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."

Comments

Re:So?

[iluvcapra]

just another reason why the iPhone sucks

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.

How does DRM-free stuff exclude anyone?

[Sloppy]

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.

Easy choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the choice between the iPhone+iTunes and some other phone + eMusic, I for one would choose the Apple solution hands down.

Re:Uh...

[CastrTroy]

In the article it says:

$7.49 a month for access to five songs

Wow, that's expensive. Who would pay that much for music. I currently have the $15 plan, and I get 50 songs. So if I bought the songs on my cell phone, I would pay about $1.50 for a song. With my plan, I pay $0.30 for a song. That means it costs 5 times more to buy it on the phone. I can't seriously see this working, or creating any good press for eMusic or AT&T. eMusic is all about delivering indie music at a fair price. If this is the first exposure people have to eMusic, they will relate it with high prices for not-even-big-name-bands. Why would anybody pay $1.50 a song, just to have it now, instead of downloading it when you got home, or to your office, or a friends house, or to a coffee shop with your laptop...

Re:So?

[Enderandrew]

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.

It's not about feature lists

[Infonaut]

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.