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."

8 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. Uh... by His+Shadow · · Score: 5, Informative
    eMusic is a website. You subscribe to it and pay a monthly fee for a certain number of downloads. Then you download the songs to your iTunes and sync them. The AT&T deal has users pay prices many times higher to get the utility of downloading songs directly to your phone

    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

  2. Re:So? by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  3. Re:Apple probably likes the deal. by His+Shadow · · Score: 4, Informative
    Yes, because it's impossible to put anything but iTunes protected tracks in iTunes or on your iPhone.

    Can you hear my eyes rolling?

    --

    Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos

  4. Easy choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  5. Something missing by Statecraftsman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  6. Re:So? by mpoulton · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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.
  7. Re:So? by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  8. It's not about feature lists by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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