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."
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.
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!
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
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.
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 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.
Can you hear my eyes rolling?
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
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.
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.
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. -
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!
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'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?
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.
The genius of eMusic is that they don't try to compete head-to-head with iTunes or the iPod - instead, they work together.
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.
No, a cartel implies collusion. I am not trying to suggest that Apple and eMusic work together in the sense of collusion, but in terms of a user's experience.
If I usnderstand their business practices correctly, eMusic unilaterally chose not to get themselves into a battle against iTunes, where all others (Napster, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc) failed to become profitable.
Legal on-line music distribution is a difficult business to get into. eMusic found a decent way - one which permits the user to keep their relationship with iTunes/iPod, but allows the users to shop at eMusic too. Most other services force you to abandon iTunes, but don't provide enough reason for most users to leave iTunes.
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
But yeah, it would be nice to use wget.
So use it. The download manager is a preference that can be changed.
No, the iTunes store sells songs from independent artists and major labels. Thus making them direct competitors.
... and then they built the supercollider.
What's dishonest about that?
Also which other company can you buy the last year's computer at last year's prices today?What's dishonest about that? Did they advertise false prices?
... and then they built the supercollider.