Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Deal With eMusic Excludes iPhones
ubermiester writes "ArsTechnica reports that AT&T has inked a deal with eMusic, a direct competitor to Apple's iTunes music store. eMusic specializes in independent artists and offers DRM-free content for direct download. For a monthly fee (the number of tracks one can download per month depends on the package) the site's catalog will be available to AT&T customers using Samsung and Nokia handsets, but not the iPhone."
One vendor partners with some other, but not all, vendors. Wake the presses, folks, this is Slashdot FRONT PAGE NEWS!
Bite my shiny metal ass.
Something doesn't seem quite right with the article description.
The iTunes Music Store sells songs from major labels.
eMusic sells songs from independent artists.
Where does the direct competition come in? Sounds like Apples and Oranges to me.
Why would Apple want their iPhone users paying someone else for music? They want to lock their customers in to buying only from them.
What, exactly, is the story here? That Boo Hoo, I have to continue to pay the much lower cost of 7$US for 40 songs and sync it to my iPhone using iTunes?
Now who is going to be hit with the "cost of cool"?
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
What's the opposite of a fanboy? Just as rabid and uninformed and loud, just a detractor? We need a word...
I imagine Apple DEMANDED that any such deals not include the iPhone, to steer iPhone users at iTMS.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
TROLL, as I've modded. How was GP insightful?
Anybody surprised? Anybody care? It is just another reason why the iPhone sucks...
:P
But.. [looks at his iPhone and his missing $600], it doesn't suck really, right? It's revolutionary and.. I mean.. it's Apple, yeeei
Careful...
You're going make the tiny number of Apple fans dumb enough fall for the iPhone marketing hype cry. You know how sensitive those emo Apple fanboys can be...
It sounds like the iTunes service is better anyway. $7.49/month for 5 songs? Even the article says that the service is pathetic compared to what eMusic already offers on your computer (30 songs/month for $10).
To summarize: an overpriced service that few people will use isn't compatible with the iPhone (probably because it's harder to run third-party apps on it), but no one cares because Apple already offers a superior service on its phone. Next you'll have people complaining that Microsoft doesn't offer Internet Explorer for Linux.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
I love eMusic, but this seems rather pricey - especially since many new phones can just browse the eMusic site and use their standard (and much cheaper) plans. That, or just download the songs on a PC and transfer them across.
What am I missing? Is downloading songs on the road such a big deal?
that's so insighful it made my brain vomit.
Why pay 8.00 for five DRM scarred songs that only only intented to be used on a single device from itunes when you can buy the same 5 songs outright for about the same amount from this service?
Fixed that for you.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I subscribed for a month. Nice idea... DRM-free with MP3 encoded pretty well. There are a few problems with it. Lack of popular/big label artists. You really have to like indie rock or whatever they specalize in. Also there's a proprietary download manager, so Linux support is iffy. But, still, competition with iTunes sounds good. Me, I'll stick to used CDs ripped to FLAC.
Hmmm...I wonder what my choice would be.
Now for people without computers, I can see how this is a good deal. I would also say that for kids that into this music, it would be good.
I think the lack of iPhone support is a non issue. I suppose that I can subscribe to emusic myself from my computer, get the music into itunes and then on the iPhone, and not have to waste the phones times downloading music instead of surfing the web. I doubt there is enough bandwidth for both. Next thing you tell me is that I am supposed to be annoyed because I do not have opportunity to spend $3 for ringtones.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I don't understand...
You're saying that the iPhone sucks because the other guys use an inferior music store?
And it was awesome. You could log on and download their entire database if you wanted to. Just pay for one month, and download away. Of course, now that piracy is a big issue, I'm sure it works differently. And it's no surprise the iPhone is excluded...iPods have always had a closed system preventing you from using music from any music service other than iTunes. And why would Apple ever change that? They dominate the mp3 market. By opening up their system, all they'd be doing is saying to emusic "Here, help yourself to the profits of our monopoly!" That said, there's nothing to stop iPhone owners from signing up for emusic independent of AT&T and putting the DRM-Free mp3 files on their iPhones.
Include the ipod in that list. The hardware nice, its pretty looking, and it works, but its overpriced compared to its competition. I recently bought a Creative MP3 player- same physical size, within an ounce of the weight, same hard drive, included a built in radio, and 50 dollars less. Why would I want an ipod again?
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
If it's anything like eMusic's standard subscription option, and I can't imagine why it wouldn't be, you do not rent the songs for a month. You get five downloads a month and you keep them forever, DRM-free. Myself, I get 30 downloads a month for $15, which is their lowest end package through their site. At bigger package deals, it comes out to like $0.25 per track. You can get booster packs at any time too for not much more than the subscription price.
Their catalog is all indie labels though, so if you're into top 40 pop chart stuff, stick with iTunes. Sir Paul's new album is also available through eMusic, but that's probably not indicative of anything.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
AT&T takes less time to go from "split up" back to "monopoly" than it takes to make a Star Wars trilogy.
--
make install -not war
The shockingly low number of iPhones is probably the reason.
Next time don't ask that little troll that's hiding in your cupboard about sales numbers: he's lying to you and taking the money!
Is this "DRM-free" stuff, DRM in disguise? Or is it unscrambled but still in a near-useless proprietary format (which is just about as bad as DRM)? I don't give a damn about Apple's products specifically, but any interoperability problems they have, anyone else is going to have too.
Geez, quit fuckin' with us. You just aren't going to get my money if your stuff doesn't work.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I know you can import music to your iTunes list, and I know that you can transfer music from iTunes to an iPod...however...
Have you verified that you can transfer music which was imported (not purchased) from iTunes to an iPhone? I know that it seems a reasonable thing to expect, however, from the other weird limitations I have read about the iPhone, I am concerned that specific checks may have been written into the software to prevent this.
Have you actually done it yourself? Or do you know someone who has?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I can't see why anybody would sign up for this. ATT's webpage states that data transport charges still apply when you are using this service. I am already an eMusic subscriber for $10 per month and I get 30 downloads with that.
Using my unlocked Nokia N80, I have always been able to browse eMusic's website using the data portion of my AT&T cell plan. Although I haven't actually tried to download a song that way using my existing eMusic account, I suspect it would work fine, because their site just links directly to MP3 files. Most Nokia phones already have a built-in MP3 player as well.
You are not renting music when you sign up with eMusic - you download it in non-DRM mp3 format and it is yours to keep forever. They have worked that way since they first began almost 10 years ago.
That said, $7.50 for 5 songs is far more than I would be willing to pay just for the convenience of downloading directly on the phone. Especially considering that their normal plan is $10 for 30 songs. The only use that I can think for that would be impulse purchases (at party, ooh I want to hear ) but that's not what eMusic's catalog is tailored towards.
You don't rent music from EmuSic, you buy it. You have to buy it at a flat rate, however. You pay a fixed monthly fee, and are then allowed to download n songs per month, where n is dependent on the amount you pay.
This does seem very expensive, considering that music from eMusic is usually around 33/track. It presumably includes the data service, but since you get DRM-free MP3s from eMusic, why not just download them on your computer and send them over with USB or Bluetooth, or whatever your phone uses. If I were to buy music from eMusic, I wouldn't do it via an intermediary that charged a 400% markup.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
How Slashdot Apple fanboys can turn every negative piece of iPhone news into a positive.
Yesterday it was about how the soldered in batteries on the iPhone is okay because Apple has always done this with the iPod and it says on their website.
Then there was the remote iPhone exploit which was spun by the spindoctors into allowing for applications to be developed on the iPhone, but Apple not allowing application development when initially announced was also a good thing because it made sure the phone was secure!
Now we have this, it's obviously a good thing for Apple because it means people will use iTunes instead? Well erm no, they'll just buy a phone that actually allows freedom of choice.
It's not as if Apple in general are a particularly good company, we've had the discolouration of MacBooks, the scratched iPod nano screens, the faulty power adapters on MacBooks which are literally a major fire hazard, Safari on Windows - arguably the buggiest piece of software ever released in the history of the universe and many many more. There's of course the abuse of open source software as well, something that if any other company did would cause major uproar here. Shall we also mention the issue of DRM, something which Apple has for many many years been one of the biggest backers of from the MacOS protectionism to iTunes tracks.
What I want to know is, what is it about Apple that makes people constantly defend it, spin every negative into a positive where for any other company they wouldn't do this?
When are people going to wake up and realise that Apple is actually a pretty crap company, that arguably the only thing they get right is the look of their product (as long as you don't take it out it's case and get it scratched/discoloured)? How would you all react if Microsoft released a phone with a non user replaceable battery and that has a remotely exploitable vulnerability, or an MP3 player which has an easily scratched screen?
Are Apple fans really this gullable or is there something else? Is it the whole "I have Armani jeans which were made in the same factory as your Levi's but have Armani written on them so are in some mystical way superior" kind of attitude? If Apple stood for a quality reliable product then it's one thing but when it stands for buggy, feature-locked product why all the fuss?
I have an idea I'll be told it's all about the UI but when there's near a billion Windows users and just about everyone in Europe and Asia aged from 1 to 100 has been operating existing mobile phones happily without trouble for over 5 years now I'd again question what this really matters? Particularly so when Windows is (like it or not - not for me personally) the default meaning you actually have to relearn a fair few things.
Nevermind the fact that even iTunes is excluded from OTA downloads on the iPhone...
This may change in the future, but that's entirely up to Apple. It's their platform, they can do what they want with it. You're free to purchase, or not purchase, from them.
Not to mention that because emusic is entirely DRM free, you're free to download them normally on your desktop and then put it in iTunes. I do it with an iPod every month...
Sheesh, even mediocre announcements are trying to ride iPhone hype.
STOP THAT CRAP! I'm sorry, but it really pisses me off, the point is, emusic covers a large amount of songs that itunes doesn't and vice-versa. Personally I think its a bunch of crap the way you (lots of posters not only you) make out like becuase you can get britney spears cheaper than Eminem you are going to download britney instead, if they covered the same songs, I'd agree, but they don't, so stop.
Of course you can. You can sync anything that is in iTunes into iPod. Considering that by Job's own reckoning only 2% of the music on iPods is from iTMS they would be damn stupid not to allow it.
This is a special setup where you can download songs directly onto your phone. That requires special software on the phone that the iPhone doesn't have. The files are not obfuscated in any way - they are plain old mp3s.
If you don't want to pay the obscene prices they are charging for this service, you can always get a normal subscription at the eMusic website, download music at your computer and sync to whatever you want just like you always have been able to.
THANK you for telling the truth! It's about time someone revealed these Apple fanboys as the fakes they are.
an iPhone user can buy songs on iTMS for less.
Umm, no. I use eMusic. For my $19.99/mo, I get 75 DRM-free LAME-encoded mp3's. It works out to about $0.27/song. When you run out of downloads and need to finish an album (I only buy albums) the booster packs can get as cheap as $0.40/song ($19.99 for 50).Also, it's not like Napster where you "rent" the songs. The files are just regular DRM-free mp3s. If you cancel your subscription, you still keep what you've downloaded.
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
Strange economy. The only way to win is not to compete.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Given the choice between the iPhone+iTunes and some other phone + eMusic, I for one would choose the Apple solution hands down.
Songs bought form iTMS can be played on 5 computers and an unlimited number of iPhones and iPods.
But you have to ask for permission first. Some of us don't like having to ask permission to use something we own.
iTMS+ songs are DRM free (and at $1.29, cheaper than eMusic).
This new phone service costs more than itunes, yes. But regular emusic plans run about $0.30/song.
5 * $0.99 is not $8.00
True, they should price their phone service more in line with their internet service.
eMusic's catalog is not identical to iTMS (eMusic is smaller/indie music).
True enough, emusic's catalog is much better.
The only real downside I see to emusic is that they're still using MP3s. AAC is pretty sweet.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Are they cheaper than eMusic?
No wonder its called the Jesus phone. It's short for "Jesus we're being screwed by AT&T and Apple"
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
So? eMusic is hardly a direct competitor. They have indie groups and labels. Big deal. $7.49 to download 5 songs compared to $10 for 10 via computer?
Why would I want to download to my phone again????
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Once you download a song from emusic.com, you can download it again over and over! My experience was that even though I cancelled service for a year (had gotten all the music I wanted at the time) when I re-joined I could download every song I had ever bought from them. I dunno if this is policy or they liked me or what.
I guess I'm an eMusic fan-boy...I just love the small/indie/obscure tracks and the pure MP3 files.
Blar.
I think your post has me scrambled. But since I've been an emusic customer for...6? years now I'll just point out a few things and speculate. I read the article (on my own, I've been following smartphones a lot since I'm in the market, plus I'm an eMusic fan and *not* an AT&T fan). eMusic *is* 100% DRM free and has been since the start, even after their sale (GoodNoise, Vivendi Universal and finally JDS Capital Management, Inc.).
I think the point of the OA is that AT&T has teamed up with the #2 online music retailer making music available to subscribers (which is really great) but not using iTunes (which would have been expected since the iPhone launch).
Fanboi-ism aside I do hope that streaming iTunes integration happens. I'm all for choice. But I'm guessing while if iTunes does pick that up it will be tied to the iPhone, while eMusic (which provides a PC and Mac based client and can probably support other phone-based platforms) is a great option for the rest of the mobile users.
Anyway, long day here. If you were wondering if this was DRM in disguise the answer would be no. It's integration/convenience. The tracks are yours (and you can download tracks you've purchased with eMusic accounts again, which is nice and makes listening from multiple workstations much more convenient).
As someone who thinks AT&T is the devil incarnate for their sleazy backroom shenanigans this perks my interest (that and the rebadged HTC's they offer).
Quack, quack.
I'm no expert in partnerships and marketing but there's something about the AT&T/iPhone deal that's a little strange.
Apple is advertising like crazy for the iPhone but it's almost as if AT&T is forbidden from advertising using this relationship. Has this struck anyone else as strange or am I having too much coffee?
A lot of the parent's post is incorrect.
"iTMS+ songs are DRM free (and at $1.29, cheaper than eMusic)."
Wrong. The "normal" emusic plans average at approximately 40c per song. All are DRM free, high-bitrate MP3s.
"eMusic's catalog is not identical to iTMS (eMusic is smaller/indie music)."
eMusic's catalog is (I think) larger than iTunes', however it lacks the big-name, heavily-promoted music.
I'm not bagging iTunes. I agree, this AT&T eMusic plan sounds crap compared to eMusic's normal offering (which rocks). However factual inaccuracies need to be corrected.
Cheers.
What's the opposite of a fanboy? Just as rabid and uninformed and loud, just a detractor? We need a word...
"GuywhoreallywantsaniPhonebutdoesnthave$600."
But I do think this is interesting. Mostly because I really like eMusic and this might be a selling point as I chose my next provider. Then there's that small bit of irony, and you know, Apple/iPhone is the new du-jour.
Quack, quack.
No, he's saying it sucks because it has a polished and effective user interface with access to millions of songs by popular artists, when instead it have a kludgey interface with DRM free access to music nobody has ever heard or is looking for. It stands for everything he doesn't, cleanliness, simplicity, rational behavior, popularity, etc.
you have to sync it to the iphone anyways, emusic is mp3s... i don't get the problem.
What's the opposite of a fanboy?
A foeboy.
You may now create a wikipedia page in my honor for coining this word.
The enemies of Democracy are
What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
"GuywhoreallywantsaniPhonebutdoesnthave$600." You know, it took me a good 30 seconds before I figured out what that was supposed to say. I kept reading "Guy whore ally wants..." and thinking it didn't make any sense!
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
Unless something has changed, I don't think Apple has OTA iTunes downloads just yet. I'm sure it'll happen, but considering it would take 10 minutes to download a frickin song anyway I'm not sure many people would use it until they got near a wlan.
And the music gets on to the iPod by, uh, what? Telekinesis? It comes via the computer. Which has to be authorized. What was your so-called point?
...lets say it DIDN'T exclude iPhones. How is it going to work? Can't install any software on it, can't download anything. If you could download music, how are you going to play it? Unless it's transferred into it from iTunes, it ain't gonna work.
They have to say it's 'excluded' otherwise the difficult questions would start to get asked like why does the service not work on the iPhone when this so called 'revolutionary' device is shown up yet again by phones that have been around for years.
fauxboy?
Thats not "FOXboy".
Or you could do what I do, which is to rip the couple thousand CDs I own into iTunes. No DRM, and ripped at the highest bitrate.
The parent wanted to know if you have synched it with an iPhone.
The iPhone is a different product than the iPod. It might behave differently when you attempt to synch. Or it might not. That was the poster's point.
No, a foeboy is the opposite of fanboy. A fauxboy is the opposite of a realboy. Foxboy is closely related, it's the opposite of truthboy. Zing!
The enemies of Democracy are
Umm, no. I use eMusic. For my $19.99/mo, I get 75 DRM-free LAME-encoded mp3's.
You obviously didn't RTFAs. Both stated that in the AT&T - eMusic deal, phone users will pay $7.49 for five songs. You can additionally get "booster packs" for the same price, again for five songs.
"it's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!"
Hopefully you will learn in time that you are wrong in both cases.
I have an emusic subscription as well, which is great for discovering new music, and the cost of downloading an album is usually far below the the cost of a real CD. Of coarse, the bitrate isn't always what I'd like, but it's good enough for my iPod.
I'm not going to give up buying CDs anytime soon though, having a physical backup and the ability to rip to whatever format I want is something I appreciate.
What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
Wow. I'm sure Freud would have a field day with you!
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
You do realize you contradict yourself. You claim you couldn't load eMusic songs on an iPod because it is a closed system (which is false). Then you say iPhone users can just subscribe to eMusic and independent of AT&T and load them on the iPhone, you know the closed system "iPod phone".
Hard to keep the story straight when its B.S.
Troll or offtopic or overrated are your other options, and they all work more or less. I'd say, mod 'em up for good measure.
I know what you mean. I have this car and it not only requires mechanical authorization to turn on, but also to open to doors!
Crazy, I tell ya'!
Hellboy vs ...Heavenboy?
The amount of disinformation and misinformation in this thread is incredible: 1) With the iPod you are not "locked in" except if you are dumb enough to by DRMed music. Can you rip a CD to MP3 or AAC and load it on your iPod? Check. Download mp3s off of usenet and load them on your iPod? Check. Load your friends' non-DRM tracks on your iPod? Check. Load all of the non-DRM music from your iPod to your friends' computers? With any number of free utilites, again check. Download a gigabyte of MP3 torrents and stick a few gigs at a time on your iPod or iPhone? Check. 2) eMusic does not sell DRMed files over the web--they sell completely unprotected MP3 files that work with every player, including iTunes, iPod and iPhone. I've been subscribed to eMusic for a couple of years and the only time I'll actually buy a track is through eMusic. Just download the files, drag them into iTunes, and done. Since they are completely uprotected you can also burn backups to CD or DVD, toss the disc in a drawer, and reload or transfer the files if need be. Another nice thing about eMusic is your account history keeps track of the files you've downloaded so if you ever find yourself losing mp3s you haven't backed up you can just go redownload the files. 3) Although eMusic works on a subscription basis it is not a "terminate your account and you lose your music" type subscription. The subscription is for a minimum number of mp3 downloads per month--use them or lose them. If you use them the files are yours to keep, unprotected, for however long you want and without any requirement that you stay subscribed. 4) Relating to the whole mp3 lock-in thing, Apple has never done anything to interfere with or complicate use of eMusic and there probably wouldn't have been an iTunes music store if the major lables had made their music available on the terms offered by eMusic. 5) With AT&T eMusic is offering a special, much more expensive account which sells music tracks playable just on your compatible AT&T phone. With the purchase you can also download mp3 versions of the music you've bought. Since the iPhone syncs with iTunes and has no problem loading gigabytes of the normal mp3 files eMusic sells from its site under its normal subscription terms there is not reason for anyone with an iPhone to pay extra for the rigamarole of receiving files for the phone and separate mp3s for the computer. With the iPhone you just get the mp3s and transfer them to the iPhone. So not offering the service for iPhone makes sense since nobody with an iPhone needs it or would want it. 6) Notice that that whining about iPod lock-in comes mostly from the major music labels that could solve any lock-in problem by offering their music DRM-free, as EMI is doing? Think the labels are concerned about the consumer? If so you have brain damage. What pisses the labels off is that they are stuck selling hit singles for a low price, when they would love to, for example, sign an exclusive deal with bestbuy.com where you could could only download the new Beyonce or whatever single from bestbuy.com at $5.99 for a single track instead of the iTunes 99 cents. If this wasn't the case then the labels could have solved any question of being tyed in with the iPod by offering their tracks through eMusic.
What monkey will be downloading songs on to their iphone, rather then their computer?
Guy 1 with iphone: "Maybe I'll just jot a little not down in my phone and get it later at home" Guy 2 with Razor: "Sucker, I can download it right now!" Guy 1: "Ah yea, but I have an iphone and I can go to utube and watch their video while you download it." Guy 2: "......"
I hate slashdot
I believe the word you are looking for is "hater"
Panboy
This is so good, I'm posting anonymously so I don't karma whore.
Look for music with the Creative Commons seal of approval. There are Creative Commons search engines, in which you can specify whether you want music you can use commercially, or whether you can create derivative works.
There is also the Common Content Catalog, which has a Music Section.
If you like piano, there is my humble offerring, in a variety of audio formats as well as sheet music. I chose to place my music under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5 license, not just to "eat my own dog food", but because I feel that doing so helps me to advance my music aspirations:
I am weary of my twenty-year career as a software engineer. I need a change. That's why I'm taking piano lessons with the aim of passing the music school entrance audition someday. I'm going to major in musical composition; I want to learn to compose symphonies.
And the lot of my compositions are going to be CC-SA licensed.
I have already found that doing this encourages more people to get to know my music. Now, I know I'm not a pop artist - in fact most people don't like my music, but many do. By giving away my music I'm building a base of fans who will buy tickets to my live concerts some day.
This last weekend I spent four hours in downtown Santa Cruz, California, walking up and down Pacific Avenue passing out handbills that advertise my downloads. On the back is the Creative Commons logo and an encouragement for the recipient to share my music over the Internet and to burn CDs for their friends. I think I gave out over a hundred handbills, and left stacks of them on the counters in two record stores and a musical instrument store.
It's funny, the reactions I get from some people. Many believe that this is too good to be true, that there is some kind of catch, or that I'm trying to sell them something, or indoctrinate them into some kind of cult.
Well, sort of: the Cult of Copyleft.
I made a couple of new friends as I did this, one of them a "Downtown Host" and the other a street musician who plays the guitar.
I also burn CDs of my music to give away. I have a CD label printer that's just a regular inkjet printer with a feed mechanism for CDs. In this way I can make CDs a few at a time, and inexpensively, yet that look professional.
I try to always carry some in my backpack to give to new friends. I also give them to any street musicians that I come across, as a way of introducing myself to the local music community.
I'll give you a CD too - autographed even - if you live in the San Francisco Bay Area or in Santa Cruz County. Just email me at michael@geometricvisions.com and meet me somewhere for coffee or a beer, and I'll bring your CD with me.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
But the AAC patent license terms don't even permit players without a licensing fee. This is a significant obstacle for a GPL program I'm working on called Ogg Frog.
You will surely raise an objection by giving the examples of VLC Media Player, which supports AAC, and the lame MP3 encoder and faad/faac AAC decoder/encoder. But VLC is from France, which has no software patents, and lame, faad and faac are distributed in source code form only, which doesn't infringe the patent.
As far as I know, it's illegal for people in the US to download and use VLC without paying a license fee to the patent holders.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
I can honestly say I wouldn't use an iPhone if it were free. First off, I'd rather have tactile buttons than a touch screen. I'd rather be able to use my phone with one hand. And if we're talking more of a PDA device that requires a stylus, then I'd much rather have one that runs on a common OS that I can install software on. Let's see, common features the iPhone lacks:
- Songs as Ringtones
- Games
- Any flash support
- Instant Messaging
- Picture messages (MMS)
- Video recording
- Voice recognition or voice dialing
- Wireless Bluetooth Stereo Streaming (A2DP)
- One-size-fits-all headset jack (May have to buy an adapter for certain headphones)
- 3G (EV-DO/HSDPA)
- GPS
- keyboard or any real good way to text
- Removable battery
- Expandable Storage
- Direct iTunes Music Store Access (Over Wi-Fi or EDGE)
Most of these features are available on free phones. I have a Samsung I've had for a while that can play full TV episodes, songs, etc. I've got a 2 gig storage card, and the phone is great. It was free, and in most regards trumps the basic phone features of the iPhone.
Honestly, when Nokia puts out a similiar touch-screen PDA equivalent phone, except it is light-years better at HALF the price, you really can't make a single logical argument for the iPhone being worth $600. So don't begin to pretend that detractors are just jealous and want one. If I wanted a PDA phone I'd buy the Nokia. I had a Treo, but frankly it was cumbersome as a phone, and as much as I really love gadgets, I need my phone to work as a phone.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Oh, witty. You are the champ. Carnagepro.com.......run from your mom's basement?
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Your scenario will never play out though.
/. change opinions again? Watch what happens when Apple starts a subscription service. Suddenly everyone with an iPod will think it was a good idea.
There are already more flexible and cheaper portable music players available right now. The issue is getting most iPod users to admit it. When pressed, the argument in favor of the iPod always turns to the non measurable non descriptive term of, "but the iPod is slick".
I remeber a few years ago when the big thing was everyone just wanted an iPod because it was simple and played music, that is all anyone needed and just like everyone claimed that is all they wanted. Suddenly now they do video and is intergrated into a cell phone. What happened to the I love it because it just plays music excuse?
You want to see iPod users on
I don't really know why Apple would care, eMusic is actually complimentary to iTunes and the iPhone and furthermore, who cares? The iPhone is also an iPod and can play regular Mp3s. There isn't much of a story here.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
I remember back in the day (about 5 years ago) when I was an eMusic subscriber. I joined because They Might Be Giants had their entire catalog on eMusic and I could get all the tracks I was missing, including the internet only "Long Tall Weekend". At that point it was $15 or $20 per month, but there was no cap on the amount you could download. And I was at college with big fat pipe leading right to my front door. They also used some sort of RealPlayer functionality where you could click on a link for an entire album and it would start downloading all the tracks in RealPlayer for you (they were all just mp3s as now, so it's not like I needed to use RealPlayer to listen to them). I remember you could even queue up as many albums as you wanted, so when I decided to end my subscription I queued up honestly maybe a 100 albums and just let it go over night. I got a lot of good ska and punk that way (also a whole lot of crappy ska and punk)... I think they even had like all of Elvis Costello's catalog available.
That was when I decided that it just wasn't right or worth it to steal songs off file trading networks. Ever since then the vast, vast, vast majority of my music has been legally purchased whether through eMusic, CDs, or iTunes. It was a really cool service, but I don't think I could see myself signing up for eMusic again if it's not unlimited considering the limited selection they had (still have?).
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
When I made a similar statement the other day I got modded troll for it by some Apple fanboy. It is good to see that they are not throwing away mod points to skew discussions today.
So, for this wonderful new service from AT&T, you only pay 50% more per song than iTunes for songs you can't load on your iPhone. Whereas, with an iPhone you could pay 50 cents less per song from iTunes, or 1/5 the price for eMusic's own direct-to-computer subscription [then use iTunes to sync it to your iPhone]. Why is it a bad thing that AT&T now offers a service for non-iPhone users to purchase music for only 50%-%500 more money than for an iPhone users? I'm sure those iPhone owners are up in arms, demanding to pay more for their music.
Some of us don't like having to ask permission to use something we own.
Many of these people have been making the claim that you don't own it. You are "licensed" to use it under their conditions. I'm sure it's in that 100k EULA somewhere. I don't know how far this has gone through the court system.
What?
Let's see, common features the iPhone lacks:
I'm sure you use all of those features to their full potential. But a feature count is a terrible way to determine whether a product really is any good in actual use. Apple has targeted ease of use and overall user experience with the iPhone. Frankly I don't know if they've hit the mark with the iPhone or not, because I've never used one. But just because it doesn't have 25 features that I may or may not ever use doesn't mean I'm going to dismiss it out of hand.
as much as I really love gadgets
The iPhone isn't a device for you. It's for people who are tired of smartphones that aren't smart, and of devices that are jammed full of features yet still aren't satisfying to use. Again, I don't know if it fulfills its promise, but it doesn't make sense to judge it a success or failure on a feature count. It is much more useful to judge it against its promise, which is to provide a smartphone-type device that non-techies will enjoy using.
This reminds me of the iPod rollout, and all the comments about how pathetic it was in comparison to the Nomad, et al.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Now, I'm not sure so correct me if I'm wrong (which is probably, but I believe the deal is that there is an emusic mobile clinet to download directly to the phones sans iphone.
Maybe?
Otherwise, yeah, I don't see where there would be a problem.
Im from australia, so ive never seen an iPhone, but they seriously cant do any of that?
and one over here would probably be about $800 dollars plus.....
That is not at all worth its price tag.....
Ditto.
BTW, do you know what fits in the box? "Letter" fits but "word" does not. "Book" fits but "magazine" does not.
Not to mention you have to activate the phone via iTunes, so you can't use the phone if you use Linux or Windows x64. You are required to sign up for a data plan (minimum $60 USD/month) as opposed to normal calling plans.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
wait... is this right? shouldn't you be able to download your music directly onto the iPhone without the computer? You're paying for a data package, right?
I like eMusic and their catalog. But iTunes has well over five million tracks from a tremendous number of popular artists. It's difficult, if not impossible, to make a case that eMusic has the better catalog, period. But if you cut out the big labels' cut on iTunes, you're left with 29 cents per song (using DRM numbers; it's not clear how much MORE money the labels take on the $1.29 tracks). That's basically on par with eMusic, so it works out the same for the artist.
And that's fair enough... but if eMusic doesn't work on the iPhone, then what else isn't going to work? Surely if they can offer it to all the other phones, they should be able to offer it on iPhone, right? So why make a choice in music catalogs demand a certain choice in device? Why not let the customer decide what catalog they want? Surely Apple isn't afraid of competition?
A) Duh. If you didn't see that coming, you need to read up on your Apple history.
B) EDGE. By the time you finish downloading a song, it will be in the public domain.
Of course, that's even worse.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"You are "licensed" to use it under their conditions."
Says you and the EULA.
Rip the DRM off already and use the music YOU PAID FOR as you see fit.
Oh wait, I'm sorry, Apple's DRM is unbreakable. Yeah...um, don't change a thing Apple, it works perfectly! Keeps me out! Yessireeee Boberty!
blah blah blah
The iPhone makes several compromises and it lacks a number of features: There's no video recorder, voice recorder, GPS, MMS, installable apps, expandable memory, replaceable battery, flash, physical keyboard, copy/paste, PIM-search, etc. Also EDGE can be quite slow. And of course it's a closed system with both the hardware and software from a single vendor.
On the other hand, its formfactor, screen/footprint/thickness ratios, responsive and reliable OS, intuitive and fast interface, durable capacitance touchscreen, feature-rich web browser, visual voice mail, battery life, included memory, and tight integration between the apps are all unparalleled among other smartphones.
If it's an effective tool for you and you enjoy using it, get one. If not, get something else. But enough with the whining already.
"On the other hand, its formfactor, screen/footprint/thickness ratios, responsive and reliable OS, intuitive and fast interface, durable capacitance touchscreen, feature-rich web browser, visual voice mail, battery life, included memory, and tight integration between the apps are all unparalleled among other smartphones."
The n800 series is like 7 oz and the iPhone is like 5 oz. The n800 is designed to be a bit bigger because if you're going to be a tablet and allow web-surfing and such, a slightly bigger screen is preferable. But if you think 2 oz are going to weight you down unbearably so, more power to you. Then again, part of the reason the n800 is slightly larger is because it has an 800x480 display. When viewing videos and surfing the web I'd much rather have an 800x480 display than the iPhone's 480x320 display. In reality, when you compare the screen to the overall dimensions, the iPhone is lacking and not unparalleled.
You insist the OS is reliable, and given the phone has barely been out long enough to be tested, that is just a ridiculous claim. This secure OS has already been hacked and there is speculation that the first iPhone malware apps could spread across the web within the next few weeks. Again, this claim has no merit.
Intuitive and fast interface? This is the standby claim that all Apple products have superior interfaces. In reality, I can much more easily (and quickly) navigate on a standard phone with one hand than have to fight with a touchscreen and use two hands. And ask anyone who has had a smartphone/pda before how durable touchscreens are in the long-term. Nevermind that Apple didn't invent the smart phone, and that touchscreens have been around forever. Revisionists and fanboys will continue to insist the Apple innovated here.
Durable touchscreen? A brand new product that hasn't been tested yet has unparalleled durability. These statements come across like blind fanaticism.
Feature-rich web browser? Where is the Flash support? Oh, it doesn't exist. Is it ACID complaint? Nope. Does it have problems with CSS? Yes. In fact, Apple suggested that people need to redesign valid css and xhtml so our websites work better with the iPhone. How about just including a good browser to begin with? The n800 ships with Opera, which has been tested on mobile devices for years and has proven to be extremely reliable. The Safari port to a phone is brand new and untested, but again you're sure it is the best thing on the planet, calling it unparalleled. Did you know the n800 also ships with Flash support? In reality, the iPhone again is lacking in standard features the competition has.
Battery life? The iPhone has 250 hours of standby, much like my cheap, discontinued old Samsung. the n800 has 312 hours of standby. Again, the facts aren't really supporting your claims. Even better, you can't remove or replace the iPhone battery. All batteries lose the ability to keep a full charge, and with any other phone on the planet, you can buy a better battery, but if your $600 phone can't keep a charge, well too bad. Buy a new one I guess. That is surely unparalleled superior design.
The one actual advantage the iPhone has is plenty of internal memory, and that somewhat explains why it is so much more expensive. However 1 gig MicroSD cards can be bought for $9 on buy.com as opposed to blowing $600 on your phone. The price does not justify the feature.
Again, in reality the iPhone lacks many of the basic features most FREE phones have, and when you compare it to every other smart phone on the market, the iPhone is found to be inferior, but it is more proprietary, offers you less freedom and costs considerably more. I can't remember which model number exactly, but I've seen a "baby brother" of the n800 that still blows the iPhone out of the water and it is only $250. Sure beats $600, but you can keep insisting the iPhone is superior if you really want to.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
You know, I really didn't see it that way until I read your post. Now I can't read it any other way. Thanks.
Yeah, It's much worse, But we only have ourselves to blame by buying products under these conditions. We have, by default, accepted it. Someday, the courts may or may not decide whether or not these things are legitimate. Personally I will use my possessions as I see fit. A business doesn't have such luxuries, and they don't seem to care either. They simply do what ever their accountants tell them to do. Legitimacy of such things don't matter, only the cost/benefit ratio does. Just another "whatif" for the spreadsheet. It would help immensely if we stand together and "just say no". That would be our obligation. Standing out by yourself in front of the tank, only to be squished like an ant, doesn't get very far. People tend to regard you as a lunatic, not a hero. And life plods along.
What?
What was it, 10 lines of code in the app dvdjon or whoever wrote to strip out the weak ass m4a drm from itunes tracks?
Try doing that now. It don't work.
why? I have eMusic songs on my iPod right now. This is about downloading songs "wirelessly" which Apple has said iPhone won't do for iTunes, as well as you can't add songs "live" to any ipod wihtout syncing to iTunes. Non-issue all the way around.
What do you mean? If you like eMusic, you can subscribe on your computer (for a substantially lower cost), and put the tracks on your iPhone through your entire music library. True, there's no direct client for the phone, but paying quadruple for being able to access the catalog anywhere doesn't make sense to me. I'm sure that other people would be happy to pay it, but I think this service is more for the regular phones which until now have not been able to act like "real" music players.
I'm 60 this year puppy.
[citation needed]
Seriously: Safari is based on Webkit, which is in turn based on KHTML, which renders ACID2 perfectly. Are Apple actually unable to recompile some existing, working code without screwing it up?
Pirate Party UK
Gee, you forgot one thing in your comparison. The ability to make PHONE CALLS! The Nokia N800 is solely an internet tablet. Why are you comparing it to the iPhone?
What's next? A comparison between a MacBook and a PS3?
(And don't start about VOIP. That's good as a backup, but you aren't going to roam the streets looking for an open WAP when you need to make a phone call!)
The latest trunk of KHTML passes ACID2. Webkit was forked off KHTML some time ago, and they are just now getting together to merge changes. Safari and Webkit do not pass ACID2, and the Safari in the iPhone (don't know about the normal Safari) is unable to render the CSS hover menus properly. Apple's solution was to tell people to redesign their websites for the iPhone.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I was out of town for a couple days, but I'm happy to elaborate on my post. First off, you mentioned the N800, which I actually considered as an alternative (as well as the N770).
You dismissed the weight difference, but the N800 being 50% heavier (7.2 vs 4.8 ounces) and almost double the volume makes it too-big-so-I'll-leave-at-home instead of pocketable-enough-to-always-carry (not to mention that I would also need to carry a cell phone).
You also talked about how'd you'd rather have an 800x480 screen when viewing videos. So would I, but the N800 has no hardware decoder and can't play h.264 at all. Less intensive codecs only play at QVGA (half the resolution of the iPhone). So sadly, video playback on the N800 isn't too hot and hopefully Nokia will add a decoder to their next version.
BTW, when sstraub wrote (in response to you about the N800): "And don't start about VOIP. That's good as a backup, but you aren't going to roam the streets looking for an open WAP when you need to make a phone call!", you (amusingly) replied: "The n800 does call over VOIP. Every phone in my company is solely VOIP and we have thousands of employees. It works great.". As sstraub pointed out it's still not a phone unless you're connected to a WAP.
Now onto the iPhone. You replied to me "You insist the OS is reliable, and given the phone has barely been out long enough to be tested, that is just a ridiculous claim."
I've been using it for a month. It has never crashed or suffered from random system slow downs... the worst I've had is Safari crash, which while irritating is far better than the other devices I've dealt with. Every WinCE/PPC/WM device I've owned and used (even without any 3rd party software) had system-wide performance and reliability problems right away, requiring resets (starting the day I got them). I've owned multiple devices from Dell, Compaq, and HP; it wasn't a fluke. I've also had no syncing problems with the iPhone, unlike the nightmare that is ActiveSync.
To be fair, the PalmOS and Nokia smartphones I've used faired better than the CE devices, but they also had various reliability issues.
You wrote "Intuitive and fast interface? This is the standby claim that all Apple products have superior interfaces. In reality, I can much more easily (and quickly) navigate on a standard phone with one hand than have to fight with a touchscreen and use two hands."
Unless I'm typing in something with the QWERTY keyboard, I use the iPhone with one hand. However, that wasn't even what I was getting at... the interface on the iPhone is so easy to navigate it requires no manual/training/learning. And it always responds quickly. While I can adapt pretty quickly to interfaces on other phones, the point is that they're a PITA. How is that being a "fanboy" or "revisionist"?
You wrote "Durable touchscreen? A brand new product that hasn't been tested yet has unparalleled durability. These statements come across like blind fanaticism."
It's durable because its screen is capacitance-based instead of pressure sensitive and it's got a scratch-resistant glass layer. It is the only touchscreen smartphone I know of with this feature.
After a month, the screen is still perfect despite not using a case or screen protector. This is in sharp contrast to the other 14 touchscreen PDAs I've owned over the years, all of which scratched very easily. Also note PC World's iPhone test, which would've wreaked havoc on other PDA screens: http://www.pcworld.com/video/id,545-page,1-bid,0/v ideo.html
So why is what I wrote "blind fanaticism"?
You wrote "Feature-rich web browser? Where is the Flash support? Oh, it doesn't exist."
Yes, which is why I listed it among the things the iPhone can't do. It's still a feature-rich web browser given that it renders accurately and quickly and its intelligent zoom
half the features for double the price.
Yes, I understand. The iPhone has fewer features.
Here's a question for you: Are features and price the sole criteria for you in choosing a phone? If so, my initial point remains. There is a larger universe of criteria customers use to evaluate a phone/smartphone/pda/personal device. Witness the success of Motorola's RAZR line.
Obviously the iPhone isn't the device for you, but I find it odd that you can't understand how other people might have a different set of criteria than you do.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ