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."
Anybody surprised? Anybody care? It is just another reason why the iPhone sucks...
Why pay 8.00 for five songs that you only rent for a month when you can buy the same 5 songs outright for about the same amount from itunes?
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.
from the article:
eMusic is a subscription service: pay a set monthly fee and download a set number of songs each month. The new service will keep that model, but the prices are going up. Way up. The new deal will cost $7.49
an iPhone user can buy songs on iTMS for less.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Why would Apple want their iPhone users paying someone else for music? They want to lock their customers in to buying only from them.
The shockingly low number of iPhones is probably the reason. Many people thought the iPhones was the usual(other than iPod) Apple overpriced and underfeatured product, but I don't think anyone thought it would bomb this badly in sales even amongst the Apple crazies who will buy anything Jobs puts an i in front of.
What, exactly, is the story here? That Boo Hoo, I have to continue to pay the much lower cost of 7$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
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?
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
It has something to do with this. I was going to go to the monster truck show on Saturday, but your mom had an issue with me doing that. I eventually went anyway and didn't let her know. It is on my mind today. *sigh*
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.
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.
you have to sync it to the iphone anyways, emusic is mp3s... i don't get the problem.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!)
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