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."
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.
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.
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 must build a portable music player that will beat iPod first!
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.
That's why you're not seeing just MP3s from the majority of these companies. Those that do sell mp3s without DRM tend to be record labels or indie groups -- bleep.com, the mp3 branch of Warp Records, sells high quality mp3s.
While I agree with the sentiment, most people still call these files MP3. Personally, I applaud Apple's use of AAC, as it's actually a better format than MP3 -- it compresses smaller at the same bitrate, and it sounds better at the same bitrate. AAC rivals OGG in some sound tests.
WMA is one of the worst, beat only by Real's format and ATRAC3. Not that many consumers really care -- many of the artifacts and glitches in p2p-acquired mp3s aren't present in the first place, so the quality doesn't present itself as that different (plus they get no CD to compare it against).
Still, iPods don't play WMA files, and their dominance of the portable music scene pretty much guarantees that when people hear "you can't use Microsoft's service with your iPod," it will be relegated to a niche almost immediately. /prediction
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
I totally agree...I listen to cd's in my car all the time (I'm a loser with no car mp3 player) and I honestly don't think I will stop buying cd's for a long time. I went through my download phase, but I've gone back to cd's...even now when I download a song or two I usually end up buying the whole album anyway. It just seems so much more cohesive that way. And there's something great about being able to just hand someone a big 'ol book and telling them to put on some music.
...no two people are not on fire.
Having worked with downloadable music content I can tell you that getting the music industry labels to agree to non-DRM'ed content in any format is practically impossible. They are so paranoid about their music being "stolen" that they won't accept anything else.
(which, to be fair, the volumes traded on Kazaa do give their paranoia some justification - even if DRM has been proven time and time again not to actually work or prevent it)
The music industry attitude that I've come across is simple ... if you aren't prepared to sell our content with DRM, then you don't get our content.
Granted, the big labels aren't the be all and end all and there are labels which have a more enlightened view - however 80% of a services revenue will be chart related and, as such, they have to have the big labels on board to be able to provide that coverage.
Finally, I do understand that there are some legitimate sites out there that do sell MP3's with no DRM. I've never been to them, but if they are selling big label content like this legally then I have no idea how they managed to agree such a deal.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
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
Thank God we have Microsoft to save us from vendor lock-in!
SEO Firefox Extension
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
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.
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.