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?
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.
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.
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.
You obviously missed Steve Jobs telling us Apple have 82% of the digital download market, I'd say we definitely need more players.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
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!
You must build a portable music player that will beat iPod first!
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.
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?
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.
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
"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
5)Profit!
-=sig=-
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!
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.
Easy.
Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic practices. Apple has not.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
You obviously missed Steve Jobs telling us Apple have 82% of the digital download market, I'd say we definitely need more players.
We need MS to be that player like we need Enron to open a accounting firm. Having more, cross-compatible device manufacturers and music services would be nice, but there is a down side and there is a huge down side to MS being one of them.
The music industry in the U.S. and much of the world is a cartel, convicted of manipulating the market and artificially inflating prices. If they get to deal with a diverse market, they will behave in their usual antisocial fashion and customer will take it right in the ass. Apple is pretty close to a beneficent dictator right now. They own the market for the most part haven't done anything to lock customers into their solution or screw them on prices partly because they are running their service as a way to sell more hardware.
Enter MS. They are a monopoly convicted of price fixing, destroying competition, and violating laws all over the world. They are masters of locking customers in and trapping individuals and organizations using marketing, bribes, and technological shenanigans to suck more money out of those trapped users.
Maybe these two evil, companies will cancel out and somehow the public will get a fair deal. Maybe pigs will fly. You'll notice the other big player looking to move into this market is Walmart. Enough said.
This whole situation looks like it will just get worse and worse for customers and better and better for industry. The government is certainly not likely to step in and ensure a fair deal. We all know how easy it is to buy them. All that leaves is a grass-roots movement. I'm buying DRM-free music (or music that can have the DRM legally removed) and indy music from non RIAA members. I don't expect it will make a difference but at least I will do my part. What will you do?
I really can't tell if this message is supposed to be a (+1, funny) or if you're actually serious.
If your credit card is so maxed out that you can't afford Yahoo Music's $5/mo. unlimited plan, you've got bigger problems than your music not working.
As for your other questions about travelling, getting seriously hurt and whatnot, I really don't get what you're saying. Again, if I get seriously hurt and can't afford my $5 a month Yahoo subscription, I think I'll have bigger worries.
Sorry I want the music to play as long as i have a player. You are now tied to napster for your music. You can't say no, you have no choice but to pay them forever.
You can still buy the music you really like. The great thing about the subscription services is that, for $5-15 a month, you can listen to whatever you want for as long as you're a subscriber (think Netflix). If you find something you really like, buy it from whatever service you want or on CD so you can own it.
For the vast majority of stuff, though, that you might like for a while, then cast aside, subscription services are ideal. It's also great if you like to sample new music in more than 30 second snippets.
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...
"... 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.
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.
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...)
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.
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.