Online Music Stores Compared 594
prostoalex writes "DesignTechnica has a comparison of the leading online music stores. With the variety of services available they only concentrated on several top ones. Conclusion? 'If you simply want to download music from the charts, then Yahoo and Wal-Mart are your cheapest options. For your MP3 player, there are several options, with Yahoo the best of all. If you're an iPod owner... then you're stuck with iTunes.'"
I call bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
That's bullshit. I have an iPod, and only a tiny fraction of my music has come from iTunes. I would think by now that everyone would be aware that the iPod is very capable of playing mp3s, regardless of where you got them from.
Contradictory and wrong (Score:5, Informative)
eMusic allows MP3 downloads but iPod owners have to use iTunes?
No. You can use eMusic downloads on your iPod too.
iTunes downloads with fairplay are only playable in iTunes and on iPods?
No. iTunes downloads with fairplay are playable in any application that supports QuickTime. There's a very simple api for extracting the decompressed audio data from those files. The user must authenticate with the music store before the files can be decrypted, but that's it.
Oh come on my friend (Score:2, Informative)
I thought, well, I'll just download iTunes again, log in as me, and it'll start re-downloading the $1,500.00 worth of digital songs I bought from Apple.
Well, I was wrong, and haven't "bought" a song online since.
Emusic and allofmp3 (Score:4, Informative)
Bleep.com missing (Score:1, Informative)
The best music store (Score:5, Informative)
I can buy lossless formated music, ogg or even raw
And also, there are a number of different ways to pay (in case you do not trust Russian stores):
-Credit Card
-Pay Pal
-Xrost
-Bank Transfer
-WebMoney
Cool uh?
Not quite, mate... (Score:4, Informative)
iTunes has Fair Play? (Score:1, Informative)
The big downside about iTunes, of course, is that its proprietary Fair Play DRM, isn't compatible with other systems.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't Fair Play a Microsoft thing, you know that little badge that shows up on their mp3 players and cdroms? Isn't Fair Play the CD DRM that Apple refuses to support?
Why? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't understand the frustrating part. The author tries to make an issue of having to convert iTunes songs into mp3 or WMA. But why would you want to? iTunes also plays songs bought from the iTunes Music store.
The only possible reason to do the unweildy conversion is to get rid of DRM. But the author is willing to accept DRM from other stores and, IMO, worse conditions:
Napster You don't own the music, however, and if you cancel your subscription, all the tracks you've downloaded disappear.
Looks like once you start with Napster, you're also stuck with Napster.
Yahoo However, as with other subscription services, you only have access to the music as long as you maintain your subscription.
Same with Yahoo.
Maybe the full disclosure should be placed at the beginning of the article?
Re:Stuck, huh? (Score:4, Informative)
What about the smaller guys? (Score:3, Informative)
Currently, I'm using http://www.karmadownload.com/ [karmadownload.com] as it seems the most geek friendly (and legit) site going at the moment. High quality MP3, no DRM, plus they support the independent artists. The only bummer is the Flash they use. Oh well, can't win them all.
Re:More accurate to say (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.hymn-project.org/download.php [hymn-project.org]
Re:iTunes has Fair Play? (Score:4, Informative)
Umm, yeah, sort of, but not quite, exactly.
Microsoft's Fair Play program is a promotional tool used in some countries. It's a registered trademark of Microsoft, and basically gives sales staff prizes for selling software. For example, here's a link for those of you who speak Russian:
http://www.microsoft.com/rus/fairplay/ [microsoft.com]
If you don't speak Russian, well, note the URL.
Apple's FairPlay is a DRM encoding/decoding scheme for music files. It's added onto Advanced Audio Codec format audio (which is not, as you hear often, a proprietary Apple format and works fine in many players) to create a file in the encoded format (which is proprietary).
So it's Microsoft Fair Play (TM) versus Apple FairPlay (TM). And it's AAC with the
...And of course it's not even *true*. (Score:5, Informative)
iTunes of course is software that Apple provide that allows you to upload to your iPod (the sort of software you'd expect any MP3 player vendor to provide with their hardware), and there are 3rd party utilities - both commercial and free - that also offer this functionality.
This is distinct from the iTunes Music Store (iTMS) which was added after iTunes and iPod's had already been available for some time, but is a feature of the software (for logical reasons, as it would be much less user friendly if it had a completely separate application window).
You can of course use music from stores with the iPod. I buy from the iTMS, but I also buy MP3's from the outstanding Emusic [emusic.com] all the time (I like the service as you get plain MP3's so there is no messing about with keys or authorisation, and you can entire albums as single
The 'problem' is that the iTunes Music Store only supports iTunes, which only (officially) supports the iPod (though unoffically it's possible to use it with a number of devices using 3rd party plug-ins), NOT that the iPod is somehow 'locked in' to the iTMS, which it isn't.
This is a premise that a 10 year old should be able to grasp, but is apparently way above the heads of Chris Nickson, the editors at Designtechnica, ScuttleMonkey and prostoalex.
Re:Stuck, huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I work 14 hour days most of the time (Score:3, Informative)
So, you don't have the time to back up your data, but you DO have the time to read Slashdot? Uh, I think you have your priorities mixed up.
LoL exactly! Sorry, but anyone who claims they "don't have time to make backups" gets exactly what's coming to them. Making backups is just one of those things you HAVE TO DO. Period. There is NO rationalisation/justification for ever not backing up. I own a small business, and believe me, no matter how overloaded I am, even during the tough times when I'm working 18-hour days for a few weeks solid, I always stop at month-end and spend a few hours making my monthly backups. Problems like hard disk crashes, theft, lightning damage etc. are inevitable. My strict backup policy has saved my ass a few times - I've practically never lost anything in fifteen years in the business, it's all filed away and well-organised, I can pull up work I did fifteen years ago with my eyes closed. It's completely moronic to think you're "saving time" by not backing up, because it's going to cost you far more time when you lose your data to redo what you've lost - if it's recoverable at all (e.g. photos, invoices, whatever). I would never hire anyone - not an employee or a subcontractor - who thought that there was ever a valid reason not to make backups - they are going to lose your data. A couple basic rules of backups, and most common mistakes: (a) always do backups regularly, without exception - don't "skip a few" because you're busy - when you're busy is in fact when you can LEAST afford to have data loss. Disasters are not 'less likely' to occur when you're busy. (b) always TEST your backups. it doesn't help to dutifully write that tape once a month, only to discover after a disaster that a mistake in the process was making those backups unrecoverable - I've seen companies lose important databases due to this error. (c) ALWAYS DO BACKUPS YOURSELF - it's your data, don't think anyone else is going to look after it. I've seen website developers who lost their entire websites because they didn't even have a local copy (come on, how stupid can you get?) - the only copy was on the host itself, and the host got hacked and only had an old backup!
Re:Stuck, huh? (Score:1, Informative)
Artist's royalties NOT that high (Score:3, Informative)
Ask any artist how big their royalty checks are.
Re:WIPO: I don't download music (Score:3, Informative)
He buys used cd's and cds direct from musicians to avoid the RIAA tax. In case you don't know, there are shops in most communities that resell used cds for a fraction of the original price. Often you can get them for only $2 or $3, and are usually allowed to preview to your hearts content to verify there are no scratches you can't live with. Likewise, many musicians sell their music direct to the fan either by their website of at concert venues on cd, again cutting out the RIAA and selling for much lower than the price of a new cd.
Then presumably like most normal people, he rips his cds to mp3 and puts them on the mp3 player of his choice.
I'm really unclear why you thought his post was trolling, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me. Maybe you weren't replying to the post you seemed to be?
Re:Stuck, huh? (Score:2, Informative)
What would be the difference if a russian man was the one I was downloading from via bit torrent for instance? None, it's still unauthorized distribution. Just because you can get away with it right now doesn't mean that the RIAA doesn't know about it and that they aren't working to stop it.
Like I said in my original reply, don't kid yourself into thinking that this is legit or right or legal in the US, the RIAA just can't stop it right now because it is operating legally in Russia. That won't stop them from pursuing it on this side of the Atlantic, however.
Re:iTunes wish list (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, iTunes *does* remember what music you've purchased *and* indicates it when you're shopping--there's a "Purchased" playlist (which is automatically updated) right underneath the "Music Store" link on the left-hand side, and if you attempt to add a track you've already purchased to your cart, you'll receive a pop-up warning message which asks whether you're sure you want to buy it again (note this only happens if you bought it with the same account, of course).
"Secondly, I should be able to re-download those tracks in the event of a hard drive crash or if I'm on the road and forgot to grab a song while I was home."
I agree that it should be *easier* to do this, but they actually *will* let you re-download tracks under certain circumstances, if you contact them directly (via support). However, I don't think they should *have* to do so--after all, if you purchase a physical CD and then break or lose it, Harmony House isn't gonna give you a second CD for free. It would be a nice touch, however.
"The biggest thing I'd like to see them add is song purchases count towards a credit on buying the album. In other words, if I buy two songs on an album, and then later decide I wish to purchase the album, I shouldn't have to re-purchase those two songs as part of the album."
Agreed.
Re:Stuck, huh? (Score:4, Informative)
It means you need to pay more attention to corporate terminology. Veritical Integration [wikipedia.org] refers to the practice of aligning business units (or in this case software units) in such a way as to allow them to interoperate freely and easily. Sometimes that's a bad situation with Windows vertically integrated with Internet Explorer and MS Office.
In this case, however, it's a good thing. The iTunes software integrates from the iPod and CD/Ripping level to a well designed library that's been integrated with a Music Store, CD Burner, Hi-Fidelity music player, and Movie Player. (The latter is currently limited to music videos and trailers.) What this means is that you can use one easy to use application to handle all your music needs. The alternative is to download separate software packages to load the MP3 player, rip CDs, play music, play videos, burn CDs, and purchase online music. Such was the market before the arrival of iTunes.
I smell a rat. (Score:4, Informative)
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usco
Pay particular attention to a), 2.
Re:Magnatune.com? (Score:3, Informative)
http://magnatune.com/info/give/ [magnatune.com]
My experience with the Yahoo music service. (Score:3, Informative)
I've been using the full Yahoo music service for a couple of months now, and so far I love it. It has changed the way that I listen to music.
Disclaimer: I don't work for Yahoo, and I don't use other Yahoo services (I'm a googlite). I do know someone who works for Yahoo, but I don't believe that has influenced my opinion of this service.
I can't compare the Yahoo service to the other services (because I haven't tried them) other than to note that it appears to be a fair bit cheaper. I wouldn't be surprised if they had to raise the price at some point.
The selection seems very good to me, but I have noticed that often they will have an album minus one or two songs.
The sound quality is very good: 192, rather than 128.
The client software was very buggy initially but is much better now. I'm running it on a Win2K notebook with a PII 366 CPU. It's not fast but it is acceptable.
But most of all, I like this subscription model. It's really great having access to everything. This way I do a lot of trying out new music and following up on suggestions. As soon as I joined I looked around and gathered some albums that I hadn't heard in years. I'm listening to more music now and I'm discovering lots of new stuff. It's a great feeling of musical freedom to have everything available at your fingertips.
The problem is that now I'm hooked. If I wanted to quit I would have to look at all the music I've collected, decide which songs I liked the best, and purchase them for $0.80 a song. On the other hand, I could just keep subscribing and still pay much less than I would if I wanted to buy even a few of these albums I've now collected.
My biggest complaint is that they manage your music data the same way that most other big music apps do. I heard someone say that iTunes stores everything in your folder structure in the tags and xml files. That sounds like a much better way to do it. I wouldn't use the iPod/iTunes because of the price and lock-in, but kudos to them for using such an open and sensible system.
Re:Stuck, huh? (Score:3, Informative)
No, horizontal integration [wikipedia.org] would be if Apple owned the technology or songs behind music stores, then rebranded those same stores many times. Or alternatively, if Apple offered a wide number of music-related disparate products. e.g. GM and Ford horizontally integrate their product lines across a variety of brands that appeal to different markets. A looser horizontal integration would be Proctor and Gamble, a company that has a very diverse number of brands that are marketed as completmentary or competitive, but never as a direct requirement for one product to another.
A music store vs. a player have a supply chain relationship. The player needs to be supplied music, which the store can provide. The download music and player music need to be managed, which the iTunes library provides. Since Apple owns nearly the entire integrated supply chain, it's vertical integration.
However, Apple does have a horizontal integration across their hardware and software business. There's a wide variety of computing machines to chose from, as well as two OSes. (OS X Desktop and OS X Server) They also provide a wide variety of software designed for the OS X platform, including Safari, GarageBand, Keynote, iTunes, etc.
Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Why the hell would you transcode it more than once?
Yeah you got a point about transcoding. No, I don't like DRM any more than the other guy, but give me a break! That's the weakest anti-DRM argument I've seen in a long, long time.
Maybe I'm not that a sophisticated user, so would you please care to tell me: Why the hell would you transcode it more than once?
Re:Stuck, huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Regaurdless of this. Think about it. You aren't helping anyone by using this service aside from the guys in russia. The artist will NEVER see ANY of the MONEY you give them.
Re:Stuck, huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Stuck, huh? (Score:3, Informative)
To clarify, when you buy from iTms you buy a contract to do certain stuff with a mediafile. You don't buy the media itself, you don't own it, you can't sell it. You can't even sell the contract because in it it says you can't sell it. You can even say the media you buy is worthless once you pay for it (It no longer has any $$ value). If thats ok with you, shop on and be happy.
I'm waiting for some scheme that makes me own the tunes just as much as I own a CD I buy. Not something thats look like a lifetime rent.
Re:Stuck, huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry to break this to you, but when you buy a CD from Best Buy, or Tower Records, or any retail chain, or even by mail order from the record label directly, the artists don't ever see any of that money either. In fact, the only money that artists make directly off of selling CDs is through their merch booth when they're on tour, and even then they have to buy those CDs from the record label they're signed to, who handle the printing and distribution of the albums and have, legally at least, exclusive rights to the music.
Just like when I download an album for free off of bit torrent, if I like the artists, I will go to their shows, purchase actual copies of their albums, or other merchandise like t-shirts, stickers, etc.
So allofmp3.com just sounds like a site that is publicizing these artists and giving them exposure over the net without the consent of the record labels. Sure, they're making money too, but they're not exactly hurting the artists. They're leaching off of actual musicians only as much as record labels do. I mean, should you feel bad when a friend plays an album for you or even burns you a copy of a CD because they want to expose you to the band?
This is only a bad thing if you assume that people who buy the music off of these sites and don't buy the actual album or support the artists in any other way would have given the artists some money directly otherwise. This is an illogical assumption and doesn't sound like most people who are music fans.