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."
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.
Um, because they want a more proprietary format to monopolize the online music industry? They know that most users don't know that they can convert file formats and will blissfully by themselves an ipod/whatever crappy mp3 player microsoft will certainly launch soon, if they own a bunch of songs with that format.
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
"... 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
You must build a portable music player that will beat iPod first!
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!
"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
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!
As if there already isn't a big enough supply of freely copyable MP3s...
When people buy music online, they do it for the convenience of a one stop shop and the fact that they are doing it legally. If you can burn your "protected" files to a CD, then any idiot can easily burn the CD from itunes, then stick it back in and reimport it in unprotected files.
I think you are thinking like the record industry and you are forgetting that kazaa and limewire have every song available in unprotected MP3 formats, so if you want people to actually shell out for music you should actually offer an upgrade.
Just think about this: If somebody downloads the MP3 off kazaa, they can connect and upload it directly to any MP3 player of their choice, since they all support MP3. But if they buy it online, they are locked into one store or the other depending on which MP3 player they own.
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 honestly don't get the way you're thinking. You seriously think selling freely copyable MP3s wouldn't reduce sales far more?
The problem with DRMed products is, if it's not freely copyable, you will eventually be locked out of it for good. Take Microsoft's DRM, for example. Microsoft will only let you restore your license backups twice. After that, you can kiss your paid-for music collection goodbye.
Do you plan on upgrading your computer or reinstalling the OS more than twice? If you've bought music online, you've spent real money on a disappearing product.
I'm convinced the only reason online music stores sell anything at all is that they're too new. 99.9% of users haven't read the fine print and won't find out that they didn't really buy anything until the next upgrade cycle comes around.
People who want music without paying for it can already find it. But I believe if the record labels made it possible to pay a fair price for something better--no risk of bad rips, truncated files, or lawsuits from the RIAA--people would gladly pay for it. But the only thing the labels will allow to be sold online is shackled to one PC, artificially incompatible with many players, and practically guaranteed to disappear. That is supposed to sway people from P2P?
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...
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.