDD-based portable audio player market.

There are some interesting surveys around that indicate that a lot of consumers identify their Creative, Rio, and Dell players as "iPods" -- which account for a lot of the claims that the "iPod" accounts for such an unrealistically large segment of the market :)

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[NeMon'ess]

right, i meant fairplay+aac

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[for_usenet]

Just a small correction - it is NOT AAC that needs to be licensed. AAC is some kind of wrapper/variant on MPEG-4 audio. The iPod will play multiple formats (heck, even my Symbian Nokia phone plays AAC files). It's their DRM (Fairplay) that they're not sharing. Heck - they even bought out the company that originally came up with it. So now they own the whole thing - lock, stock and 2 smoking barrels ...

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[wootest]

A big part of why Apple survives in the home computer market is by providing good tools to a niche market - design, video editing, etc. Of course this is not their only market, but it's their bread and butter because they get to sell G5s to them, like office machines are Microsoft's bread and butter because they get to sell Office and desktop and server versions of Windows to them. Apple thrives in this market.

Yahoo seems to offer a very good alternative to the other subscription services (low price, high bitrate, modularity in the system although I don't know yet about the size and quality of the catalog) and will likely also thrive in their market - subscription services. What remains to be seen is if subscription services are actually widely used and if they generate enough money to make it worthwhile for the vendor and the labels.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[AndIWonderIfIWonder]

Every one seems to have missed that the Yahoo Music Engine is not just a music service, but is also a jukebox.

It does support the iPod as lond as you use non DRMed MP3s or even AACs. See this screenshot.

It's only buying DRM tracks from a music store that "locks" you in to a player. If you buy your CDs online and rip them yourself you probably end up saving money and don't have any DRM issues.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[samael]

Agreed. I don't know if Subscription Music is a viable market. Personally, I find it very handy for being able to try new music out, but I don't know if it enough other people feel the same way.

It's the routing bashing that annoys me.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[NineNine]

Because Microsoft cares about control and winning at all costs, whereas Apple cares about making a good product.

Really? First off, you're talking about corporations. Corporations don't have consciousnesses and ideas of their own. Are you maybe talking about some of the executives in the corporations? If so, which ones?

Secondly, how do you know? Maybe Apple is concerned about control and winning at all costs but just isn't successful as MS has been.

I hardly think that you can make such a ridiculous statement with no proof, whatsoever. [Well, actually you can, and you did, but that doesn't mean it's a good statement or even remotely logical]

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[minus_273]

"Apple does own the DRM scheme they apply on top of it."

no, Apple does not own fairplay, Veridsc does.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[wootest]

And Microsoft doesn't sell computers.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[cassidyc]

Clearly it's so bad that many people are using it other than, say... Apple, Linux, freeBSD, SunOS... I could go on.

And of course that all depends on your definition of bad.

Being expensive could be bad, being difficult to set up and configure could be bad. Not being able to play little jimmy's favourite game, could be bad.

CJC

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[mobby_6kl]

Apple doesn't care about making a good product, it's only a way to achive control and win. They'd be selling canned shit if it would make them money.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[wootest]

Steve Jobs has mentioned several times publically that if any other music store gains significant market share, they'll be interested in working with them. If Apple's figures are correct, this means that even if you took all the other music stores and made them twice as successful, they would still have less market share than Apple would. I wouldn't call that significant market share.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[kyojin the clown]

mmm. because apple just dont care about control.

oh. wait a minute. you're a fucking idiot.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1774025,00.as p

http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/more/apple_ lawsuit_dangerous_for_free_speech_or_pr_hype/

http://news.com.com/Apple+lawsuit+A+case+of+sour+g rapes/2010-1047_3-5611497.html?tag=nefd.ac

http://news.com.com/Apple+sues+over+loose+Tiger/21 00-1047_3-5500034.html

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[NardofDoom]

You can use iTunes with other MP3 players, but they won't auto-sync and you can't buy music.

And, yes, you can update iPod firmware.

No, I will not use WMA DRMed files even if they do update the firmware. I've had enough trouble trying to get a friend's MiniDisc player working only to find out that I didn't have the "rights" to play the song on it.

Fuck that.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Patik]

It's more like this:

Microsoft cares about winning and their strategy is control, whereas Apple also cares about winning but their strategy is making a good product.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Jeffrey Baker]

You may not be aware of this, but the iPod has NO DRM capabilities. You can put any iTunes Music Store song on any iPod and play it. Apple spins this as "unlimited iPods" but it's really a technological limitation of the device. It just doesn't have the CPU cycles to bother with DRM.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[samael]

Interesting. I could have sworn it was the DRM that Real had to crack before it could put its music onto the iPod. Can you fill me in on what was going on there?

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Jeffrey Baker]

That's crap. There are *tons* of players that support iTunes Music Store. For example, the billions of already-deployed CD players. Or any personal computer running Windows or MacOS. This is obviously a large market.

Apparently you can't burn the Yahoo! music to CD, which limits their potential market to Windows computers and crapmatic WMA portable players.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[aliquis]

"How come we bash Microsoft's monopolizing tactics but praise Apple for doing pretty much the same thing with iPods and iTMS?"

I can only talk for myself, but as I see it Apple is innovates, and delivers a good product, a product they deservs to have some protection for.
Microsoft on the other hand replicates, and try to figure out a way to block everyone else out.

Also Apples usage of Mpeg4/H.264, rendezvous(spelling..), bonjour, MP3/AAC, are open/available on a broader market (mp3 and mpeg4 aren't as "open" as I would liked them to be thought). Microsoft on the other side most do it their way, I don't remember what network stuff they made in some weird way earlier, they uses WMA and WMV, if they made something like rendezvous it wouldn't be an open format and so on.
Also Apple probably gives some kind of feedback/money/resources/code/.. to the FreeBSD people, althought I don't know, I guess they return code to KHTML and so on.

Althought I like free things, I can't say I myself would have liked to work for free and get nothing, so I do understand some coders/designers/.. want money for their products and work. So just because Apple tries to make a profit doesn't mean they are evil. (They should be more helpful regarding mac clones and other oses than macos support on their macs thought. On that point they aren't good at all. Being able to run MorphOS/AmigaOS on the mac would be cool =))

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[nolife]

You need to include advertising and marketing into your "we do not make money" concept. Other compnaies that do not sell hardware are making money selling @ $0.99 a song. I honestly see the music rental market having a much larger impact then the simple buy market that Apple offers now. My kids would much have access to more music then to own music. I'm sure they are not alone.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Lussarn]

And before they get "the blessed hand of steve" they need to work with for example Microsoft because quite different from Apple Microsoft gladly works with startups with 0% marketshare. And if/when they have 50% marketshare and MS DRM Why would they go to Apple?

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[nolife]

Do you have any numbers to back up your market share claims? What about the subscription services? I'm only asking because I have not been able to find any that were not "as heard on /.".

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[SeattleGameboy]

Let me explain... You need a DRM to access a subscription content (otherwise, it would not be much of a subscription service). iPod only supports its own Apple-proprietary DRM, that so far Apple has refused to license to anyone outside. So what are you supposed to do if you are Yahoo when Apple won't let you play? Trust me, iPod's market share is significant. If it was an option, Yahoo would be supporting it.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Jeffrey Baker]

Real's reverse engineering consists of putting their own DRM format onto the iPod, not cracking the iPod's native DRM format. Real also had to whip up their own code to work with the iPod's song database, but there are lots of open projects doing that.

Here's what Apple's FairPlay DRM means for users: any iPod can play any iTMS-purchased AAC, which implies there is a master key for decoding the FairPlay file. Apple's software respects the flags in the FairPlay file which indicate what computers are authorized to play the file. Other software may ignore the flags and decode the file anyway. You do need certain decryption keys to do this (see JHymn, PlayFair).

So the iPod will play any AAC file (protected or unprotected), any regular MP3 file, and any regular uncompressed PCM file. The only reason Real needs to jump through hoops is because they want their stupid DRM format to work.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[SeattleGameboy]

You cannot get a DRM'ed song copied on to an iPod.

That is a DRM capability in my book.

True, it does not have sophisticated DRM support (like secure clock), but that is coming...

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[wootest]

Good point. If they get to 50% market share they wouldn't need to work with someone else. However, I don't think a single of the other actors in the market have even 10% of the market yet. If one of them reach into 15% or 20% they clearly could gain from working with the market leader. And more importantly, you don't go from less than 10% to 50% in a day.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[samael]

"The iPod also has its own encrypted key repository. Every time a FairPlay-protected track is copied onto the iPod, iTunes will copy the user key from its own key repository to the key repository on the iPod. This makes sure that the iPod has everything it needs to play the encrypted AAC audio stream."

At least according to Wikipedia.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[wootest]

In several recent keynotes Steve Jobs have quoted Nielsen SoundScan as reporting a 70% market share. I can't find continual reports on this anywhere after a few Google searches - however it's repeated in Apple's second fiscal quarter conference call:

"Apple last week passed the 350M threshold for iTunes music downloads. According to a recent Nielsen SoundScan rating, Apple holds 70% of the digital music download market." --AppleInsider article (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=997, posted April 13th.)

I haven't been able to find any information on whether subscription services are included and how they're doing individually.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[omeomi]

Meanwhile you're dreaming if you think RIAA will let anyone sell unprotected mp3s, and just about nobody wants giant-sized .wavs.

it seems worthwhile to point out that there are several lossless audio compression formats. I use Monkey's Audio all the time. Here's a comparison of some:

http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[hubs99]

So the iPod will play any AAC file (protected or unprotected), any regular MP3 file, and any regular uncompressed PCM file. The only reason Real needs to jump through hoops is because they want their stupid DRM format to work.

AAC is a DRMed file. What the Parent was saying was that if Apple doesn't open up the AAC DRM scheme then there is no way for another service to use the Ipod because the music industry will not allow a service that does not use DRMed files.

Yahoo is never going to be allowed to sell Mp3s without protection. Its not that Yahoo doesnt want to because then it would allow them the ability to sell to Ipod users, Apple has done what it has always done and been closed off and monopolistic.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[m50d]

Exactly. Apple owns the DRM scheme and unreasonably, abusively refuses to license it. Because like it or not, it is impossible for music stores to obtain a license to sell non-drmed major-label music. So apple makes a killing by being the only store able to sell major-label music for their near-monopoly player.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[waynelorentz]

At least according to Wikipedia.

In other words, "I read it on the internet, so it must be true." Or to be a complete jackass, "That's what some kid on the playground told me, so I put it on the Wikinet."

I'm not saying this particular Wiki entry isn't correct. I just don't know. What I am saying is that as more and more people have gotten involved with the Wikipedia, its accuracy rate has imploded, rather than improved. Citing Wikipedia as a source of information doesn't improve the credibility of one's argument.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[waynelorentz]

AAC is a DRMed file.
Not necessarily. The DRM is optional on some levels. I have several thousand AAC music files that do not have DRM as I ripped them from my own CDs.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Ath]

Apple has admitted, on several occasions, that they make very little money off of the iTunes music store. Their RIAA fees and operating costs eat up almost all of the 99 cents per song. The iTunes music store is nothing more than a way to sell iPods. (As an added bonus, iTunes introduces people to Apple's look-and-feel and creates a few more potential iMac buyers.)

You really should think about it first before parroting it. Just because that is what Apple says does not really mean that is what Apple thinks.

If Apple really thought its revenue and profit was linked to the device and not the service, then Apple would be licensing everything to every music service it could. That would only sell more devices.

So far, iTMS has generated only a little bit of profit for Apple. Fine. Now think 5 years out. Apple still owns the device market and is now selling almost a billion tracks a month globally. Think that is optimistic? In 5 years, there will in excess of 100 million iPods in people's hands. A billion songs means, on average, each user buys 10 songs more month.

Compare those numbers to CDs. Right now, online music represents a paltry 4% of global music sales. It will fast go towards 100% if for no other reason than, with DRM, that is what the music companies want. No distribution costs, a single reseller, and total control over what people can do with the music.

Apple knows that the iPod's success and the success of iTMS are intertwined and dependent. They feed each other. Today it is the iPod that is generating the revenue. In a few years, iTMS will easily outstrip it. But they are very dependent on each other.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[badasscat]

Well, assuming firmware updates are possible with iPods... maybe I've just been spoiled by my Neuros.

Firmware updates are not only possible, they are issued fairly regularly.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

I would say about half the people I see with headphones are using an iPod. The others are mostly using portable CD players (how quaint), or even the rare cassette player. For the record, I use a Rio Karma (and have only seen one other person with the same).

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[nolife]

I was looking for the subscription comparison as well. I know /. had an interview with the CEO or someone at Real.com about 8 months ago and he quoted some amount of paying subscribers that was actually much higher then I thought they would have been. I know there is a lot of people claiming the subscrition service is useless and never catch on but I strongly disagree. I have two teenagers and they are far more interested in quantity and listening to what is hot right now and could care less to actually "own" and hold a purchased music piece in thier hands. I'd assume this is probably the case for many teens. With different suscription companies now allowing portable music players into the mix it seems this would be the perfect solution.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[swiftstream]

And don't say that the RIAA won't allow it, because emusic.com has been selling non-DRM plain vanilla MP3s for some time now.

Non-RIAA music, that is.

RIAA will not allow them to sell their music as non-DRM plain vanilla MP3s for some time yet, I promise you.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Snocone]

If Apple cares about their customers enough, they can release firmware updates to allow iPods to play WMA. (Well, assuming firmware updates are possible with iPods... maybe I've just been spoiled by my Neuros.)

Judging by the "iTunes-wma.icns" icon sitting right out in the open in the iTunes /Resources folder, I suspect that if Apple ever decides that WMA has become important enough that a monetarily significant portion of the consumer market gives a shit, it won't even take a firmware update.

Same for the also present "iTunes-ogg.icns", for that matter...

How come we bash Microsoft's monopolizing tactics but praise Apple for doing pretty much the same thing with iPods and iTMS?

For it to be 'pretty much the same thing', Apple would have to be bullying record labels into not providing their catalogues to competitive music services. As far as I know, nothing along those lines is even hinted at.

But merely tying Apple's service offering to Apple's hardware offering, while the actual product (ie music) is completely fungible and completely available to anyone who cares to put together a competitive service/hardware package ... that I at least do not consider to be 'pretty much the same thing', and Apple has no moral obligation whatsoever to allow people to pick and choose which of those complementary offerings they want to compete with. If they have the same access to product that Apple does, and can't put together a competively compelling end to end experience out of it ... well sucks to be them then doesn't it.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Snocone]

Well, Apple as an institution might not ... ... but Steve Jobs quite certainly DOES.

Now, you might reasonably have quibbles with His Steveness' definition of "good", but to imply that an Apple under his control isn't largely product-driven would be incorrect.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[The Infamous Grimace]

What makes you think Apple would license AAC to any store or portable-player company for any less than exorbitant fees? What good does it do Apple if people can play AAC music bought from Napster on a Dell player, unless they get huge license fees that no company is gonna pay?

Apple did not develop, nor do they own the rights to, the AAC music format. Anyone can license AAC. Apple owns the DRM, FairPlay.

(tig)

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Spy Hunter]

Apple's iPod software doesn't allow getting songs back out of the iPod. If Yahoo's software supported iPods, it could just transfer unencrypted AAC to the iPod, and its DRM would still be just as effective as iTunes's DRM. (Yes, I know you *can* get songs out of the iPod with special software; you can also rip CDs with special software, and iTunes still allows you to burn CDs).

In short, all these services whining about not being able to support the iPod are retarded. They're just not willing to make the slightest compromise in their precious DRM, completely ignoring the fact that iTunes has been getting away with a giant gaping hole in their DRM for over a year now. Not to mention the Hymn iTunes DRM remover, which has been freely available for some time. (Also, the technical knowledge contained in Hymn would likely also allow people to *encrypt* songs to the iPod's satisfaction, allowing anybody to technically, if not legally, support the iPod's DRM. Too bad these music services are hobbled by their own intellectual property laws, eh?)

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[samael]

While I agree that there's altogether too much whining, it could be easily solved by Apple agreeing to let others license Fairplay.

Can you imagine the reaction if other companies started dropping unencrypted music into iPods when it's easily retrievable? You'd basically have a black box that stripped DRM.

While this would save me the hassle of using TuneBite, I can't see the music companies being happy about it.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[SeattleGameboy]

Sorry, clumsy fingers. I meant you cannnot get DRM'ed song out of an iPod... without a hack.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Jeffrey Baker]

The hack being "cp", but I do see your point. Also iTunes itself won't play protected AAC files taken from an iPod (via any means, hacking or otherwise), and as far as I know there's no common Windows or MacOS software that will. Only certain open source utilities will play protected AAC files regardless of protected status, and besides that there are the programs that remove the protection altogether. Which is probably also "hacking" in certain circles.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[amliebsch]

I've had enough trouble trying to get a friend's MiniDisc player working only to find out that I didn't have the "rights" to play the song on it.

And that has what to do with WMA? Blame Sony's craptastic software and brain-dead proprietary lossy compression format.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Queer Boy]

And Apple survives on 5% of the home computer market - why can't Yahoo survive on the 20% of the portable player market?

Because Apple has high profit margins.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Spy Hunter]

Apple drops unencrypted music onto CDs when it's easily retrievable. It's a black box that strips DRM. I have no idea how they convinced the music execs, but somehow they did. And they have not killed iTunes even though FairPlay is completely cracked and programs exist that will batch-convert your entire music collection, no hoop-jumping required.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Lars T.]

But unlike most companies selling PCs or online-music, they have a huge profit margin.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Queer Boy]

Actually, most available statistics suggest that Apple's iPod has between 25% and 35% market penetration in the HDD-based portable audio player market.

WOW, you know, they don't get statistics for sales of players by doing an informal survey. You live in a fascinating little world if you think that way.

There are hard numbers as to how many devices are shipped, just as there are in computers, and IDG tracks those hard numbers and reports them.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Too Much Noise]

Here's what Apple's FairPlay DRM means for users: any iPod can play any iTMS-purchased AAC, which implies there is a master key for decoding the FairPlay file. Apple's software respects the flags in the FairPlay file which indicate what computers are authorized to play the file. Other software may ignore the flags and decode the file anyway. You do need certain decryption keys to do this (see JHymn, PlayFair).

ho-hum. Care to make that consistent with the 'the iPod has no DRM' statement? The way you stated it, it sounds like you're trying to say that DRM is limited to handling stuff like which devices you play on, how many times, etc. and has nothing to do with the fact that the track itself is encrypted/scrambled - kind of silly, as DRM is not just the same idea as the now defunct broadcast flag.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Fancia]

Apple has stated in the past that they would consider licensing their DRM to other companies. Nothing came of that, of course, because Real decided to ignore them and try to get their own DRM working on the iPod instead.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[tshak]

It's simple: because Microsoft is a convicted monopoly, and actions that are allowable if somewhat morally questionable when you're a normal company become illegal when you're a monopoly.

Moderators, please stop marking these cliche posts as insightful. Yes there are some restrictions that are placed on monopoly's. But you can't just arbitrarily come up with restrictions that you feel would be "fair" for monopoly's to obey. Furthermore, you can not be convicted of being a monopoly; being a monopoly is not a crime.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[BishopBerkeley]

You answered your own question. Apple is making a killing. If they are making so much money, and nobody is smart enough to compete, then why license it?

You can rest assured that if the Yahoo! scheme (which blows, if you ask me) makes a dent in Apple's market share, Apple will immediately license its scheme. Then, if that doesn't work, Apple will probably enable iPods to play wma files. This way Yahoo! subscribers will still make money for Apple.

People forget these things all too quickly. First, in the marketplace, you only play ball with people who can play ball. Apple has no peers right now in the marketplace. Therefore, it will not cooperate with anyone. It doesn't have to. Second, the entire iTunes/iPod scheme is flexible. With software updates you can make the two manage almost any format.

Apple is not wedded to the present model, but it WILL milk it for all it can, and right now the milk flowin'.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[jo_ham]

He can use iTunes without a problem with pretty much any player, what he won't be able to do is use the iTunes Music Store.

That's no different to using pretty much any of the other online music stores (napster, music match etc) - those don't work with the iPod.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Lovesquid]

Have you bashed your router today?

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[athakur999]

Not all players support the "subscription" model required for the $5 a month thing. That list is pretty sparse at the moment with the lowest cost of entry for a portable being around $200.

All the cheap WMA capable players can play the permanently downloaded songs you purchase from Yahoo's store but not the unlimited download service.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[geekee]

" Steve Jobs has mentioned several times publically that if any other music store gains significant market share, they'll be interested in working with them. If Apple's figures are correct, this means that even if you took all the other music stores and made them twice as successful, they would still have less market share than Apple would. I wouldn't call that significant market share."

Bill Gate has mentioned several times publically that if any other office suite gains significant market share, they'll be interested in working with them. If Microsoft's figures are correct, this means that even if you took all the other office suites and made them twice as successful, they would still have less market share than Microsoft would. I wouldn't call that significant market share.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Herr_Nightingale]

...there's nothing monopolistic about the iPod

somebody should alert Real about this new development :)

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[erick99]

A lower price for attaining music could grow the market all by itself. The iPod does not define the market though it has certainly dominated it in the early going. As the market grows and matures, I think the iPod will represent a much smaller percentage than it currently enjoys. They is room for all comers as well as the iPod. The more the merrier.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[BeerCat]

If he wants to use iTunes, then there are many MP3 players out there (iTunes 2.0 for OS9, which predated the iPod, included support for a number from Rio, Nomad and Nakamichi).

However, if he wants to use the iTunes Music Store, then (without other hacks), he is limited to an iPod of some description.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[wootest]

a) Steve Jobs really did say that.
b) Companies like to make money. I know! It's strange!

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[wootest]

Good point.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Alsee]

Apple owns the DRM scheme and unreasonably, abusively refuses to license it

I guarantee the RIAA contract terms make it impossible or oppressively difficult in any case.

Apple wanted to sell non-DRM music, so if Apple had their way there wouln't even be any licensing issue at all. The iPod plays MP3s. It's just the RIAA abusively conspiring amongst their members to deny any competition on formats and terms. The RIAA prohibiting Apple and others from selling non-crippled music.

Apple was fighting with the RIAA all during negotiations that DRM is pointless and that DRM suppliers were lying and selling snake oil.

So apple makes a killing by being the only store able to sell major-label music

Ahhhh.... No.

Apple makes almost squat selling music (though I do think it improoved a little bit recently). They make their money selling hardware. Virtually all of the download price goes to the RIAA or spent on complying to the RIAA's terms or to overhead.

-

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[DA-MAN]

If Apple cares about their customers enough, they can release firmware updates to allow iPods to play WMA. (Well, assuming firmware updates are possible with iPods... maybe I've just been spoiled by my Neuros.)

I somehow doubt that. Remember the reason Apple didn't go with something like WMA to begin with is because Microsoft never ported it to OSX. Even Windows Media Player for OSX can't open DRM files on the Macintosh platform. Apple used it's own format because none were available for the native format. Seeing as how Apple is using the iPod to bring more converts to the Mac, I doubt they will be supporting WMA (read subscription/windows only) places anytime soon.

How come we bash Microsoft's monopolizing tactics but praise Apple for doing pretty much the same thing with iPods and iTMS?

Microsoft makes 1 piece of the puzzle, they make a format. They license it out to everyone and their mothers. This is akin to Macrovision who makes a drm format for VCR and DVD.

Apple makes a player and service, this is more akin to Digital Cable. Apple is the content provider (think Comcast) in this example, plain and simple. They are more than happy to license the fairplay to anyone who wants to make the player (think Cablecard, TiVo will eventually support this), but they will be the ones to provide the content. Just read the mot press releases.

Apple is being monopolistic, that's their right. A monopoly in itself is not illegal, it's leveraging that monopoly against the market to obtain other markets thats illegal (think forcing all OEM's to remove Netscape from the preinstall and only put links to Internet Exploder on the desktop).

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[TravisWatkins]

I think that's one level of Microsoft's Plays For Sure spec. The ability to sync from WMP to the player.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[DA-MAN]

Can you imagine the reaction if other companies started dropping unencrypted music into iPods when it's easily retrievable? You'd basically have a black box that stripped DRM.

I still have a copy of out_stacker and an old version of Winamp. That pretty much strips out the microsoft drm without a $300 device from Apple. Let's face it Joe User is mentally retarded, so who cares? Power users can't be restricted anyway, it's a good thing they make up less than a few percent of the population as far as these megacorps are concerned.

Personally if I were Yahoo! I'd be more concerned with the advertising involved in the "All the music you want for $5/month" advertising. Smart people realize that if you stop paying your music will self destruct. Dumb people will sue when that happens, I mean just look at blockbuster. We all knew that "The end of late fees" stuff was just gonna end up with another fee of some sort, dumb people thought they could have all the movies they want at the cost of the rental. In the end when they found out that wasn't the case, a lawsuit was filed against Blockbuster. Those people should have been swallowed at conception . . .

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[DA-MAN]

RIAA will not allow them to sell their music as non-DRM plain vanilla MP3s for some time yet, I promise you.

Seems to me that at this rate Apple will control a very significant part of the distribution channels, the players, and the way this business is run. If Apple plays their cards right they can take the music monopoly away from the RIAA.

Personally I think the RIAA sees Apple as a threat and is already starting to push everyone to kick Apples ass by any means necessary. I mean the bandwidth 1 user could take must be at least around $5/month for a company that buys in the bulk of Yahoo!. I wonder how much the RIAA is charging Yahoo! per download or play or whatever vs. what they are currently charging Apple. Must be a real sweetheart deal if you ask me to get it to 5/month.

I mean we're already seeing hte likes of Hilary Rosen commenting about how Apple == Bad, Microsoft == Double Plus Good!

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[GaryPatterson]

You're right in what you say, but you omit that Microsoft were convicted of illegal use of their monopoly power.

That is a crime under US law, and that's what they were found guilty of.

The post you're replying to made a small mistake, but the general thrust was accurate.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[m50d]

They do have to. The iPod and the music are separate products. Using their monopoly in portable players (yes I know there are other vendors, that doesn't matter, apple has so much marketshare it is a monopoly) to gain an advantage in the online music store business is abuse of a monopoly, anticompetitive, and probably illegal.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[m50d]

I guarantee the RIAA contract terms make it impossible or oppressively difficult in any case.

On what grounds do you claim that? Other stores license MS DRM, and use it to sell major-label music. So why would it be any harder for them to licens and use Apple's DRM?

Apple makes almost squat selling music (though I do think it improoved a little bit recently). They make their money selling hardware.

No, that's not true. If that were the case why would they refuse to license the DRM to real? More stores at which you could buy music for your ipod couldn't possibly harm hardware sales. If you look at their statements to shareholders you'll see it's a major profit center. Look at the fact that other stores are selling songs for 10 or even 20 cents cheaper. The overheads are the same, the price difference is pure profit for apple. I know in the UK they make an overall 5p profit per song, which is probably about 7 or 8 cents. Not much on its own, but multiply it by the number of songs they're selling and it's huge.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[Alsee]

The overheads are the same, the price difference is pure profit for apple.

Ah good. Let's use your own math to figure out how much apple is making. Assuming the same overhead, and we will assume the price difference is pure profit.

I know in the UK they make an overall 5p profit per song, which is probably about 7 or 8 cents.

Okey dokey. The UK iTunes price is 79p per song. Profit is 5p per song. 'Overhead' 74p per song.

Now, how many songs do they sell in the UK? I don't know. But lets be generous and assume that the brand new UK sales are doing just as well as the long established US sales. The US has about 5 times the population, so we'll conservatively estimate that US sales are only 5 times as large as UK sales.

Now lets figure out how much Apple is making in the US. You've already provided the overhead figures - 74p per song. Lets run an exchange rate and subtract that from the US price. What's left will be "pure profit".

According to the current exchange rate I get 74p = $1.38.

US iTunes price is $0.99. They leaves a "pure profit" of NEGATIVE THIRTY NINE CENTS per US sale. And since US sales are at least 5 times as many as UK sales, for each 9 cents they make in the UK they lose $1.95 in the US. Total profit per UK sale, negative $1.86.

Obviously that's all wrong. The fact is that iTunes is making a 'decent' profit in the UK because you guys are getting severly price gouged. I would also wager that the music industry is gouging Apple on the UK licensing fees - meaning Apple's "overhead" is higher in the UK than here in the US. Which is why US iTunes obviously isn't losing the massive figures per song as calculated above.

If you were to buy from the US iTunes store, based on the exchange rate you'd be paying 53p. By paying 79p you're getting gouged 26p more than Americans.

I haven't found exact profit figures, but Apple is on the record that iTunes was a net negative prior to the first quarter of 04. In the year+ since then it has made a profit, but that profit is minimal.

Not much on its own, but multiply it by the number of songs they're selling and it's huge.

Prior to 04 we were losing money on each sale, but we make up for it in volume! In the 5 quarters since then we make on average zero per sale (UK sales being a drop in the averaging bucket), but we make up for it on volume!

Lets look at actual figures (all US based and US prices)...

Of the 99 cents, on average 53 cents goes to the label, 35 cents goes to Apple, and 11 cents goes to the Artist.

Of course Apple's 35 cents has to cover all of the credit card transaction fees and actually running the store and promotional costs and other actual overhead. In other words Apple is breaking even on downloads. Oh, and that 35 cents also has to cover the fees Apple is paying to license FairPlay from Veridisc. Oh yeah, did I forget to mention that? Apple is a licensee of FairPlay, and their license from Veridisc probably does not allow them to sublicense it to anyone else.

But heay, that 11 cents to the artists doesn't look to shabby, right? Oh wait... the artist doesn't actually get any of that until after the RIAA recoups all the production and recording costs and every other fee and expense the labels stuff under "recoupable costs".

And 53 cents of each sale goes to the label. All music expenses and sales expenses are already taken out of other people's shares. I guess it wouldn't be fair to call that 53 cents to the label to be pure profit. I'm sure they have overhead too. Some of taht money needs to be funneled to radiostations as payola. Some of that money needs to be funneled to lobbying and campaign contributions to buy new copyright laws. Some of that money needs to be funneled to school programs and youth groups to properly educate kids with outright industry propaganda misrepresenting of what copyright law is and should be.

Oh yeah, that ma

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[m50d]

OK, so the overheads are different in different countries, with different record industries. But within the country, I can't imagine the RIAA would be charging apple more than competitors. That's cutting off their nose to spite their face if apple decides to walk out.

If it's as simple as apple licensing from Veridisc, then why wasn't Real able to license the same system from them, and why didn't Apple point them to Veridisc when they tried to license? Real claims to have offered a lot of money, only to be told apple wasn't willing to license. Not that they weren't able to license. The only reason that makes sense for me is if they were making so much money - or thought there was a big enough revenue stream from it in the future - that they thought any reasonable licensing would lose them more money than they got from it.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[BishopBerkeley]

Legally speaking, however, Apple hasn't done anything yet to merit legal action. No predatory pricing, no overt action to bankrupt a competitor. (Remember when MS bankrupted Netscape by giving its browser away for free?)

If the competition has any brains, they will try to devise a standard for buying digital music. They will then have leverage against Apple, who will obviously oppose standards for such transactions. Of course, everyone wants to impose their own standards, so they will never challenge Apple on the only ground on which they can challenge it. MS wants to extend its monopoly. They can't accuse Apple of anything that might come back and bite them in the ass.

An open standard for digital music transactions is desperately needed. Greed prevents the big players from agreeing upon one. Maybe the FOSS community should start one.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[m50d]

They already are doing something to merit legal action, and that's making sure only their songs work on ipods. The way they disabled real's hack was exactly like MS did breaking dos and early windows for lotus, which I'm pretty sure they got sued for.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[BishopBerkeley]

Well, it's true, and not true. It's true that they blocked out Real, but, for example, if you buy mp3s from emusic.com, you would not be blocked. Or from allofmp3.com, for that matter. So, really, they are not enforcing control over the music that can be bought as much as they are enforcing control over the interface.

I'm half playing devil's advocate here, but in a court of law, Apple would probably make this kind of an argument, and they would probably make it stick because people are free to encode their CDs and buy mp3s from other sources, and companies do not need to hijack Apple's technology in order to sell music.

You have to admit that it's not as if any of the other parties in this--MS, Sony, EMI, etc.--are interested in competition. They are pissed that the monopoly is not theirs. That's why they won't challenge Apple on the monopoly grounds. If they do, they will not be able to establish their own. And, you can quibble with Apple as much as you want, but it will not change the fact that the competition is not interested in competing with Apple, or competing at all. So, at the very least, you have to admit that Apple's success is as much due to a lack of balls (to challenge Apple in court) as it is Apple's wonderful and easy to use system. (Yes, I got an Apple and and iPod precisely because they are so easy to use.)

Your point is well taken.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[m50d]

OK, but it's reducing functionality if you buy music from other sources - namely, the ability to play protected songs.

I can see them winning with that, but I can also see them losing, because at the same time it's clearly superior functionality if the music sites can rent songs for ipods, for example. Even without that, the ability to buy and use a limited licensed song is, I feel, a major functional difference.

Re:Call me crazy, but...

[BishopBerkeley]

Fair enough. But, this could be Apple's economic gamble. They are betting that people don't want to rent songs. I happen to agree because I, for one, will have absolutely no part of such a bargain. I'm moving all over the world, and although bandwidth is easy to come by, I prefer to take my entire collection with me wherever I go. And, if I want to "rent" music, I can always podcast an online radio station or something.

At any rate, Apple was smart enough to get WAY ahead of the curve, and they are managing to stay ahead (it's true, you can watch music videos through iTMS now, and a movie service cannot be far away). It's easy, it's reliable, it works, and it is growing in capability and capacity. I am not promoting these things because I own Apple stock. I own Apple stock because Apple is doing these things. I honestly don't think the other guys are trying hard enough.

Bandwagon, much?

[pieterh]

The lifestyle segment will use iTunes.

The power music consumers will use allofmp3.

What segment are Yahoo selling to exactly, the confused?

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Perhaps owners of the Xbox 360?

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[BabyDave]

The! People! Who! Love! Exclamation! Marks!

(with apologies to The Register for nicking their standard Yahoo! joke)

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[samael]

You're right! The market already has two players in it! It's saturated! Once consumers choose one technology they never change their minds! Nobody else can break in now - they're doomed to failure!

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[Technician]

What segment is Wall-Mart selling to exactly?


That's what I wondered. So I stopped in and checked out the prices of a couple titles. It isn't the K-Mart segment. I left the music on the shelf and bought a couple under $5 DVD's instead.

Believe it or not, Wall-Mart is selling some DVD's for under $2 which are all region. It is older material, but hopefuly the selection will expand!

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[Gridpoet]

The real problem is that Allofmp3.com has crap for music. After searching the Yahoo.com database it appears to me they are going to be attracting the Indie rock crowd, as some of the best loved indie bands are available on their service.

I even found several Indie bands from my local area...

I still think .99 a track for a digital file is RIDICULOUS but i doubt the music industry will ever get a clue...

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[Tim Browse]

I wish someone would steal The Register's Yahoo! joke - and I mean the proper sense of the word steal, i.e. not copyright infringement, but taking it away from them so they can no longer use it.

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[croddy]

(Score:5, Hits Nail on Head)

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[syrinx]

Actually, wouldn't it be the confused who are using allofmp3? I.e., those who think it's somehow legal?

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[servoled]

I have to agree with the parent to your post. Allofmp3.com has a horrible selection from the limited searching that I did:

BBQ
The Oblivians
The Gories
Hasil Adkins
Dan Melchior
Thee Headcoats
The New Bomb Turks

All show up on the Yahoo thing but not on Allofmp3.com. Not a single one of those can be remotely considered a "latest boy band or latest greatest industry created diva".

Maybe Allofmp3.com caters to a different crowd of music listeners, but it sure doesn't seem to have anything that I would like.

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[lidocaineus]

The power music consumers will use allofmp3.

No they won't. They'll still go to their local record store and maintain the probably years-long relationship they've had with the folks running the store. They'll buy the CD or vinyl, rip it, and store the originals somewhere immaculate. Don't you know anything about real music freaks? The idea of not owning a track is abhorrent to them, and lossless compression is the devil only to be tolerated on low end equipment such as an iPod (and even then, there's always Apple Lossless).

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[Gridpoet]

ROFL this from someone who probably thinks Nickleback are gods of rock and roll... sad i searched for Cursive, The New year, Brandtson, Cartel Basically indie rock bands..allofmp3.com = 0 results. RIAA crap = hundereds of results no thanks, you can keep it.

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[fermion]

It is the average person segment. The person, or, more precisely, teenager that now spends his or her entire time at school schemeing on how to get the computer to log onto Yahoo music videos. The teen that needs the music to be part of the peer group, but does not have money to buy a CD. And remember singles are a rarity.

There is no judgement on the quality of th music. There is no imagining that the song is going to be entertaining any longer than it takes to show the other students that you have the hot new song. Who cares if the lease will expire, there will be a new song next week.

So, as long as a kid can get a player for $99, he or she will find the time to plug it into the front USB port at school, and get the requisite dose of music. And for $5 a month, you buy acceptance.

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[kaustik]

I surfed allofmp3.com for a few minutes. It seems that the songs range from about 10 to 20 cents each. Is this for real? No catch? All of the other sites charge about a buck. Hmmm.

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[Alsee]

Actually, wouldn't it be the confused who are using allofmp3? I.e., those who think it's somehow legal?

Actually, isn't allofmp3.com perfectly legal in Russia?
And isn't it perfectly legal in Canada and a number of other countries?
And isn't it at most ambiguous in the US and a number of other countries, but only because of a hornet's nest of a legal theory under which no one has ever been held liable?

Just to be clear here - the answers have nothing to do with what you think the law should say, and the answers have nothing to do with what you think the law says unless you have actually read the law.

A further tip - I am familiar with the basic premise of the applicable Russian law, and that the Russian government has investigated the allofmp3 situation and found no illegality. I am also familiar with the exact Canadian law that applies, and that explicitly exempts this sort of situatio. I am extensively familiar with almost all of US copyright law and that this particular situation makes for an ugly ugly hairball.

Now if we want to discuss what the law should be, I'd say that Canada gets it pretty much right and Russia and US law are both buggy. Russian law has a bug resulting in certain critical classes of copyright holders being ignored and allofmp3 prices being lower than they are supposed to be (allofmp3 being able to sell MP3s is *not* a bug, in that respect the law is operating properly). US law is bugged in that you are potentially technically liable for thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in infringment damages for a single day of ordinary innocent websurfing.

Copyright law is not the nice neat rational thing that most people think it is.

-

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[Alsee]

It is legal in Russia, almost certainly legal in Canada, and uncertain legality to buy from other countries (not that there is ANY chance you'd ever be sued over it even if it is technically infringment to receive it in your country.).

So about the only 'catch' is that the artists get paid essentially nothing because of a bug in Russian law. If the bug were fixed the price would obviously go up a bit, but MP3 sales would still be perfectly legal without needing to bow down to RIAA restrictions.

The reason all the other sites are essentially a uniform buck and impose essentially uniform and opressive DRM terms is that the RIAA members conspired with each other to exclude price competition and to exclude format competition and to exclude DRM terms competition. In other words it's a cartel conspiring to abuse their monopoly power to suppress competition and abuse their copyrights to control formats and playback devices. All things that would/should ordinarily warrant a big fat smack down by the DOJ for multiple flagrant antitrust violations. By the way, congress was floating a bill to exempt the MPAA and RIAA from prosecution for violating antitrust law, and Orrin Hatch was a huge supporter of the bill (or possibly even its sponsor) and he's currently head of the copyright law committee. So you know that if any antitrust prosecution were started against the RIAA that that bill would be whipped out and hit the floor faster than you can say 'corporate shill'.

-

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[aristotle-dude]

So who gets the money? The artists? No. The labels? No.

Ask yourself where does the money go? How is this different "morally" than paying for a P2P network membership?

Go ahead and continue to try and convince yourself that it's ok because of the broken copyright laws in Russia allow for it. This kind of service would "not" be legal in Canada or many other countries because they are infringing copyright for profit. They have not signed any agreement with the labels/copyright holders for distribution rights.

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[aristotle-dude]

You are a clueless idiot. Besides the fact that they knowingly do not pay a cent to the artists/labels, they have not entered into an agreement for distribution rights. Copyright provides for the right to assign "distribution" rights. It would not matter if they offered to pay the labels, their service would still be illegal outside of Russia because they do not have the "right" to copy and distribute the music.

This has nothing to do with the RIAA but rather the internationally recognized "copyright" a content creator automatically receives the moment it is created.

Do you think spouting slogans, rhetoric and acronyms makes you sound insightful? Not outside of slashdot.

This type of service would be illegal in Canada.

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[Alsee]

Clueless idiot? Buahahaha. People in glass houses shouldn't throw feces.

You "inform me" of the issue of artists getting paid virtually nothing, after I EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE IN BOTH POSTS. I was simply answering the prior poster's question, and I did so ACCURATELY. I informed him of the artist payment issues. I did not tell him to buy there and I did not tell him not to buy there. If you have morality issues, well take them up with him and whatever decision he may or may not make.

But hey, thanks for just repeating back to me exactly what I already said. Brillant and most usefull. You know... just in case I didn't know it already, or maybe I forgot it after I wrote it.

I implicitly indicated that both Russian and US law should be fixed. Anything that is "buggy" obviously needs fixing.

US law should be fixed, to be more like Canadian law. US law needs to ensure that innocent people do not become liable for damages because of something someone else does. US law is buggy. Presuming you are in the US, I can cause you to become liable for hundreds or thousands of dollars in copyright infringment damages, and I can do so against your will.

Russian law should be fixed - to properly correct and expand the classes of copyright holders that get compensated by the statutory license in question. Allofmp3.com would still be able to sell MP3s, but the price would be higher and the appropriate artists would be properly paid. The Russian law would then properly operate as it was intended to operate.

they have not entered into an agreement for distribution rights

Congratulations on being an IGNORANT idiot who does not understand copyright law and the concept of STATUTORY LICENSES. Russia, Canada, the US, Australia, France, and virtually every contry on earth has statutory licenses of one form or another in their copyright law.

Under a STATUTORY LICENSE you do not need to enter into any sort of agreement. The government itself grants the distribution or other rights, so long as you comply with the terms of the statutory license.

And I have a feeling you are goting to object and make a fool of yourself - so I will repeat - STATUTORY LICENSES ARE PERFECTLY VALID AND LEGITIMATE AND APPROPRIATE. YOUR COUNTRY ALREADY HAS STATUORTY LICENSES IN YOUR COPYRIGHT LAW.

If you object to statutory licenses, then I suggest you go lobby your government to get them eliminated. And you can expect all radio to go off the air, and you can expect the RIAA to have a shitfit because it would suddenly be ILLEGAL for them to sell much of the music they currently sell.

And by the way, even the RIAA website praises the benefits of statutory licenses. It says, in part: "Statutory licenses are efficient because they do not require the person or entity using the recording to obtain separate licenses from each sound recording copyright owner."

So if you still think there is something wrong with statutory licenses then go argue with the RIAA while you're at it.

It would not matter if they offered to pay the labels

Statutory licenses are not about "offering" anything. If you want to use a statuory licence then you must pay whoever the law says you must pay and you must comply with any other terms and conditions.

The labels have absolutely no right to deny you the use of a statutory license. They are getting free money - as mandated by the government - whenever you use a statutory license (presuming that is how the law is written and that that is whom it says you must pay). I guess the label could decline to accept this free money, but they still can't stop you from using a statutory license. They cannot prevent you from being properly licensed to create or distribut copies or whatever else the law grants.

they do not have the "right" to copy and distribute the music

Under a statutory license they do.

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[Alsee]

That was a completely repetititive and redundant and duplicate post to me, so I will simply redirect to my other reply.

-

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[SteeldrivingJon]

"The power music consumers will use allofmp3."

If they don't mind giving their money to Russian mobsters, who are probably also involved in human trafficking.

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[SteeldrivingJon]

"So about the only 'catch' is that the artists get paid essentially nothing because of a bug in Russian law. "

Well, yeah, and there's also the catch that they probably have mafia ties, either intentional, or through a "protection racket". (Nice download service you've got here, it'd be a shame if something happened to it.)

So instead of your money going to the artists, it goes to murderers, and thugs, people who enslave women into prostitution.

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[dangitman]

The power music consumers will use allofmp3.

"Power" music consumers? Are they like Music Nazis or something? What makes the music from allofmp3.com more "powerful" anyway? I thought it was for listening to, not generating electricity.

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[Alsee]

mafia ties

Ah, right. I guess we should never do any business with any Russian company at all.

it goes to murderers, and thugs, people who enslave women into prostitution.

Ah yes, all Russians are murderers, thugs, and slave runner-pimps.

Unless you're saying you have some specific indication that there's some problem with this company.

So instead of your money going to the artists

Heay, I never suggested people should or should not do business there. I was simply answering a question on whether it was legal or not. If you have some issue with the morality of it, well I explicitly added that information. I could have simply answered the question and left that bit of info out.

I have never done business with allofMP3.com, but if I do it will be EXPLICITLY because of the RIAA's conspiracy and restraint of trade. For over a half-decade they conspired to deny any online market at all. Once they did finally permit online sales, they conspired to to exclude competition on terms and conspired to impose uniform and oppressive DRM systems.

The DOJ should be prosecuting them for numerous and flagrant anti-trust violations.

I absolutely refuse to buy a deliberately crippled product. If the RIAA members REFUSE to take my money to buy MP3s, well then I'm damn well going to buy them from allofmp3.com and I will have absolutely no moral qualms about it at all. I would gladly spend my money over here and have the money go to the artists, but if those artists will not accept my money because they are trapped by the RIAA and the RIAA refuses to accept my money, oh well. I'm not going to feel guilty if they refuse to accept my money for a proper product.

But that's just my moral position on it. As I said I added in the info about artists getting paid so that other people could avoid doing busiess there if they have an issue with it.

-

Re:Bandwagon, much?

[SteeldrivingJon]

Ah, right. I guess we should never do any business with any Russian company at all.

Might not be a bad idea, especially when you're talking about mere luxury items like music MP3s which are available from sources that are less encumbered by such morally repugnant people.

Hell, downloading from filetrading networks is preferable to using AllOfMP3.

Ah yes, all Russians are murderers, thugs, and slave runner-pimps.

No, just the well-known widespread and powerful criminal element. Most Russians are merely victimized by those people.

Unless you're saying you have some specific indication that there's some problem with this company.

I think it's quite likely that the Russian mob would want a piece of a company like AllofMp3, and the likelihood of this happening increases as the site becomes more successful. They pay nothing for the products they sell, after all, and the business brings in hard currency from outside Russia.

Here's something from the BBC in 2002:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that organised crime is still controlling large parts of the country's economy - and not enough is being done to combat it.

His comments follow a spate of apparent contract killings of businessmen, including the shooting last week of one of Russia's top advertising executives, Vladimir Kanevsky.

Threat to iTunes? No way

[Hieronymus Howard]

It's hardly going to be a threat to iTunes. The DRM WMA files won't play on ipods, which have over 80% of the hard disk player market and 58% of the flash player market.

Re:Threat to iTunes? No way

[BenjyD]

The iPod Shuffle

Re:Threat to iTunes? No way

[numark]

The iPod Shuffle is a flash-based player.

Re:Threat to iTunes? No way

[Skye16]

And this has one of two possible outcomes. Yahoo's music service bombs or people start buying players other than the iPod. If someone could create a (relatively) sexy iPod replacement and couple that with an easy-to-use store, it would definitely bring competition to the digital music world. Competition is good; lower prices and striving for better services (or other quirks) to lure customers away from their competitors...the only downside is being locked into one particular format over the other. Personally, I like AAC more, but since Apple seems hell bent on never letting others use the same format...

Re:Threat to iTunes? No way

[robbieduncan]

iPod Shuffle? http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/

Re:Threat to iTunes? No way

[Freexe]

55% of people know that static already

Re:Threat to iTunes? No way

[Skuto]

>Personally, I like AAC more, but since Apple seems >hell bent on never letting others use the same >format...

Apple has *NOTHING WHATSOEVER* to say about who can use AAC. They didn't invent nor do they own the format.

Re:Threat to iTunes? No way

[Mr_Silver]

It's hardly going to be a threat to iTunes. The DRM WMA files won't play on ipods, which have over 80% of the hard disk player market and 58% of the flash player market.

iTunes and iPod's may be #1 at the moment but it can't and won't stay that way forever.

Sure, it may take time but at some point others will catch up - even if it is by simply copying what Apple does.

Re:Threat to iTunes? No way

[moderators_are_w*nke]

I guess the poster was referring to the FairPlay DRM used on the AAC files from the iTunes music store.

Re:Threat to iTunes? No way

[badriram]

I hope you realize that just because the suffle has 58% of flash market the past 3 months does not mean the number of devices out there reflect that number. It could be that 90% of flash mp3 are non ipod, and just that shuffle is just starting to break that market.

Re:Threat to iTunes? No way

[Skye16]

It turns out I was, but at the time, I was a lot less informed and didn't make the distinction betwixt the two. Hooray for Google. :]

Re:Threat to iTunes? No way

[hawk]

iTunes and iPod's may be #1 at the moment but it can't and won't stay that way forever.

I take it they're going to go the way of Microsoft's long forgotten "Windows" and "Officee"?

:)

hawk

Re:Threat to iTunes? No way

[KillShill]

only a complete simpleton won't be able to figure out how to use their sound card to record the stream while it's playing in their drm-approved-check-the-server-for-a-key player. once it's in wav/mp3, it's all over.

and then it WILL play on an ipod.

of course if your bastard sound card manufacturer has a "secure audio path" driver... it'll be a tiny bit more complicated but still easily doable.

Thanks, but no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really getting sick and tired of all these competeing, incompatible and crippled formats.

All I want is a standard format to purchase music in, that works on every player and that allows me to freaking do with the music I bought what I want.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[lisaparratt]

And all I want is global domination over men, to live in a palace surrounded by a sea of sapphires, and eat chocolate all day long without getting fat.

About as likely to happen, too, unfortunately :(

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[nicuramar]

I agree, and most consumers do, I am sure (as do most geeks, since we "know" that ogg-vorbis for instance, is as good or better than the other formats).. unfortunately this is the flip side of the free market :-(.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[c0l0]

CDDA - Still the way to go for me.

Best quality, acceptable price, no DRM (at least when speaking about sane labels, providing sane, non-crap music), and a bunch of nice extras like CD-covers. With Amazon and other online retailers shipping for free, I fail to see where the merits of "pay for download"-services lie, except for the lower delivery-time.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[1010011010]

The biggest advantage of Apple's FairPlay over Microsoft's DRM is that FairPlay establishes one set of rules for all items purchased via ITMS. With WMA, the rules are variable. You're never exactly sure what you're getting. FairPlay is a better deal for customers, and a more understandable one.

Look at it another way. Hilary Rosen is advocating the death of ITMS and the iPod and their replacement with WMA-based services. What does that tell you about the two systems?

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[jb.hl.com]

It's called "MP3".

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Technician]

Best quality, acceptable price, no DRM (at least when speaking about sane labels, providing sane, non-crap music), and a bunch of nice extras like CD-covers. With Amazon and other online retailers shipping for free, I fail to see where the merits of "pay for download"-services lie, except for the lower delivery-time.
--


There are three problems with the shiny disks.

1 The price. I pick up 2 DVD's instead of 1 CD.
2 The package. One maybe 2 great songs and filler.
3 The compression. Most CD's now are compressed to increase the percieved loudness much like most FM broadcast stations. What ever happened to dynamic range? Much of what sells for music is as pleasant to listen to as a jet engine idling.
On compressed music, the kick drum mutes the lead guitar.
On music with proper dynamic range the drum plays and does not affect the level of the guitar.
I hate recordings where the drum mutes the music on each beat. Overall an uncompressed recording has a lower volume level. There is room left for the peaks.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[/ASCII]

CDDA lacks one think that I would truly like, namely a good delivery method. I want to be able to play any piece of music I like, at any time and place, while only paying a flat fee. None of the purchasing or downloading, just search for the artist/song/whatever and when you find it, start playing it at once.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Patik]

Well there's Emusic.com which has vanilla MP3s, but like other sites without DRM the selection is very limited.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[As Seen On TV]

And while we're wishing, I'd like a pony.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Mr Smidge]

I'd like to see some online music shops that sell music in unencumbered AAC format, and MP3. A great big "works on the iPod" sticker would help too.

Speaking of selling MP3s, if anybody likes electronica then Audiojelly is amazing.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Tim Browse]

I pick up 2 DVD's instead of 1 CD.

Are you comparing like for like? Or is this a new CD vs 2 'bargain' DVDs? e.g. here in the UK, play.com sells most CDs around the £8 to £11 mark, whereas DVDs mostly range from £7 to £15. Maybe it's different where you are.

The package. One maybe 2 great songs and filler.

You need to listen to better artists :-). Besides, one man's "filler" is another woman's "awesome album track", in my experience.

The compression. Most CD's now are compressed to increase the percieved loudness much like most FM broadcast stations.

But isn't it likely (or even inevitable?) that digital audio files will suffer from the same thing? i.e. be mastered from the same digital source, once it's been compressed?

Personally, I still buy CDs. DRM is just too much of a pain in the neck. With non-DRM'd music I can play it on any PC I'm using, and not have to give a toss whether it's got iTunes and my account set up, etc. The way iTunes is designed, in order to play a music track on a PC, you have to install Quicktime on the PC as well - not everyone wants Quicktime on their PC to be honest. And so on.

Plus Apple's delightful policy of "if your hard disk dies, you're free to buy all the music again!" Gee, thanks.

The only reason I'd buy a DRM'd song is if I only wanted the song and not an album. But I'd only do that as long as, e.g. hymn was still working.

CDs are not much of a hassle - I don't buy them often enough that ripping them is a chore. Ripping all my CDs initially took ages, but now my PC can rip a CD ludicrously quickly, and with always-on internet it gets the track names etc without me having to mess about getting on the net. There's just not enough of a downside to CDs for me to stop using them at the moment.

Plus, all CDs come with this great free robust silver backup disc, so I don't have to worry about that, either :)

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Lussarn]

Except that it's impossible to licence Fairplay which make to format pretty useless for businesses.

Or they can try to make a real and use it anyway and get sued by Apple.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Zobeid]

The striking thing to me is. . . All these companies fighting over which format is going to replace MP3, when none of them have anything useful to offer beyond what MP3 already does. Basically WMA and AAC are "superior" to MP3 only in that they have DRM. So. . . From a consumer standpoint, they are actually inferior. Practically everything will play MP3 tracks, there's no DRM, what more can you ask for?

Why are people licking the boots of the record companies and accepting inferior formats? It just doesn't make right good sense.

As for the argument about sound quality. . . The LAME MP3 encoder has improved now to the point where it's highly competitive. I rip my CDs with "lame --preset standard" and have no complaints about it.

For those of you who simply must get your music off the net, or who refuse to pay inflated prices for CDs. . . Let me come right out and say it: I get a lot of music off Usenet. I can't always find exactly what I'm looking for right when I want it, but there's always good stuff to take a listen to, and it's free. It's great for exploring new musical horizons.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Chucker23N]

"Basically WMA and AAC are "superior" to MP3 only in that they have DRM. So. . . From a consumer standpoint, they are actually inferior."

Uh. No. Not only are both WMA and AAC available without DRM -- for either, in fact, having no DRM is the typical case. AAC is just a standard audio format, part of MPEG2 and, in slightly evolved form, MPEG4. It not only beats your LAME MP3 at 128 kbit/s , but is almost as good as the ever-unbeaten Ogg Vorbis. And when in Plus mode (with SBR and other features), it pretty much leaves anyone behind.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[fatalb7]

2 The package. One maybe 2 great songs and filler.
3 The compression. Most CD's now are compressed to increase the percieved loudness much like most FM broadcast stations. What ever happened to dynamic range? Much of what sells for music is as pleasant to listen to as a jet engine idling.
On compressed music, the kick drum mutes the lead guitar.
On music with proper dynamic range the drum plays and does not affect the level of the guitar.

2) As someone else wrote, maybe you should find artists you really like?
If a CD has just 2 good songs, I don't want to listen to this artist at all.

3) You may be a technician, but not an audio technician ;)
Compression is used for almost all music (except classical) for something like 50 years. I agree some actual music are over compressed/limited and the "be as loud as possible" trend sucks, but I don't see the point to mention this here as the mp3, aac or whatever are made from the same master than the CD. In fact, compression has nothing to do with the support, it is made during the mix or pre-mastering.
Finally, if the "kick drum mutes the lead guitar", this is badly pre-mastered or mixed. Again, you should try to find better artists.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Doktor Memory]

The biggest advantage of Apple's FairPlay over Microsoft's DRM is that FairPlay establishes one set of rules for all items purchased via ITMS. ..."one" set of rules that can and will change completely at Apple's whim.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[anothergene]

You mean like VHS?

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Gumber]

All I want is a standard format to purchase music in, that works on every player and that allows me to freaking do with the music I bought what I want.

You mean like a CD? Or maybe a casette tape? Perhaps an LP?

It'll never happen (again).

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[anothergene]

Plus Apple's delightful policy of "if your hard disk dies, you're free to buy all the music again!" Gee, thanks.


Quit whining and take some responisibility for backing up your f$%king data.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Tim Browse]

Spot the odd one out:

• Think Different
• The computer for the rest of us
• Leading The Way
• The power to be your best
• Less is more
• The best keeps getting better
• Welcome to the digital music revolution
• Quit whining and take some responsibility for backing up your f$%king data

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[KillShill]

seeing as how apple has changed "the rules" several times since it's inception and no doubt their "legal contract" EULA mentions that you cannot object to them changing the "contract" at their whim and that you still agree to it therein, theni don't see how ANY drm is worth a damn.

don't need to mention to me that most if not all EULA's industry wide adopt the same sickening disgraceful wording.

the only good drm is a dead drm.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Zobeid]

You are incorrect, or at least your information is out of date. AAC and recent versions of LAME MP3, both encoding at 128 kbs bitrate, have been shown in blind listening tests to be practically identical quality.

LAME "--preset standard" tends to produce VBR files running in the vicinity of 200 kbs, and I can't hear anything wrong with them. Maybe your ears or your speakers are better than mine, I dunno, but I don't see a pressing need for higher quality.

As for "plus mode" and "SBR", I'm not familiar with those. Are those options available in iTunes or Quicktime? Because in practical terms, those are the only AAC utilities that most people have, or even have heard of.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Chucker23N]

Well, I have to correct myself, as the difference between the two is indeed not too noticeable ( http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/result s.html ), although my point technically still stands -- MP3 is 14 years old, why keep trying to optimize it when there's better technology out now?

aacPlus is also known as HE-AAC, which QuickTime and iTunes at this time unfortunately still don't support. Here's some comparisons with HE-AAC as implemented by Nero 6, using 64 kbit/s and 32 kbit/: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/64test/results.html and http://www.rjamorim.com/test/32kbps/results.html .

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[DA-MAN]

Except that it's impossible to licence Fairplay which make to format pretty useless for businesses.

Not true, ask Motorola. They were able to license it.

Or they can try to make a real and use it anyway and get sued by Apple.

They set themselves up for that. If I reprogrammed my TiVo, TiVo can force an upgrade down my throat and screw my configuration up. In this case Apple just released an updated firmware, and it's up to the user to install it if he/she so chooses.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Xyde]

Personally, I still buy CDs....Plus Apple's delightful policy of "if your hard disk dies, you're free to buy all the music again!" Gee, thanks.

Do BMG/Sony, Universal, EMI et al. offer to replace your CD's for free when they degrade, or when you step on them? No? Then why in god's name should Apple fork out for bandwidth again when some idiot decides to erase his HD without backing up his music first? Why should Apple be held responsible for a HD failure, or somebody's Terminal slip?

Sure, it would be nice if they let you do that but they've already stated on several occasions that they don't make any profit. Do you think they should take a loss because you can't be bothered doing your own backups?

You do realise you can back up your own .m4p files by burning them to CD, don't you? Imagine that! Idiot.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Xyde]

That's not the record companies paying for it, it's your credit card company. It's not Apple's problem that your credit card company's insurance doesn't apply to data purchases, especially as they become more and more mainstream. You don't have an argument.

Support your local dmca/drm

[sl4shd0rk]

Pledge now! Time is running out! Point your browser to yahoomusic.com or itunes.com and inject us with cash so we have enough money to sue your ass over fair use.

interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great, but I'm not entirely sure I'd trust Yahoo for music content. I've tried out other music services, but so far iTunes has provided almost everything I've wanted, with a few rare exceptions. And those I've ended up having to order the CD anyway. I do think that Apple will eventually need to open up their format a bit to allow third-parties to at least play their files if they're going to compete with the increasing number of competitors. Sure, for a few competitors, Apple can hold its own. But a thousand tiny rabid dogs will eventually take down the prey. I just hope Apple learns from the mistakes of the past this time around and doesn't repeat the mistakes in a way that becomes fatal.

Re:interesting

[Skye16]

Don't write Yahoo off so quickly. I've been had a subscription to their Launch service for the last year, and I love it. I get to hear new bands I've never heard before and I'm not stuck with commercials or music genres I don't even like. Yahoo did a great job with Launch, so I don't see why they would do a horrible job with another music service.

Launch

Re:interesting

[Skye16]

Oh, I should note that Launch won't work with anything other than IE without extensive tweaking. I believe you can install ActiveX for Firefox and get it to work that way, but that seems like an all 'round bad idea to me. I'd rather use IE just for launch and know that Firefox is still secure on other sites.

Obviously, non-Windows users are kind of screwed. 'Tis sad.

bankrupt

[tdmg]

T3 ani i2 users (like myself) are gonna bankrupt Yahoo and Napster. Do these companies have any limits at all? Otherwise, they are doomed. I could easily download thousands of songs in a day, bursting their $5 threshold. The majority of users won't download that much. I'm sure they have educated economists working it out, but when I see something that looks too good to be true it's usually because it is and I'll get reamed by some legal clause or their company's might as well skip to chapter 11.

Re:bankrupt

[Hungus]

form TFA:

"As with any such music service, songs will become unplayable if the subscription lapses. Alternatively, users can purchase individuals songs they wish to keep indefinitely for 79 cents, or 99 cents for customers who forego the monthly fee."

So if you stop paying th emonthly fee you will either get a hudge bill or have a lot f useless data on your hands... until the authentication is cracked of course.

Re:bankrupt

[Guardian of Terra]

How would that work? I mean, when and does it authenticate files to service? What's with files already inside player or played by another program, how would they know if they are expired by service cancellation?

Re:bankrupt

[beelsebob]

The problem is that you'll be paying that $5 a month for the rest of your life... and Yahoo are perfectly capable of increasing the $5 to say... $1000 a month, and then where will you be, you'll be paying $12000 a year to keep your music, or you'll be listening to a lot of silence.

Subscription models *do not* work.

Re:bankrupt

[Tusaki]

Subscription models *do not* work.

Why not? The library works this way. You get a library card, you have access to all their books. You cancel the card, and you dont have access to their books anymore. Isn't this the same?

Re:bankrupt

[mattyrobinson69]

aren't libraries heavily subsidised by the government

Re:bankrupt

[SeattleGameboy]

Really?

That is amazing. And just to think, I've been paying $50/month on HBO, ESPN, Comedy Central, etc. subscription.

I better tell my cable company that their model does not work since they can charge me $1000/month next month.

Brilliant!

Re:bankrupt

[Sporkinum]

Without an active internet connection, you can't play the music that is part of their $5 month thing. The yahoo player will pop up a message telling you that you can only play the music you paid .99 for or stuff you have ripped yourself.

Re:bankrupt

[anothergene]

Who cares how much you download. All they are concerned with is that you keep paying your montly fee. Same concept of taking a loss on the cell phone, as long as you keep paying your montly charges. Give the product away for free and charge them a montly fee to use it.

All people see is "oh I get a free cell phone" or "ooo I can down load all the music I want". Hold it, what do mean I can't listen to it any more if I stop paying you monthly Mr Soprano?

Re:bankrupt

[mgoff]

The problem is that you'll be paying that $5 a month for the rest of your life... and Yahoo are perfectly capable of increasing the $5 to say... $1000 a month, and then where will you be, you'll be paying $12000 a year to keep your music, or you'll be listening to a lot of silence.

Why wouldn't I just switch to another provider? These are not exclusive libraries.

What happens if I buy an iPod and a bunch of iTMS files, Apple raises the price of iPods to $1000 (hey, what do I care, I already have my iPod), and then my iPod breaks? I either pony up for a new iPod or walk away from my DRMed music.

Re:bankrupt

[no_opinion]

Yup, no one pays monthly for access. Oh, wait... cable or sat TV, DSL, XM Radio, Xbox Live, MMORGs, Netflix, telephone service... need I continue?

Re:bankrupt

[Politburo]

Subscription models *do not* work.

You're right. Subscription models based on assinine assumptions like jacking the price to $1000/month do not work.

Re:bankrupt

[aristotle-dude]

Burn them to an Audio CD? Play them on your computer?

ITMS does have some exclusives that you can "purchased".

Hey George!

[camperslo]

Forget that WMD thing we never found across the planet, there's WMA right here and WMV around the corner.

Yeah, cross platform

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps most interesting to the Slashdot crowd is that the Yahoo! Music Engine is built on an open platform that facilitates plug-ins - both DLL and Web based.

Maybe I can use this service in Linux, but I'm not permitted to play WMA files in Linux - I know, there are codecs (I have them), but they are reverse engineerd, and AFAIK not legal outside Europe.

haha

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried it out, the DRM is an annoying voice at the beginning of each song that goes "Yahooooooooo-oooooo!". Noone will copy that!

Re:haha

[ceeam]

They don't offer anything besides country?

Re:haha

[tdemark]

Sure... they also offer Western.

Re:haha

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Country: Yahoooooooooooooo-ooooooooooooooooo.

Western:
Well, I knew that snake was my own sweet dad
From a worn-out picture that my mother'd had,
My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Yahoooooooooooooo-ooooooooooooooooo!
Now your gonna die!!

Won't play on my MP3 players

[jedrek]

I, along with MILLIONS of people world wide, own an iPod (and an iPod Shuffle). They are, for my money, the best portable music players available. They sure aren't the cheapest - but I'm not a consumer for whom the prices is the main selling point.

That said, my players won't play WMA, which makes Yahoo's years of development a moot point.

I guess that the millions of 15-35 year olds who paid a premium price for our players aren't Yahoo's target market.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[xtracto]

Exactly, not to name the other digital media players that play MP3 (the defacto standard). I do not own the money to buy an iPod (and I find it quite overprized), but I bought an MP3 player which was like $80.

As for buying music?, after buying music in here I have not seen any other store that gives me the an approximatley so good service.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[illusioned]

Not to be anti-apple, but if you look at the other side of things, for less then the price of an IPOD (walmart current) you can get a dell Axim X50 http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productde tails.aspx/axim_x50_416?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs You can play MP3, WMA, and probably many other formats with third party programs. The only downfall is that you would have to buy memory cards, so it's not ideal if you want to take your whole 30GB music collection with you. However, if you have a wireless network you can play music straight off of a file server (SAMBA or windows) and easily transfer music files back and forth to get updated songs each day. I know i've been pro-pda recently, but I use mine for everything, including a music player with a 1 GB flash card.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Technician]

That said, my players won't play WMA, which makes Yahoo's years of development a moot point.


I agree. People only complain about their portable MP3 player. What about the other ones. For example;

My computer is not in the living room. My stereo and TV are. My DVD player will play a CD full of MP3's. Great I can buy music I can only hear in the office.

My car will also play the CD full of MP3's. Again another market missed by DRM.

DRM simply means less value for me. Having a low price is a nice start, but if I can't use your product because it doesn't fit I won't buy it.

It's just like the cheap shirts on the sale rack. They are not my size, but a few people will find a fit.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[The Cisco Kid]

WMA is the lock-in(out), not the iPod. Afaik, Ipod will happily play MP3 (If not with the stock software, then certainly with alternate software), which is the only 'not locked in' format.

I would never subscribe to any sort of music download service unless I was able to either directly download MP3, or convert whatever it was *to* MP3 (real MP3, not WMA-pretending-to-be-MP3)

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[lyonsden]

Not to be anti-new-math, but lets see:

iPod mini $199

• 4 GB storage
• 18 hours battery life

Dell Axim X50 $269

• 64MB SDRAM/64MB Flash memory
• 8 hours 43 minutes battery life

iPod $299

• 20GB storage
• 12 hours battery life

That doesn't include the $72 you add for the 1GB flash card. Cheaper than an iPod? I don't think so.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[TheRaven64]

I bought my iPod (3G) before the iTMS was lauched, so it clearly was not designed to lock me into a particular service. I bought it because the UI was the best I had seen on a portable player, and because it supported AAC, which I found to give better audio quality than MP3, WMA, or Ogg Vorbis[1] (for my music, in my ears - this is a purely subjective judgement). The player supports MP3, MPEG-4 audio, as well as Apple's (proprietary, but license-free) lossless format. There is nothing at all stopping a competing music store offering MP3 tracks, which would be playable on just about all portable digital music players. Choosing WMA immediately limits them to 20% of the market, which seems like a bad choice.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[illusioned]

If you look at the dell as just a music player, then you are right about price except in the following areas. a) Wireless connectivity to a streaming music source. Such as di.fm or even your mp3 collection at home. b) Plays more formats than iPOD (potentially could play anything you threw at it if you got the right software or could write it) If you go outside the bounds of a music player it does, e-mail, web, scheduling, contact lists, games, view pictures (and cheaper then the picture iPOD), and plays movies. I could continue, but I don't have the time currently

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[xtracto]

Sure:
1 GB MP3 Player + FM Radio +USB 2.0 MD. M001 BLACK £51.99 +£15.99 p&p

VS:
a href=http://tinyurl.com/935xn>New APPLE IPOD SHUFFLE 512MB mini MP3 Player £53.00 +£15 p&p

Shall I continue?

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[birge]

If price really isn't important, hotshot, then why not just buy another MP3 player that works with WMA if Yahoo's service looks attractive? Hell, you'll still come out ahead relative to paying through the nose for Apple's store.

My guess is that unless Apple goes a similar route (and they probably won't, at least not with price) the days of the iPod being dominant will be numbered. Sort of the way things generally go with Apple products. They make something good first, then people copy it and improve upon it while Apple sits their and overcharges for it as they watch their market share go away. Eventually the only people that will pay for it are trendy young people on the coasts who equate what they buy with who they are. (I know that sounds harsh, but just listen to the kind of things people say about their iPod shuffles. It's like the closest people in San Francisco ever get to religion.)

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[poiu]

Actually, I own an iPod too. For $5 / month this looks like a good service. If they could just cut a deal to put their music on my iPod, it would be a slam dunk.

However, even so, I might just use it on my computer to try and find music I like, and then buy it. Its *almost* worth it. I'm going to wait a while. I'm sure Apple has something up their sleeves.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Chokolad]

> WMA is the lock-in(out), not the iPod. Afaik, Ipod will happily play MP3 (If not with the stock software, then certainly with alternate software), which is the only 'not locked in' format.

The same argument goes for pretty much every WMA player in existence. They all can play MP3 ' the only not locked in format'. I really do not understand how it makes iPod less locked in compared to WMA compatible players.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[amliebsch]

There is nothing at all stopping a competing music store offering MP3 tracks, which would be playable on just about all portable digital music players.

Except, of course, the fact that the RIAA will never, ever, ever, license their music to that music store. This is simple. Music stores need DRM to get licenses. Apple will not license Fairplay DRM. Microsoft will license WMA DRM. End of story.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Moofie]

You can either buy music from Apple, or from Microsoft. Sure, Microsoft has a bunch of different store fronts, but they hold the keys.

Microsoft arguing that Apple is restricting choice is really, uh, ridiculous.

At least my iPod won't delete my music if I don't plug it in to my computer.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Moofie]

"but if you look at the other side of things, for less then the price of an IPOD (walmart current) you can get a dell Axim X50"

So, basically, as long as you're not talking about price, the Axim is cheaper?

Whahuh?

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Moofie]

" If price really isn't important, hotshot, then why not just buy another MP3 player that works with WMA if Yahoo's service looks attractive?"

Because there aren't any WMA players that have a decent user interface.

Of course, that's my opinion, and nobody is bound to share it...

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Queer Boy]

Ipod will happily play MP3 (If not with the stock software, then certainly with alternate software), which is the only 'not locked in' format.

iPod will also happily play Audible, WAV, AIFF, Apple Lossless and AAC.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[The Cisco Kid]

My point was that it wasnt the iPod that was locking anyone in or out of anything. The Ipod, like anything else, can play the 'standard' format, which is MP3. Any service which offers only *non* MP3 format music is locking itself out of a a large segment of the market.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[birge]

Because there aren't any WMA players that have a decent user interface.

That's a hard statement to defend, given that everybody has had more than enough chance to copy Apple's design. Plus, it's a fricking music player! How much can the interface really make or break the machine? I would think battery life would be far more important, and yet the Apple followers don't seem as bothered by the fact that ipod battery life has usually sucked (except maybe for the most recent models). I have an iPod mini, too, but my feeling is that I got suckered by ultimately unsubstantial things into getting an overpriced piece of modern sculpture. My iPod "crashes" all the time, the battery life sucks, and the interface really isn't even that good. The thumbwheel idea is cute, but actually fairly imprecise. I think the iPod is one of the most overrated things I've come across. I just don't think it can keep up in the long term.

Apple will always have a core of zealots who would buy Steve Job's bowel movements if he painted them white, but most people I think will move on to other players/systems that offer more for the money. In the end, it's about the music, not the company making the player. At least for most people it is.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[illusioned]

...

Clearly the x50 ($269) is cheaper than the iPOD ($299) and it has more functionality. I never said anything about the mini, or the shuffle, or any other variation for that matter in my first post. There are other handhelds that are even cheaper are still have the ability to play more formats then the iPOD, I was just stating a fact.
If everyone who bought an iPOD and is commenting on what I am saying because they are taking it personally would stop I think you'd see I am just comparing two products that can do similar things in the same price range.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Nexx]

Apple will always have a core of zealots who would buy Steve Job's bowel movements if he painted them white

another hard statement to defend :)

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Moofie]

Well, it's my opinion, so I don't need to defend it. But I will.

"given that everybody has had more than enough chance to copy Apple's design"

Two words: Design patent.

"How much can the interface really make or break the machine?"

Interface is the only relevant dimension (again, my opinion.) Smart playlists==the ONLY way to fly. Velocity sensitive wheel==awesome.

"My iPod "crashes" all the time"

Stop using it as a racquetball.

"the battery life sucks"

Twelve hours? You listen to music, away from electrical outlets, for twelve hours? Frequently?

"The thumbwheel idea is cute, but actually fairly imprecise"

Your opinion, and of course, you don't need to defend it.

"Apple will always have a core of zealots who would buy Steve Job's bowel movements if he painted them white"

Thanks for the visual. There will also be the core of haters, who would hate anything Apple produces no matter how good it might be. What's your point?

"In the end, it's about the music, not the company making the player"

It's about the user experience, and the fact that people will pay for a good one. That's why Apple is in business.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Moofie]

Oh, so you're not counting the iPods that are cheaper than the x50, because you want the x50 to be the cheapest thing.

Okay. My bad. I thought I was having a rational discussion.

"because they are taking it personally would stop I think you'd see I am just comparing two products that can do similar things in the same price range."

You're comparing the only two things that make your point make something vaguely like sense, and other people are calling you on your silly comparison. Get a thicker skin.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[birge]

Stop using it as a racquetball.

Heh heh. Seriously, it just resets itself all the time, even when it's just sitting around. I'll go to turn it on and it will have to do a reset. Maybe I just have a bad one.

Twelve hours? You listen to music, away from electrical outlets, for twelve hours? Frequently?

I generally get about 5-6 hours out of my iPod mini. Yes, I would be very happy with 12 hours.

Your opinion, and of course, you don't need to defend it.

I appreciate that, but I'm happy to defend my opinion, since opinions can be changed with new information. In the case of the wheel, my problem with it is that when you take your finger off the wheel, that often causes the iPod to move off of the item you've selected. I think that's objectively a bad design.

There will also be the core of haters, who would hate anything Apple produces no matter how good it might be. What's your point?

My point is that Apple is a company that owes it's existence to people who religiously follow the company. (I used to be one of those people, for the record. I started with a Mac 128k.) That, I think, encourages the wrong behavior on the part of Apple and leads them to be very provincial.

It's about the user experience, and the fact that people will pay for a good one. That's why Apple is in business.

If it works for you, I guess I can't argue with that. But paying $1 per song and being forced to use only one music store that happens to be owned by the same company I got my music player from is not what I call a good experience. I bought the thing for MUSIC, and Apple is not making it easy for me to get music. If I had an iRiver H10, for example, I'd have a lot more choices.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[birge]

another hard statement to defend :)

Not really: MacOS 8. The defense rests... :-)

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[GoatPigSheep]

Agreed, I got an ipod mini with a student discount so the price was VERY reasonable for the size/features/battery life of the device. Other small players pale in comparison.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Moofie]

If you want an iRiver, sell your mini on ebay and buy one.

"owned by the same company I got my music player from is not what I call a good experience."

What does the sign over the door have to do with the experience? You could argue that the "subscription" services are better for your needs, and that would be a legitimate criticism. I certainly wouldn't subscribe to a music service that could go belly-up any time Microsoft crooked its finger, but hey, knock yourself out.

"my problem with it is that when you take your finger off the wheel, that often causes the iPod to move off of the item you've selected"

I had that problem for a day or three, then it wasn't much of an issue. Objectively bad design? Don't know about that...it works for me.

"I generally get about 5-6 hours out of my iPod mini."

Have you returned it for warranty service?

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[birge]

What does the sign over the door have to do with the experience?

Inherently, you're right. It has nothing to do with anything. People just always say that around here about Microsoft and it gets a good reaction. I thought I'd try it with Apple. My main issue was that I have no choice, not that it's Apple.

wouldn't subscribe to a music service that could go belly-up any time Microsoft crooked its finger, but hey, knock yourself out

Please. Is there ANYTHING in this world of ours that couldn't go belly up if Microsoft wanted them to? Apple only survived the 90s because Microsoft needed them to live to keep the DOJ off their back. Remember that bailout MS gave Apple several years ago?

Have you returned it for warranty service?

It didn't occur to me to do so, since that's within the range they say you can expect with heavy use. I'll give it a shot, though, since there is an Apple store right down the street from here.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Moofie]

"My main issue was that I have no choice"

Your choice is Apple, or Microsoft. Microsoft's music sales might have a lot of different names over the door, but it's still the same stuff.

Like Microsoft? Go buy their stuff. But the "choice" that Microsoft is talking about isn't really choice.

"Is there ANYTHING in this world of ours that couldn't go belly up if Microsoft wanted them to?"

Yeah. My Powerbook.

"Remember that bailout MS gave Apple several years ago?"

That's absurd. Apple had (if I recall) ten billion dollars CASH at that time. Apple was not dying.

Microsoft settled a lawsuit (that Apple would have won, there's no doubt in anybody's mind about that) in a manner that was advantageous to Apple and to Microsoft. "Bail out"? Nonsense.

"It didn't occur to me to do so, since that's within the range they say you can expect with heavy use. I'll give it a shot, though, since there is an Apple store right down the street from here."

*eyebrow* Didn't occur to you to ask the manufacturer about a product that doesn't perform up to spec?

Look, Apple's not perfect, but come on: This problem is your fault. Manufacturing problems happen, batteries can be faulty, the only question is whether said manufacturer will stand behind their product.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[birge]

Microsoft's music sales might have a lot of different names over the door, but it's still the same stuff.

Man, you're really hooked on that idea. So, when you decide to listen to music, do you say "I think I'd like to listen to some Apple AACs!" or "I think I'd like to listen to some Peter Gabriel?" It's mostly about the content, not the software or the hardware. The music is the most important thing. Nice hardware is a bonus, and you can get nice hardware on both sides. But I wish I had the choice between subscription versus pay-per-download. And I wish I could pay 79 cents instead of 99 cents.

For example, I happen to like Rhapsody's interface quite a lot. But I can't use its subscription service simply because Apple puts their profit ahead of their customer's utility. Where have we seen that before?

I think you're right about the MS/Apple settlement. Apple did have a lot of cash so it was probably just about the IP.

Didn't occur to you to ask the manufacturer about a product that doesn't perform up to spec?

Like I said, it is, technically, within spec. (I have the first model iPod, and it's only supposed to get 6-8, and Apple covers their ass quite a bit in the documentation, saying you can get less with heavy use and over time it will degrade.)

Look, Apple's not perfect, but come on: This problem is your fault.

Interesting consumer theory. What is my fault, however, is getting an iPod based on the sheep-like theory that everybody else riding the Red Line had one so it must be the best music player. Of course, everybody watches reality television, too, so I really should've done a bit more investigating on my own before following the herd on this one.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Moofie]

So, when you decide to listen to music, do you say "I think I'd like to listen to some Apple AACs!" or "I think I'd like to listen to some Peter Gabriel?"

Exactly. What difference does it make whether the music you get is from Apple or not?

Either the song you want is available for your portable music player, or it's not. Choose your portable music player accordingly. Maybe I'm crazy, but I bet iTMS carries Peter Gabriel.

"For example, I happen to like Rhapsody's interface quite a lot. But I can't use its subscription service simply because Apple puts their profit ahead of their customer's utility. Where have we seen that before?"

Where is this service that puts the customer's utility ahead of the company's profit? Seriously: I want to know what your benchmark is.

Real tried shenanigans. Apple shut them down. So what?

"I think you're right about the MS/Apple settlement. Apple did have a lot of cash so it was probably just about the IP."

I accept your retraction. The thing that burns me is this: You accuse Apple zealots of buying Steve's white-colored poop, and you can't even be bothered to get your facts straight. And then, later on, you admit to buying a product based on the advertisements, not on an evaluation of your needs. But this is somehow Apple's fault, and not your fault for making irrational decisions.

WTF, dude? Get your shit together.

Re: Your defective battery.

"I have the first model iPod"

I thought you said you had an iPod mini. If you've got a 1g iPod, and it's been in service for years, and the battery is deteriorating, I say: Welcome to the way rechargeable batteries work in the real world.

"Apple covers their ass quite a bit in the documentation,"

By explaining to you the limitations of current battery technology. Wow, how deceitful.

Would you have preferred Steve call you up and ask you if your battery is working out? Come on. If you've got a defective product, you ask the manufacturer to fix it. Sure, you can whine about it on Slashdot, but that won't solve your problem, will it?

If you bought an iPod because somebody told you to, you're a victim of your own ignorance. I bought an iPod because it's the best music player available, based on my needs. Just because you didn't make a rational choice doesn't mean that I can't.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[geekee]

" I, along with MILLIONS of people world wide, own an iPod (and an iPod Shuffle). They are, for my money, the best portable music players available. They sure aren't the cheapest - but I'm not a consumer for whom the prices is the main selling point.

That said, my players won't play WMA, which makes Yahoo's years of development a moot point.

I guess that the millions of 15-35 year olds who paid a premium price for our players aren't Yahoo's target market."

You should complain to Apple then if you really were interested in the Yahoo subscription. Yahoo is not in a legal position to make their service work with iPods.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[birge]

I meant to say first gen iPod mini. Anyway, you're getting a bit worked up. I didn't say anything was Apple's fault or not. All I was saying was that I think the iPod/iTunes combo is overrated and too restricted and I'm predicting its popularity will decline with the advent of $60/year subscriptions and similar hardware on the market. My own bad choices are completely irrelevent to whether or not that's true. I just think people will eventually tire of spending $10 to buy a single album and realize that for less than the price of six albums on iTunes, they can listen to virtually the entire catalogs of their favorite artists for a whole year. I wasn't putting you down. I'm sure you made the right decision for you. I'm just predicting that lots of people will feel differently. Only time will tell if I'm right about Apple's decline, but pointing out my failings as a consumer won't change anything.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Moofie]

"iPod/iTunes combo is overrated"

You think it's overrated. I don't care how it's rated: It's the best tool for the job.

"too restricted"

I think the restrictions are vastly overblown by haters. You might happen to not like Apple's plan, and you're free to not use it. Nobody's coming to your house with a gun.

"I'm predicting its popularity will decline"

Can't get much higher, so I think you're making a safe guess.

"they can listen to virtually the entire catalogs of their favorite artists for a whole year"

And have it vanish in a puff of smoke when the seller decides [vader] I am altering the deal [/vader]. Don't think it'll happen? You're more optimistic than I am. I'm pretty sure it happened to me with Netflix: I was a prolific user, and all of a sudden, I couldn't get any movies. 50 movies in my queue, all on "delayed availability". Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe they gamed me. I certainly stopped doing business with them.

History tells me one thing: Anybody who gets into bed with Microsoft winds up getting fucked. And not in a good way.

"I wasn't putting you down."

By implying I'm an Apple zealot who would buy white poop. You'll forgive me for misinterpreting your intentions.

"Only time will tell if I'm right about Apple's decline"

Time has certainly told about Apple's runaway, breakout success, so yeah, it'll tell about Apple's decline too.

"but pointing out my failings as a consumer won't change anything."

Only to illustrate that people who believe the hype, rather than their own judgement, often make poor choices. This is an important realization.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[birge]

By implying I'm an Apple zealot who would buy white poop. You'll forgive me for misinterpreting your intentions.

I'm honestly sorry if you took offense. I never actually said you were one of the zealots (though I'm starting to suspect you are) and I even told you that I used to be one myself. Anyway, it was supposed to just be funny.

Time has certainly told about Apple's runaway, breakout success, so yeah, it'll tell about Apple's decline too.

Considering this a runaway success for Apple is a bit much. The ipod is certainly a runaway success. and they've done incredibly well with the iTunes store. But last I checked they were supposed to be a computer company. And they haven't done so well there, with market share still about 5%.

I really think you take Apple too personally. My guess is that you live in either NYC or, more likely, CA. The culture there is to consider one's consumer habits as integral to your personality, as if you're only as cool as what you buy and your life will be complete if only you can compile the optimal array of gadgets.

I don't really care if Apple fails or succeeds, because I don't work for them. I was just making a guess as to what will happen. Either you work for them, own a lot of their stock, or you've got an unhealthy emotional connection to the company. Trust me, they don't give a shit about you, and you're not cool by association just because you buy their products. Conversely, if they tank you're still just as good a person.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[prockcore]

I bought my iPod (3G) before the iTMS was lauched, so it clearly was not designed to lock me into a particular service.

Nope, that was added later with firmware updates etc.

Which just reinforces the point that Apple is leveraging one monopoly (iPods) to secure another monopoly (online music sales).

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Moofie]

You conclude I'm a zealot (one who has an irrational attachment to something) when I have explained at some length that my only interest in Apple is that, for my purposes, they make good products.

If you think that's what a zealot is, you need a new dictionary.

I didn't take offense, but I will call you when you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Who cares about Apple's marketshare? Their profitability has been solid throughout the computer slump, and now they're coming out swinging with some really, REALLY good products.

But I guess they must still be beleaguered. And they're on the way down.

"My guess is that you live in either NYC or, more likely, CA"

Nope. Texas. Just moved to Oregon. You really need to take a hard look at your preconceptions. They are not serving you well.

In case I haven't stated this clearly enough: Fuck "cool". I don't care about the herd mentality. Just because that's the way you make decisions, doesn't mean everybody else is like that.

"Either you work for them, own a lot of their stock, or you've got an unhealthy emotional connection to the company."

Ah. I disagree with you, so I must be an emotional zealot.

"and you're not cool by association just because you buy their products."

You're not cool by anti-association if you dis their products. I am comfortable with this notion. Are you?

Hell, I'll give you $100 for your iPod mini. Assuming it's not a stupid color.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[geekee]

The the 1GB non-Apple player has an LCD screen

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[birge]

Ah. I disagree with you, so I must be an emotional zealot.

Nope. It's the fact that every time I tried to say something about the merits of this or that, you'd come back with an Apple propaganda pamphlet or hyperbole about Microsoft's evil and completely sidestep any substantive discussion on the technology. I assume you're smarter than your line-item retorts would make you appear (seriously, telling somebody if they don't like something they don't have to use it is a pretty tired rhetorical device, not to mention a pointless tautology) so I guessed you had some emotional investment in Apple vs. Microsoft.

Nope. Texas. Just moved to Oregon. You really need to take a hard look at your preconceptions. They are not serving you well.

Well, they usually work great around here. Sometimes you miss, what can I say?

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Moofie]

"I tried to say something about the merits of this or that"

When was that? I think you're having an imaginary discussion in your head.

"Microsoft's evil and completely sidestep any substantive discussion on the technology"

Huh? You're always on about what the herd makes you do. Is that the substantive discussion part?

Wanna talk technology? Great. "Plays for Sure" deletes your music if you don't hook your player to your computer frequently. Boy, that's some great technology.

I don't like Apple's DRM scheme, but it's far, far less onerous than any of the other ones on the market. They were the first to market, with the least restrictive DRM, and the best user experience. Whatever they're doing is obviously working OK, and I don't see any reason why they should change.

If they start leveraging their "monopoly" (which isn't really a monopoly: There are dozens of alternatives, and Apple has shown no interest in destroying those, unlike some other large computer firms I could mention), then I'll change my opinion.

"I assume you're smarter than your line-item retorts"

Whee! What a great backhanded complement. I feel the love deep in my bones. This must be more of the part where you're not trying to offend me. You're really doing a fine job...it's like I'm getting a hug from somebody I've never even met!

I'm rebutting your "arguments" (if I may use the term so loosely) point by point, which is well established technique.

"Sometimes you miss, what can I say?"

You can say that you're mistaken, which seems to be a pervasive issue in this discussion.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[birge]

Most of what you said was substanceless oneupsmanship. Though it's taken me a few times around, I'm going to learn from my mistakes and leave the playground. I will, however talk about the tech stuff:

Wanna talk technology? Great. "Plays for Sure" deletes your music if you don't hook your player to your computer frequently. Boy, that's some great technology.

You can redownload it whenever you want. That's the point of a subscription. I'm well aware you're just renting music, and all of your music will disappear the second you stop paying. The point is that $60 a year is nothing, especially to access so much music. If I live to be 80, I'll still never end up paying as much for my access to the entire catalog as I have already paid for CDs. That's compelling to me, and you haven't given a good reason why I'm being irrational in that. Moreover, you haven't given a good reason why millions of other people won't do the same math and draw the same conclusion. You just make ad hominum remarks about disappearing music and evil DRM and how successful Apple has been thusfar. The subscription model is just starting to come on line, so Apple's first to market success is not relevent to the download/subscription debate.

Whatever they're doing is obviously working OK, and I don't see any reason why they should change.

Remember the original article, 10 parents up from this? The world's changing around them, and my original thesis was that unless they offer their own affordable subscription service or open up their player, people are going to defect to players and services which support subscriptions. Have you ever even tried any of the sub services? Once you have access to an entire CD store's worth of music at your fingertips, it's hard to want to go back to buying it one dollar per song.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Moofie]

"You just make ad hominum remarks"

You don't know what those words mean. I also have refrained from calling you stupid and alleging that you like to play with poop. I WILL call you naive, for thinking that Microsoft is going to start playing nice with their captive audience. They've never done so in the past, and I have no reason to think they'll change.

"Apple's first to market success is not relevent to the download/subscription debate"

There is no debate. Buy what you want. I've already offered to purchase your mini.

"The world's changing around them"

Yeah: Changes that Apple set into motion. I don't know if they're going to offer subscriptions or not. Frankly, I think Cringely is right: There's not a forever market in iPods, and some day there will be a good exit strategy from the hardware sales market. They'll license their DRM to somebody, and then there will be more "choice".

But now, TODAY, their strategy is working. Apple has the luxury of considering their future strategy cautiously instead of just haring off after whatever trend Microsoft thinks is advantageous. Fighter pilots call it "being in the elbow". Whatever the opponent does, you're in position to counter.

"Have you ever even tried any of the sub services?"

No, because I don't trust them. Seriously: That is my argument. I have no recourse if they decide to alter the deal. If you think you're going to be just spending $5/mo from now till you die, I think you're insane. They WILL turn the screws, and you CAN'T stop them. It's impossible for me to understand why you think otherwise.

"it's hard to want to go back to buying it one dollar per song."

So don't. CDs work pretty well. So do MP3's from lesser-known bands.

I've bought a handful of songs from iTMS. You don't really think that I'm spending $10,000 to fill my iPod, do you?

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[birge]

You don't know what those words mean.

From the latin, meaning to the man, or arguments pertaining to emotion or personal attacks, not the substance of the conversation. Shit, I'm back in your playground. Oh well.

I have no recourse if they decide to alter the deal. If you think you're going to be just spending $5/mo from now till you die, I think you're insane. They WILL turn the screws, and you CAN'T stop them. It's impossible for me to understand why you think otherwise.

I'll try for the impossible: with subscription, if they change the deal you just cancel. Simple as that. By definition, you were just paying for the temporary usage, and at $6 a month, it's pretty easy to argue that it's worth it. If they offer the same deal next month, great. If not, you leave. Nothing could be safer since you pay as you go. On the other hand, you'd better hope you always have something that can handle Apple's current DRM, or your library of iTunes purchased music is gone. If you think your purchased tracks are really forever, it is you who is naive.

I've bought a handful of songs from iTMS. You don't really think that I'm spending $10,000 to fill my iPod, do you?

No, my guess is that if you're like most people the majority of your iPod is filled with stuff you already owned and legally ripped, plus a few songs you've stolen.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[Moofie]

"a few songs you've stolen."

Now THAT'S an ad hominem attack! I knew you could do it. Want a cookie?

I'm done with this. Have a nice day. Guess you aren't THAT unhappy with your mini, or you'd take me up on my offer.

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[DA-MAN]

Which just reinforces the point that Apple is leveraging one monopoly (iPods) to secure another monopoly (online music sales).

Microsoft DRM is awkward and doesn't always work right. When things fuck up it's Microsoft's name that goes through the mud.

Apple sells a "user experience". They will not risk the mess that is DRM'd WMA's on an iPod because it has an Apple logo. Apple doesn't want to screw up it's rep so that Tom/Dick/Harry can sell the same music at the same price from a different url. Microsoft is just using WMA to further lock people into Windows, just another thing that will make it even harder for people to move off. This is why DRM'd Windows Media won't play on OSX Windows Media Player plain and simple! This is the reason that all (but Apple's) music stores are Windows only!

Re:Won't play on my MP3 players

[hexadecimate]

THANK YOU gentlemen. It wasn't quite Lincoln-Douglas, but by the standards of /. you kept the gloves on admirably. Enjoy the music.

Apple?

[mojowantshappy]

I like how this is listed under Apple. Clearly this service is doomed.

I thought MP3 *is* supported

[g2swaroop]

(Extracted from the Wall Street Journal May 10, 2005): The new service, dubbed Yahoo! Music Unlimited, will give individuals unlimited access to over a million music tracks for $6.99 a month, or, alternatively, for $60 a year. The service, which also lets users transfer the songs to select portable MP3-format music players, is priced far below rivals' services: RealNetworks Inc., for example, charges $179 a year for its comparable subscription service.

Re:I thought MP3 *is* supported

[1010011010]

Just like Napster implies that's the case. Isn't it funny how WMA-based services tend to advertise themselves as MP3-based services? It's like WMA is unwanted by the marketplace, and service providers have to lie about it to sell product.

Re:I thought MP3 *is* supported

[michaeldot]

The service, which also lets users transfer the songs to select portable MP3-format music players

Yes, selected MP3 players which support Windows Media Audio format as well.

"MP3 player" is probably being used as a generic name for portable music player.

Re:I thought MP3 *is* supported

[Technician]

transfer the songs to select portable MP3-format music players

The key is WMA players are also MP3 players. The select MP3 players are the ones that play WMA files. Do not assume the format is MP3. It isn't.

Re:I thought MP3 *is* supported

[adminispheroid]

Let's put it this way. Yahoo will be providing 1) a piece of software that's a media player/playlist/tunes organizer, and 2) a music download service. The piece of software will play mp3s, and will happily transfer them to your portable. The download service gives you WMA files, with DRM. The software will not convert these to mp3.

Re:I thought MP3 *is* supported

[Have Blue]

You forgot to bold the word select in that quote. The "select" MP3 players are the ones that also support DRMed WMA, because that's what the service is really using.

Re:I thought MP3 *is* supported

[MBraynard]

It's not to lie to anyone - most folks don't know the difference and if it's not an Ipod, it will play WMA as easily as it will play MP3s. "MP3 player" is just the consumer name for a device - it's not even "MP3" as much as an "ehmpeethree" player. Like McNuggets, Q-Tips, Jello, etc.

Re:I thought MP3 *is* supported

[afree87]

But iPods are the most popular MP3 player by far.

Re:I thought MP3 *is* supported

[DA-MAN]

It's not to lie to anyone - most folks don't know the difference and if it's not an Ipod, it will play WMA as easily as it will play MP3s.

There in lies the problem! Most people think the iPod is an mp3 player. The majority of the digital music player market is dominated by the iPod. They've effectively lied to the majority of the market.

"MP3 player" is just the consumer name for a device - it's not even "MP3" as much as an "ehmpeethree" player. Like McNuggets, Q-Tips, Jello, etc.

I don't see Target brand cotton swab's calling themselves Target Q-Tips. It's not the same, and if I were Thompson I'd put an end to this now! Even Phillips went after the RIAA for selling DRM'd CD's with the Audio CD Logo, since they didn't conform to the redbook standard.

Re:I thought MP3 *is* supported

[MBraynard]

There in lies the problem! Most people think the iPod is an mp3 player. The majority of the digital music player market is dominated by the iPod. They've effectively lied to the majority of the market.

Nah. They didn't lie to anyone. They state the following clearly on their site:
Yahoo! Music Unlimited songs can be transferred to Plays-for-Sure subscription-compatible devices including Zen, Rio, Sony, Phillips, Dell and others as long as the subscription is valid. Learn more about Plays-for-Sure devices

I don't see Target brand cotton swab's calling themselves Target Q-Tips. It's not the same, and if I were Thompson I'd put an end to this now! Even Phillips went after the RIAA for selling DRM'd CD's with the Audio CD Logo, since they didn't conform to the redbook standard.

Again, the TRUTH is that every Ipod and Every Play-for-Sure device out there *will* play MP3s.

Further, the Yahoo! music site doesn't use the word "mp3" but instead refers to "digital players." So next time RTFA.

PArdon me, it's now time for me to sign up for one year of service with YaaaHOOOOoohoooooo!

WMA or WMA?

[martijnd]

They are pretty much dead from the start. My old flash MP3 player supports WMA, so do my DVD players. The fine print is that they do not support any form of encrypted WMA files.

It must be the same for millions of similar devices out there in the "real" world. Imagine 70-90% of clueless first time Yahoo music users trying to figure out why their US$ 60 subscription downloaded WMA files just don't work at all....

I just hope they outsourced the helpdesk support because it will get busy.

Re:WMA or WMA?

[Sporkinum]

That is the key distinction. There are only a handful of devices that support the Janus DRM scheme. Basically Zen Micro, and the iRiver HD based players. The rest are cell phones with limited storage and portable video juke boxes. Standard music players that support WMA do not support Janus. So unless you are willing to buy another portable music player the music is going to stay glued to you r computer.

paying to not own the music

[coffeecan]

somehow the idea of paying $5 a month, even for unlimited downloads, is unappealing if i dont actuallly own the music. As much as I hate the nature of DRM at least Apple has come the close to drawing a balance between user control and "artists" rights. as fun as it might be to have unlimited access to music downloads I think the psycological barrier of not actually owning the music will keep most consumers out. At least with iTunes when you buy a song you allways have the option to burn an audio or Mp3 cd.

Re:paying to not own the music

[01000011011101000111]

Paying £3 (roughly converted) for unlimited downloads is unappealing because you can't keep a copy? Presumably in the same manner that paying £15 a month for unlimited SkyTv is unappealing bc you don't own a vcr and so can't keep a copy? (Not saying I find it attractive either, just pointing out how it could be to some people).

Re:paying to not own the music

[wodz Galopujacy Skle]

Look from another side... It's a kind of a radio station. You can listen to this, but you don't own it. The difference is you have much more stations here... What for keep all the files on your own disks if you can get them from the net every time you want.

Re:paying to not own the music

[damsa]

There is a bunch of people that subscribe to XM and Sirius and that costs more. Yahoo doesn't even need to launch a satelite, and people pay hundreds of dollars for Sat radio equipment. So with less start up costs, and lower monthly charges. I can see yahoo making some money.

Re:paying to not own the music

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, you don't "own" ANYTHING with iTunes either. You just get a different license (burnable to CD, not transferable to other PC).

Don't believe me? See what happens when you crash your hard drive.

Anyway, if you want the same rights as iTunes, Yahoo has that too (at $0.79/song).

To me, this is the best of both worlds; you can sample/download as many songs as you want for $5/month and if you find something you really like, you can buy that for $0.79 so that you can burn it on CD. AND you can download it to the latest WMA players.

Isn't choice supposed to be a good thing?

Re:paying to not own the music

[m50d]

The success of netflix suggests there are enough people who don't feel that way to provide a market. Personally, for that kind of price it's something I can justify - satellite radio isn't that much cheaper and doesn't let you choose which songs are played.

Re:paying to not own the music

[line.at.infinity]

I have SBC Yahoo DSL. First they give you a discount price for a year, then they jack up the price after that. When I called them about lower priced offers, they say I can get that only if I also get the $80+ per month phone service.

When Yahoo says they charge an introductory price of $5 per month the first year, that means they're going to charge you more after that. And since they're using MS Janus technology, if you don't renew your subscription for next year the software will delete all the songs you've acquired for the first year.

Re:paying to not own the music

[line.at.infinity]

He was saying that you don't own the songs with the $5 per month service because whenever your subscription expires, you lose the right to play. In this sense this is more like rental than owning the song.

Anyway, if you want the same rights as iTunes, Yahoo has that too (at $0.79/song).

From TFA (second article): "If you don't like the idea of subscribing to your music, you can rip CDs, play downloaded music, or even spend $0.99/track if you'd like."

Yahoo! Music Engine offers a 1M selection of songs, iTMS offers more than 1.5 million.

Re:paying to not own the music

[Genevish]

Netflix is very different from a music store. I usually watch a movie once and that's it. I don't care that I don't own the movie. I listen to music files multiple times (witness my awesome collection of 80's hair band music as proof...).

Re:paying to not own the music

[AlpineIpod]

If you could get high speed wireless internet access to your car anywhere, & you had a PC integrated, then maybe Yahoo is a better deal Over Sirius & XM. Problem is that there are NO head units that will play the Janus DRM'd WMA crap that Yahoo is flogging. Virtually everyone that subscribes to Satellite radio is primarily listening to it in a moving vehicle. It is a great solution for highway travel and for cities (ie. most) that have poor radio stations. Even if you batch downloaded a bunch of tracks from Yahoo music the night before your road trip, the DRM would prevent you from burning an MP3 CD or a regular CD that you could play in your car. The ONLY way your going to be able to play your Yahoo subscription music in your car is if you happen to own one of the handful of WMA portable players that carry the Microsoft Janus DRM and use a line level input or cheesy cassette/FM adaptor. I almost bought a XM tuner for my Alpine Head Unit here in Canada, but instead I bought a 60GB Ipod Photo with the Alpine Ipod connector kit. I now have access to all my music on my Ipod with full Head Unit Control. I can search by Artist, Playlist or Album and display all ID3 tag info all from the head unit in digital sound right from the Ipod which is locked safely away in my glove box. All my MP3's are 192K-320Kbps Variable Bit rate from tracks I own or download from Ubernet (www.ubernet.org). I refuse to be locked in to any service or have my music library obsoleted or deleted if my credit card should expire. The only guaranteed future proof (i.e. for the next 10 to 20 years) audio format is good old unprotected MP3. You can bet that any device that plays music will always play MP3 for the forseeable future.

Re:paying to not own the music

[KillShill]

you've hit the nail on the cranium.

no one on this blue planet of ours OWNS !any! music.

that's how it has been since campbell's primordial soup.

information can NEVER be owned.

it can only be artificially hoarded/boxed in/restricted/etc.

this is even more so in the age of "intellectual property" bullshit.

Re:paying to not own the music

[Mr2001]

At least with iTunes when you buy a song you allways have the option to burn an audio or Mp3 cd.

You can't burn MP3 CDs from iTunes songs unless you crack the DRM (either directly with Hymn/DeDRMS, or indirectly by burning an audio CD and re-ripping).

Re:paying to not own the music

[MetaPhyzx]

Please, you don't "own" ANYTHING with iTunes either. You just get a different license (burnable to CD, not transferable to other PC).

Don't believe me? See what happens when you crash your hard drive.

I don't have a problem with this: the titles I d/l with iTunes I backup en-masse to another media form. Long as I have my login and pass to authenticate the computer I play them on, it's been fine.

Anyway, if you want the same rights as iTunes, Yahoo has that too (at $0.79/song).

Lot of good that does me. I'm a Mac user. Yahoo doesn't support us.

To me, this is the best of both worlds; you can sample/download as many songs as you want for $5/month and if you find something you really like, you can buy that for $0.79 so that you can burn it on CD. AND you can download it to the latest WMA players.
Isn't choice supposed to be a good thing?

Ever try playing back Windows Media anything on a slightly older Mac? :P Oh wait, none of these sites support my OS. Where's the choice?

Re:paying to not own the music

[Chucker23N]

Except that Netflix is for motion pictures. The average person watches a movie a few times at most in your entire life.

A song, on the other hand? If you like it (and why else would you buy it, let alone an entire album from that band), you're going to listen to it something like once a month on average, if not several times a day in extreme cases. In other words, owning it pays off. Owning a movie only does for your favorite ones, and even then not to the same degree.

Re:192 KB/s WMA

[natrius]

That's the problem right there. When will someone wise up and give us lossless, reasonably-priced downloads? Until then I'll continue to use BitTorrent.

Stop trying to justify your copyright infringement. You don't care about paying anyone, or you'd just buy regular CDs and get your lossless music that way. You really don't understand how to get what you want as a consumer. You stop using the product until they give you what you want. Taking it without permission still perpetuates your reliance on their product.

There are artists who sell lossless, reasonably priced downloads. Put your money where your mouth is.

Will beat up Napster and Rhapsody

[Shivetya]

At the price point Yahoo is hitting I don't see how Napster and Rhapsody can compete. The only way for those two to survive Yahoo would be to have more music than Yahoo.

However iTunes is defintely not threatened. About the only way that that could happen is if the paid per song downloads (burnables) could be transformed into a form that iTunes can understand EASILY. If so you could sample any number of songs from Yahoo then burn those you want for .79 each. It really depends on how far the plug ins will be allowed to go. I would like that solution simply because the 30 second snippets from iTunes are not enough for some songs.

Yahoo is claiming over 1 million songs... this could be interesting. With a 7 day trial

OK reading further it appears that burnable music can be transfered to your iPod. Even more intersting

Re:Will beat up Napster and Rhapsody

[superpulpsicle]

Not so fast! I have been a subscriber of Napster AND Rhapsody service. Today I am still using Rhapsody because 50% of the songs on Napster are marked "BUY-ONLY" even if you have the full subscription. Yahoo is an unknown right now.

Oh.... and I haven't spent a penny on iTunes ever since I joined Rhapsody. So, iTunes is definitely threatened. I am speaking my experience, considering I have always put money where my mouth is.

Not a itunes competer ..

[busman]

but I'm sure it will take some market share from other subscription based services like http://www.listen.com/ for example.

iTunes is a different market, for different people.

Here is the developer's blog

[xintegerx]

Also known as insider marketing ;) http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-FDuiCSg4eqinB8z.GGJ 7TmAz?p=89

requirements

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

IE?
Latest service packs?

No Linux? No BSD? No MacOSX?

Competing for the majority desktop, yes, but with whom are the competing? malware?

Perhaps the idea is that if enough companies come out with stores that compete with iTunes, there will be some some of critical mass and some sort of chain reaction.

Heh. Chain reaction.

No, this is primarily to distract us from writing our congresspeople about realstinkingIDiotcards.

Not buy!

[littleghoti]

Quote:"If their DRM allows you to do everything you plan to do with the music, then buy it. Novel concept, eh?" I think you mean If their DRM allows you to do everything you plan to do with the music, then rent it. Novel concept, eh?

Re:Not buy!

[Gulthek]

Or it would be if all those people didn't have white earphones hanging out of their ears.

The white headphones make subscription services unattractive? Snap!

Re:Not buy!

[waynelorentz]

Or it would be if all those people didn't have white earphones hanging out of their ears.

You don't like the PlayStation Portable? I think it makes a fine MP3 player in those cold months when my clothing has large enough pockets.

Re:Not buy!

[rainmayun]

You never owned the music recordings before, anyway. All you owned was the plastic it was pressed/magnetized on.

No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[wazzzup]

$4.99 a month is great - really great. If I was running a platform that could play WMA I might even consider it but my Mac and my iPod won't play it. These format wars suck.

Aside from a non-compatible format, I can't stand the thought of all my music going away if I don't want to subscribe anymore. Yes, I can then decide to buy the music but then you're faced with "Okay, I want to stop my subscription and keep these 50 albums but I don't have $500 to lay out right now." Then what? Live without the music or take out a loan.

As a consumer of iTunes music, I am seriously considering going back to CD's so I get the full audio quality, the artwork and I can do whatever I want with it (i.e. send an mp3 to a friend 'hey, check these guys out - you might like them', etc.). While the iTunes DRM is fairly non-intrusive, I'm disliking DRM in any form more and more. I want my music for the long term. I want my kids to be able to play it 20 years from now if they want. I have zero guarantee of being able to do that with my iTunes DRMed music.

Subscription-based services practically guarantee I won't be able to do any of those things.

Who funds these things?

[natrius]

It must be nice to watch this battle over the niche WMA market unfold from the comfort of Cupertino. These subscription services are a disaster waiting to happen. The WMA market isn't large enough to sustain all the vendors out there. Once the first subscription service folds, everyone will stay far, far away from them. "I paid money every month for my music, then it all went away because they had a crappy business model." Tragic.

With Apple's model, there's no dependence on Apple's success for your music to play. You don't even have to depend on any specific hardware because you can burn it all to CD. $5 a month for the rest of my life for a huge library of music is an awesome deal. $5 a month for that library until the service folds and I'm left with no music isn't all that attractive.

Someone needs to point me to the venture capital firms that back things things (except in Yahoo's case). I have an idea for a company. I think I'm going to call it Webvan.

Re:Who funds these things?

[Kagami001]

$5 a month for the rest of my life for a huge library of music is an awesome deal. $5 a month for that library until the service folds and I'm left with no music isn't all that attractive.

I'd have to disagree with that, really. If a subscription service dies, you just switch to another one. You haven't lost anything because you never bought anything in the first place. The DRM'd files on the harddrive are just a temporary cache, not a "collection" to worry about backing up. This assumes, of course, that you don't find yourself forced to buy proprietary hardware for each individual service, in which case you'd lose that investment.
(Whether subscription based services are really a good deal or not is another matter entirely that varies significantly from person to person.)

Re:Who funds these things?

[natrius]

If a subscription service dies, you just switch to another one.

But if you jump on the bandwagon because of Yahoo's $5 a month deal, then you're screwed when you move to Napster's $15 a month. And if none of the subscription services succeed, that's a big wasted investment that could've been used on tangible music purchases.

The thing about buying music online is that it all has no resale value. The things we typically rent, like apartments and DVDs, all have resale values. Because of this, you can always find people wlling to rent these things. You're not going to wake up and find that nobody rents apartments anymore. It's property with an established business model behind it. When you choose to rent a house instead of buying one, you're assuming the continued availability of the house to rent as a factor in that decision. If that's going to go away, you might as well start making the investment in owning a house now.

With music, there's a chance that everyone will stop renting it. You have to have a large library in order for the service to be viable, and that takes a large investment. Any owner of the traditional things we rent can start renting it out at any time. Not so with music.

Another difference between music and traditional rented property is that we use music over and over. Renting movies makes sense: you typically only watch them once. If people stop renting the movie and you want to see it, it's not as big of a deal as if the music subscription services all shut down. You need a library with music, but for everything else we rent, you only really need one.

Subscription music services aren't a good idea to bet on until they've been firmly established.

Re:Who funds these things?

[jcr]

. These subscription services are a disaster waiting to happen.

I think it's worth noting that the subscription model had already failed when Apple launched the iTMS. Steve Jobs said at the introduction, that Apple had evaluated other business models, and that's why Apple didn't go the subscription route.

If customers wanted to rent music, I'm sure Apple would be just as happy to go that way. Either way, they'd be playing the music on an iPod.

-jcr

Re:Who funds these things?

[clontzman]

With Apple's model, there's no dependence on Apple's success for your music to play.

That's not at all true. If Apple goes out of business (or decides that the iTMS isn't worth running anymore), all they have to do is turn off your ability to activate iTunes and presto -- your music no worky.

(Yes, yes, you can burn them to CD, but only if iTunes lets you. Apple still has your pecker in their collective pocket.)

Re:Who funds these things?

[lidocaineus]

Run JHymn on all your freshly downloaded tracks from the iTMS. Presto - no DRM.

Re:Who funds these things?

[Heisenbug]

"I paid money every month for my music, then it all went away because they had a crappy business model." Tragic.

"I paid money every month for my electricity, then it all went away ..."

"I paid money every month for my water, then it all went away ..."

"I paid money every month for my cell phone, then it all went away ..."

You aren't paying money every month to buy music, any more than you're paying money every month to buy a cell tower. What you are paying for is the ability to listen to any of the tens of thousands of albums they own, instantly, from your computer. This is not a service that is free to provide, it's not a service that can be replaced by buying CDs, and it's not a service that they don't deserve to make a profit on.

If it's not a service you find useful, fine, but stop treating it like an alternative to buying CDs. It fills a totally different niche, and does it well at a fair price. I'd fund that.

Re:Who funds these things?

[Watts Martin]

The iTunes Music Store is a service, but the songs you buy are products. (These are defined in the license terms, in fact.) As far as I know, if Apple's HQ was hit by an iMeteor* tomorrow, nothing I've bought from the iTMS would stop working. It contacts Apple to "authorize" music when it's first copied onto a machine, but not to play it each time, which is a critical difference between iTMS and subscription-based services.

As is occasionally pointed out, if you don't like new changes in a new version of iTunes, the solution is: don't upgrade. You'll lose access to iTMS, more than likely, but not to any of the music you've bought with it.

I don't have a problem with making the occasional purchase from iTMS, but the chances are that I'd never sign up for a subscription service; the chances are that it wouldn't be worth it to me, and while I'm willing to put up with Apple's DRM-induced limitations, the subscription-based ones are too annoying for me. My main worry about DRM isn't its existence in itself, it's the drive on the part of media companies to try to limit non-DRM alternatives. I have no problem with "you can get this album for $10 as an immediate download with the following restrictions, or $15 on CD with no restrictions"; I do have a problem with "there is no way to get this album without restrictions, period."

Is it possible that Apple will change things and cross my annoyance threshold? Sure. But I don't see a very likely scenario where my (relatively few) purchases will stop working if I stop being an iTMS customer -- with Napster and Yahoo!, that's explicitly the case. People have pointed out that those stores can be used to purchase $1 tracks, too, with limitations closer to Apple's... but, of course, at that point, they lose to iTMS based on selection.

Ironically, having ordered good earphones for my iPod will probably make me more inclined to stick with CDs for ripping, less over DRM concerns than sound quality concerns.

Re:Who funds these things?

[DA-MAN]

You aren't paying money every month to buy music, any more than you're paying money every month to buy a cell tower. What you are paying for is the ability to listen to any of the tens of thousands of albums they own, instantly, from your computer. This is not a service that is free to provide, it's not a service that can be replaced by buying CDs, and it's not a service that they don't deserve to make a profit on.

Not one of the examples you listed are content. How about this one:

"I paid money every month for my cable, but when I cancelled my TiVo and VCR still had all the shows I had recorded!"

Oh no!

Re:Who funds these things?

[Durf]

"I paid money every month for my water, then it all went away ..." Well you should have kept a back-up of your water, then, shouldn't you.

Re:Who funds these things?

[Heisenbug]

What they are selling you, both in the case of cable and subscription music, is *streaming*. You pay, you get to stream music and listen to it.

If you want, you can buy a third party box that records the tv. If you want, you can run a third party application that records the audio stream to some kind of file. The cable company won't erase your VHS tapes, and the music streaming people won't erase your stream caps.

Forget the metaphors, though. Cable isn't as good as subscription music -- with Rhapsody, I have their entire catalog available for streaming instantly, for $100 a year. That's still a useful service, and it's still one that's reasonable to charge for.

Re:Who funds these things?

[DA-MAN]

What they are selling you, both in the case of cable and subscription music, is *streaming*. You pay, you get to stream music and listen to it.

Streaming is what porn sites do to keep you coming back. It ceased to be a stream when it ended up on my hard drive as a "file".

If you want, you can buy a third party box that records the tv. If you want, you can run a third party application that records the audio stream to some kind of file. The cable company won't erase your VHS tapes, and the music streaming people won't erase your stream caps.

My problem with that is that if I buy a VCR, I'm a regular consumer. If a capture the stream I can be prosecuted under the DMCA. To me the two are the same.

Forget the metaphors, though. Cable isn't as good as subscription music -- with Rhapsody, I have their entire catalog available for streaming instantly, for $100 a year. That's still a useful service, and it's still one that's reasonable to charge for.

To each his own. I'm glad you are happy with what you are recieving. I paid a premium for the iPod because it's the best at what it does!

How come we bash Apple?

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

Making apple cider?

You can get music anywhere. Apple competes with radios, CDs, antique tape decks, vinyl, not to mention mp3 and microsoft.

microsoft competes with, uhm, microsoft. and itty-bitty-teensy-weensy bit players like Linux and Apple.

And not praising wma to high heavens is somehow bashing microsoft?

iNTEL pentium 4

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

are flash players.

Hmm.

Re:192 KB/s WMA

[xiando]

Regular CDs are very bad for the environment. They are pure pollution. Think of future generations, do not buy DVD or CD media! And please do not encurage other people to contribute to the destruction of our planet by telling them to buy such immoral things. And the user did not encurage to justify copyright infrinement, most BitTorrent users are mature and more evolved than you apparently are, BitTorrent users generally only download the broad range of LEGAL torrents with artists who are sensible enough to release their music under a creative commons license -- generally they also do not download copyrighted music because they do not want to justify the facist-like MPAAs attempts at gaining more power.

So simple

[Anonymous Coward]

If you own something you really really like, and it happens to be popular, that doesn't feel wrong.

If you own something you hate and despise, but try as you might you can't find a reasonable alternative, that feels very wrong.

This is perfectly normal. Even ordinary people dislike Windows, but there isn't much choice a lot of the time. People adore their iPods.

Now, if we ever get to a point where people don't like their iPods and they are unhappy they can't move their music, then people will start complaining. This is probably inevitable, and will be messy.

Until then, people are happy. They are listening to their music. Happy people don't complain much. It's really that simple. So... fucking... simple. Dude, come on. How is that not obvious?

Re:"...songs will become unplayable..."

[natrius]

How does my portable player know my subscription has lapsed?

I'm not exactly sure about this, but I think if you don't connect the player to your computer within a certain time frame, the songs deactivate themselves. When you connect it to the computer, it checks your subscription and refreshes the time to live.

Kinda makes the "Plays For Sure" certification seem like a misnomer, no?

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[caddisfly]

"I want my kids to be able to play it 20 years from now if they want....."

You mean like your piano rolls, records (78s, 33s, 45s), 8 tracks, and soon cassettes and little farther out CDs? Although I guess for the right amount of money you can still get those devices...

I think device technology may be your biggest threat overtime rather than DRM. The crisis point is when version xx.x of itunes won't support the first generation of ipods!

radio

[Senor_Programmer]

lately i've been recording stuff i like off the radio. i don't have time to listen when the shows i like are on so record for listening while walking the dog or flying.

with all the good radio stations available via IP these days why rent recordings?

Also, people(context USA) have been recording broadcast programs for personal use for decades and nary a one has paid a fine or gone to jail...

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[NeMon'ess]

Plenty of people will keep buying music for themselves for decades. If it only costs them five bucks a month for all-they-can-eat, that's a great deal. If you stop paying, do you really think Yahoo will delete your list of songs? No. If you start paying again you'll be able to download them over again.

DRM is the future, you can't stop it. Your children in 20 years won't be able to buy plain old music CDs anymore because the RIAA won't release it unsecured like that. If they still sell physical media, they'll have changed the format over to something DRM'd.

At last! ...

[silverdr]

... something that makes me happily ditch the iPod along with all the GNU/Linux and OS X and rush to buy Windows!

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[quis]

I keep all my music on my computer as fairly high quality MP3s, but nearly all of the new music I acquire now comes from CDs, even though I have used iTunes in the past. Using eBay or Amazon Marketplace it sometimes half as much, and the CD becomes a backup as soon as I rip it. If I lose the file, I have no trouble ripping it again, and I always have a high quality copy of the album stored away.

It just seems like CDs are still win-win, whereas the only advantage online music stores have is that you get the music instantly.

Re:"...songs will become unplayable..."

[Snart Barfunz]

So, in the same way that Chinese manufacturers relesed cheap region-free DVD players, how long till they release cheap DRM-busiting audio players? After all, DRM is not going to sell well in their home market.

XSPF

[Swedentom]

What's also interesting is that the Music Engine supports XSPF, and open playlist standard. XSPF is not yet very widespread, but Yahoo's player has the potential to accomplish that.

See http://www.xspf.org/

*Confusing*

[LordPhantom]

Wait... 192 kbps... that you don't get to really keep.... Why, exactly, would anyone pay for that?
For once I'm amazed - Apple has "gotten" it more so than either of their competitors... now if you could just freely move the music about.

Re:*Confusing*

[jd nerd]

Agreed. The marketing of this service is atrocious. Yahoo! appears to be preying on unwitting consumers. Here is my favorite set of statements from the website. First, in flashy colors:

Share the love
* Explore and listen to others' collections & playlists using Yahoo! Messenger. Find music you didn't know you were looking for
* Send a song to other subscribers easily

[Great! Sounds like I have Aimster back.]

Then, in fine print:
Note: Yahoo! Music does not permit copying or transferring music files to other users.

Something I don't get

[michaeldot]

Everyone seems to be getting into downloadable music game (I half expect to see a headline announcing Google Music one of these days).

But is this a currently profitable market, or are they gambling on it being so in the future?

The last financial briefing of Apple Computer stated that they had achieved "about break even" for the quarter.

Break even? When iTunes is the currently the biggest thing around. Why even bother. Presumably for Apple, it's to provide a service to encourage more iPod sales with an easy way to fill them with music. But are the other services gambling on a future where many more people are buying downloads?

What if it's another dotcom, where everyone is jumping into the game, but the profits just don't eventuate...?

Re:Something I don't get

[cowscows]

Well, there will be a shakeout, somewhere down the road. And the majority of services will go under, or be bought out. That's how it usually works with any new business "game". The dotcom nonsense was really only unusual in the scale of it all. And realize that while lots of companies crashed and burned, and droves of people lost their jobs, there are still plenty of websites still around, and plenty of people who got rich.

But in the end, there will probably be a handful of big companies, making some decent profit, as well as a few smaller, more niche companies staying afloat. Same as usual.

Apple has big marketshare, and a good product, but they tend to be very specific and limited in the services they offer. This makes their stuff very consistent and nice, but requires them leave other parts of the market open. That's fine with them, they're willing to make that decision.

That decision means that there are other aspects to the market that are left open to other companies, and that's where all these other companies are aiming for. While there is definitely a good bit of overlap, I'm betting that if you talked with Steve Jobs for about it for a while, he'd probably say something to the effect of these subscription based companies not even being a direct competitor to iTMS. Apple evaluated the subscription music business and decided not to get into it. Because the iTMS sales model looked bigger and better to them.

There will be subscription music services in the future. Some of them will be profitable. Probably none of them will do business on the scale of the iTMS, or something with a similar sales model. But they will continue.

Re:Something I don't get

[Alsee]

I half expect to see a headline announcing Google Music one of these days

If Google Music:
You'd have to go to page 4 of the results to find anything other than Tittney Spears.

If Google Music:
You'd have to go to page 72 of results to find anything but top 40.

If Google Music:
Whenever you played a song you'd get a highly relevant text ad scrolling across the side of your player.

If Google Music:
If one of your songs was recently deleted you could just hit 'cashed' to play it anyway.

If Google Music:
There'd be a super secret page where you could just type in the name of 4 songs that all happen to use a harpsichord and mention an extinct animal in the lyrics, and you'd get back a SET of 15 other songs that also all happen to use a harpsichord and mention an extinct animal in the lyrics - but only you and 12 other people on earth would know that super secret page even exists.

If Google Music:
The first item on Microsoft's music service playlist would always be "Start Me Up", and the Microsft service would such so bad that even clueless aunt Bertha would switch to Google.

If Google Music:
You'd get 100 Gig of free online space so you never have to delete a song.

If Google Music:
You could type in 'Boheemian Rapsotee' and it will say:
Did you mean: Bohemian Rhapsody

If Google Music:
You could just type '5309' and hit 'I'm Feeling Lucky' to play Jenny 867-5309 by the Goo Goo Dolls

If Google Music:
In ordinary conversation people would start referring to what song a live band "Googled" instead of what song they played - and no one would think it odd.

-

Re:"...songs will become unplayable..."

[will_die]

Basiclly correct. yahoo is using microsoft's Janus digital rights management while handles this type of stuff.

Zero chance

[WindBourne]

DRM is not about control of the music as it pertains to customers giving it away. In the long haul, RIAA is trying hard to make sure that they control the paltform. Right now, their worst nightmare is that the music downright cheap to produce. In addition, the Internet is offering cheap PR/marketing. It is only a matter of time before the net wrest music production from RIAA/Labels and allows every musicians to own their own future.

Big deal (so far)

[jht]

So all this is really is a cheaper Napster. Whoopee. It's still separate per-track pricing if you want to buy burnable music, and it still only works with WMA-supporting devices. The one thing Yahoo brings to the table here seems to be the fairly easy plugin extensibility, but it's not for supporting other formats, it's more for "cool stuff".

So, in balance, it's a "nothing to see here, move along", but with the Yahoo brand name associated with it. No one WMA music store has been able to make a big splash so far, because of two things: the iPod rules the market at every price point, and thus far the market really is not terribly interested in subscription-based music - despite the endless efforts of the WMA-based companies and the music industry to convince us otherwise.

In the unlikely event that subscriptions start taking off, Apple'll just add it to iTMS, anyways. Short of a sudden overnight shift in consumer tastes, this Yahoo store will just be fighting for their piece of the 20% of the market that simply refuses to associate with anything Apple.

Re:Big deal (so far)

[KillShill]

wma-drm supporting devices far outstrip fairplay supporting devices.

Re:Big deal (so far)

[jimbolaya]

In number of brands and models, but not in number of units sold. Not by a long shot.

Re:Okay

[natrius]

As far as I'm concerned its like stealing money from a crack dealer.

No it's not. It's like stealing crack from a crack dealer. You're still fucking yourself over because a time will come when stealing crack isn't a viable option. You probably should've gone into rehab instead.

Shouldn't that be

[FidelCatsro]

Yahoo introduces competitor for Napster , as the main itunes crowd will be using it on a mac or windows with an iPod .
However this is in direct competition with napster who offer bassicaly the same service for more money

Re:Shouldn't that be

[adzoox]

What is often questioned by others here on slashdot - is actually a sustainable business model by Apple. By locking the iPod to iTunes ... Apple doesn't have to worry about competitors like this coming along. They also don't have to worry about companies like Walmart coming in and underpricing them.

The ONLY reason that iTunes is successful and therefore the iPod is because of this lock in.

Contrary to belief, it DOES promote competition - as evidence here. It's just that no one seems to be capable of creating a more user friendly total package than Apple.

Re:Shouldn't that be

[FidelCatsro]

I actualy got an ipod because of the quality of the machine and later occasionaly used itunes for some thins that i couldnt really get here. Most of my collection is mp3s i ripped from my own CDs and some vinlys so it worked out great for me .

My only complaint with the iPod is the lack of OGG support but that isn't too important for me as i don't belive mp3 is a restricted format here and i have the lame encoder. I really dont see why apple should be forced to start supporting another companys DRM format and by the nature of DRM(which i really dislike as a concept) it is comercial so any company wishing to use apples DRM in their player would have to pay royalties to apple or vice versa. Its a whole rather silly mess anyway all these variants of DRM not to mention DRM being a messy affair anyway

This is hardly competition

[ats-tech]

How is this competition to iTunes? This is just another subscription service. This too will pass.

2 services... the $4.99 per month is only one

[Kosmatos]

Don't forget the other aspect of the new Yahoo! Music stuff: Their player lets you buy music for $0.99 per track even if you aren't subscribed.

This competes directly with iTunes Music Store... but Apple's overall "solution" is nicer. And on one of their employees blogs (which is completely faked and scripted in my opinion) they pretty much say that if you have a Mac, you're just a loser... (that's the way I read it). What an attitude...

The blog: http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-FDuiCSg4eqinB8z.GGJ 7TmAz?p=89

Services using WMA are irrelevant

[Ath]

There is a real problem with Yahoo's model (and every other service that is building a WMA-based solution). Apple owns the online music distribution market, and not just by a little. They sell the primary device out there by such a huge margin that it leaves only a small part of the potential customer base who might buy a WMA-based service.

Make whatever you wish of it, but Apple is in no hurry to open up the iPod to other online music stores. The device works fine for users. It supports an online store and also the user's own music library through .mp3 and .m4a formats.

Until there is a change in market conditions that address the iPod's dominance, any store that uses WMA as its file format has an inherent flaw in its business model.

Re:Services using WMA are irrelevant

[NineNine]

The portable digital music market is in it's infancy. Apple will have it's loyal followers (disciples, more like it) forever, but once people start using digital music, Apple will be a moot point. Most people haven't even heard of the ipod, I'm willing to bet. Hell, and there are lots of people like me that were actually waiting for a low-cost alternative to the ipud.

Re:Services using WMA are irrelevant

[SomeOtherGuy]

" The portable digital music market is in it's infancy"

Ahh...That would have been true around 2001.

Bottom line -- everything from your walkman type device to your ipod type device to your DVD player to the in dash CD player in your car has been able to decode MP3's for a good while now. If you are going to start selling a service to provide content -- I would think it would be a good idea to provide content that these devices can play.

If I wanted to pick and choose content from these music stores like I would shop around between walmart, target, shop-ko -- I would have to have 3 or 4 different hardware players....and none of the content would work on my Walkman type device, my home DVD player or the CD player in my car. How stupid do they think we are. Give me a plain jane mp3 thank you.....at least then I can be sure that anything I plug it into will be able to play it.

Re:Services using WMA are irrelevant

[Ath]

Most people haven't even heard of the ipod, I'm willing to bet.

Boy, you are either on crack or live in a cave. A great majority of people are aware of the iPod. Go to NYC or Tokyo and you will see how much people are aware of it. You can throw out rhetoric like "Apple disciples" to explain it away, but you can bet that every other company trying to do business in the digital music player market knows exactly who Apple is. Eight million iPods sold in the last year and I can guarantee many of them were purchased by people who have never bought an Apple product before.

If you want to sell music content in the online world and cannot offer your product to iPod owners, then you are scrapping it out for a very small market.

Only time will tell whether Apple will continue to dominate the market, but they are the only ones who even have a chance now. These things snowball and the market leader has the best chance to stay the market leader. Apple sells the device and the content, and no other combination even comes close. Yahoo, Microsoft, Napster, Wal-Mart, and all the other players in the WMA market are fighting it out with each other. They aren't competing with Apple.

I also challenge anyone who claims the iPod is so much more expensive than other devices with comparable functionality, especially on the hard drive based players. There is a lot more variation on the flash devices, but the iRiver and Creative products are basically only a little cheaper and not enough to address the huge brand power that Apple has with the iPod.

Both WMA DRM and FairPlay are proprietary, so no one can suggest one or the other is a standard. When two proprietary offerings compete, then the market will decide which consumers want. If you think Apple is losing that war, then you should just stick it out in your cave.

No portable support for Win2k

[RogueGeek]

Installed it and got a nice little alert telling me that since I'm using Win2k that I won't have support for portable devices. And it force feeds you Yahoo Messenger and other useless yahoo services. I might play with it for a while longer, but I don't think it will be worth keeping.

Just out of curiosity.....

[Anonymous Coward]

If microsoft did make a version of Media player specifically for linux, does anyone think they'd get any credit for having done it?

I think its a no win situation for Microsoft in a niche market that more receptive of any solution so long as it's not Microsoft.

No Music Ownership, No Go

[Spencerian]

ITMS works because it (1) allows you to purchase music as you want it (2) satisfies most music companies' worries on casual electronic copying, and (3) leaves ownership of the music with the user once they decide not to use ITMS anymore. The cost of songs match the approximate value per song you'd get when buying the album at retail--in some cases, it's a better price.

Subscriptions revoke your ability to play your music. What kind of deal is that to be locked in to both a service and a format for play AND a compatible player that you hope may still be around in 3 years. A lot of us, in their effort in trying to find ITMS alternatives, are buying the music player equivalents of a 1980's TI-99 computer...eventually a standard will come to the music player and store format where two or three stores exist, all working under a dominant format.

Apple's competitors don't need to make something different, they need to make an identical service that is also iPod AND non-iPod compatible. It's obvious that Apple's scheme works. Why do anything else if that process works? Why DO these competitors not copy what ITMS does?

Re:No Music Ownership, No Go

[crazyeddie]

Apple's competitors don't need to make something different, they need to make an identical service that is also iPod AND non-iPod compatible. It's obvious that Apple's scheme works. Why do anything else if that process works? Why DO these competitors not copy what ITMS does?

Because Apple won't open up the format of their DRM or make the iPod's capable for other people's DRM. Other companies would love to get into the iPod, but it's Apple's sandbox, and no other kids are invited.

I love Apple, but I don't use ITMS and I don't have an iPod, for precisely the above reason.

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[Technician]

I want my kids to be able to play it 20 years from now if they want. I have zero guarantee of being able to do that with my iTunes DRMed music.

I know the feeling. I got a copy of "The Cinnamon Bear" from my dad who has it on Reel to Reel tape. I recently got a better copy off the internet (Public Domain) as MP3's. I'll pass them to my kids on an MP3 CD. None of the DRM stuff can be passed on. It dies when either your subscription dies or your hard drive dies.

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[agoos]

I agree.

I don't understand how anyone can be interested in this kind of "subscription" service. With the magazine subscriptions of the old days, you could keep your back issues near the toilet for reading forever and ever. This new kind of subscription would be like all your old magazines bursting into flames as soon as you decide you want to quit.

I would never allow myself to be locked-in to anything in this way.

How can pay per month survive?

[wls]

What prevents someone from getting a month worth of service and then downloading everything in sight, then canceling the service? You could listen to a lot before making a return trip.

Re:How can pay per month survive?

[adzoox]

Your files physically expire ... as in cease to work.

You must burn them to CD (which costs more to gain the priveledge)

Then, you won't be able to burn them back or rip them... the only method from that point (or straight from the beginning of the download) to get a non expiring DRMless file is to record it analog.

Re:How can pay per month survive?

[wls]

That's horrible. I retract the question!

Re:How can pay per month survive?

[Ed_1024]

Maybe I'm being incredibly dense here but what's stopping you filling up as many 100GB+ players as you need with as many tracks as you can download, then setting the date on all of them to Jan 1st 1990 and after that stopping your subscription?

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[FidelCatsro]

"DRM is the future, you can't stop it."

That is the exact attitude that will mean it is the future and it is unstopable . If we all realise that if we stop buying the DRM restricted stuff fairly soon it will disapear .
The only reason its gaining ground is because alot of people are just sitting back and accepting it as an inevatabilite

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[shutdown -p now]

Not as long as we still have allofmp3.com and similar. Which is probably quite a while - they're not likely to go away unless major political and economical changes happen in countries which host them.

Re:Any online download stores for NZers?

[Guardian of Terra]

allofmp3.com will surely suport you. Go there, register, pay, download your mp3s of whatever :) Been there, works.

XMRadio Alternative?

[Overzeetop]

Yes, yes, two totally different beasts...sort of.

There will be segment which doesn't/can't use Yahoo as a radio service. But many technophiles (which would probably include everyone under 25) would be able to do so if Yahoo made it "easy" for them.

With the proper software on each end, you could hook your DAP to you computer in the evening and sync to your "library" which would get a few extra tunes each day, based on your preferences (think iTunes, with a million song "local" library). The software transfers "enough" music to cover the day - you can d/l 2 to 24 hours onto a device pretty easily (Okay, the latter will require a 2G device) with a playlist or three. Now you've got one to three "favorite" channels, and you can skip the songs you don't like.

As you listen more, the YahooClient downloads extra songs to keep the mix fresh, and you can snag any extras you want. With a daily dock, you're golden.

Heck, if Yahoo were thinking, they'd consider adding some news to the mix - say Morning Edition. You can get that in a few seconds before you leave for the morning commute. It would get auto-loaded and set at the front of your playlist for the day.

Why might this work? $5/month vs $13/month. If you only listen to music, that looks like a bargain. Most folks only need 100 channels of music because they want to find the two or three they like. Heck, my wife has XM and she listens to only one channel. But its one that _she_ likes.

Re:Any online download stores for NZers?

[Guardian of Terra]

Of course I meant http://allofmp3.com/

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[agoos]

DRM is the future, you can't stop it. Your children in 20 years won't be able to buy plain old music CDs anymore because the RIAA won't release it unsecured like that. If they still sell physical media, they'll have changed the format over to something DRM'd.

I think this is a bit of a defeatist attitude. If the RIAA only released DRM'd media, I hope the world would have the sense to finally stop buying anything from the RIAA.

I think it's important during these times to remember that the potential energy of consumer actions can easily overpower the 'Big Five'.

Most of the music by those assholes is shitty compared to smaller labels, anyway.

Why worry about DRM?

[slot32]

Just buy the music on CD's and rip it yourself as MP3...

Why is this so hard to understand?

It cost about the same as iTunes anyway...

Re:Why worry about DRM?

[rokzy]

only if you want all the songs on the album and don't have to pay any transportation costs

Re:Why is this insightful? Its freaking DUMB

[Skye16]

We have that day every day.

:(

Re:Any online download stores for NZers?

[xiando]

This may have changed, but last time I checked allofmp3.com did NOT have the legal right to export and sell music to non-russian customers. Basically, "buying" from that site gives you the same legal rights as downloading from any peer to peer service. This may have changed since last I checked, to find out I clicked legal info on their site -- and the legal info is not available in English... that may give a clue as to the legal status of the content from there in English-speaking countries... ;-)

So What! Nothing has really changed.

[freshBlueO2]

Every since I've been introduced to allofmp3.org, I've learned some things.

1. Rhaposody, iTunes, Yahoo, etc, etc, They all use the exact, Third Party Database.

2. They are all 192 kbps WMA format. Poor quality and codec for the cost.

3. Why pay $0.79 - $0.99 for a single song. 1 min, 3 mins, is that really fair? Buying the CD only saves maybe $5 bucks. All at the cost of not getting art work, a cover, and half a lossly compression quality with a microsoft codec.

- That's why I prefer allofmp3.com.
1. They are a different database.

2. They supoort all formats for most songs:
codecs (Flac, Ogg, wma, mp3)
bitrate (full, static, variable, 256, 192, any)

3. You pay per megabyte, $0.02/mb to be exact. Much more fair. A full, lossless compression, no audio lossed song may cost around $1.00. Where a lesser quality song will be much much less, $0.04 - $1.00. I pay for the quality I want. Now I can get the full quality song minus the art, cover, case, and cd, for about a $5 savings. That's fair.

Re:So What! Nothing has really changed.

[jwind]

itunes is NOT WMA. I do agree that itunes should offer lossless audio formats such as FLAC but the very premise of this codec would make this impossible. FLAC stands for FREE lossless audio codec -- the key word eing free. It's an open source codec really.

Re:So What! Nothing has really changed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like someone else pointed out iTMS uses AAC at 128Kb. Unlike the other stores mentioned it does NOT use the same database. The others are based on Peter Gabriel-owned OD2, whereas Apple negotiates deals themselves. OD2 provides an entire catalogue that is ready to go.

Re:So What! Nothing has really changed.

[swiftstream]

Two points:

1) iTunes does not use 192kbps WMA. That's a minor nitpick, however.

2) allofmp3.com isn't really legal. Give the RIAA time, and they will figure out how to shut it down, even with Russia's uncooperative laws. Remember, last time they escaped merely on a legal technicality. They can't do that for ever...

Re:So What! Nothing has really changed.

[Alsee]

allofmp3.com isn't really legal

Why do you say that?

Remember, last time they escaped merely on a legal technicality.

Err, no. They "escaped" because Russian law explicitly and deliberately passed a statutory licensing law. I'd like to note that the US also has a variety of statutory licencing laws, and that without them the radio industry would immediately drop dead and even the RIAA itself would be breaking the law for selling a substantial number of the songs they currently sell.

I will admit that there appears to be a bug in the Russian law in that it does not properly address a critical class of copyright holders that it really should address, and therefore the prices at allofmp3.com are lower than they really should be. However there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with the general principal of allofmp3.com selling DRM-FREE MP3s (and any other format) while paying the proper statutory licencing fees to the copyright holders - and doing so without having to comply with any stupid RIAA demands and without needing to ask the RIAA's permission or needing to ask anyone's permission at all.

-

Yahoo vs. Apple?

[NineNine]

If you're comparing Yahoo against Apple, you should know that Yahoo is much more profitable, has much larget capitalization, and is in much more solid financial standing than Apple. If anything, you should worry about Apple folding, and then the ipod will be another (grossly overpriced) piece of plastic junk. Yahoo? WMA? They're here to stay.

Re:Yahoo vs. Apple?

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

-and you should know that not one word of what you said about Apple or Yahoo was correct.

Yahoo made $205 million net profit for q1 2005, and "excluding the fees that Yahoo pays to its advertising partners, revenues grew to $821m, up from $550m a year earlier."

Apple made $295 million net profit for q1 2005, and "saw sales of $3.49bn, compared to $2bn a year ago, a 75% increase," "the highest quarterly figures in its history and ahead of Wall Street expectations."

Apple is also a debt-free company, and has been since last year.

Based on that, I'd say Apple is much more profitable, has more market capitalization, and is in much more solid financial standing than Yahoo, but then again what do I know? I'm just quoting facts.

Re:Yahoo vs. Apple?

[the_2nd_coming]

you like spouting drivel that has no factual basis, don't you.

Re:Yahoo vs. Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on that, I'd say Apple is much more profitable, has more market capitalization, and is in much more solid financial standing than Yahoo, but then again what do I know? I'm just quoting facts.

Well you'd say wrong. As of writing this, Yahoo's market cap is around $47 billion, and Apple's is around $27 billion.

This difference in market cap is a result of the fact that Yahoo's profit has been growing far faster than Apple's, thanks to significantly higher margins, and the fact that Yahoo's current balance sheet shows a total equity of around $7 billion, compared to around $5 billion for Apple. Both companies have several billion in cash, cash equivalents and short term investments.

(Disclaimer: I own Yahoo stock)

Re:Yahoo vs. Apple?

[KillShill]

seeing as how the ipod market is dwarfed by the worldwide sales of normal portable digital music players, well you can see how yahoo might have a chance at a much bigger market.

not everyone has oodles of money to spend on ipod and itunes.

but of course, you'd never know that considering how much disposable money you have.

ipod does't playback any other drm formats than its own. so either you go with ipod+itunes or you go somewhere else.

and since no other online music service uses itunes' drm format...

Yahoo doing copyright infringement?

[R34L]

I hope Yahoo has contacted Craig @ http://www.flipflopflyin.com/
about the use of his excellent pixel characters.
that they use in the header at: http://music.yahoo.com/musicengine
or more precisely: http://a1568.g.akamai.net/7/1568/1600/7a67bdc80db3 8d/music.yahoo.com/musicengine/images/hdr_main_web _beta.jpg

well hopefully he got paid or something for it...

Re:Yahoo doing copyright infringement?

[R34L]

while looking at the top logo at yahoo music engine found here:
http://a1568.g.akamai.net/7/1568/1600/7a67bdc80db3 8d/music.yahoo.com/musicengine/images/hdr_main_web _beta.jpg

now check craigs stuff while leaving the window open for comparison:
http://www.flipflopflyin.com/minipops/mp_klf2.gif
http://www.flipflopflyin.com/minipops/mp_queen.gif
http://www.flipflopflyin.com/minipops/mp_tinaturne r.gif
http://www.flipflopflyin.com/minipops/mp_misteeq.g if
http://www.flipflopflyin.com/minipops/mp_libertine s.gif
there that should "prove" it for you...

Re:Yahoo doing copyright infringement?

[R34L]

Also forgot to mention, all this is found here:
http://www.flipflopflyin.com/minipops/index.html
use the menu on your right hand side to browse all his "minipops"

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[NeMon'ess]

Who is "we all"? Us 10 or 20 percent of the market? Why do you think "we all", even united, have enough influence to change mainstream America and RIAA's plans? This isn't techie LinuxWorld and us getting rid of bad writers, this is a thousand times bigger.

Re:Any online download stores for NZers?

[Guardian of Terra]

>This may have changed, but last time I checked allofmp3.com did NOT have the legal right to export and sell music to non-russian customers. "Legal right to upload file" is some new concept I am not aware of, sorry. It is fully legal in Russia, so it may only be made "kind-of illegal" by lobbysts, i guess.

It's all about convienience

[Danathar]

I used to buy songs off of itunes, but then I realized that I can buy just about ANY CD used for MUCH less off of Amazon. Plus the quality is going to be better than the compressed formats.

If you are willing to wait instead of the "I need it NOW" mentality, you can save yourself a ton of money and have music without DRM and at a better quality.

BUT...if you HAVE to have it NOW...then you have to put up with all of the BS that music download services shove...unless allofmp3.com has a flac version of what you need.....

Re:It's all about convienience

[cowscows]

Exactly. That's the tradeoff, plain and simple. And people are willing to make that tradeoff some of the time, so iTMS has been a success. There's been attempts by the recording companies to force some of those tradeoffs onto CD's, without giving the buyer the convenience in exchange, and there's been protest. It seems to me that the market is working reasonably well. I don't understand why there's so much complaining about DRM. Just speak with your dollars, it's that simple.

People go to Walmart even though they know it's destructive to their town's overall economy, and you have to deal with their crappy parking lots and boring stores. They deal with those inconveniences in exchange for lower prices. If you want a car with more comfort and features, then you pay more for it. That compromise exists in every transaction, and businesses fail or thrive depending on their ability to gauge and make those compromises.

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[NeMon'ess]

20 years perhaps before they're gone? Then the kiddies won't be able to share music with their children.

Potential vs Actual

[BobPaul]

The *potential* market for Apple computers is anyone looking for a computer (100%), and they get 5% of them. The potential market for Yahoo is 20%, and they will then get some fraction of that.

You make a very valid point, but why is the potential for Apple computers 100% when the potential for Yahoo is 20%?

Obviously I understand that the Apple iPod accounts for nearly 80% of the market that Yahoo is entering, but IBM compatibles account for much more than that in the market Apple computer competes.

Just as I would never consider a WMA based MP3 player at this time (I love my ipod, what can I say?) I would also never consider buying a mac. I only buy computers in part form, something Apple doesn't really facilitate.
--
Need Referals?
--
Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!

Re:Potential vs Actual

[BenjyD]

I was assuming that the market share of music players would be unaffected by the entrance of Yahoo to the market, of course.

My point was that somebody buying a new computer starts with the entire selection of computers on the market and then gradually excludes them until selecting the computer to buy. There may be other reasons for not buying an Apple (price, available software etc.), but basically everyone *could* buy one.

Somebody buying music online who owns an iPod will either immediately dismiss any WMA stores or go and buy a WMA player. Given the cost of an iPod and apparent loyalty of iPod owners (myself included), switching doesn't seem too likely to me. So, before any other factors are taken into account, 80% of the market is pretty much excluded.

Don't know if that makes much sense to anyone else...

Re:Potential vs Actual

[BobPaul]

I don't think that's true with people buying computers. I think most people who buy computers turn immediately to the Dell's and HP's, maybe a Gateway, or similar. Basically, they buy what PCMagazine tells them to, or stop into BestBuy (or similar) to browse the product, but never even consider a Mac.
--
Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!

Re:Potential vs Actual

[BenjyD]

Maybe. That's the problem with economics, it always assumes a rational consumer ;-)

Re:Potential vs Actual

[Princeofcups]

> Maybe. That's the problem with economics, it always assumes a rational consumer ;-)

And advertising assumes a stupid (er, uninformed) consumer.

jfs

Re:Potential vs Actual

[MBGMorden]

By that you're explaining the decision process by which most competitors are eliminated. This doesn't invalidate the original statement.

Apple gets 5% of all PC sales. That's a hard number that's already being acheived.

Assuming people buy stuff that will work on their portable player, Yahoo can only hope to reach 20% of customers. They'll never reach 100% of potential customers though, so it'll be more likely that they end up selling to more like 2% of the market (because they're going to have to compete with Buymusic.com, Napster, Wal-Mart Music, etc for that available 20%).

iBackup, do you?

[Cadre]

Plus Apple's delightful policy of "if your hard disk dies, you're free to buy all the music again!" Gee, thanks.

You know you are allowed to backup the music you download from iTMS? Apple encourages you to do it. In fact, they even make a utility "iBackup" that will do it for you! Though, I personally just use rsync myself.

Amazon is not going to give you new CDs if your car burns...

Re:iBackup, do you?

[Tim Browse]

You know you are allowed to backup the music you download from iTMS?

Yes. Very digital hub, I must say.

All the data I buy is stored on a massive set of central servers in a nice data-centre, but I still have to back stuff up myself?

Amazon is not going to give you new CDs if your car burns...

True. Or, in my case, get burgled.

But I'll still have the mp3s :-)

Re:iBackup, do you?

[Jearil]

But I think the point the grandparent is making is that you can backup iTunes music just as well as you can with a CD. You could burn a CD of what you've downloaded (at a bit of a quality loss), you could just copy the files to a DVD for archival.. you could transfer them to another computer... heck you can do anything you would do with your normal computer data for backup in the same way.

Now if you only downloaded the files from iTunes, never made a backup or copied the files anywhere, and your computer's hard drive died or was stolen, then yes.. you lose your music. Then again, if you never made mp3's of your CD's or copied them in any fashion and the CD got destroyed or stolen, you'd be SOL there too.

So I really don't see how CD's are better in the whole backup area.

Re:iBackup, do you?

[Tim Browse]

Well, perhaps, but my point is, consider these two percentages:

X = Percentage of people who listen to music on their computer, and have ripped their CDs to mp3 (or aac/ogg/whatever).

Y = Percentage of people who buy music from iTMS, and ever back up that music. Ever. Or, come to that, anything on their computer. Ever. At all. Like, ever.

I posit that X is orders of magnitude larger than Y.

You might (correctly) argue that that's the user's own fault, but I thought it would be part of Apple's approach to recognise "Hey, 99% of people never back up their stuff. We can trivially and very cheaply provide them with a backup service of what is probably their largest set of data, their digital music*. So why don't we do that, and save our customers a ton of inconvenience?"

I'm not saying it's a requirement, I just find it odd that Apple don't do it.

By way of example, Valve's much maligned Steam system does this. I can go to a virgin PC, install Steam, log in with my account, and Steam will ask me if I want my games on this PC. If I say yes, then a day later (it's a lot of data) I have Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Counterstrike, etc.

And as for iTMS again, people have already been caught out by losing their digital music, and I don't think it's unreasonable for them to expect to be able to re-download DRM'd songs that they already paid for. They bought them, Apple know who they are - why can't they download them again?

For example, I've bought a few tracks from iTMS, and I don't ever remember being told or reminded to back them up. For people who buy into Apple's "It just works" mantra, this could well be a nasty surprise waiting to happen.

In summary, yes, people can back up their music. I predict that they won't, though.

* Assuming they they bought it from iTMS

Re:iBackup, do you?

[anothergene]

Plus Apple's delightful policy of "if your hard disk dies, you're free to buy all the music again!" Gee, thanks.


Your insurance should cover the loss of CD's. It might not be worth it unless you lose your whole collection of hundreds of CDs, but it will cover it.

That begs the question... I wonder if it would cover the loss of downloaded music if your hard drive crashed and you say lost $2000 in music? The equivalent of about 133 CDs at $15 each.

Re:iBackup, do you?

[anothergene]

You might (correctly) argue that that's the user's own fault, but I thought it would be part of Apple's approach to recognise "Hey, 99% of people never back up their stuff. We can trivially and very cheaply provide them with a backup service of what is probably their largest set of data, their digital music*. So why don't we do that, and save our customers a ton of inconvenience?"


Liability is one good reason. Well not good, but realistic.

The same reason you can't walk back into your local HMV and say "Someone stole my CD's. Here's my receipt. Give me a new one."

Some one steals you Apple ID and password, logs in on their own computer and downloads all the music you've bought.

Quite possibly the RIAA won't let them.

Shall I keep going?


I've bought a few tracks from iTMS, and I don't ever remember being told or reminded to back them up


I believe there is a pop up window that warns you about this every time you purchase until you check off the "don't warn me any more" box.

At some point, you have to be responsible for your own actions... or inactions as it maybe more appropriate in this case. Some people just have to learn the hard way.

Lower profit margins?

[ShatteredDream]

You have the fees for the record labels, $.30 + 1.5-3.0% for credit card processing and then it's a grand total of $5.00 a month. Add in that they don't provide it to sell hardware and you have a much smaller operation than what Apple has.

yahoo is boring

[peter303]

Their business strategy is to copy whatever Google or Apple do. ALmost the same as MicroSoft's strategy.

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[Gulthek]

DRM is the future, you can't stop it. Your children in 20 years won't be able to buy plain old music CDs anymore because the RIAA won't release it unsecured like that.

Then, much like now, the RIAA won't get a dime of my money. There are a lot of extremely talented independent artists out there. Try CD Baby.

Another music store

[fr0dicus]

Who on earth green lights these doomed projects? I'll tell you: someone who's probably already thinking about his next job.

Google??

[HaydnH]

So when do we get GoolgeTunes??

Yahoo! is on to something here

[amichalo]

To compete with anybody, you have to create market advantage. Going it on Price alone is pretty tough unless you price is REALLY low.

Yahoo! has combined several elements that make this subscription service worth the price of two cups of Coffee at Starbucks:
- Low price that undercuts competition by 50% +
- $0.79 song burn ability.
- Build your own/120 pre-built radio stations that stream commercial free music to your desktop (look out XM/Sirus?)
- plugins for Instant Messenger and other applications that allow you to recommend songs to friends
- Decent 1M song catalog to choose from (though 33% smaller than Apple's 1.5M - too bad)

Yahoo! obviously looked at the landscape and said "we can't be on the iPod and we have to use WMA DRM, so how can we offer something competetive based on what exists today?"

Now, I don't think Yahoo! is going to get the volumes to make this service profitable since $0.99 downloads don't leave much margin for, well, margin. But the service just might put pressure on Apple to release their own subscription service. And that would be a good thing.

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[FidelCatsro]

We can do it im sure , It just takes us infroming our family and freinds and persuading them that it is a dangeour to our rights .
Im not talking just the USA im talking the whole world .
This in essence is a tech problem and who do they come to when they have a tech problem ..us .
I didnt mean to sound rude i apoligise for that , I just think we can fight it .
I will continue to opose it till the bitter end ,even if victory for them is inevatable , then i and hopefully many others will not make it easy for them.
Perhaps we can succed ,stranger things have happend

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[Junior Samples]

$4.99 a month is great - really great. If I was running a platform that could play WMA I might even consider it but my Mac and my iPod won't play it. These format wars suck.

Give it a week or two. DVD Jon will most likely release a solution.

Why does everybody forget that Apple has DRM too?

[alexislashdot]

I have never seen people complaining about the Apple DRM, yet everytime when somebody else is using DRM everybody screams like hell.

I also don't understand the iPod fashion. For me is the other way. If everybody has an iPod I'd rather buy something else. There are devices out there that even they may not be as good as iPod they are so close that it does not matter.

As for now the Yahoo subscription is by far the best way to fill my device with music. Hey, it even works with my cell phone (Audiovox SMT5600) :)

Different story about this yesterday

[calethix]

I saw a story about this on yahoo last night (can't find it now but I think I have the link at home).

I thought that once said it was 6.99 per month or $60 annualy (didn't mention the 4.99 price) and it also said something about the files expiring after a month so you would have to renew them.

It sounded like a really crappy deal compared to how it comes off in this article.

Did anyone else see that or was I just halucinating?

Re:Different story about this yesterday

[mandrake*rpgdx]

They don't really *expire*. The 5.99 a month is for, basically, and internet jukebox (which is a pretty cool idea). You can also download a permanant non-DRM'd copy you can do whatever you damn well please with for 79 cents. Anything. And in whatever format you want. This is actually a really damn good idea.

Re:Different story about this yesterday

[calethix]

That sounds like a good deal then. I haven't used iTunes or anything else before so I don't really know all the specifics of how some parts work.

I can't find the article I saw yesterday, just a quote from it. So maybe it was poorly written/misleading and has been corrected.

Apple Is No Microsoft

[John Nowak]

This idea that Apple is behaving like Microsoft by not supporting WMA playback is insane. Microsoft were the ones that ran off can came up with their own proprietary format in the first place! Apple is supporting the playback of open standards (mp4) and the most common format out there (mp3). How shocking that they do not support the proprietary format their competitor came up with for the sake of screwing them!

Re:Apple Is No Microsoft

[amliebsch]

Fairplay DRM is proprietary, and, unlike Microsoft with WMA, Apple refuses to license it at any price.

Re:Apple Is No Microsoft

[Xyde]

That's not true, they licensed it to Motorola for their cell phones.

Two Questions - XP, IPod

[Carcass666]

Does Yahoo's service require XP in order to do a transfer to portable devices? I am still on Windows 2000 for gaming and such, and do not want to "upgrade" to XP (I know better than to ask if they have Linux support - sigh)

I read that it doesn't support buying tracks and transferring them to an iPod, which is odd. Does anybody know if this will change?

You have a CHOICE PEOPLE!!!

[SeattleGameboy]

I don't know why people are getting so hung up on DRM thing. Listen up people!!! You have CHOICES!!!

There are 3 primary (legal) ways to get your music now.

1. Buy a CD

Pro: This is the most flexible option. You can burn as many times as you want, get the highest quality sound, nice storage format (CD's are nice and thin and you can fit thousands on a bookshelf), etc.

Con: This is also the most expensive method, especially when you count all the bad tracks on a typical album.

2. Buy a permanent download license for a digital track

Pro: You can burn to a CD (which you can turn into MP3). Your license does not go away as long as your PC does not go away. Download to select portable devices.

Con: Not as high fidelity as CD. Per song price is not better than a CD, if you lose your license somehow, it is good as dead.

3. Get a subscriptioni license for a digital track

Pro: Cheapest by FAR (per song)! Can download to select WMA portable devices.

Con: Not as high fidelity as CD. Your license goes away if you end your service.

Just choose whatever fits you best. What is wrong with that?

Re:You have a CHOICE PEOPLE!!!

[salmacis2]

Except that people are grousing about the 4th - unavailable option:
4. Download a high-quality MP3 or lossless track with no DRM.

Why should this option not be available unless you want to use the (slightly dodgy) allofmp3 or a service with artists you've never heard of?

How can DRM be the sticking point when the major labels are quite happy to sell me a CD with no DRM on it? It's not like ripping a CD is even slightly complicated. Put it in the drive and it's practically automatic.

I have no intention of downloading music with DRM - EVER. I don't care how "friendly" that DRM might be. As far as I'm concerned, even the restrictions from iTunes sound like a right royal pain in the ass. Since I discovered Amazon marketplace, it's not even the case that CDs are necessarily the expensive option. My last album cost 0.19p (plus £1.25 P+P)!

Re:You have a CHOICE PEOPLE!!!

[SeattleGameboy]

If ripping a CD is not even slightly complicated, then what is your complaint? Just buy the CD's and rip them yourself to a format/bit rate you want. Why would you want the labels to dictate what format/bit rate, unless you are looking for convenience? AllofMP3 is not legal (at least in this country).

Re:You have a CHOICE PEOPLE!!!

[Winterblink]

There's nothing wrong with that. In my opinion, while this isn't a direct competition to iTunes (doesn't work with the iPod, different model overall), it does add competition to the online sales of music as a whole. The best part about that is, I could easily see Apple adopting similar subscription models in the future, in addition to their "pay once and own the file" method now.

Re:You have a CHOICE PEOPLE!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

#1: I have to buy an entire CD worth of crap to find a few good songs I might like. No thanks.
#2: My music library completely dies if I buy a new computer. No thanks.
#3: My music library completely dies if I stop paying ransom. No thanks.

Why can't I get unrestricted mp3 format music that I can move to and from any device I wish? As you would say, What is wrong with that?

Re:You have a CHOICE PEOPLE!!!

[Have Blue]

Per song price is not better than a CD

This is not always true. Most albums on the ITMS are $9.99, including many with more than 10 tracks. This is generally cheaper than retail CDs (but not used CDs).

And, of course, if you're only buying one song, it's a much better value than a CD full of music you don't want.

Re:You have a CHOICE PEOPLE!!!

[DennisZeMenace]

Let's see. I'm a Linux user. I therefore have only 2 options.

1. Buy CDs

Not practical, extremely limited choice. Used CD stores are usually the best.

2. Steal music.

I'll keep doing 2 thank you, no choice here. This is what happens when a handful of large companies have absolute control over how CULTURE is "distributed" to the masses without government intervention.

DZM

Re:You have a CHOICE PEOPLE!!!

[Ripley29]

1. Buy a CD

Pro: This is the most flexible option. You can burn as many times as you want, get the highest quality sound, nice storage format (CD's are nice and thin and you can fit thousands on a bookshelf), etc.

Con: This is also the most expensive method, especially when you count all the bad tracks on a typical album.

Whoa. Not so fast. That may be a true statement in the U.S today. If major music distributors such as EMI have their way, number 1 will read like this in the next few years (Like it does today in Canada and Europe):

1. Buy a CD

Pro: Get the highest quality sound, well, as long as you're playing it on a stand-alone CD player. Play it on your PC, and you're stuck with a very lossy version of the songs you paid for, and a barely working proprietary player. Nice storage format (CD's are nice and thin and you can fit thousands on a bookshelf). (Can't argue with this one.. They are nice and thin ;) ).

Con: You are not allowed to burn a CD because of Copy Protection methods employed as soon as you put the CD in your CD-ROM drive. You are assumed to be a criminal the minute you purchase a Copy-Protected CD. This is also the most expensive method, especially when you count all the bad tracks on a typical album.

-Ripley 29

Re:You have a CHOICE PEOPLE!!!

[DavidLeblond]

Whoa. Not so fast. That may be a true statement in the U.S today. If major music distributors such as EMI have their way, number 1 will read like this in the next few years

I think it'll happen sooner than a few years. I noticed at Target the new Dave Matthews CD is DRMed.

Re:You have a CHOICE PEOPLE!!!

[NickFortune]

4. Boycott the whole corrupt system, wait for the entire rancid industry to collapse under its own weight and encourage the fair and eqitable systems that emerge, after the anti-competetive pressure groups finally dry up and blow away because everyone has stopped buying their dreadful, overpriced, no-choice records.

OK. it may never happen, and probably not like that if it does. But it's worked for me thus far, and I like it much, much, much better than 1 through 3.

Like you say, we have options.

Bullocks.

[AkaXakA]

iRiver's players are top quality and have superior sound. This comes from personal testing (iMP-400 & H10) and from reading the main tech forums.

what about a plugin...

[enjahova]

What about a plugin that rips off the DRM and converts your songs automatically into mp3.
I dont know much about the different DRM schemes and formats (id like to, any resources?)

I know this isnt the most legal or ethical thing, but how will they account for this?

Hmm unless I just havnt heard about it I guess no other download service has really been hit by this, but they also dont support plugins that would make it easy to automatically convert the users whole library from within the program.

Any Drm is crackable

[gratuit]

worse comes to worse, just record the voltages coming off your sound card, put it in a .wav file and encode that with codec of your choice.

Re:Any Drm is crackable

[Guardian of Terra]

Even trickier, write a driver that just writes samples back to hdd. For people who dislike hardware :)

Re:Any Drm is crackable

[Creepy Crawler]

My SB live has that "feature" he heh heh heh..

Re:Any Drm is crackable

[xpl_the_myst]

This is impossible with the kind of DRM WMA allows. Essentially the only way to use such a driver is to get Microsoft to sign it.

The only route is to use a high fidelity device to record stuff from your audio output.

Re:Any Drm is crackable

[Guardian of Terra]

So if i have an unsigned driver, music just would not play? I suggest i will be stuck with linux and allofmp3. And, you can always crack that provided you don't have palladium-like hardware part, that is. Just some driver layer hacking, and you get that.

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[Dragoon412]

DRM is the future, you can't stop it. Your children in 20 years won't be able to buy plain old music CDs anymore because the RIAA won't release it unsecured like that. If they still sell physical media, they'll have changed the format over to something DRM'd.

Defeating DRM is also the future.

This is a war the RIAA and its ilk can't possibly hope to win. With the increasing saturation of high-tech devices, people are forced to adapt and becoming increasingly competant with technology.

By the time we hit the point where Joe User knows how to find DRM-defeating applications, what hope do the DRM purveyors possibly have?

I have to ask this

[LWATCDR]

Is there a Linux version?
Will it run under Wine?
What about a version for the Mac?
I use a Linux desktop at home and I try to avoid software that ONLY works on one OS.

Re:I have to ask this

[iancr]

Questions that are all covered (except for the Wine question, haven't tried) in my blog post:

http://www.fistfulayen.com/

ian

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

UK Support..

[windowsanon]

has anyone managed to signup to this who is in the UK?

Owning vs. renting

[AIXadmin]

I would rather get locked into iTunes and own the music. Then get locked into Yahoo and rent the music.

You really shouldn't have to log into Yahoo...

[lpangelrob2]

...for this relatively biased blog entry. He's the developer, though, so hey, I'll give him a break.

FWIW, I don't care if people label me a karma whore, and I'm in the "I own a Mac [you insensitive clod]!" segment of "Reasons why not to use Y! media player" below. I highly doubt Yahoo! could duplicate the existing ease-of-use between applications on the Apple platform anyway and still have it be worth their time and money.

Also, while iTunes was an obvious, admitted ploy to sell Apple hardware... it did work, didn't it? :-)

--crap lameness filter--crap lameness filter--crap lameness filter--pretend this is a separator--

While Yahoo! embarks on a proper marketing and PR campaign (shouts out to Liz and Charlene), I thought I'd give you (friends, family, fellow geeks) the real story, human to human, on why you should (or shouldn't) use the new Yahoo! Music Engine.

FWIW, my name is Ian Rogers. I used to work with Beastie Boys, for their record label Grand Royal, at Nullsoft (where Justin and Tom made Winamp, SHOUTcast, and Gnutella), and most recently had a very small company called Mediacode with my main man Rob Lord (who started IUMA and brought Nullsoft up with Justin). We sold Mediacode to Yahoo! in Dec 2003 and Y! has had us in a cave ever since building the Yahoo! Music Engine and some other stuff we can't tell you about yet.

But down to the reason you're reading this. I'm asking you to ditch Windows Media Player (aka WiMP, sorry John, Mark), Winamp (pour out a little liquor), iTunes (sorry Chris and Steve G), MusicMatch (apologies to my new brothers and sisters), Rhapsody (you were my first for-pay love, ya tramp), and Napster (THROW ANOTHER STACK OF BENJAMINS ON THE FIRE!), and use Yahoo! Music Engine instead. (If you're using Foobar2000, keep on, brother man, I ain't going to war with y'all purists.)

Here's why you should switch to the Yahoo! Music Engine:

For the Friends/Family:

* PRICE! $5/month subscription service with subscription downloads (transfer your downloads to your subscription-capable device). Yes, this is the same set of features that Napster is charging you $15 for. This is what they call an "introductory price", kids. Buy a year now. I'm not kidding. It ain't going any lower than this, maybe ever. Buy now or regret missing out on the cheapest year of (legal) all-you-can-eat music ever in your life.
* Personalization! I dunno about you, but ALL the other music services and stores seem incapable of showing me music I actually want without me searching for it. Our pages are PERSONALIZED TO YOUR MUSIC TASTE. The front page for me at the moment contains The Fall, Muddy Waters, Stevie Wonder, Television, and Clikatat Ikatowi. If you know me, you know they're doing pretty damn good.
* CHOICE! If you don't like the idea of subscribing to your music, you can rip CDs, play downloaded music, or even spend $0.99/track if you'd like. Whatever your preference, we make it work. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING TO HAVE FUN WITH OUR PLAYER.
* Community! AOL has the most popular instant message program and not one of their 500 media apps takes advantage of it! LAMERS! Ours allows you to LISTEN TO MUSIC FROM YOUR FRIENDS via Yahoo! Messenger! LEGALLY! YOU HEARD ME! Also, you can find users with tastes similar to you, view their collections, instant message them, whateva. Rad.
* iPod support!Kinda! We support the iPod to the extent that Apple will let us -- which means we support transfer of non-DRM tracks (your ripped and "imported" content) to the iPod.
* Huge catalog of the highest quality files of any paid service. Our subscription service and download store spits out dual-pass 192kbps WMA files. They sound hearty, even in my living room. And, there's LOTS of them. Music everywhere I turn. From mainstream to obscure. 1M tracks and counting. Shatner! Fela! The Germs!
* Free, fast, MP3 (even high bitrates), AAC, Ogg, and FLAC encoding. We support the widest variety o

Re:You really shouldn't have to log into Yahoo...

[iancr]

Hey thanks. I didn't realize you had to login to see my blog post. That's pretty lame. I have it set to view by "everyone". Guess that means "everyone with a Yahoo! login". Thanks for posting. Spread it as far as you'd like. ian

Re:You really shouldn't have to log into Yahoo...

[iancr]

Here ya go, I made it available on my other weblog, for those who don't have a Yahoo! login.

http://www.fistfulayen.com/

ian

Re:You really shouldn't have to log into Yahoo...

[lpangelrob2]

No problem... now that I've gotten my first impressions out of the way... it's time for the questions. Not towards you specifically, just for discussion. (I haven't DLed the app because I have no speakers at work... that would be pretty pointless.)

Plugins - Mozilla calls them "extensions"... I call them "underutilized"... but it seemed to be labeled a major selling point. How does it compare with Winamp?

Price - Since the $5.99 / mo is introductory for a year, what's the real price? Is it $9.99 / mo? It's hard not to interpret that as a profit tax later on after users have been hooked on the service.

Speed - I'm gonna rag on the awful Windows Media Player for this one, but everyone I know that still has Windows uses it... is it faster?

Overall, even though I can't use it, the more people stop using Windows Media Player for anything else, the better.

Re:You really shouldn't have to log into Yahoo...

[iancr]

Hi Rob.

The plugins are quite a bit different from what was possible with Winamp. They're really meant to build services into the app, so they have access to the playlist engine, etc, rather than the audio stream.

To be honest I'm not sure how the price will change. If you buy at $4.99 for a year now, you're guaranteed a year at that price. Some outlets are reporting a likely surcharge for portability eventually. Not sure.

We're certainly not the fastest in every way, but with a well-written 6MB download-size, no MFC, ATL, or GDI+, we're not bloated, either. For an app that does what we do, the performance is quite good. For the most part we're bound by the network and the DLLs we work with, not the speed of the app.

ian

Re:You really shouldn't have to log into Yahoo...

[salmacis2]

Christ, he's annoying.

Re:You really shouldn't have to log into Yahoo...

[dangitman]

Wow, what an amazingly arrogant and condescending article, that tries to shill propriety software, while appealing to "Linux kewl" and trying to say "we do it, because we care about you, dear user," at the same time as attacking users.

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[Lysol]

Aside from a non-compatible format, I can't stand the thought of all my music going away if I don't want to subscribe anymore.

Exactly. The thing I don't like about these 'leasing' services is they're basically radio, except you can pick the songs. This tends to be fine for those who buy a cd and a month later trade it in (at a loss mind you), but nowadays with digital music, there's no reason to do that anymore. And Yahoo's radio stations are very unappealing to me. I stopped listening to radio years ago because it's just pumped with the same crap that the labels wanna push out the door as quick as possible so they can recoup their 'investment'. Not only that, there are, literally, 1000's of internet radio stations worldwide that do a much better job. Traditional music radio's days of intersting and useful have been over for quite some time.

I want my music for the long term. I want my kids to be able to play it 20 years from now if they want.

That's what JHymn is for. 'Nuff said.

I actually own my music. I'm not worried about its life (aside from making sure I have a backup) and I'll have it 5,10, probably 20 years down the road. There's a great server project for mp3 & m4a files called mt-daapd. I simply copied all my music off to an external firewire hd. Plug that into my fedora server running mt-daapd. Tell mt-daapd where to look for the files and any default playlists to provide to anyone on my network. And that's it. Right now, I'm pretty sure daapd is a iTunes only thing, but you can rest assured that there will be various open source music clients that will support it in the future. Some probably do already.

This coupled with a great lil util called OurTunes allows any friends or relatives who come over to be able to 'borrow' anything from my server. It's a really useful tool.

So you still have options. You just have to consider them and most people don't which is why they complain or stall or whatever. I personally don't give in to the M$ WMA tools as pretty much all of them suck. They're focused more around control and ownership vs. the Apple stuff was about music first and then the DRM stuff second. But then again, that's typical of the M$ way of thinking. Sure, no one likes DRM, but if there's a way around it (which there will probably always be), then fine.

-----
Always another way.

What's with this WMA crap?

[Amiasian]

The problem with these WMA look-a-likes is that not one of them has the necessary branding. They spring up each day and the more that come up, the less visibility each individual WMA shop gets. Who'd want to compete in a saturated market which, so far, has proven to be a break-even proposition at best?

People complain about Apple not supporting WMA; however, the logic of doing so is non-existent for them. WMA's a bit player in the market today. People download songs, illegally, in MP3. WMA stores pretend they're selling MP3. It's the de facto standard for audio compression. In the legal sphere, all WMA stores combined haven't held a candle to iTMS.

Yet people still think it'll work? It makes absolutely no sense. If I were someone going to sell music, I'd work at encouraging the other players to support AAC. WMA's a sick horse that needs to be shot in the head, nine times. AAC is a non-proprietary format and it's the logical evolution from where MP3 left off.

I really doubt these companies are bristling with idiots. Microsoft must be paying quite a bit to get them to go along with this. That's my only guess as to why WMA's the tried-and-failed format for these clone stores.

Re:What's with this WMA crap?

[amliebsch]

That's my only guess as to why WMA's the tried-and-failed format for these clone stores.

No, the reason is that WMA is the only really viable and inexpensive DRM scheme that's available, since Apple refuses to license Fairplay+AAC at any price. Key point: AAC and WMA are not direct substitutes, because AAC by itself has no DRM.

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[Have Blue]

That can be a deal-maker sometimes. If I get a hankering for a certain song I remember one day, it can be coming out of my speakers in under a minute. Going to a physical store takes at least 20 minutes depending on your location, and shipping from an online retailer takes at least a day. I'd never even considered impulse purchases of music before the ITMS lowered the barrier this far, and that's not even addressing the cost argument.

The only CDs I buy any more are ones that I've discovered are not listed on the ITMS (yet).

1Million songs + Plug-in Architechure

[Johnny Mozzarella]

This begs two questions

1) How long till some industrious chap writes a plug-in that will strip the DRM, convert to AAC and sync it with an iPod?

2) How soon can Apple make an iPod that holds Yahoo's 1 Million songs?

Introductory Price... heh

[hexix]

PRICE! $5/month subscription service with subscription downloads (transfer your downloads to your subscription-capable device). Yes, this is the same set of features that Napster is charging you $15 for. This is what they call an "introductory price", kids. Buy a year now.

For someone who is talking "human to human" this is laying the marketing on pretty thick. I find it funny that it's a subscription service, and your music will not work without the subscription (right?). This Ian guy says, as if this is a great reason to sign up, that the 5 dollars a month is an introductory price. So once you buy all those shiny cool WMA files, they'll jack up the price and you'll have to pay more if you want to keep listening to them.

Or am I wrong, and you can burn these to CD?

I also found it funny that he dismisses all the other music store programs out there as a way for the companies who own them to just sell you something. Well, yeah. And Yahoo is just selling something too. And if iTunes is little more than a way to "sell you a utlity," how come I use it and like it and don't own an ipod? Also, how come if he has this opinion of iTunes the Yahoo player looks like little more than iTunes drawn with purple crayons?

Personally, I'm getting a little sick of the iTunes is bad because it locks you in to Apple. So let's go to a different music store and get locked in to Microsoft. Yup, problem solved.

I will say though. There are some neat things that a subscription service can provide, such as the "listen to whatever your friends are listening to" feature that this program has. That's a pretty cool idea. I just don't like the idea of owning something only as long as I keep pouring out the money. I'd rather own than rent.

Re:192 KB/s WMA

[jocknerd]

How are CD's bad for the environment? Oh sure, maybe if you throw them away or something. But why would I spend $15 on a CD and then throw it away? No, my CD's are not causing harm to the environment. They are sitting in a box in my closet.

Subscription? Bah!

[Otto]

Let's see..

-99 cents to own a song for, essentially, forever...
-or $5 a month to rent it for, essentially, forever...

I've got enough monthly bills without adding one more to the mix, thanks. I don't need WMA's music rental model, at any price.

Re:Subscription? Bah!

[prockcore]

-99 cents to own a song for, essentially, forever...
-or $5 a month to rent it for, essentially, forever...


Ah, but Yahoo lets you buy the songs for 75 cents if you want. 99 cents for non-subscribers.

Meaning that Yahoo's model is just like Apple's model, except that they *also* offer a subscription option.

Just another brick in the wall

[Scrameustache]

Tracks are offered in 192Kbps WMA

We don't need your DRM!

Fourth option - removable DRM

[SuperKendall]

You forgot hidden option (4) - buy DRM track that you know you can strip the DRM from.

That's why the Apple store is the only one I'd buy from. I can either burn it or just strip the DRM and use it licence-free forever.

I use LaunchCast ... now Unlimited for $1 more

[Blieb]

I just downloaded the player and upgraded my service for $1 (was on LaunchCast) ... TOTALLY AWESOME. That's all I have to say. This program is really slick. Tons of features, can still do the music ratings, better player than using IE window for my LaunchCast stations ... etc. Not to mention that this has set the market ablaze: "RealNetworks fell $1.54, or more than 21%, to $5.74, while Napster, which reports its quarterly results after the market close, plunged $2.04, or more than 32%, to $4.31. Yahoo shares were up 14 cents to $34.20." Apple is down over 7% too ...

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[Queer Boy]

Your children in 20 years won't be able to buy plain old music CDs anymore because the RIAA won't release it unsecured like that.

That's because in 20 years there will be no RIAA.

Re:Open DRM

[joeljkp]

Like this?

Because I don't like stealing

[SuperKendall]

My definition of stealing is this. If I have something an artist is selling, and they did not get money from my purchase - then it is stolen, in all the ways that matter to me.

So while I love the pricing of allofmp3, and I love the format choices, I simply cannot buy from them knowing the artist I like is not getting anything from it.

So it's either iTunes or CD, which does give money to the RIAA but at least the artist gets some too. I just have to hope that more artsist wake up and get off the poison gravy train, I support independants whenever possible to help keep that transition going.

DRM, DMCA and Apple

[ad0gg]

Of course it won't play on Ipods. Apple has made it clear they don't want Ipods to support any other formats. They proved this when they threatened Real who tried to provide Ipods users with a CHOICE of music provider. DRM is getting pushed by not only copyright owners but the distributers/hardware manufactors who can lock customers into their platform. DRM of any kind is joke and will be used to as a business method to hold on to a monolopy.

Support non DRM music providers like Emusic which allow users the freedom to choose which hardware their music plays on.

Or perhaps...

[danaris]

I would say that Microsoft cares about making all the money in the world, and their strategy is control, whereas Apple cares about making a good-sized profit, and their strategy is making a good product.

Dan Aris

XM and Sirius

[ad0gg]

How about paying $13 a month and not being able to choose your music?

Emusic is good too

[ad0gg]

Emusic

Great artist like
Ray Charles
Louis Armstrong
Bob Marley
CCR

All DRM free mp3s.

Call me crazier, but...

[Em Adespoton]

This whole thing has got me thinking... is it possible that Apple is trying to give the DRM supporters a taste of their own medicine? Right now, they're basicly saying, "If you want to compete with our music store, you can't use DRM on your music."

The result is that Apple hardware and distribution continues to dominate the digital music market, and now the RIAA members PLUS the software and hardware manufacturers have to play Apple's game if they want to control consumer actions via DRM. Must leave a bit of a bitter taste in their collective mouths.

gmusic

[rice_burners_suck]

This likely means it will be five years before Google comes out with gmusic, which will have no subscription fee and will work by displaying ads or something. But by then, nobody will care.

Re:Bogus

[ducomputergeek]

Based on my indpendant "Sub-way" test, which is completely unscientific and involves me riding the subway or in airports/airplanes, easily 6 - 7 out of 10 people with portable music players have an Apple (or I guess HP now) iPod(TM).

Sometimes I'll see a dell or creative MP3 player, but hands down I notice more people listening to ipods. On planes most of those people are using a windows based laptop too.

You can buy the tracks too...

[lobos]

According to ian c. rogers:

"Correct, but you could also do that with the tracks you buy for $0.99 ($0.79 if you're a subscriber) from Yahoo! Music Unlimited, too. That doesn't differentiate iTunes from us. If paid download/burn is your preferred model, we do that, too, same as iTunes and at the same price or better. Yahoo! Music Engine is not *just* a subscription service, you can purchase burnable tracks, too. Point is, we give you the choice, Apple does not."

Re:WMA doesn't require DRM either...

[amliebsch]

Every track I've ripped from my own CD's is in WMA format, and none of them have any DRM at all.

No, but they have the capability of having any DRM restrictions you want. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what DRM is. DRM itself is a tool, a technology. What specific rights limitations are implemented - if any - are up to the content provider, not the technology manufacturer or the format itself. (In the case of ripping audio CD's, you are the substituting as the content provider.)

This takes out the "portable!"

[daviddennis]

You're not going to get very far from your house with a streaming music source, even a wireless one. This isn't going to help the great majority of iPod users.

If you do add $72 for your gigabyte of Flash memory, the price difference between your solution and the iPod photo at $350 is pretty low if not non-existant.

D

Re:This takes out the "portable!"

[illusioned]

Yes, you have a valid point, and theres nothing at all wrong with the iPod photo, or even the iPod for that matter. I guess I just prefer a more general purpose device whenever I can get it for around the same price as a not so general purpose device.

But, but...

[MattHaffner]

... this is the New World Market. There can only be one winner and everyone else is a loser. Didn't you know that? Don't you read the mainstream press and pundits?

M$, Dell, Walmart, McDonald's... all your primary needs are covered. Now we just wait for the "iPod killer" so we can get on with our digital music life. And certainly Netflix is going down since Blockbuster is "on-line". Thank god I won't have to think about these things anymore...

It's so simple. Sheesh.

Re:WMA? No Thanks.

[La Camiseta]

MP3 and AAC are the only real standards in quality digital audio

Aren't you completely forgetting OGG and FLAC?

Compression? No, not that kind.

[Ahnteis]

The compression. Most CD's now are compressed to increase the percieved loudness much like most FM broadcast stations.

But isn't it likely (or even inevitable?) that digital audio files will suffer from the same thing? i.e. be mastered from the same digital source, once it's been compressed?

No. He's talking about dynamic range compression. Basically, you boost the volume of the entire track so that the CD sounds louder when you put it in your car. Of course, this mashes the TOP of the dynamics range (volume) into a flat line, **compressing** that range into a smaller spectrum.

Makes most music sound like crap.

This is decidedly different from filesize compression (like mp3 or ogg).

What did you think when you tried the product?

[hitsman]

It's easy to read articles, sit on the sidelines, and make peanut gallery comments in theory about this product/service. I'm more interested in reading what others who actually tried the service think of it.

How's the personalization working for you?

What do you think of the feature where you can browse music from friends and members with similar music tastes?

Have you tried the smart shuffling feature?

What do you think of how the service shows you what's already "in My Music" while you browse around it?

What do you think of the similarities explorers? How about the user profiles?

How about plugins?

What bugs are you finding in the beta?

What new feature ideas do you have for this sort of service?

http://music.yahoo.com/musicengine

$2 dvd's?

[Penguinoflight]

I also saw some $2 dvd's at wal-mart. The problem was I didn't recognize any titles, and most of the plots looked like a bad idea. Probably only slightly less entertaining than the trash from hollywood, but they still seemed like a obscure collection.

Everyone does that. Ipod locks out ***

[Ahnteis]

EVERY @#$@# MUSIC PLAYER WILL PLAY MP3.

The LOCK-IN is that an ipod supports only ONE music service (that offers RIAA files of course).

Because Microsoft is willing to license their DRM (which, ONCE AGAIN is REQUIRED in some form to sell RIAA files -- which is what the mass market wants) while Apple is NOT willing to license their DRM.

If you have an Ipod, you can buy RIAA music from exactly ONE online vendor. Apple.

On the other hand, if you have ANY one of the MANY brands of WMA players, you can buy RIAA music from MULTIPLE online vendors because, once again Microsoft, the big evil corportation, are willing to license their DRM.

Yes, it flies in the face of reason that Apple, who "doesn't make money off itunes, only off ipods" would NOT want to expand their ipod customer base by allowing music from other servicees to play on their portable. Well, it does if you really believe that Apple doesn't view itunes as a cashpot (either currently or in the future).

Please! Love your ipod if you want, but face reality just a LITTLE bit.

Re:Compression? No, not that kind.

[Tim Browse]

Ah, no, I see what you mean, but no, that's not what I meant. Mea culpa.

What I meant was: isn't it likely that the raw digital audio file that is used to master the CD will be the same one that is compressed to AAC for iTunes? (AAC/iTMS just being an example).

That is, is there any reason why they wouldn't compress the already dynamically compressed audio?

Well, one reason would be that it would be dumb, but seeing as they already do it on radio and CD, well...I'm not hopeful myself.

Er, anyway, hopefully that makes it clear what I meant. Sorry for any confusion.

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[vertinox]

DRM is the future, you can't stop it. Your children in 20 years won't be able to buy plain old music CDs anymore because the RIAA won't release it unsecured like that. If they still sell physical media, they'll have changed the format over to something DRM'd.

Oh, hogwash!

You are making the assumption that all music is created by the RIAA and that CD format is dead or dying.

1. Even vinyl is not dead. I can still buy brand new vinyls of new releases of bands I like. Sure they maybe are things you have never heard of and I have to order them, but these are professional non-indie releases from Europe and the states. But in reality audiophiles will have access to music they want even if they have to make their own mix tapes.

2. I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't find a great deal of music that isn't RIAA on iTunes which of course forces me to buy CD's from Europe or special order. Most of these are major labels in Europe but they are not a part of the RIAA in the states.

3. Most music that is DRM'd sucks anyways. *coughs* Well that is my opinion, but I think you are wasting your money if you are buying a Britney Spears CD and you're wasting your bandwidth if you are downloading it. Loose/loose situation. Most of you people just listen to music because you've been told it's "cool" or "the in thing" or you want to be all "gansta" like. Well... If that were the case I'd not listen to music at all. (No I don't work at a record store, why do you ask?)

4. If I am still alive in 20 years (see number 5) then I will most likely still release CD's for my record label (see my link for our only CD!)

5. In 20 years, downloading music will be the least of the kids worries... ;)

Re:Everyone does that. Ipod locks out ***

[idsofmarch]

Good point, except that Napster, etc. also require IE 5.5 and WMP 9.0 which takes out Mac users entirely. Granted we are only 3.7% of the market, but Apple's systems works on both Mac and Windows, which is more than I can say for the rest.

Linux users are entirely screwed either way.

Can the RIAA Be Sued for Requiring DRM?

[duerra]

For any of you legal buff's out there....

Is there any merit to somebody filing a lawsuit in the RIAA for requiring DRM on music downloads from the premise that they are effectively writing their own copyright laws, and therefore breaking established law?

Re:Everyone does that. Ipod locks out ***

[The Cisco Kid]

I would certainly hope that a music player would support MP3. Any that didnt would be a poor choice. (I dont entirely rule out the possibility that such a device exists)

iPod would/will play music from any source of music that offers music in a standard format (eg, MP3).

I will note that I don't even consider accepting music in *any* sort of proprietary non-standard format, unless it could be trivially *converted* to MP3 format, be it from Apple or MS, therefore vendor lock in for such a case is irrelevant. The only concerns are "Does it play MP3 music", and "Does it offer MP3 music" - any device or service which could not answer 'Yes' to the appropriate question would be of absolutely no interest at all.

I will also add that the only 'digital music playing devices' I currently own include a PC (which does not use any software from *either* MS or Apple), and an old CD player that can play both std CD's and ones containing MP3 - but if I were ever to decide to purchase a new 'digital music player', MP3 would be my only interest (well, Ogg, but I wont hold my breath).

I would have no interest in any capability for, or service providing, any DRM/proprietary format. Any question of *which* of multiple such formats a player did or did not support wouldnt even be remotely relevant.

The argument assumes that the entire point of buying an 'MP3 player' would be to subscribe to some sort of online service - an assumption which is not valid. (Albeit one which I'm sure RIAA and/or the online services would like to help spread)

Um, bullshit?

[Andy Dodd]

AAC is far more open than WMA is.

If you're speaking about the DRM - They're both unacceptably closed. If it doesn't play under Linux and on my Treo 600, I don't want it.

(Actually, iTMS accessed via pymusique fits these requirements exactly, which is why I use it.)

Re:Um, bullshit?

[badriram]

Well i am talking about the DRM. WMA DRM scheme is more open than fairplay any way you look it. It is not open in the sense it was free as beer or speech. It is open in that anyone who wants to can implement it with a license from MS. and yes all DRM sucks.

Re:Um, bullshit?

[oscast]

I don't care about openness for companies... i care which music format is most open for consumers. When we compare on that issue alone.... fairplay is the more open of the two as it allows me more opportunities to use my music in different ways that does WMA DRM.

Who cares of WMA allows for more stores? Why do I need more stores? I just need the one store that has the most music... and so far... that is iTMS.

music player != music service

[nothings]

This slashdot story pisses me off for a simple reason: it follows the media in conflating and confusing a music player with a music subscription service. This has been going on for a while--Apple started it with iTunes. (See, technically, iTunes is a piece of software I use to track mp3s and download them to my iPod, whereas iTunes Music Store is some place that sells AAC files, a place I've never been. It may be that iTunes the software is the only way to access ITMS (I have no idea), but by owning an iPod I am (essentially) forced to use iTunes the software, so iTunes and ITMS are by no means linked).

Yahoo hops on the same confusion, introducing "Yahoo! Music Engine" and "Yahoo Music Unlimited". Slashdot says "Perhaps most interesting to the Slashdot crowd is that the Yahoo Music Engine is built on an open platform that facilitates plug-ins". But so what? Is this interesting if I don't care about "Yahoo Music Unlimited"? Winamp "facilitates" plug-ins too, so... so what?

I tried to read the Ian Rogers page, but it was all blah blah blah rah rah rah. He dives right in with why you should use Yahoo Music Engine with the first bullet point being "PRICE! $5/month subscription service"--but he's not talking about the music engine, is he? He's talking about Yahoo Music Unlimited. So what the hell, even the tech guy can't get this right? Or is he just buying entirely into the "I am a vehicle for PR too"?

Finally, Yahoo Music Engine doesn't run on Macs, and files downloaded from Yahoo Music Unlimited don't play on iPods, so why is this in the category "Apple"?

EVERYTHING starts as analog

[Andy Dodd]

It's the definition of sound.

The key advantage of CDs (and any subsequent lossless digital transmission) is that they produce far less degradation (in fact, no degradation whatsoever) from the original recording, typically made with very high-end equipment which has very low distortion and very little noise.

Whereas other storage media such as analog magnetic tape (which CDs replaced) has inherent losses no matter how high-end your recording/playback equipment is due to physical limitations of the media itself.

FM transmission is another example - No matter how good the input is, FM transmission is inherently limited in its audio SNR, frequency response, and dynamic range, even in situations with a strong signal. Over any moderate distance, additional channel noise at the receiver will degrade things even more.

No it doesn't cut the mustard.

[big-giant-head]

I bought 3 of these files recently, not from Yahoo, but another well known co. They were the WMA format. Once I got them I wanted to burn them to CD, well you can't. On top of that the next day I ran the Windows Media player, I got some message that it was 'updating my catalog' or some such nonsense. After that the WMA files would'nt play, said they could'nt find the codec. I called and emailed the place I bought if from, they said it was a windows problem, sent me to M$, they said it was a problem with the place I bought it from. This went back and forth for a couple of days.

Finally I called the CC company and asked them. The nice lady said it sounded like a defective product, she asked if the company I bought it from refused to take care of it. I said yes, she said no problem and struck the charges from my bill.

I downloaded iTunes I ( i don't have an iPod) bought my 3 songs.... and there's a big ole burn CD button on the right top of itunes app!!!! I burned my CD and guess what 1 week later I can play my songs in iTunes, I can play my CD... I know iTunes is DRM'd, but it works as opposed to the Crappy MS wma files with thier server resident codecs.

I'm sure M$ will get thier stuff working correctly in a couple of years, after they have more closely ripped of Apple (as usual). But I like iTunes because it works the way it's advertised. When will companies learn that.

Re:No it doesn't cut the mustard.

[DA-MAN]

I bought 3 of these files recently, not from Yahoo, but another well known co. They were the WMA format. Once I got them I wanted to burn them to CD, well you can't. On top of that the next day I ran the Windows Media player, I got some message that it was 'updating my catalog' or some such nonsense. After that the WMA files would'nt play, said they could'nt find the codec. I called and emailed the place I bought if from, they said it was a windows problem, sent me to M$, they said it was a problem with the place I bought it from. This went back and forth for a couple of days.

I suspect that fucked up implementations of a working product is what Apple is trying to avoid. That's probably why they won't license fairplay for stores, I mean they seem to be willing to license the drm for players (read motorola fone).

Re:No it doesn't cut the mustard.

[geoffspear]

Sure, they're willing to license it to one company that they had a close business relationship with for years. That's very different than a willingness to license it to anyone who's going to directly compete with the iPod.

Re:No it doesn't cut the mustard.

[DA-MAN]

Sure, they're willing to license it to one company that they had a close business relationship with for years.

I didn't think Apple was too happy with Motorola after the cpu's started to lag too far behind. This is why they had to get IBM to produce the new CPU's. The fact that Motorola was still allowed to get iTunes support on a phone just shows that Apple is willing.

That's very different than a willingness to license it to anyone who's going to directly compete with the iPod.

I haven't read any articles where Apple has turned down iTunes support for a third party device. Unless you have any proof of this, you are just trolling.

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[Ibanez]

I want my kids to be able to play it 20 years from now if they want. I have zero guarantee of being able to do that with my iTunes DRMed music.

How is there zero guarantee? You CAN convert into another format, right? I mean, you DO have to burn it and re-rip it, but you can still get it in a format that, assuming decoders still exist for it in that time span, you'll be able to play it.

Not so with most of the other DRM scheme, since you can't convert it to a different, un-DRM'd format.

So as I see it, you don't have a valid concern, or at least the strength of your statement is much stronger than it should be.

Blake

Re:How wonderful for us!

[Lovesquid]

No way. The $5 price is just to get a huge subscriber base before they raise it to some competative level.

They are waiting until Joe User (times 100,000) has subscribed, downloaded thousands of songs to his portable player, and then is forced to keep up his subscription when they jack the price up to $20 a month or else he loses the right to play his entire music collection. It's classic bait-and-switch, but I'll be damned if a large number of people don't fall for it.

Monopoly on what?

[lullabud]

Apple doesn't have a monopoly. They have a large chunk of the digital music player market. They have a music store that in and of itself brings them ~$0 profit. They have a great business model which any other company can step up and take, and that model is the old "Sell the razor blades and give away the razor" model. Apple sells the iPod and breaks even with the media. They make their money through selling hardware, the iPod. (digression: It's the same with their computer hardware which is why you'll never see an x86 version of Mac OS X.) This is the place where everybody else is failing in the non-subscription based market. Now, you'd think it would make sense to support WMA, but then, that has nothing to do with their monopoly now, does it? After all, their monopoly is in their own DRM scheme and their own digital music store, which isn't making them any money in and of itself. Support for WMA would also open them up to the downfalls that so many users of MS software experience. (EG: have you ever tried playing WMA files on Mac? Even in WMP some of them still suck badly compared to WMP for Windows. Ever tried playing protected WMA files on a different computer?) These problems would make the iPod look bad, and who wants to make their cash cow look bad? This would in turn make Apple look bad. And for what purpose? All because somebody wants support for a proprietary format, and that's not even including the DRM that would come along with it. No, supporting WMA doesn't make sense.

correction.

[jms1]

Here's what Apple's FairPlay DRM means for users: any iPod can play any iTMS-purchased AAC, which implies there is a master key for decoding the FairPlay file.

There is no "master key" for FairPlay- every song is encrypted as it's purchased, and the encryption key is tied to the account which purchased the song. In fact, the encryption is done on the computer which downloads the file- the actual transmission of the song from ITMS to the computer is not DRM-protected. The only thing preventing a packet sniffer from grabbing the raw file is the fact that the transfer happens inside of an SSL connection.

When the computer copies the encrypted song to an iPod, the key is copied as well (if it's not already there- I have about 200 songs from ITMS, and most of them are encrypted with the same key. The program seems to generate new keys every few months.) Programs like jhymn simply read the key from the iPod's key repository and use it to decrypt the audio chunks in the .m4p file, writing the result out as an .m4a file.

Re:correction.

[Jeffrey Baker]

Thanks for the info on the key implementation. What's the encryption like? It would seem that anything serious (like AES) would ruin the battery life and/or be more than the iPod's tiny brain can deal with.

By the way, there's actually nothing preventing you from eavesdropping the iTunes network communications, SSL or otherwise. I know on MacOS iTunes proactively avoids debugging (by installing a trap to abort on ptrace) but iTunes for Win32 can be hooked using the microsoft research package which I think is called "detours." You can replace the decryption in the SSL routines to blurt the plaintext out to a file.

Just another example of why the local machine cannot be trusted (using the DRM-influenced form of the word "trust"). I'm sure we'll all have DRM CPUs soon.

Re:correction.

[jms1]

According to DVD Jon's web site, it is AES.

I wasn't aware that MacOS iTunes had trapped ptrace() but it doesn't surprise me...

Audio Hijack for Windows

[HWguy]

There's this awesome program for OS X that lets you make MP3 files for any audio handled by the Mac (e.g. from iTunes, DVD player or any other source).

Is it possible to write a pseudo audio driver for windows and capture the output in a digital form? If so then the music could be re-encoded in some other format (pick your favorite).

I realize there would be a loss of quality in re-encoding the music but given that they claim to support 192 kbit WMA files perhaps this would be acceptable.

And given the exandability of Yahoo's program why couldn't this be created as an add-in and automatically transcode the music (perhaps as it plays for the first time)?

Any windows developers want to comment?

Re:Audio Hijack for Windows

[ravenspear]

There's a good Windows program called Total Recorder that does basically what AH does.

Am I the only one that actually read

[mandrake*rpgdx]

the terms and conditions?

You can buy a burnable copy that is a non-drm'd format that can be transferred to an IPod or anywhere else (a copy you can keep on your hard drive) for 99 cents. If you have the subscription it's 79 cents.

Re:Am I the only one that actually read

[Mmm_Coco]

"Note: Yahoo! Music does not permit copying or transferring music files to other users."

It seems to me that burnable copy is still DRMed, it just doesn't expire like the subscription copies. Which, at 99 cents, is the same as the itunes music store.

Why quicktime?

[jms1]

The way iTunes is designed, in order to play a music track on a PC, you have to install Quicktime on the PC as well - not everyone wants Quicktime on their PC to be honest. And so on.

Quicktime is required for two reasons: (1) iTunes uses the quicktime libraries to do the actual sound output, and (2) the DRM functions which do the decryption (and the encryption, when you make a purchase from ITMS) are part of the quicktime libraries.

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[DrCode]

I still have the same turntable I bought in 1970, and it will play 100-year-old 78's that my parents have, along with all the vinyl I've bought over the years. I recently decided to replace the cartridge. They're still manufactured, and I had no trouble finding them at the local stereo store and on the internet.

I also wouldn't expect CD players to go away anytime soon, as there are millions (billions?, trillions?) of CD's around.

Mod dow,n uninformed

[geekee]

"this is the biggest load of BS ever. please explain yourself. why can't other people support mp3 constant, mp3 variable, AAC, wav etc. ?

the only thing that you can be sure of is that if you have DRM WMV the only people legally using your service are Windows users. seems like yahoo is the one denying support from people."

Apple iPod only supports their proprietary DRM (fairplay), which they will not license to anyone. Apple could license WMA, however, for the Mac and the iPod, but they refuse. It's pretty clear who is putting up road blocks for compatibility to lock in their customers.

Re:Mod dow,n uninformed

[DA-MAN]

Apple could license WMA, however, for the Mac and the iPod, but they refuse. It's pretty clear who is putting up road blocks for compatibility to lock in their customers.

I suspect that if Microsoft granded WMA support for the iPod it would be a Windows only solution. Microsoft has not released WMA support for any platform other than Windows, even Windows Media Player for the Mac doesn't handle any DRM whatsoever.

Why use inferior, closed audio formats?

[inkswamp]

WMA

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll pass.

One player to rule them all

[kyoko21]

There is only one player, and one player to rule them all. Don't forget, it's still free. It doesn't just play music either.

Video Lan

All about tradeoffs

[zipper235]

I'm not understanding the resistance to subscriptions. Anyway, it's a choice, choose the idea that's right for you. Maybe you want full access to a small music collection. Or maybe, like me, you're willing to have somewhat restricted access to a tremendous collection. I don't buy the argument that the music will dissapear at some point. Consider movies: a few of us want to own all our movies so we buy DVDs, but most of us are fine renting movies when we want to watch them. I don't worry about Blockbuster going out of business because I'm confident I'll be able to access movies from a different source. The subscription model is more sustainable than online music stores. It provides a recurring revenue stream whereas stores like iTunes barely make a few cents on each $0.99 song, according to a Jupiter Research study.

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[TokyoJimu]

As a consumer of iTunes music, I am seriously considering going back to CD's

Me too (tm). In fact, after being an early enthusiast and buying a good deal of music on the iTMS, I have now pretty much gone back to CDs (usually bought at concerts so the artist receives all the money). I only use iTMS for the occasional instant gratification.

An example of why: I have given some iTMS gift certificates to my 11-year-old nephew and now he has a bunch of songs on his computer. Recently he got a Sony PSP and asked me how to transfer some of his songs onto the PSP. I felt bad telling him that he couldn't transfer any of the songs he bought on-line.

This is the kind of restriction of Fair Use that scares me.

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[TokyoJimu]

Not as long as we still have allofmp3.com and similar.

The only difference between Kazaa and allofmp3.com is that with allofmp3 you are paying for the convenience of easier stealing. Don't think you're not stealing just because you're paying money.

iPod - DRM - RealID - Totalitarian Overlords

[cmd]

Yahoo should tie their DRM to my new RealID national ID card so that I could play their music on any device, any time, any where. Then I, for one, would welcome my new totalitarian overlords with my shiny new iPod.

Why is this article on apple.slashdot.org?

[geekee]

since neither Macs nor iPods support any form of WMA, much less the DRMed version, this article seems to be on apple.slashdot.org to start a flame war where the majority of people say:
1. It doesn't work on my iPod or Mac
2. I want to own my music, because Steve told me that I do.

Guess what. You're not their target market.

they're not the same thing ...

[Heisenbug]

Subscription services aren't really a competitor to buying music. You're not paying to own music, as you point out. You're paying to be able to listen to any of the ~ 50,000 albums they own, instantly, from your computer. The two important points are: 1) this is not a service that would be reasonable to expect for free 2) it is a service that is eminently useful if you spend much time near Windows and like a wide variety of music.

The same point you made comes up every time there's an article about subscription services. I'm not sure how else to say it: you are paying to be able to listen to any of tens of thousands of albums, instantly, from your computer. If that's not attractive to you, fair enough, but stop criticizing it for failing to be something it's not trying to be.

My Stupid Analogy

[SomeOtherGuy]

Why won't this work:

Different formats that require different players.

Hollywood Video and Blockbuster Video both do OK because they both rent and sell content that will play in the same devices. (DVD Players or VCR's)

If they both had started up today and insisted on selling movies that each required different hardware players I.E. -- Blockbuster decides to bring back the BETA format tapes (AAC) and Hollywood Video decides to go with laser discs (WMA) -- and the consumers all have VCR's (MP3)....would anybody be surprised when they did nothing but confuse and piss off the customers?

I understand that up to "4 billion" people have purchased Ipods, and that market pretty much has to be listened to....So Yahoo! comes up with a service that supplies WMA's that cannot be decoded on the defacto hardware base? Hu...Hell I am not an Ipod guy, and I have 3 or 4 "generic" MP3 players that can also do WMA.....But not the DRM-WMA.

It is fine to let the software format help define the hardware format when the market is new....But after becoming entrached over a 5 or 6 year period it seems ludicrous to push a software format that will not play on the millions of devices already purchased and in use in the market place.

Stupid.

Re:My Stupid Analogy

[AlpineIpod]

Hollywood and Circuit City already tried this and failed miserably! Remember DIVX? DIVX was a failed attempt to come up with a new standard for DVD's after their was already a DVD standard with millions of players in place. DIVX disks looked like DVD's but could only be played on DIVX branded players. It basically was a Pay Per View model in that you "purchased" the physical DIVX disk, but had to pay for every 24 hour viewing period that unlocked it. If you did not pay your bill or disconnect your DIVX player from the phone line, All your titles were useless and had no value to anyone. The internet community and consumers alike have already voted un the "own vs rent" issue by rejecting DIVX.

So fucking right, hey jackoffs

[bogie]

WTF is wrong with you Ipod people? Your bitching about Yahoo for not selling popular tunes in NonDRM mp3 format? Are you people fucking stupid? Yahoo who cannot under any circumstance sell MP3 files from top 40 artists without DRM is supposed to support the Ipod? How?

Apple will NOT allow anyone else to license their DRM. So wtf is Yahoo supposed to do? Oh right I'll go along with you idiots. They are supposed to somehow magically support the Ipod via plain old mp3. *cough*

I can't believe the number of pro-Ipod mods there are here who keep modding this garbage up. btw No offense to the normal Ipod users out there who aren't caught up in the "ipod is the greatest gift to mankind" craze. Much offense to those who have completely lost the ability to be logical.

Re:bankrupt (additional note)

[tdmg]

Assuming I live 50 more years. At $60 a year that would be $3000 for a lifetime of unlimited* music (not including inflation, because it's all relative). That sounds like a good deal to me.

Note: I'm still not signing up. *grins*

*limited to the companies that sign on

Command Line Plug-in

[delete]

Something interesting that I just noticed is Yahoo's command-line plugin which allows you to use shell-like commands (ls, cd, etc.) to browse their store.

It's really nice idea in theory, but unfortunately only works on an OS with minimal shell integration. Perhaps they'll support Linux and OSX soon, then again with their WMA-fetish, probably not.

Question: Compensation

[Razzak]

We've all heard about how artists are not compensated for their music adequately. How does artist's compensation work for these subscription plans? Is the money split evenly over the entire collection? If so, I'd be pissed if I was Metallica and had to share revenue equally with Clay Aikins.

Re:ALLofMP3 is NOT Stealing

[freshBlueO2]

Is it legal to download music from site AllOFMP3.com?

All the materials in the MediaServices projects are available for distribution through Internet according to license # LS-3Ì-05-03 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society. Under the license terms, MediaServices pays license fees for all the materials subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All the materials are available solely for personal use and must not be used for further distribution, resale or broadcasting.

Users are responsible for any usage and distribution of all materials received from AllOFMP3.com. This responsibility depends on the local legislation of each user's country of residence. AllOFMP3.com's Administration does not keep up with the laws of different countries and is not responsible the actions of non-Russian users.

All Of MP3's Terms of Use Contract

Other supporting sites on legalities of useing ALLofMP3

ALLOFMP3 FAQ
Misticriver Forum
A third Forum

You can buy a track

[mandrake*rpgdx]

and put it on Ipod. They even have pics of someone doing just that on the website.

Re:192 KB/s WMA

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Stop trying to justify your copyright infringement.

Well since you don't want the previous poster to justify their copyright infringement, allow me to justify it for them. Ethically, there is no reason anyone should obey copyright laws. The laws are broken and detrimental to society. They were passed by lobbyists in collusion with greedy, corrupt politicians for the express purpose of taking your money without giving back the originally agreed upon benefits to society. If they don't give works to the public domain and provide reference copies to preserve those works for posterity, I see no reason why they should granted a monopoly to profit at our expense.

Of course all of this has little to do with the previous poster's motivation. Nevertheless it is certainly justification for breaking unjust laws.

Stop your damn complaining people

[billybob]

This is what I have to say to everyone here today.

Finally, Step 2!

[BeerCat]

I half expect to see a headline announcing Google Music one of these days

But.... this is /. so:

1. See an emerging trend in music download services
2. Launch "Slashdot Music" (ogg format, naturally)
3. Profit!

I just explained how it was

[SuperKendall]

Excuse me but did you read my post at all? I gave my own definition of stealing and I'm sorry, you can post all the documents and links you like but if the artists take on my purchase of a song is less than arouding error I consider that stealing in my own mind. Case closed. To you it may not be, great if you can live with it. I can't.

I can deal just fine with stealing when it's the only recourse though. So I'll happily download anything not for sale or where the artist is charging too much (though .99 is never too much for a song I like).

Yahoo, Napster, whatever. Do they work on a Mac?

[MetaPhyzx]

I own an iPod. Actually, two. I rip most of my CD's and buy from iTMS. While I'm not nuts about DRM (I'm up against the five computer limit allowed), I also don't see a viable alternative. WMA is unacceptable.

Why? Well, I also own several G4 Power Macs running OS X. If you've ever used WMP on a Mac, you'll know it performs horribly. Even if it's the only thing running. I can imagine how WMA files will. On my linux boxes, I don't have a supported option. no iTMS, no nothing.

Yahoo's music service doesn't support my OS of choice. Now, should I bitch and complain that they need to "open" it up? Or, am I served just as well by iTMS (the devil I know) and can realize, that they are somply catering to the majority?

Yahoo's requirements:
*
Yahoo! Music Engine Software
*
Microsoft Windows XP or 2000
*
Internet Explorer 6.0+
*
Windows Media Player 9.0 or higher
*
Pentium III 300 MHz processor (WMP for Mac can't even RUN on a 300 MHZ Mac...hell a 600 MHz G4)
*
128MB Ram
*
Broadband connection for streaming and buying music
*
Latest Windows Service Packs

Napster's requirements:

PC only, Napster To Go-compatible player, Windows XP, Windows Media Player 10, Internet connectivity.

So regardless, I'm locked out.

All the railing I've seen in this thread about DRM, about choice, about how easy it is to license WMA... it's does not run/work well on a Mac. it does not run/work at all on linux. It also is not supported via these music stores on the Mac. They don't have a snazzy little front end. So isn't all the bitching about Apple's DRM not providing choice BS? You don't get choice of any other OS with Yahoo or Napster, so if I did have a Rio (which I do, but dont use anymore), I'm still a Mac user, so I'm locked out.

Apple provides that interface for it's own OS (remember iTunes and by default iPods were Mac only for awhile) as well as Windows and I PRAY for Linux soon. So yeah, I have to live with thier DRM, but at least they service my need. To the others Mac users don't exist.

Re:Everyone does that. Ipod locks out ***

[Twister002]

I'm sitting here listening to a song on my iPod Shuffle that I bought at Napster with a gift card from my wife last Christmas.

I bought the 10 songs the card allowed me to buy at Napster, burned them to CD, popped the CD into my iBook, and imported the tracks into iTunes. I filled in the blanks with the track name and artist and synced the files over to my iPod.

My point is, I wasn't locked into only iTunes. I buy the majority of my music online from ITMS because it's convenient.

Mod down, not insightful

[geekee]

" WMA is the lock-in(out), not the iPod. Afaik, Ipod will happily play MP3 (If not with the stock software, then certainly with alternate software), which is the only 'not locked in' format.
"

What's so special about mp3? Anyone can license WMA, so there is no lock-in. Apple refuses to a) license fairplay. b) support any other DRM standard on iPod. It is clear that Apple is the one locking you in. Your post is pure spin.

Re:Mod down, not insightful

[DA-MAN]

Anyone can license WMA, so there is no lock-in.

Really? I've not been able to get DRM WMA's to play on my Mac, even with Windows Media Player for OSX. That's very peculiar because I remember my Linux box having this same problem, oh well it must be my imagination . . .

Apple refuses to a) license fairplay.

Really? I guess motorola must be blowing smoke up everyones ass about the whole iTunes phone . . .

b) support any other DRM standard on iPod.

That's their right. Why should Apple support a format that doesn't work on their platform (Mac)? Remember Apple is all about the customers experience, and as far as I'm concerned iTunes/iPod on Mac or PC just works. How many people would be bitching about Apple if Company X sells FairPlay compatible music and it screws up their iPod or something stupid? Apple won't do that because it's got their branding all over it.

It is clear that Apple is the one locking you in.

Not true! AAC is an open standard derived from mpeg4, WMA is proprietary. Just because Microsoft licenses all components to any tom/dick/harry who wants to become an online music retailer doesn't make it any less of a lock in. It just makes it a different type of lock in, remember with iTunes I can use it on my Mac, Windows box, and Linux (Crossover)!

Your post is pure spin.

Actually your post is spin. Microsoft does not make portable music players. They are in a differnet market and are not comparable.

Apple sells the content, the player, and the fairplay drm for players (ask motorola). Microsoft sells the drm to content providers, and online music. Different markets! Get it?

no alterior motives! We want users!

[javaxman]

haha ha ha.

Fact is, Yahoo! is the only large company that's actually focused on features for the user, with no alterior motives. We want users. Not only that, we want network users so we can to tie together all the services we offer.

I laughed my friggin' head off. No alterior motives! That's rich.

Since they're running this service out of the kindess of their hearts, just to attract users, I'll be expecting them to let me permanently purchase songs for less than 99 cents. Otherwise, it's clear they're still making something like a dime-a-song profit... which would be an alterior motive. Like wanting to attract 'network users'...

Re:Everyone does that. Ipod locks out ***

[carlivar]

I bought the 10 songs the card allowed me to buy at Napster, burned them to CD, popped the CD into my iBook, and imported the tracks into iTunes.

And you have made the quality of your sound on these files crappier. Compressing stuff that's already compressed, ick.

Not to mention what you describe sounds like a royal pain in the ass.

Carl

Look at it this way

[grahamsz]

Say you have a libary of 100 cds with an average pricepoint of $15.

Instead why not take that $1500, invest it at maybe 4% apr, and you'll get back the $60/year you need to subscribe to yahoo.

By purchasing cds you tie up captial which is essentially being used to license your music anyway.

Also i'd say that subscription based services ARE more likely to gaurantee future access to your music. If yahoo fold then you just subscribe to raphsody instead and you'll stil have the million + songs that you had with y!.

Music sharing via messenger?

[assassinator42]

Does it still only play 30 second clips for mp3s your friend has? Anyone want to test it out with me? Y! Messenger name: ssj4android

Re:Everyone does that. Ipod locks out ***

[jbezdek]

> If you have an Ipod, you can buy RIAA music
> from exactly ONE online vendor. Apple

You can _directly_ buy _digital_copies_ of RIAA music from exactly one online vendor.

I can buy RIAA music for my iPod from innumerable vendors via other means. E.g.,

1. Log onto Amazon.com
2. Purchase CD
3. Two days later, for free (thanks Amazon Prime!), CD is delivered
4. Put CD in computer
5. Wait 10 minutes
6. DONE. All "RIAA music" on the CD is fully available on my iPod.

Honestly, if you're _really_ concerned about the whole DRM issue (and I agree it's a real issue), then purchase physical CDs for more or less the same cost as on ITMS, and own digital copies of the music in the non-DRMed format of your choice.

Sure.....

[WarmBoota]

.....but does it play OGG VORBIS?

and unless they go into the MP3 hardware business.

[alizard]

where are the cross-subsidies coming from?

Does Yahoo have the cash or sufficient stock value to swap to buy a major RIAA label? (Not a rhetorical question, I actually don't know, haven't had occasion to look.)

take the battery out if you don't use it

[lixlpixel]

take the battery out if you don't use it then, your 30 days will become 45 if you stop the clock every night for example...

Re:take the battery out if you don't use it

[Vo0k]

http://www.maxim-ic.com/alternatives.cfm/part/BQ48 22/pk/81

Take out the battery for 10 years?
Most likely upon detecting clock skew it will cancel your key immediately. And most likely they have their ass covered by license in case this happens accidentially.

Re:take the battery out if you don't use it

[starrsoft]

It doesn't matter if it detects clock skew and nulls your licenses, as long as you still have the subscription, just hook it back up to the computer and renew the license.

Re:take the battery out if you don't use it

[Vo0k]

If you're subscriber, sure, you're as good as new. The new key with correct expiration date is uploaded. If your subscription has expired in the meantime, sorry, hard luck. If you pay per download, same. Pay again, download again.

Re:take the battery out if you don't use it

[starrsoft]

I don't have personal experience with this, so I certainly can't say definitively, but my understanding was that when you download music (pay per download) you first download it to your computer and then transfer it to your portable. If the portable's song licenses get messed up, you still have the copy of your license on the computer. Moreover, there would be no reason for the licenses to get anulled by any sort of time skew because there is no time limit. You would get no advantage from trying to hack the time. There's no reason for the portable player's manufacturer to anull a pay-per-download license.

Re:take the battery out if you don't use it

[Vo0k]

In case of "non-expiring" licenses, yes, they -shouldn't- get anulled (I wouldn't be surprised if they are though, e.g. the keys memory being powered from the same source as the timer). In case of "rental-like" downloads (pay for download, get the song for 3 months), that would make sense. Same for As for backing up the key on the computer - this would miss the whole purpose, just redistribute the same key with the song.
Actually, what iTunes does is decrypting the song in the computer before uploading it. That's why it's hackable - you just need to intercept the decrypted stream between iPod and iTunes. I'm not completely sure if this design flaw was result of incompetence or a friendly gesture from the Apple engineers towards the community.
More likely though, the players will all have NVRAM-based RTC, with battery charge sufficient for 10 years of operation. No clock skew...

Re:No thanks. I don't want to lease my music.

[DA-MAN]

Not so with most of the other DRM scheme, since you can't convert it to a different, un-DRM'd format.

jHymm for iTunes, Old Winamp + out_stacker for any WMA DRM. Only difference is that with jHymm I keep the same file sans drm. With Winamp I have a lossy uncompressed wav, so I either recompress it and lose more quality but recoup major space or I go lossless such as flac.

Re:Everyone does that. Ipod locks out ***

[Twister002]

I burned them to an Audio CD which I then imported as AAC files.

How is that compressing something that is already compressed?

how much for the artist?

[alizard]

11 cents isn't so bad, considering that the alternative is to build a site, set up for pay-per-download and a third-party credit card merchant account and eat any chargebacks due to consumers deciding that after delivery, they'd rather not pay and, after doing all that, you still don't have access to the Apple iTunes system for delivering music into iPods and their search setup for getting customers to find your music to be able to buy it.

And how much is DIY going to cost up-front? How much more if one has to pay somebody else to set it up? And ... if nobody buys, the musician gets to eat the business loss.

Also, this is money a musician doesn't have to work for over and above uploading the track. No inventory hassles, no worries about bandwidth.

11 cents is also comparable to the 25 cent/album royalties which a band can expect for it's label.

I tell musicians to pick up on this via http://www.cdbaby.net/dd?f=1, they handle CD and digital distribution for musicians. IIRC, iTunes doesn't deal direct with non-RIAA labels.

BTW, CDBaby's numbers don't match yours, they's suggesting a musician is more likely to clear around 50 cents/track sale.

Re:WMP does this as well...

[aristotle-dude]

Guess what? All that technology you mentioned either runs an MSFT OS or has licensed software/codecs from MSFT. Can you transfer that music to a mac and have it play? No. MSFT has refused to update their WMP to support playback, syncing or purchase of DRMed WMA.

Re:Everyone does that. Ipod locks out ***

[Ahnteis]

AAC+Fairplay -> Uncompressed CD -> AAC

Compressed -> Uncompressed -> Compressed

That last step is RECOMPRESSING the files.
This isn't rocket science.

And if you are going to just re-import them as AAC, why on EARTH aren't you just using something like hymn or whatever it's called? Besides saving the quality of the music (because no re-compression is done), you also save a CD.

Re:Okay

[aristotle-dude]

Stop with this "RIAA" shit you sad deluded loser. The RIAA are an industry association that represent artists and their labels. They are like a union which represent the collective interests of their members.

You argument is as lame as saying it is ok to hold up taxi cab drivers at gun point because you hate their union.

The RIAA are no more directly involved with the day to day business of the music industry than any other union or professional association is with their industry/sector.

I buy less than 5 dollars per month CAD on average

[aristotle-dude]

How would this be a good deal for me? I can listen to songs for free through the iTunes Radio feature and I can "buy" a song or two per month to keep forever "and" I can use the songs I purchased in my IMovie/iDVD projects.

Of course, as a mac user, I cannot play DRM'ed WMA files anyway.

Re:Special Olympics day at /.

[aristotle-dude]

Yes, and that is exactly like saying it is ok to rob taxi drivers associated with the XYZ union.

Do you want me to spell out the letters o n e b y o n e?

This is a joke, right?

[MacWiz]

I don't understand how this is supposed to hurt Apple's iPod. By being incompatible? By being worthless? Are we supposed to throw away the iPods, get rid of our Macs, run right out and buy a Wintel box and invite the hackers, pop-ups, spyware and viruses so we can save 10 cents on a crappy mp3?

Wasn't Napster the Windows alternative, here to save the universe from those nasty pirates? Didn't they just lose something like $23 million? Everyone must have been too busy installing patches to listen to music.

And there's this thing called radio. I don't have all the specs, but I've been listening to it for 50 years and never had to pay for it yet.

Re:and unless they go into the MP3 hardware busine

[aaarrrgggh]

The subsidies are most likely internal, either in the form of trying to get ad revenue (or even payola), or by running the store as a loss-leader to improve market share.

Buying a label is a lost cause; they don't have much in the way of intrinsic value. It's the same problem they had eight years ago... they don't get it, and can't take advantage of the opportunities that are theirs to grab!

Choice vs. Ease of use vs. Confusion

[theolein]

Disclaimer: I don't own a digtial musice player, but if I did it would be an iPod and there are a nujmber of reasons behind that.

1. Confusion. There is a problem with the various Windows WMA music stores, a big problem: There are too many of them. Napster, Yahoo, MSN, Coke, Wallmart etc. Yahoo's store looks like the cheapest/month, at the moment, but I'm pretty sure that some other store will somehow compete pretty soon. The problem is that these stores are not compatible with one another (obviously) and that there is no vast difference between them. While they all offer subscription, only a few offer the ability to download and buy single tracks. This cannot be stated enough. All of these stores are fighting amongst one another for a small slice of the market. They all claim to be "The iPod/iTunes alternative", but the reality is that they fight amongst one another for the paying twice for the same song. Once to listen to it on subscription, and twice to "own" it forever.

3. Features vs. Ease of use. All of these stores, and especially this Yahoo one, offer loads of features. Look at this idiot geek wetting himself about features like skins and plug-ins. He's basically saying that WinAmp is now part of an online store. The thing is that one of the reasons that the iPod and iTunes is so popular is that it is very very simple. It offers a basic, easy to understand business model. Basically, it is, you pay for a song and you can play and do with it what you want afterwards, basta.

The iPod doesn't have built in TV, FM, or a razor. It just plays music. It's also simple.

Most people just want to listen to their music that they bought. They are not interested in skins for the player, or OGG format or having to fork out next month's payment.

4. All of Apple's competitors complain about the iPod and iTunes not being "open". What they are essentially complaining about is that they don't have a slice of the pie. If they were in Apple's position, they wouldn't open their stuff to Apple either.

Ah, almost tricked us!

[amichalo]

Man, you almost got me there. Good one! See, you came in, talking about financials like you knew something and I had to actually follow your like to find that you are totally full of crap.

From your own like, YHOO P/E is 54.5 while AAPL is 30. Certainly a premium for a company that makes nothing and got their asses handed to them by some kids from Berkley a few years back.

Secondly, shares outstanding for AAPL, 817 M compared to 1.385 B for YHOO - hmm, someone has been diluting the hell out of their company to get financed and retain employees. Now Apple does this too, but Apple controls itself.

What does this have to do with anything? Well, you start your flame with a discussion of market capitalization - a calculation of price per share times number of shares which just tells you how much the company could be worth if someone ever bought the company off eTRADE (hah!)

So it's no wonder YHOO has a 48B mcap vs. AAPL's 27B - YHOO trades at a 45% premium over AAPL because of the sky high P/E for a company that ... well, you recall those kids from Berkley?

Look, all joking aside, take some sage wisdom here and sell YHOO while it is getting a good deal of attention. When YHOO disapoints on this Music Unlimited thing because it can't make any money with an all you can eat $5 buffett, Walstreet will destroy it. If that isn't good enough reason, know that the P/E can't go much higher - that's why when Napster and Harmony dropped 25% on YHOO news, Yahoo only moved inches. No where to go but down.

What to do with your money if not put it in YHOO? You can come join me over in the AAPL ownership circle. It's a great time to buy AAPL. (It may be a Mac news site, but they are quoting Pipper Jaffray's Gene Munster.

Re:Further explaination is needed.

[freshBlueO2]

I'm sorry that your so upset. I did re-read your previous post, however you did not prove anything, or explain very well how or why AllOfMP3 is illegal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to prove AllOfMP3 is legal at any cost. Everything I have read says that AllOfMP3 DO PAY their artists thru the Russian agency called ROMS (Russian Legal Music Services) which IS basicly the RIAA of Russia.

I too want to pay those who are owed money (but I've heard reports of the RIAA ripping off artists as well). I was hoping you would clarify anything by providing more information that I might have missed before. Don't take it personal, but your previous two posts didn't provide any information that could rebuttle my post. So I did some more digging and I did find something. So I will post it here for those who (like me) didn't know before.


The following information was taken from museekster.com

The Music Industry's point of view

The Music Industry claims that Allofmp3 is illegal. Their opinion is that recorded music has three sets of rights. The songwriter has the copyright to the song, the artist his own rights in it, and the record label and producers a third set. Allofmp3 is paying the songwriters, via the collection agency ROMS, but they are acting without the permission of the other copyright holders.

Alan Dixon, general counsel of the IFPI explains their position in an article on Guardian.co.uk

We have asked Andy Mincov, a Russian lawyer and webmaster of www.copyrighter.ru, to comment on Alan Dixon's statement. This is what he replied:

"As for the comment on Alan Dixon, I'm not sure what he meant my a Copyright Code during the Soviet era, because there has not been any such document". The Music Industry has not taken any legal action against Allofmp3 or ROMS. IFPI Russia's legal adviser, Vladimir Dragunov, has admitted that legal actions don't have much chance of succeeding. read more


So I think this was the information you were trying to explain. There are 3 copyright holders:

1. The Songwriter
2. The Artist
3. The Label maker and producer

Under Russian law only the Songwriter holds offical copyright status, therefore the are the only ones who get paid. I do agree that Artist should be compensated for their work, which most of the time is also the song writer.

However, with this new information this raises a question in my mind, "Should or how much, if any, money should be given to the record label and producer?" This is due to the fact that if the artist mixed and produced the song all on their own, and the record label is only marketing and distrubiting their content on CD, paper covers, and media (the CD it self, not the songs), essentially the music distrubitor is now allofmp3, not their record label. That's another ball of colorful wax of possibilities that would probably lead, most of the time, to compenstaion eventaually owed to the record labels.

I hope this was the point you were trying to get across. If not, I would definitly encourage a continued friendly discussion. Thanks.

Re:Everyone does that. Ipod locks out ***

[Chucker23N]

Apple's format is based on an open standard, MPEG-4. Microsoft's format is entirely proprietary.

Yahoo! would have been free to use MPEG-4 AAC as Apple does, and create a DRM wrapper as Apple does, then talk to Apple about adding support for this DRM wrapper in the iPod.

Neve said illeagal

[SuperKendall]

There is a world of difference between what is or is not illegal, and what I consider stealing. That's what you are skipping over, I never said one way or the other anything about AllOfMP3.com being legal.

I am talking about stealing in the moral sense. Not the legal sense.

Yes AllOfMP3 is legal in russia. And if they make it legal to shoot babies who cry on airplanes I'd think that was wrong as well.

Re:and unless they go into the MP3 hardware busine

[alizard]

the intrisic value of the labels are limited to:

• their catalogues
• current artist contracts
• distribution networks (which are IMO, obsolete)
• their better producers and technical people
• their CD pressing plants if this isn't all outsourced.

Their management adds negative value.

Unfortunately, Steve Jobs had a chance to buy Universal and turn access to their catalogue into a profit center for Apple by running it like a real business and instead, chose to reinforce the RIAA business model by paying them by the track and cross-subsidizing iTunes with iPod sales, increasing the market cap of all the RIAA labels in the process.

What was he thinking? I think it was a short-sighted decision to make the price of profitable entry to the "sell by the track" market unviable for anyone not already in the music hardware business.

Sony hasn't been able to take advantage of this because their in-house RIAA label has been pushing "screw the user" DRM into their music hardware... that's why their interesting minidisc format was essentially DOA.

Sooner or later, I think some hardware company will bite the bullet, buy a record label, and bundle 50-100 free tracks from their own catalogue with an iPod killer with a comparable UI and better bells and whistles than the iPod. That'll also have a negative effect on the value of digital tracks from major labels as a whole. There are plenty of other possibilities for an consumer technology company that's decided to do its own thing in the music market.

Apple had better have something new and better at that point if Steve Jobs wants to continue looking like a genius instead of a goat.

Show me the competition

[zpok]

Show me the competition, I've been looking for more than a year now, and can't find ANY competitor, NONE.

Please, show me those music shops with about a million songs I can download on my mac.

I'm all for openness, and wouldn't mind some serious competition, it's healthy. But those fucks make each and every shop a windows only party.

To which I say Fuck you very much.

Re:Show me the competition

[zpok]

Allow me to add to this: I'm glad for all future Yahoo! customers, but next time you want to tout a windows only service, post it under Windows, yes?