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."

Uh...

[His Shadow (689816)]

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"?

Re:

[Aranykai (1053846)]

In other news:

People are in shock that you can buy music from walmart.com and put it on an Apple iPod.

Re:Uh...

[CastrTroy (595695)]

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...

Yes

[pavon (30274)]

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.

go eMusic!

[wall0159 (881759)]

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?

what a choice

[fermion (181285)]

So, for a monthly fee I can download low quality music to my phone over a very slow network, which will require me to purchase not only the subscription, but also the data plan, and also pay for any data transfered over the data plan limit, or I can just plug the phone into my computer and transfer a new batch of high quality songs each day, for free.

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.

Re:

[suv4x4 (956391)]

So, for a monthly fee I can download low quality music to my phone over a very slow network, which will require me to purchase not only the subscription, but also the data plan, and also pay for any data transfered over the data plan limit, or I can just plug the phone into my computer and transfer a new batch of high quality songs each day, for free.

Hmmm...I wonder what my choice would be.

Nice example of a spin. The AT&T offer is inferior since it's many times more expensive (maybe it's woth it if you

How does DRM-free stuff exclude anyone?

[Sloppy (14984)]

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.

Re:

[CrackedButter (646746)]

Actually emusic itself is a really good site. I'd have bought more stuff off them but like I told them when I unsubscribed, I'll decide when to give them my money. I went for the free trial (25 songs) then I bought 2 albums and quit the service. I would use it again if I felt there was something on the site. The music is DRM free as well, I've had no problems using it on my ipod (something which they are proud to be compatible with) and I've burned cd's with the tracks I've bought to use on my hi fi. J

Delivery

[pavon (30274)]

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.

What?

[msimm (580077)]

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 on

Re:

[Stinking Pig (45860)]

It's DRM free. I've been a happy customer for years, and they sell totally unencumbered high bit rate MP3 files. No iTunes, no iPod required: I play my music on Squeezeboxes and a rockboxed iRiver iHP-120.

I don't understand

[dmoore (2449)]

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.

Dumb sensationalism

[GarfBond (565331)]

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.

Make the wording is hypish

[msimm (580077)]

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.

Easy choice

[by 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:

[JamesRose (1062530)]

Would you change your mind if I were to tempt you with an ePhone to go with eMusic?

So?

[ericdano (113424)]

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????

Something missing

[Statecraftsman (718862)]

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?

Re:So?

[iluvcapra (782887)]

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.

Re:So?

[Chris Burke (6130)]

What's the opposite of a fanboy?

A foeboy.

You may now create a wikipedia page in my honor for coining this word.

Re:So?

[mpoulton (689851)]

"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!

Re:So?

[Enderandrew (866215)]

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 (96956)]

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.

Re:

[suv4x4 (956391)]

Anybody surprised? Anybody care? It is just another reason why the iPhone sucks...

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 :P

Re:

[fireboy1919 (257783)]

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.

Re:Too much for not enough

[Hatta (162192)]

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.

Re:

[mr_matticus (928346)]

But you have to ask for permission first. Some of us don't like having to ask permission to use something we own.

Asking yourself for permission hardly counts. YOU authorize YOUR account to be used on a computer YOU designate. Apple's only involvement is to limit those authorizations to five concurrent ones. You don't need anything for iPods or iPhones.

True, they should price their phone service more in line with their internet service.

Blame AT&T for the pricing. The novelty here is access anywhere from your handheld device, which is how they'll try to pawn off the higher price.

True enough, emusic's catalog is much better.

I like eMusic and their catalog. But iTunes has well over five million tracks from a tremendous number of popular

Re:

[admactanium (670209)]

But you have to ask for permission first. Some of us don't like having to ask permission to use something we own.

you don't need to authorize phones or ipods to play itunes music. you just put it on there and it plays. you only have to authorize computers.

Parent is mistaken

[wall0159 (881759)]

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

Re:

[Poppler (822173)]

Songs bought form iTMS can be played on 5 computers and an unlimited number of iPhones and iPods.

That's all well and good until your iPod breaks and you're in the market for another player. Who knows what could be available years from now - there could be some very compelling products on the market that compare quite favorably to the iPod, but you won't have the choice if your music collection is locked with iTunes DRM.

Re:Too much for not enough

[nuzak (959558)]

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.

Not a rental.

[pavon (30274)]

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.

They are also your backup!

[FatSean (18753)]

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.

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

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 use

Re:

[suv4x4 (956391)]

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!

Re:Apple probably likes the deal.

[His Shadow (689816)]

Yes, because it's impossible to put anything but iTunes protected tracks in iTunes or on your iPhone.

Can you hear my eyes rolling?

Re:Apple probably likes the deal.

[lancejjj (924211)]

Why would Apple want their iPhone users paying someone else for music? They want to lock their customers in to buying only from them.

Actually, to clarify, eMusic files work just fine with iPods and the iPhone. It's just that the higher-price AT&T-partnered eMusic service works with specific AT&T-supported cell phones, which do not include the iPhone.

The genius of eMusic is that they don't try to compete head-to-head with iTunes or the iPod - instead, they work together.

Re:

[nuzak (959558)]

> Also there's a proprietary download manager, so Linux support is iffy.

This doesn't address Linux support, but on Windows you use them as a music store in WMP 11 instead of using their download manager.

I like classical and electronica, both of which are very well-represented on eMusic. And this way I'm not funding the mafiaa labels either.

Re:

[Hatta (162192)]

There are a few problems with it. Lack of popular/big label artists.

I'm not seeing how that's a problem.

Also there's a proprietary download manager, so Linux support is iffy

There's a java [kallisti.net.nz] client, so linux support isn't a big deal. But yeah, it would be nice to use wget.

Re:

[karmatic (776420)]

But yeah, it would be nice to use wget.

So use it. The download manager is a preference that can be changed.

Re:

[dangitman (862676)]

Which other company is so secretive about their product timelines?

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?

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Why not? The iPhone has a browser. You download music from eMusic's store with your browser. Of course, then you'd be stuck paying $9.99/month for 30 songs, rather than the $7.49/month for five songs that people who take advantage of this special promotion (Look, it's 25% cheaper!!1111eleventyone) get.

Of, if you don't care about getting the music while you are mobile, you could just download it on your Mac or PC, and sync it with the iPhone via iTunes.

Re:

[iluvcapra (782887)]

That'd be nice, but MobileSafari doesn't download files; even if it did, the iPhones file system isn't browsable.

That said, it seems like a much better value to just use eMusic on your home host and not on yer cellphone. This is probably a gimme by ATT to Nokia and Samsung, so they don't get the feeling that their handsets are being neglected.

Posted from my iPhone.

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Is the standard eMusic service compatible with the iPhone? As I recall, you get music from eMusic via your web browser, so the only question is whether you can import downloaded MP3s into your iPhone's playlist. If you can't, this seems like a pretty poor design (not Apple's first, admittedly, but they usually aren't too bad).

Re:

[yali (209015)]

Why do hotels charge $5 for a bottle of water in the minibar? Because it's right there in your room when you want it. Some people think it's worthwhile and will pay a premium for the convenience; other people think it's ridiculous & walk down to the lobby gift store to save three bucks (or the 7-11 next door to save $4).

It sounds like this service is the equivalent of a hotel minibar. If you have a regular cell phone (that cannot access eMusic's full website) and you don't know how to transfer MP3s to y

Re:so what?

[Zonk (troll) (1026140)]

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.

Re:

[frdmfghtr (603968)]

Well obviously all mp3 players support drm-free files. But you can't get music on your iPod from Rhapsody, Napster, Urge, or any other music download service.

Why not? Do these download services use some proprietary player or do they download clean mp3 files?

I ask because I don't know the answer; I don't use any of them.

Re:

[jcr (53032)]

Are you posting AC because you know that you're lying through your teeth?

AAC is a standard that anyone can license [vialicensing.com] from the MPEG-4 patent pool.

-jcr

Re:

[dangitman (862676)]

The iTunes Music Store sells songs from major labels. eMusic sells songs from independent artists.

No, the iTunes store sells songs from independent artists and major labels. Thus making them direct competitors.