Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Music Subscription Service
An anonymous reader writes "In a bid to compete with Apple's iTunes music service, Microsoft is planning to set up its own subscription-based online music store later this year. It is said to be working with record labels and copyright holders in preparation for the launch. Last September, the company unveiled its MSN-branded music site but it didn't have a subscription plan." From the article: "The tentative features of the new service -- which is still under development -- include advanced community aspects and playlist-sharing. But sources say Microsoft is also considering a more direct attack on Apple, seeking rights from copyright holders to give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song they've purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod."
Why can't these companies use a normal format like .mp3? For these programs its not hard for the average user to convert the song there are many available, I understand if there doing this to keep other users from sharing the music but its really not that hard to continue to share after they convert the file, so why not just use the format that everyone knows how to use?
Oh great. One more attempt...
At least we won't need to worry too much about Apple monopolying the market? (!?)
Seriously, do we need yet another music provider? I like to see some number or a pie chart as in who are taking the majority of the market and at what precentage.
M$ 'Hammer' Gates releasing a BSOD remix?
Do you have to be in every god damn business in the tech market? Let one or two of them go for once.
The more you know, the less you understand.
1) Every idiot in PC Magazine will go "WOW! Can't wait"
2) Store opens up. Late.
3) User interface sucks.
4) iTunes keeps on truckin'.
Creating another proprietary system isn't going to solve the underlying issues...people want ownership of the music itself, and the first service that does that is going to be rewarded handsomely by consumers.
give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song
Does Clippy greet you with a voice introduction to the song each time you play it?
Music online???
Boy, that Microsoft sure is innovative...
^_^
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
it will fail miserably. MS needs to redesign the user interface of this thing. It is confusing and convoluted. I would love to see MS simplify it to just audio and add podcasting.
Oh, thanks goodness. I was afraid the RIAA already made the music industry as soulless and profit-hungry as it could get.
so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod.
But only once...
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
Except it still won't be your choice because the alternate device will have to be one approved by Microsoft. Just convert your itunes to mp3 and play them n anything you want.
The best course of action will be for MS to buy Napster (formerly Roxio). They will acquire an existing customer base and relationships with major universities. They'll also buy several years of technology and integration efforts with the labels. Why build it yourself when you can buy something that's already running, especially with $20+ billion in cash on hand.
"Have you tried Microsoft's Music Manager?"
Every single time you open a music file. Not to mention the relentless resetting of file associations.
...to give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song they've purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod.
There's another semisentence at the end of that. "...Devices with draconian Microsoft-approved DRM."
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Where's the contingent of computer geeks who simply like having an album in hand, with artwork, lyrics, and songs arranged in the order the artist intended? There's something very satisfying about listening to every track on an album (even the ones that aren't your favorite), knowing that song X always transitions into song Y ("Eruption" into "You Really Got Me" or "Heartbreaker" into "Living Loving Maid" anyone?), and smelling that new CD smell. The fact that there's no lossy compression is just icing on the cake...
"... Microsoft is also considering a more direct attack on Apple, seeking rights from copyright holders to give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song they've purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod."
Wouldn't Microsoft's new service, to remain legal, have to verify that the purchase was in fact made from iTunes, and that the purchase was made by that subscription holder and not another? To do this, wouldn't Microsoft need the purchase data and information from Apple, or at least a mechanism for obtaining it? Absent these assurances that the music is in fact purchased, what is the difference between this idea and JHymn?
What are the chances that Apple will give ground to Microsoft, release all their information, and set themselves up for loss of the market monopoly? They need to survive long enough (Apple) for the Intel announcement to bear fruit.... they risked enough revenue announcing this early as it is. Apple would undoubtedly focus on the fact that while the artist owns the music, who is providing the service, servers, and the encoding for the files? Undoubtedly there are other contractual ties as well between artist, label, and iTunes restricting this. Would Apple be that fast and loose with their service? Is there any direct evidence to believe as such?
Doesn't make sense to me....
The Crimson Dragon
I find it interesting that in the early 90's, Apple fell hard because of the difficulty of creating hardware or software for their machines. Microsoft Windows, on the other hand, was based on IBM PC's, a format that encouraged third party support.
Now, Microsoft is trying to once again get that third party support by allowing it's music to be played anywhere; as opposed to Apple's iPod only being able to play iTunes music. I don't know if this tactic will work the second time around, but it will definitely put a big gorilla against Apple, that's for sure.
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
[1]
With Apple Computer's dominance over the digital music business growing, Microsoft is planning to bolster its own online song store with a new subscription service later this year, sources familiar with the plans say.
[2]
Microsoft and others see the future of home computing focusing increasingly around digital entertainment and consumer electronics, and in that space Apple has taken a substantial lead with its iPod music player and iTunes digital music store
You must build a portable music player that will beat iPod first!
Finally! I've been waiting for a company to buy my music from but none have been satanic enough for me. Buying some gay ass Coldplay from those lamers at Apple just didn't seem right. Now I can buy my devil music from a truly evil company as God intends.
I believe this is what N is for. An incentive to download Media Center without going against court order.
In other news, iPods are more popular than most other MP3 players and iTunes is the most popular online music store.
Bottom line: Apple wins.
computerdude33's stuff: My blog of wonder.
In other words, you can't blame them if Napster set the DRM of certain music to the most fascist restrictions possible. That wrath should be directed at the people who made that decision, not those that made that functionality possible.
Personally, I'm interested to see what buying power they will have with the labels who will, naturally, try and enforce heavily DRM'ed content which will only serve to put customers off.
In addition, how the EU (America might make noises, but as shown in the past, won't do anything much about it) will view the integration of their music service with the "buy music" link in XP.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Here's my take on it:
Google Audio Search
Audio content on the internet is in chaos. To reign in the chaos, and to capitalize on internet audio file assets, Google will launch an audio search engine or audio file search tool by 2006, but probably sooner.
I think that podcasting will fit into the equation. More and more audio content is flowing onto the web but it is in the dark corners right now. The podcasting directories and search engines basically stink. As time goes on, and as this content grows, it'll be time for Google to enter the fray. There is every reason to believe that advertising would work just fine with podcasting, especially if you find the content have the Master Index (read: Google).
But what about music? iPods are so dominant. Near the end of 2004 Apple's share of the MP3 market was about 87%. Even if that drops it ain't no big thing since the entire pie is still growing like crazy. This dominance of hardware drives dominance of iTunes. (I'm looking for disagreement of course, but throw numbers at me please.)
How to Download YouTube Videos
will they be charging $1 for a song iff it's an illegal copy?
1) MS becomes both the supplier and competitor of a number of companies. Not the best way to win friends and influence people. There are only MS and Apple players now, and driving non-MS WMA players out of business would make this literally true.
2) It seems music subscription services go head to head with Satellite radio. Not that those companies are well-funded, but it's not all that easy to play mp3(-like) players in cars today. It IS easy to play satellite stuff.
I don't know - can I carry a "licensed receiver" from car home? This would make it (far) more appealing than licensing 2+...
3) I don't think people like renting their entertainment - aren't we seeing more DVD sales and less Blockbuster income?
Just wait until Microsoft releases its mPod. Then they'll integrate it with Xbox 360...then your tv, microwave, toaster, and vibrating bed.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." -Zapp Brannigan
I couldn't find the word innovate anywhere in the article. Surely if it was really Microsoft they would be "innovating a new music service". Does this mean that Microsoft are no longer innovating and innovative?
Deleted
It was late in ack. the revolution that is the Internet.
It was late in ack. that a search engine was a very vital piece of the internet pie.
It was late in ack. that people will pay for downloading music to play on devices even if it is on devices and formats other than Microsoft owned I doubt they have a chance of pulling the rug from under Apple's feet. Maybe they should sell the whole album for $1 and give away free copy of Windows.
Oh, and tthey should go back to *not* breaking the Internet.
Launch a service that duplicates what's already out there, and make it so that the downloads play on players that nobody buys.
You can tell the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
How many flops are we up to now? .NET vs Java, XBox vs PS2, Smartphone vs Nokia , MSN Music vs iTunes, MSN Search vs Google, MSN vs Yahoo, Server 2003 vs Apache, SQL Server vs everyone.
Anyone know how Yahoo's service is doing? That might give us a pretty good clue as to how Microsoft's likely to fare.
Microsoft doesn't seem to have a very good record in online services, so I doubt this one will do all that well.
Where's Google Music? It would be interesting to see how Google might try to balance the needs of labels with the needs of users, since so many users consider the needs of labels "evil".
My tentative guess is that we'll never see Google Music for this reason. But if it's in the works, I'd love to see how they get over that hurdle.
D
Mother: Now Microsoft, if all the other companies jumped off a bridge it doesn't mean that you have to.
Microsoft: Of course it does!
Illegally leveraging their monopoly
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
MS has been announcing an awful lot of vapourware lately, with stuff scheduled years into the future - weird.
Oh well, what the hell...
Okay, if I've downloaded an iTunes song in Apple format, it would seem obvious that I have an iPod. Why would I want to have it in another format? Pretty-much my only motivation would be to share it, no? Yet, DRM and all the nice PSA's we see from the RIAA tells us NOT to share it. Now they are probably hoping they will have people move to the format and abandon the Apple format. So far, Apple format is superiour to mp3, from what I understand. M$ will need to improve upon the quality in order to steal people away. Not only that, if I have a large number of files purchased from iTunes how will this help me? Is M$ saying they will let me have the same songs for free? If this is the case, they only get revenue on new song purchases. Not sayin they can't make money that way, I'm just saying I'm not sure you're going to have a mass exodus from iTunes with just this set of features. I think M$ has a history of spreading themselves thin. They have this mentality that they must do everything in technology. "Oh! There's a search engine! We need one!" Enter MSN which just isn't attractive. "Oh! There's a chat client! We need one!" Enter Messenger! (crickets chirping) "Oh! Media services!" Blah blah!
You have to pay to use MP3, there's no lock in or copy control. Hence additional music formats.
Deleted
When has Microsoft done anything like this in the past that has succeeded?
I am not bashing them, I truly doubt they can pull it off.
I envision it with a tree based navigation system and a search that doesn't work.
Strahd
This will be an optional download from microsoft.com and not built into Windows? Or will they buy their way into this market as well, the cost being the inevitable lawsuits from existing service providers who don't like Microsoft abusing their monopoly in this way?
"seeking rights from copyright holders to give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version"
MS Lawyer: "We have to remove media player from Windows - the courts are demanding it"
Bill Gates: "OK, well lets delay it until we can find a way to turn media player in to a monopoly"
MS Lawyer: "What do you suggest?"
Bill Gates: "Why don't we make an audio format that will only run in media player, give away loads of music until we have a large market share and then refuse to give any details of the file format to anybody so that we have no competition"
MS Lawyer: "You mean like we did with Office and all our other products? I like you thinking Batman!"
Bill Gates: "Stop sucking up and get back in that court room, theres still 700 law suits against us."
I hate the MS 'drug dealer' mentality:
- Give away products free
- Wait until they're hooked
- Charge loads for future products
- Profit!!
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
Before anyone says "but apple" ,
Apple do not have a monopoly , they may have very large market share in the portable music market but it is by no means a monopoly.
Microsoft have a monopoly on desktop computing and i am fairly sure they will include this by default in longhorn with plenty of ads on it , Hearsay thus far but i wouldn't put it past them
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Microsoft copying off someone else? Imagine that??!! Seriously, mod me down if you want, but does MS EVER do anything first or on their own? This is so pathetic is makes me wanna spit...
Of course, if we scramble, we can take the market away from them -- at least for a while.
Not even music is safe from Microsoft. What a sad state of affairs. On the other hand, music these days is pretty sad in its own right, so perhaps we ought to let them have their fun...
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
... give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song they've purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod."
What's the point? If this is a _subscription_ based service, the users will already be able to grab the songs they got from iTunes at no extra cost already . . .
Appletalk -> Windows 3.11 'networking'
Mac OS X -> Windows XP
Quicktime -> WMP
Itunes (shipping) -> MSN Music (200x)
Mac OS X + Spotlight(shipping) -> Longhorn(20xx)
Mac OS + Intel -> no more need for MS
But seriously. I wonder why, when most are now going to be able to run the latest softwaree technolgy on Mac OS first, anyone would wait for MS to reverse engineer and clone.
Oh, wait, people still drive Hundais, don't they.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Considering the absurd track-record Microsoft has in locking down its own software (copy-control and security), anyone who entrusts their IP to Microsoft's care is 1. an litigious lawyer, 2. someone who deserves to get ripped off, or 3. some 60 yr-old music industry dunce. Take yer pick. Whenever it opens for business, I'm thinking hacked in under a month.
There are enough Music sites...why do they think they need to add to the mix?
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
...even for Microsoft.
Last September, the company unveiled its MSN-branded music site but it didn't have a subscription plan.
Nothing like launching a boat before the bottom is in to inspire customer confidence. Free copy of Duke Nukem Forever with every subscription, btw.
"Hey Bill, let's be sure to not target the single most popular portable player just because we don't get a cut of the hardware sales. Nevermind the fact that we are only selling downloads and not hardware, let's place severe restrictions on our customer base. Just because we don't like Apple."
This whole scheme really sets the bar on shortsightedness.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Thank God we have Microsoft to save us from vendor lock-in!
SEO Firefox Extension
This is why 99% of geeks on /. would never make decent MBAs. You must not realize - a company doesn't need to be innovative! In fact, innovation is RISKY.
It isn't all bad. But a company can be VERY profitable without being innovative.
And while you are mocking them, they are laughing all the way to the bank.
"Ideas without action are worthless."
I just don't see subscription based services supplanting the per-track download sites. The all-you-can-eat concept is compelling at first, but I think people want to be left with something when they inevitably cancel their subscriptions.
The concept of renting movies has been accepted because most people are OK with watching a particular film once every great while. When it comes to music, people want to hold onto what they get, burn it, move it onto portable devices, and have ready access to it at all Times. Once they have handed over some cash they believe they have paid for that right. The sub services almost universally demand more per track on top of the other fees to do what iTunes offers for a one-time charge $.99.
I haven't sent a dime Apple's way since April. I just haven't found anything worth buying while money is tight for me. I can't imagine having my entire collection disappear and all of the money I have spent utterly negated because of that lapse.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=innovate
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
set themselves up for loss of the market monopoly?
Last I checked, Apple didn't have a monopoly on anything.
(Except Macs, and who knows about that in the future...)
The coolest voice ever.
at the end:
Jobs: Our stuff is better than yours.
Bill: What?
Jobs: Our stuff is better, Bill.
Bill: Steve, you just don't get it. (exit)
MS will win. It will be bundled in every version of WinCraP that sells on every shitty $399 PC at Best Buy, and Joe Walmart will suck it up like the sheep that he is. A handful of geeks crying out on Slashdot will do nothing to stem the tide.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Go on then, tell me the difference between apple's non-monopoly on the large capacity portable music player and MS's monopoly on the desktop operating system. Go on, try and find one bit of difference.
I am trolling
I found a tune I wanted on the UK MSN site, so went to download it. I checked the FAQ first and was told that I only needed WM player 7 or above. So I went to get the song. I paid 69p for it having to make a credit first. Then I got taken to a page where I was informed that I had to download Music Manaager software BEFORE I could download and play the song. This was NOWHERE in the FAQ. So I cancelled the subscription, and complained informing them that I used another provider instead, and was extremely disappointed in the sly tactics at getting me to install DRM software. GOt my money back at least, but peed off anyway. DON'T USE MSN MUSIC IN THE UK!!
This sig is encrypted
>Apple's iPod only being able to play iTunes music
does not compute.
I not only want access to a high quality MP3 I also want access to an uncompressed wave file so I can encode it to any bitrate and format I want. It's not like it's going to be a huge bandwidth hit because only a very small amount of people care for the wave file, but those who want their Ogg Vorbis or lossless compression can now do it themselves without the quality loss of the MP3 format.
It may sound like a lot but think of it. If you're forking over cash for the right to download music don't you want something that's the same as the music you'd find on a physical CD? But let's be realistic, this is never going to happen and that's why I'm never going to buy music this way.
Easy , Microsoft have been convicted of abusing their monopoly making them an illegal monopoly . They are using it to break into other markets and the courts do nothing apparently.
Apple has a large majority in portable and online music for that player (the same market) microsoft have a monopoly on OSs and are using that monopoly to push into another market
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
All of these must work well individually, but when applied in unison, must absolutely rock. The only reason that Apple have succeeded is because they control each and everyone of these, allowing them to fine tune the user experience to such an extent that even a first time user can use them all as if they are a single application - because they are.
Apple are not winning because their store is the cheapest or most complete, it isn't. They are not winning because their player is the best, it isn't. They are not winning because their library is best, although it is. They are wining because it is easy, and people don't feel threatend by jargon and choice - they plug and play.
To acheive the choice that Microsoft knows we want, we would need:
This could possibly be achieved if the RIAA defined them and enforced them on pain of loosing distribution rights. People might then have the freedom to buy a new player and know it will work with the library they like and the store thats the cheapest. Until then Microsoft opening a new store, will make no difference at all.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
Let's say I want a song in Mp3 format- I can get it. I can also get it in Ogg-Vorbis format, or any format I want. Do I want to listen to music and not buy any? Can do it for 50$ a year (which, when compared to XM Radio and the like, is cheaper). And then I can grab music to DO WHATEVER I WANT to for 79 cents a pop. In whatever format I like.
click me
The reason that Apple has been so successful with iPod/iTunes/iTunes Music Store has to do with two words: easy and integrated. Before and after iPod there are plenty of portable music players. Not all of them were intuitive and easy to use. Before and after iTunes, there has been media players. Most of them are about equal in performance with some easier to work with than others. Before and after iTunes Music Stores, there were ways to get music online. Not all of them easy or intuitive to use. Progress has been made all three sides, but nobody but Apple really has been able to get the integration to work seamlessly. They can do that because they control the hardware, the software, and the online store. Microsoft at best can control only two of the three.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I've been using napster to go for a few months now and I Love it. I have access to any track they have and I can transfer music to my Zen Micro player and listen to it whenever I want.
I prefer renting to buying when it comes to entertainment. As long as I can listen to the music I want, whenever I want, I don't mind a monthly fee.
Easy.
Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic practices. Apple has not.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
I prefer file sharing over any type of online music store anytime. Especially since my credit card data was stolen from an iTunes server recently. Do I trust Apple? No. Do I trust Microsoft? Hell no! Music is here to be shared and enjoyed without the risks and hassle of online music stores.
You act like getting an MBA is an accomplishment. The only MBAs I know are people who dropped out of engineering.
Not true, Java simply moved to mobile devices like phones and the .NET runtime went nowhere with Microsoft quietly no longer betting the shop on it.
1. Charge a yearly/monthly/daily subscription fee.
2. Allow user to listen/download burn all the music they want for there subscription with a better quality than what can be found on P2P. Maybe add some perks to having a subscription i.e. lower ticket prices, posters memorabilia etc
3. Make band/singers/musicians work for there money like everybody else, namely go on tour and pack those stadiums to make money.
M$ it's whats for diner!!!!!
In other Does Not Compute news: Let's see, in order to make that "encourages third party development" comparison work, we'd need to be comparing IBM to Apple, not Microsoft... Microsoft was the third party that developed for the PC, after all. How'd that all work out for Big Blue, again? Oh.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
allofmp3.com will happily sell you music in a variety of formats, mp3 included.
There are some companies listening to consumers. It's just that most people flock to the big brand names and accept a bad deal, rather than shopping around.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Are apple using their iPod monopoly to enter into the desktop market? Or any other market?
Somewhat.
So Apple do need to keep an eye out. Or they would if MS had not shown that you can ignore monopoly problems if you move fast enough.
dam i hate microsoft apologists like you...
"That wrath should be directed at the people who made that decision, not those that made that functionality possible."
no. Our wrath should be directed as much towards microsoft as towards those who made the decision to restrict our rights.
What you're saying is that just because Microsoft created a DRM system, doesn't make them evil. Well...I'm saying no. A DRM system can be used for only one thing: limiting your rights. So because Microsoft created one, they are guilty of at the very least corporate greed for creating the system so they could license it to others.
Read Human justice for human beings for a lot of great insights about why DRM (and other forms of automatic policing) are such bad things.
I've always been the type who likes to create a collection of my own music. In the last few years, that has meant ripping stuff myself into FLAC format and then generating compressed files as needed (usually Ogg).
But now that I've tried out a subscription service (Yahoo) I'm a convert.
I don't worry anymore about what I own or have access to. I have everything. All I worry about is what I like, which is expressed through the rating system. I love it, and in my opinion, this is the future of music.
Regarding the Yahoo service in particular, I'm finding it quite good. The music is all 192Kbps (WMA), the selection is very good, and the UI is good. On the downside, the client software is buggy (it is in beta still) and the lock-in factor is pretty huge.
But for me, the biggest problem is the that subscription services - though available from a variety of retailers - are only available on Windows. Give me a cross-platform version of Yahoo (where cross-platform includes Linux) and I'll sign up for life.
(DRM/WMA is a big issue and I won't get into it here.)
It would most likely eventually stomp all over iTunes. Microsoft would just have to package it with Longhorn, and boom, people start blindly clicking on it, not realizing they have an alternative. Suddenly, WindowsTunes skyrockets to a 99.8% digital-download market share, and iTunes dies. Actually, it would probably stop illegal downloading too, so the RIAA would start paying M$ out of their assss.
I hate the one hundred and twenty character limit for signatures with an all-enveloping, all-destroying, incredible pass
Free music from Microsoft!*
<legal>*Free music may not be available at product launch. However, music is expected to be available for free within 48 hours of the release of this product. For more information please consult your local software cracking consortium. No, of course you don'thave a local software cracking consortium. All rights rese...hey! Give those back!</legal>
force 4 wind speed.
http://weather.cod.edu/notes/stnmodel.html
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Because we all know how the recording industry loves to give away copies of music for free, rather than sell them over and over.
I remember when that crate of CDs arrived to replace all those LPs, so I wouldn't have to buy them again. What a bunch of nice folks...
Not exactly. iTunes was out first, then the iPod, then the iTunes music store (which I assume you're refering to), then iTunes/iTMS for windows. Before iTMS, iPod/iTunes was still a potent combo. Competitors are at a disadvantage here. Apple had time to develop the 3 pieces of the puzzle one at a time. Now that everyone expects this, they won't bite en masse until all the pieces are there in a competitor.
"... Microsoft is also considering... seeking rights from copyright holders to give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song they've purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod."
I'm very curious to know how many people download music from the iTMS that don't own a portable player at all.... and even more curious to know how many people download music from the iTMS and own a non-Apple music player. Is it just me, or is this a solution looking for a problem?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
All this discussion is a waste of time - until the labels decide not to sell the actual CDs. While CDs are still on the market - mp3's, oog, or whatever format is going to be out there. I don't think any anti-rip measures are ever going to work well, especially if the old cd players are going to be able to read the disc. The only real issue is weather I have to buy an entire album - or only the the couple songs I want. Since I don't buy much music, not a big deal for me.
Actually, I think Microsoft is worse. I think it's a myth that drug dealer's give stuff away for free. There's already plenty of demand.
Wow, after inventing the operating system, the graphical user interface, 32bit and the Internet, Microsoft finally has brought downloadable music to mankind.
An impressing, innovative company, indeed!
(don't forget the 8.3 filename that's still used for system files on up to 98% of computers in use today)
Napster, Wal-Mart, and other stores have used WMA as their music business, using their own proprietary Windows client.
Now, MS swoops in and says "Well, yeah, I'm going to put you out of business now. Sorry about that - suckers!"
You'd think by now some companies would have learned. MS's standard system is:
1. Encourage someone else to use MS technology in their products.
2. Come out with an MS version of that same product once it succeeds and use monopoly position to put them out of business - or just buy out the company altogether.
Hm.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Subject says it all.
XML causes global warming.
The obvious thing to do here is to go ahead and download those free songs (if they'll ever materialize). If all iTunes users do that, see how long even MS can keep things afloat.
Which is I guess merely one of the reasons this won't happen.
I can dig the music mob trying to break Apple's monopoly, but who seriously believes they're going to actually give things away?
I think, therefore I am...I think.
First, the idea of Microsoft complaining about locked in proprietary DRM and hardware is hilarious enough as it is. But seriously, how would Microsoft arrange a deal where they could magically provide users of their service all the songs they've purchased from another service? First, the copyright holders would want to be paid...again. Second, who has those records? I'm sure that ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and all the major labels all have royalty data from Apple, but I doubt seriously it's broken down by user. And I'm sure that Apple would have something to say about it even if they tried. I'm sure that Apple was smart enough to stipulate that the royalty data would not be shared with any other party.
frankly i dont see microsoft attaching this service to an MS ipod clone and locking it togehter. Microsoft has gotten where it is by... and i cant believe i am saying this on slashdot, but allowing more freedom to third perties as well as supporting third parties as opposed to other comperably software corporations (leave open source out). wma is not a bad format and the fact of the matter is that a player that playes mp3 and wma is far more liekly to play ogg vorbis as well. i for one support the demise of the ipod and the rise of a good music service for all those crazy mp3/wma players from taiwan.
as well as when it comes to anything going wrong in music, music players, and DRM... i feel as though we can shift blame to the RIAA rather than any software/hardware company just trying to play within the ill concieved rules.
that the owner no longer own but rents instead, as well as its own model, and that's a loss for Microsoft (why pay twice for the same music?)
Atc some point, Microsoft will realize that their 'rental' model is undercutting their OS sales since nobody needs to buy new hardware anymore to access all their songs.
And besides, I don't see Microsoft's wired verification DRM approach being able to compete with iPod on a sunny beach.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
That's their choice. They have the right to control their product however they want. They have the right to release it DRMed to the gills so that only a single model of player can play it. They have the right to snip it up into 5-second segments that play in random order in the wrong player. They have the right to apply filtering and clipping to turn crystal clarity into thick, clammy mud. They have the right to require whatever crippling mechanisms they can cook up, to make their music as useless and unlistenable as they want.
What they don't have the right to do is kvetch when nobody can listen to or wants to buy data in their format.
I say give them exactly what they want and more: unlistenable music in undecryptable formats, and let the market itself pass their death sentence.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
Microsoft wanting to get in on the action too? I am shocked. No really. I am shocked they haven't announced this two years ago. What took them so long? They need to just make it "media" and make moves to include movies too.
....anyway.... back to work...
And why not? With the proliferation of DVD writers, why not make DVD players capable of playing the DRM'd video files burned to DVD+/-R media? The DRM would merely be a way of tagging the original downloader's information with the original file so that if it is released on P2P, they can at least find out where the leak came from. People could then download their music and movies and play them at home. Talk about lowering publication costs. (Is this a new idea? Do I need to file a patent now?)
There would still be a market for DVDs just as there is still a market for CDs in light of the material being made available for download from sources such as iTunes. I've heard reports saying that people have flocked to iTunes and I think they would flock to MS-Media-Store just as quickly. There are all sorts of ways to lock up the media... heck, they could lock the data file to the player that the user is using using some sort of digital key card. (Their player goes bad, they buy a new player and put the old card into to the new player to enable the movies to play on it... backups would be a snap satisfying the need for users to maintain backup copies right? Crackers would find ways to override this protection but really a vast majority of normal people wouldn't bother.)
Apple sells lots of iPods because they are popular and easy to use and high quality (I think so anyway.) Of the many varieties of mp3 player, more people choose the iPod.
Microsoft sells lots of copies of Windows because they have 'forced' manufacturers to include their software on the manufacturer's product. Of the many varieties of personal computer that are out there to buy, all of them (unless you build it yourself (or buy an Apple)) will come with Windows. (okay, okay, Linspire.)
When you buy an mp3 player, each manufacturer chooses the player's OS. when you buy a computer, Microsoft chooses for you. the only computer manufacturer that offers an alternative is Apple. While every mp3 player works differently. However, all mp3 players can play all mp3s (except perhaps those from sony) word processor files are a bit more problematic.
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
MS is sneaky this way. Napster/Yahoo pay MS to licence its DRM.
Then MS decideds to open its store.. I'm sure its not using any of its licencing fees to undercut the competetion....
MS always gets huge payement from competors. Sony pays for Windows and gets a subsidised XBOX (which has cost MS millions).
I'm really surprised any company would partner with MS that didn't need the OS.
After a "security patch" automatically downloaded by the world, the various MS competitors start experiencing problems. Then they just stop working altogether.
I've purchased over 400 songs from iTMS. I go through stages where I'll go months without buying anything and then I'll spend $50 in one night. The store just makes it to easy to buy music. I still have a problem with DRM although it hasn't had any affect on my music. I don't share it out to anybody. I don't live on a campus. I have more of a gripe with the audio format being only 128Kb. I'd prefere a lossless format and I hope that day will come. But I can live with 128K. It actually sounds pretty good. Even better than a lot of my older cd's from the 80's which apparently weren't recorded too well anyway.
The biggest complaint I have is that I really don't own a physical copy of my music. I downloaded an album from iTMS. After listening to it quite a bit, I realized that I really don't like it. But there's nothing I can do about it. If I had purchased the CD, I could take it down to my local independent music store and sell them the CD and get a few bucks back. Thats the biggest problem I have with purchasing online. So if you are going to purchase an album online, better make damn sure you are going to like it.
Be careful. This is the same Microsoft that patented the tab key. Their innovation is boundless
Ijust purchased the new White Stripes album on iTunes & it came with a 8 page .pdf of the album booklet and even the music video for the first single. If more and more bands do this I will have no problem buying every album online.
"I'm in it to win it, and no limit is my home." - Snoop Dog c/o PvP Online (July 12th, 2006)
Will there be a version for Linux? :)
Yes he does. He has a responsibility to his share holders to turn profits. The best way to ensure profit is by diversifying his sources of revenue.
I hate to admit that the parent made some good points, but he did.
I will never, ever use that kind of subscription service, but some people may find it to be a good thing.
Bah!
For me, music as an experience is different based upon the media or conduit through which I hear the music, the method.
Obviously concerts are different from pre-recorded material.
But also listening on vinyl, cassette, CD, radio, music television (not to be confused, anymore, with MTV), mp3, and even listening on 5-disc shuffle, mp3 shuffle, or etc. changes the experience.
One record company I know of refused to release their material to iTunes because the CD could not be sold as a cohesive unit. And while this company clearly profits off of releasing different mixes of the same music (plus a bonus track once in a while), I can at least agree with the decision from a musical perspective.
Picking up just the single (or a smattering of songs) is like buying just my "favorite" scene from a movie; the cohesive whole is lost. I assume many artists put a record (or symphony, etc.) together not just as a collection of individual tunes, so I enjoy songs most in the context of listening to the whole CD or record. Maybe some pop only cares about the single, but... there is so much more out there.
Nothing against the 1-song-ers & downloads & shuffle. But all are different experiences.
Is Microsoft able to come up with any ideas ?
One has to wonder, when is having your run of the entire computer industry and the billions and billions of dollars in your pocket enough? Does Micro$oft really need to corner this section of the market, I mean no one really likes WM format anyhow, its crap. So why dont they just to what they are HALFWAY good at, and by that I mean, making a half-assed OS that kind of works ok.
Just to add some confirmation to this, I have a set of useless, un-restorable Windows Media licenses. I began tentatively experimenting with Windows Media protected files many years ago (before U.S. WMA stores appeared, there were DRM WMA-based stores in Japan from major labels like Avex). I didn't really trust it and made sure to make re-recordings of the songs. Sure enough, after several new computers and OS upgrades and whatnot, that set of licenses I originally built is no longer restorable. It let me do it more than twice (I believe it was five times, actually) but no more. If I'd trusted the system, all of those songs would simply be gone now. Some of them are from stores that no longer exist. (Toshiba EMI shut down their Japanese WMA-base store.)
I now only buy DRMed songs in cases where the inability to restore the licenses doesn't matter, which is a rather rare situation (basically, only when buying a song single that I expect to be re-buying as part of an album in a few months). Recording and re-tagging is more trouble than its worth. (HYMN makes iTunes usable, though.)
The situation is even worse if you want to be able to play your music on multiple computers, like a desktop and a laptop.
DRMed music should be thought of as a temporary, limited rental only. It's completely untrustworthy for permanent use. I think the monthly subscription-based "all you can eat" DRM music rental services make sense (comparable to porn site subscriptions) but that's the only use I can see for it.
is that every time Bill strays from his core competencies he loses money. Xbox is going to be in the hole for at least a decade. Almost all of Microsoft's non-core products that have had a modicum of success have been developed externally (Visio).
Microsoft should be a "good" monopoly and just spin off its cash to its shareholders. They can likely invest it for a greater return on their investment than Microsoft is capable of.
Why must Microsoft always have to compete on every playing field? They're like a child that has to be the center of attention all the time. Give it a break Bill!
I guess it was only a matter of time before Microsoft got serious and decided to play hardball. I just wish both Apple an MS would think more about the user instead of their respective monopolies. Yes, I have an ipod, and yes, I hate the fact that I can't just get a simple mp3 from iTunes. Looks like the same will be true of MS.
These giants should have more respect for their customers by just selling a good product that is universally applicable across all media players.............oh wait, this is MS we're talking about. Never mind.
Health Insurance Quotes
Excuse me but wouldn't the music lables have to do this for every service then? It would be like preferring a vendor, which if I am correct is not legal. I would love a precedent like this however, you can switch services, and retain your music rights. Like I need to buy another copy of "Dark Side of the Moon!"
Just further proof they are no longer the company of innovation and "Where do you want to go today" and are now just following trends. They should change their motto to "Where were you yesterday" I know even their best innovations were usually stolen but they had a way to know which way the winds would be going and lead you there. Now they just see what is the "flavor of the month" is and hop on the bandwagon. Microsoft was once the top dog. Given trends in the industry it would not surprise me to see them completely disappear in 10 years once the OS market changes. Their other flagships will not keep them afloat once the end is near. (Long time lurker, why I chose this one to pop my /. cherry, I dunno, but howdy all!)
in their contracts. Otherwise, it belongs to the recording studio (why do you think there's so many 'studio' musicians?)
The music industry's a rip-off industry. They can't make music but they earn everything they can from playing it.
They earn money from the playing, not from anybody's listening. That's why they buy song books and hire 'studio' musicians to play songs to captive audiences in elevator, malls and ubiquitous other venues.
Thats' why they churn the crap out. They could give a shit about you.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Who here would PAY to see Microsoft jump off a bridge?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Microsoft is a technology company with a reliable cash cow. As such they actually can make use of the mythical Slashdot business model, although their success is mixed:
1. Wait for somebody else to prove a market exists.
2. Enter the market with technology driven product.
3. ????
4. Profit
Step three here is to sustain the product using the revenues from their cash cow for three generations as they learn by trial and error what users will actually pay for (in in some cases as technology cathes up to their vision).
The thing is, Microsoft seems to have a remarkably poor grasp of consumer behavior. They see a problem somebody else is solving, and they immediately assume consumers will pay for a competing solution that has some kind of technological difference. And sometimes they're right. But subscription music looks like a disaster to me. On a spreadsheet, the appeal may look unbeatable: you can deliver more value to the consumer per dollar, you create a steady and reliable revenue stream (the wet dream of all post boom software companies), and you appeal to the record companies' stingy instincts when it comes to letting their customers use the music. But I'll be they'll never get their music service off the ground unless they find a way to use the monopoly to ram it down everyone's throats.
Seems to me Apple has the easiest message here: we sell music super cheap.
In the subscription model, the message is: if you enter into a business relationship with us, we will let you listen to our music, at price such that if you expect to continue to continue purchasing music at the rate you currently do, you will save money over the period you choose to maintain the relationship.
In other words, in the cheap tracks model, the customer buys music. In the subscription model, he rents a relationship and buys into a buch of assumptions.
So, I expect the subscription thing to be a huge flop. Microsoft will give up and start selling tracks for whatever Apple is charging, provided the cash cow doesn't run dry and cause them to give up.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"Not that I would use a WMA-based service even if it didn't try to force a subscription model on me; for all the ranting about FairPlay being a closed format, WMA is an even more closed format. Fairplay is the open AAC format, then uses AES encryption (another standard) for DRM; all the details are documented and freely available on the web (albeit not from Apple). WMA? It's not even published; the exact nature of it's non-DRM compression isn't available; in fact, more is known about its DRM than about its codec."
WMA can be licensed by any compay that wants to use it. No company can license fairplay to use it. If the reverse engineer it, Apple sues them. If this is your idea of an open format, then I'll take closed formats.
Vote for Pedro
Stillborn.
Moof.
Here's why lack of competition in any given market is bad: I've owned my iPod mini for two weeks, and already it won't sync with iTunes anymore. Apple says it's broken, and I need to send it in. They also tell me that this is my one free support call. If the iPod they send me is also defective, the support call will cost me $50.00. Why should I pay a lot of money for an iPod, then pay again when it's defective? If I had known this I defiantely would not have bought an iPod. Having just paid more than $200.00 for a defective iPod pisses me off. Knowing that I will pay an additional $50.00 if the replacement is defective means that I won't buy Apple products again if at all possible. I bought a Sony Walkman 20 years ago that still works. I'm listening that on the treadmill while I wait for a replacement iPod. Just like what I've experience with Microsoft for years. It works, but.....
In exchange for copyright extension, they should propose the following:
If the labels want near-perpetual copyrights, it's only fair to give up some control. They've been gilding the lilly long enough.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Often, when I do find what I want it's in .wmv or .ogg. I use iTunes; I want .m4a or .mp3.
WMA I can't help you with, but if you find .ogg, then you should be able to use the Vorbis decoder for QuickTime to play .ogg files in the iTunes software or to transcode them to .m4a for use on your iPod player.
That's their choice. They have the right to control their product however they want.
But why should the music industry have the privilege to blast songs onto commercial radio and then sue people who, over a decade later, write songs that are remotely similar? It has happened, and it is likely to happen again.
I would happily pay 99 cents a song, if they gave it to me in .mp3 format, completely free of DRM, and I had an online record of all the songs I had purchased and could re-download then whenever I needed to one one or two machines through the service, or just copy it unlimited times to CDs, etc. myself. This is the only way I'm ever going to buy these. Stop circumventing fair use by making "licenses," if you are unethical to your customers, they will be unethical to you!
Really? And they get source code? What specific techniques are used to encode audio into WMA? Oh yeah... they're not available. Microsoft just points you at their pre-compiled library and says 'use that.'
Perhaps for the encoder, but I'd imagine that licensees get decoder source code so that they can port it to whatever DSP a device uses (as you hint later). Remember that pocket-size players don't have an x86 monoculture the way consumer PCs do.
I don't know of any independant software implementations of WMA (with or without DRM). FairPlay (without its DRM) is an AAC file -- a format that has more than a few independant implementations.
AAC implementations aren't as independent as you think; they're licensed by a division of Dolby on a royalty basis, which is incompatible with free software. Your argument may be valid in a decade and a half when the essential AAC patents expire, but it isn't now.
I already have all the information I need to implement the FairPlay/AAC format; the spec is freely available. I can write a compliant FairPlay encoder, a decoder, and DRM protection facilities. And as long as I don't try to sell music using my implementation, Apple will be hard-pressed to touch me.
But what about Dolby?
It appears that the only audio formats comparable to .m4a (MPEG-4 AAC audio) that have a published spec and are thought to be free of patent encumbrance are .ogg (Ogg Vorbis) and .mpc (Musepack).
"Easy.
Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic practices. Apple has not."
I hate to break it to you, but Apple is conducting monopolistic practices with iTMS *right now*. Using your 86% marketshare in MP3 players to lock people in to your player software and your music download service is exactly the kind of shit that Microsoft was convicted for.
Apple doesn't report which users have bought which tracks, which is the issue being discussed here. Microsoft wants to make WMA versions of iTMS songs available for free to iTMS customers who have already bought those songs
Audio fingerprinting can determine the identity of a recording given only a recorded waveform of that recording. Worst case: Microsoft's program scans your HD for iTMS files, asks QuickTime (the technology underlying the iTunes software) to play a snippet of each, records the song through the speaker into the microphone, and matches the audio fingerprint against a database. If your machine is authorized to play a given recording under Apple's system, then you're authorized to download a second copy of that recording under the system that Microsoft proposes.
What about "gratification here"? Does iTunes Music Store give any gratification to people living outside of those few territories where Apple chooses to offer iTMS, or does he or she have to pay five or more figures to go through a supported territory's immigration process (compromising "cheaply" and "easily")?
And what about "gratification in the long term"? Can a buyer still authorize machines to play purchased downloads even after Apple shuts down iTMS?
Since the point of being 'open' is that an NDA becomes pointless -- it's all published publically anyway; what's the point of keeping the secret?
Specifications of audio codecs tell what is a conforming bitstream and how to decode it. They do not tell how to encode a waveform efficiently; that can be covered by trade secrets or by non-essential patents.
You seem to be confusing a patent with a copyright.
Free software is most often licensed under copyright, but in order for free software to be truly free, as defined by FSF, its use has to be free of any exclusive privilege owned by a third party: "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)."
And Dolby's patents are only valid in the countries that recognize them as valid.
You bring up Mongolia, but doesn't Dolby own counterpart patents in most developed countries that are markets for MPEG-4 audio technology (i.e. USA, Canada, EU members, and Japan)?
All the patents do is make it illegal for someone to use or sell the implementation within the United States.
If end users aren't free to sell a copy of a program due to a patent, then it's not free software until the patent runs out.
Apple is limited by the various country specific music organization (cartels, really). If Apple could, Apple would (more profit with a bigger market, after all), but Apple can't, and it's incorrect of you to think it is Apple's fault.
Then why doesn't Apple Computer set up indie-only iTMS branches in territories whose local music cartels won't play ball? This would at least give Apple a chance to inflate the number of iTMS unique buyers in order to pressure the cartels into giving in.
What you are talking about is 'return on investment', and that's where the 'cheaply' kicks in. Your music will last as long as your iPod will, as long as your computer does. Before iTMS, your music lasted as long as your medium.
In that case, a used CD bought at the local pawn shop often has a better ROI than an iTMS download. In the developed world, people routinely throw out old computers after five years or less, or at least repurpose them into firewalls or NAS servers or the like, for applications that aren't CPU- or RAM-bound. On the other hand, with Compact Disc Digital Audio, I still have CDs from about 1987 that play perfectly in every CD player I own.
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO HAVE A MONOPOLY. Got it? It is illegal to abuse the power you get with a monopoly. You could argue that Apple is abusing their monopoly somehow, but I don't think they are (and they don't have a monopoly quite yet anyway). In any case, just having a monopoly isn't illegal.
I would happily buy protected music online IF it were mine, period. No sharing? Fine. Only allowed on a certain amount of devices at one time? Fine, I can deal with that.
I don't like the thought of being 'locked out' of the music/file/license/whatever that I have legally purchased. That is my money down the drain.
I don't really mind the above mentioned limitations, but when I buy it, I expect it to be mine. Unless I get a full refund when any copyright enforcement mechanisms decide to deny me what I paid for (the right to listen to the music), I will be skeptical of DRM in these music files and won't purchase them.
Is Microsoft offering to convert the iTunes songs you *own* into songs that will stop working if you cancel your subscription?
Um, no thanks!
That can't be it, can it?
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
Here's a pretty good definition:
a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"
So what is a monopolistic behavior, if that is what a monopoly is?
iTunes tracks works on four specific music players right now:
1) iPods (all three types)
2) PCs running iTunes (all 95% of the market)
3) Macs running iTunes (all 3% of the market)
4) HP Media Centers running HPTunes (all ???% of the market)
I think you are being over general with the term 'monopoly'. Perhaps a better term would be 'proprietary'. Apple does not (yet) allow iTunes tracks to be played on non Apple sanctioned devices.
Do you rant and rail against the monopolistic tactics of Sony and it's PS1/PS2? Or Nintendo with it's Gamecube and Gameboy? Or Microsoft with their XBox? iTunes tracks are proprietary to Apple, and only people Apple has sanctioned can play Fairplay DRMed AAC files.
As a point, there are more ways to play iTunes tracks than there are ways of playing PS1, PS2, Gamecube, Gameboy, and XBox games, respectively. If it is not okay for Apple, why is it okay for anyone else to keep proprietary formats? This isn't even talking about Microsoft and Office, or Microsoft and WMA, or Microsoft and IE-HTML.
GPL Deconstructed
On what basis do you claim an OS and applications are different markets but a portable music player and music are the same?
I am trolling
Apple has not, yet. At this point in their monopoly abuse MS hadn't been convicted either.
I am trolling
All word processors can read rtf files, it's only ms' doc that you can't, just like you can play mp3 on anything but can't play apple's drmed AAC on anything but an iPod.
I am trolling
RTFP I was replying to, they said "Apple does not have a monopoly". Anyway, I think they're abusing it by refusing to license the DRM they use to other music stores, so only they can sell major-label music for the ipod.
I am trolling
true, true, they can, but I'm not so certain about the latter part of your statement. I have successfully played apple itms bought tracks in realPlayer. I don't have any really good reason to, but I tried it anyway. don't know if this really makes an answer for you as it was stiil on my mac, and I believe the drm may be system level.
.rtf you have to select it manually every time. itunes will default to what ever codec and format you desire (that it is capable of) mp3, flac, AAC etc.
.rtf is a somewhat disjointed comparison. Does MS sell .docs? for that matter will a drm'ed .wmv play on an ipod?
.rtf as the default file format. if I rep a song using itunes, I can be sure that it will be playable in any other mp3 player. with word, unless I specifically request it. it will only be openable in the newest copy of word.
there is a subtle difference in the two cases you mention though. MS Word will always (to my knowledge) default to the most recent Word format to save a file. in order to save as
comparing -purchasing- a drm'ed track with -creating- an
besides the itms is there to provide content for the ipod, that's all. to provide a service to those people that purchase an ipod. It has been pointed out ad nauseum that apple makes no money from itms or itunes.
but, as I remember, your question was initially, to show what, if any, difference was there between MS's monopolistic tendencies and Apple's new tendencies. and simply put, I think the major difference is that with the apple program, you can set the default file format to be the open shareable variety, and unless you change it, every file that you rip will be of that type. with word, I know of now way to set
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Nope. They haven't spent millions getting exclusive contracts that short out other competitors... they haven't leveraged their market share to silence any alternative outlets for music (like Microsoft did with OEM deals not allowing any other OS to show up on a PC)...
Sorry, but it's NOT a monopoly.
Hate to break it to you... read up on Microsoft's dealings and what they were convicted of.
They do NOT lock you into a player for music. They only allow music purchased at their store to be used on the iPod.
I can't buy music at Rhapsody, Napster, MSN Music, or any OTHER store. I am locked out.... does that make them monopolies?
Get a grip.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
It is a bit of a disjointed comparison, but to my eye there are similarities. People are locked out by the use of DRMed AAC even though the open mp3 format exists. DRMed WMV files won't play on an ipod but that's simply because Apple haven't licensed it, MS will let anyone who pays their fees (IIRC $20000 plus a royalty on each player sold, but don't quote me on it) add support to their player, or sell those files in their store. Wheras real approached Apple, saying they were willing to license the AAC drm on similar terms so they could sell tracks for the ipod from their music store, and were basically told Apple wasn't interested no matter how much money they offered.
It's been pointed out repeatedly but it's still wrong. If you read Apple's statements to shareholders you'll see iTMS is a major profit center.
Though you can change the format used in itunes, you can't change the format iTMS sells in. You get tracks you can't play on any non-ipod portable player, you have to lose quite a bit of quality or space and go through a tiresome conversion to make them MP3s, certainly much more convoluted than changing a dialog box to save as rtf. But the main monopolising is having iPods only play one type of drm file and refusing to license it to other music stores. The fact that the ipod can play other non-drm formats is immaterial since major-label music is only available to sell in drmed formats.
I am trolling