Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Media Music

Microsoft to Launch MSN Music Service in 2004 361

Posted by CowboyNeal from the itunes-can-suck-it dept.
securitas writes "SmartMoney.com reports that a Microsoft spokeswoman confirmed plans to launch an online music download service in 2004 via the MSN Web site. The story was first reported in the Wall Street Journal (paid subscription required). Microsoft may undercut the per-song prices of competitors Apple iTunes and Roxio Napster. A reliable source is cited as saying that Microsoft has been in talks with major music companies and a post for a senior-level marketing position for the service was added to Microsoft's recruiting site last week. Observers expect that the company will use Windows or the bundled Windows Media Player to gain a competitive advantage over other services that require a software download to use them. Interestingly, in this May 2003 analysis piece about Apple's iTunes Microsoft denied any plans to launch a music download service. More at CNet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft to Launch MSN Music Service in 2004 More

Microsoft to Launch MSN Music Service in 2004

Comments Filter:

  • When... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:09AM (#7501166)
    When is this going to stop being news...when walmart start selling musi....oh wait...

  • Any bets? (Score:4, Funny)

    by dauvis ( 631380 ) * on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:10AM (#7501175)
    When do you think the first "bug" will apprear that will break iTunes and/or Napster's music playback on Windows with an update to Windows Media Player?

    • Re:Any bets? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by L10N ( 458520 )
      Personally I think in this situation both MS and Apple would strive to maintain ease of use for both their services. Pissing off the customers will result in a choice of service instead of the potential ala carte usage. And that choice could fall either way. Of course the file types differing and proprietary as they are do push people to pick one service over another. But I think there probably are a decent number of users that are content to use both services and burn cds of their purchases.

      Note: I have i
    • .. that wipes out your music, will MSN actually let you download it again without extra fees?
    • Not to sound rude to the almighty slashdotters our there, but why the cyncism? Microsoft might be making music downloads cheap for everyone. Everyone seems to be looking for a reason why- maybe they like music and want it to be available to the people who enjoy music too. OK, I imagine their DRM software will be harsh, but let's give it a try guys... (please don't mod this as funny!)

      • Re:Any bets? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by GeorgeH ( 5469 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @11:17AM (#7502515) Homepage Journal
        Because they broke Windows 3.1 running under DR-DOS and made it look like an DR-DOS error. This was an attempt to get people to use MS-DOS instead. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

        • Re:Any bets? (Score:3, Informative)

          by NanoGator ( 522640 )
          "Because they broke Windows 3.1 running under DR-DOS and made it look like an DR-DOS error."

          That is not what happened. A beta version of Windows 3.1 popped up an error message (Note: Not a crash, simply an error message that you okay to get through.) that said you're not running MS-DOS. This did not appear in the commercial version of Windows 3.1.

          Monopoly conspiracies aside, there is a legitimate reason for said message to exist: Microsoft can't fix Dr Dos if it's broken.

          Microsoft may or may not hav

  • Using bundled software for monopolistic advantage? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DJ Rubbie ( 621940 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:11AM (#7501176) Homepage Journal
    I smell another anti-trust suit coming.. isn't this yet another blatant violation of the suit they settled not so long ago?

    • Re:Using bundled software for monopolistic advanta (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tgma ( 584406 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:20AM (#7501227)
      I don't see how it violates the settlement, unless they prevent Windows users from using other music services. As long as you can still play the other stuff on your computer, there is nothing to stop you choosing whichever service you want. So they are not using market power to tie people in to their service.

      Of course, they may well have a strategy to gradually extend the features available to Windows Music Shop users, while restricting these to other people - for instance, it may become a lot easier to burn CDs from Windows Music Shop than from iTunes, because of some obscure driver incompatibility that you need a degree in CompSci to unravel. Or it may be possible to play only Windows Music files from within Internet Explorer. I should stop now, before I give too many ideas to the folks at Redmond.

      Microsoft are still allowed to compete, as long as they do it fairly. The moment they stop competing fairly, there will be a howl of protest, and the lawyers can start dusting off the terms of the agreement.
      • The Sherman Act prohibits the use of a monopoly to leverage entry into other markets, and it'll be a clear violation of the Act if they bundle their music download service with WMP.
        • I think we've seen before with MS that just because you or I consider it a clear violation of the Act doesn't mean that MS will actually face any penalty for it. At least in the US, no one has leveled any judicial penalty of note yet. I don't expect that to change any time soon. To clarify, I don't consider it a penalty when Microsoft can buy their way out by giving schools MORE of their software and compounding the issue by allowing them to count it as full retail value rather than actual cost.

      • I don't see how it violates the settlement, unless they prevent Windows users from using other music services. As long as you can still play the other stuff on your computer, there is nothing to stop you choosing whichever service you want. So they are not using market power to tie people in to their service.

        "I don't see how it violates the settlement, unless they prevent Windows users from using other web browsers. As long as you can still view sites using another browser on your computer, there is no

        • Uh, yeah, that's true. The "integration" argument against MS is completely stupid and should not have been pursued. Integration is decidedly and demonstrably BETTER for the consumer - witness Mac OS X, KDE, etc. All of these have various aspects of "integrated" applications, of course when KDE integrates the file manager and web browser, then it's INNOVATION!

          Microsoft should have been brought up on anticompetitive licensing and marketing deals with OEMs. This prevented OEMs from getting an alternative

          • Uh, yeah, that's true. The "integration" argument against MS is completely stupid and should not have been pursued. Integration is decidedly and demonstrably BETTER for the consumer - witness Mac OS X, KDE, etc. All of these have various aspects of "integrated" applications, of course when KDE integrates the file manager and web browser, then it's INNOVATION!

            You can remove the web browser in KDE. In OS X, no application is integrated to the extent that it's not removable. You can remove QuickTime Player,

        • "I don't see how it violates the settlement, unless they prevent Windows users from using other web browsers. As long as you can still view sites using another browser on your computer, there is nothing to stop you choosing whichever browser you want. So they are not using market power to tie people in to their web browser"

          I don't see how this is relevant since people have their own fingers and can easily type the word Tucows, or Download, and get a different broswer to use instead of bitching like it's

      • Re:Using bundled software for monopolistic advanta (Score:5, Informative)

        by Sylvius ( 670730 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:34AM (#7501297)
        The problem is that MS includes media player with the default windows install. In fact, there is no way to remove it. Furthermore, they have put their own add on software into the OS at a very low level and load at system boot (ala IE) to make their software appear much faster. Unless they agree to do that with iTunes, musicmatch, etc, then they are abusing their monopoly.

        This would basically represent the exact anti-trust case which they lost. The justice department could just replace all instances of IE with Media Player and resubmit the lawsuit. And just to be consistent, after the DoJ won the case, they would have to roll over and give MS a sweetheart deal.
    • I can't believe people can be so damn nearsighted about the potential that Microsoft could potentially be providing a better service than their competitors. Moreover, why are you complaining about lower prices? Isn't that the goal of capitalism? It's only bad when Microsoft uses their monopoly (and that requires removing competitors) to gouge the consumer.

      Frankly, if iTunes can't cut it, or if Napster falls through again, I'd more than happy to be a happy legal consumer through Microsoft. Sure, Micros
    • no, however in their efforts to under sell Apple and Napster there does risk some illegal behavior. It would be illegal if they were to sell the songs and loose money in an effort to force out of business the competition. Its considered unfair business practice. Remember microsoft has lots of money to throw around.


    • And Jobs is not going to roll over the way AOL/Time Warner did. We'll finally find out what happens when the irresistable force meets the immovable object.


      [Of course, Apple's case will be quite hypocritical, given that MS will be doing in Windows exactly what Apple is doing in OS X; but Apple doesn't have a monopoly, and that's the technicality which will matter...]


      IANAL

      • Apple's case isn't hypocritical; they aren't doing what Microsoft does, which is integrate. They Bundle.

        They don't make iTunes and *integral* part of the OS, the way Internet Explorer is. Even Safari isn't an integral part of the OS; you can if you like delete all the Apps (Mail, iChat, Safari, Internet Explorer, iMovie, iDVD, etc) and use your own (Thunderbird, AIM, Firebird, Mozilla, etc) without affecting the stability or reliability of your system.

        With Apple, you can unbundle without any ill effects.
  • ... despite the denial, who honestly thought MS would sit back while Apple muscled in on the media (ie: home user) territory that MS has more or less had to itself since WMP started to become useable ?

    All that effort put into DRM, and no R to M ? Don't think so...

    Simon.
    • Everyone thinks that Microsoft reversed its original decision to not make a music store. Perhaps I am a pessimist, but I think this was their evil plan all along. This is the AntiFud tactic.

      1st: Deny Plans for new product and or service. Tell everyone that the current players are doing a good job.

      2nd: Wait for competitors to invest deeply in new service.

      3rd: Deliver knockout blow to unsuspecting and overextended foes by entering market you said you'd stay out of.

  • Underbid prices (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Karamchand ( 607798 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:11AM (#7501180)
    Perhaps they'll underbid comptetitor's per song prices - but I bet they'll make the songs heavily DRMed.

  • Ogg (Score:5, Funny)

    by bluegreenone ( 526698 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:13AM (#7501186) Homepage
    I heard they were going with Ogg Vorbis for maximum cross-platform compatibility.

  • Spin? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SlashdotLemming ( 640272 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:14AM (#7501190)
    Observers expect that the company will use Windows or the bundled Windows Media Player to gain a competitive advantage over other services that require a software download to use them.

    So the existing Windows Media Player will magically work with this new system without any additional downloads?
    • My prediction: all machines that come with XP SP2 preinstalled will include the service; everyone else will get an update alert to install the new, improved WMP 9.5 or whatever. (Maybe they'll even find some kind of major security flaw in WMP that will have to be patched, and add the music service to the security patch, so it will be auto-installed by those who have their update settings that way.)

  • steps, not 12 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by freerangegeek ( 451133 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:14AM (#7501192)
    1. Spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt by announcing intent to compete
    2. Launch inferior product tied to monoply powered desktop OS.
    3. Work to bring service nearly to par while undercutting all competition with illegaly earned war chest.
    4. Destroy competitors and cease innovation.
    5. PROFIT!
  • But how are these services going to generate actual profits? From what I understand Apple doesn't make anything from their .99 cent songs. They're mainly looking for people to buy iPods to play those songs on.

    If Walmart and Yahoo and Microsoft and "Joe's MP3 Warehouse" are selling music at the same price point, where are the profits coming from? Or is this yet another Internet enterprise that is built on a house of cards?

    I hope that all these services offer OPEN standards that can be mixed and matched. For instance, I don't want to buy a song from Walmart that only plays on "Wal-Player" or something.

    Whadda ya think sirs?

    • Re:Everyone's jumping on the bandwagon now. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RobotRunAmok ( 595286 ) * on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:25AM (#7501253)
      Rather than ask, "Why MS?" a better question might be, "Where are Tower Records and Virgin Megastore and Fye and Sam Goody?" These are all brick-and-mortar establishments who will be in the warehouse business when legal downloads do to CDs what CDs did to vinyl.

      All music will be sold online, almost exclusively, within our lifetime, meaning there will be plenty of space in the market for the right retailers. How many of the "old names" will make the cut, and how many will be opportunistic "new tech" names like MS and Apple?

      • Here is the friggin answer... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by gosand ( 234100 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @10:36AM (#7502157)
        Rather than ask, "Why MS?" a better question might be, "Where are Tower Records and Virgin Megastore and Fye and Sam Goody?"

        I have THE solution, and have said it before. Here it is, I WANT them to implement it, so they are welcome to steal it from me. (hey, just give me a little credit for revitalizing the music industry) :-)

        Music stores should have a HUGE database of MP3s/WAVs in the store. I mean every damn song ever recorded.

        Every song older than 10 years old is $0.10.

        Every song 5-10 years old is $0.25.

        Every song 2-5 years old is $0.50

        Every song 2 years old to 6 months old is $0.99

        Anything newer than 6 months you have to buy on CD. (maybe this could be rolled into the 0.99 if it didn't fly)

        1. You have kiosks set up so customers can browse the database, creating their own CDs of songs (either audio, or burned as MP3s - ZERO DRM)

        2. They submit the request for the CD to be burned, which is all done behind the counter. (to avoid the customer support nightmare if they did it themselves)

        3. While they are waiting for their CD to burn, they can browse the latest CDs, merchandise, etc.

        4. They could charge a reasonable fee for the media and the burn. Maybe $2 per CD? Free songlist, but artwork might cost you an extra buck.

        Advantages:

        It gets people back into the stores! One of the first rules is to get them into the store, and they will spend money.

        It isn't online, so you don't have to worry about people hacking in.

        It is reasonably priced. Imagine building your favorite songs of the 80s for a few bucks. Those songs are just sitting around not making money anyway.

        Maybe there is an online service where you can build your CD and submit your request, and you can go in and pick up your CD, or have it shipped to you.

        They could list other people's CD compilations. Maybe have a voting system, so you could see the top 10 compilations.

        Future: DVD burns of videos, concert footage, interviews, Behind the Music, etc.

        Make record stores a cool place to visit again! Give people the music they want at a reasonable price, and you will be rewarded. Am I the only one who sees this?

    • It's the same M$ model as with the gaming consoles. They sold the xBox at a loss [com.com] simply to compete with Sony and Nintendo. The idea (and it failed with xBox) was to gain marketshare, then do as they wished, just like with OS's.

    • They won't make a profit. Deja'vu (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lysol ( 11150 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @09:28AM (#7501600)
      Just like with IE vs. Netscape, M$ doesn't expect a profit. And it needs to do two things with their music service that will provide advantages in the long run.

      1. Tie users into their DRM. Plain and simple.
      2. Tie users to their media player which will be restricted to their DRM.

      Number 2 kills the following companies on the Win platform: Real, MusicMatch, BuyMusic, Napster and even iTunes so long as iPod sales for Windows drop off. iTunes will still exist for the Mac tho.

      Cringley's [pbs.org] latest article has some excellent points on M$' whole DRM, platform agenda and why they lose money in most of their non-Office and non-OS ventures.

      Frankly, this smacks of the same shit that happened a few years back with the browser wars. M$ sees threat, launches their money losing alternative. Then bundles it, forces relevant M$ apps to use it, and then breaks compatibility. And thanks to huge lock on the desktop - along with, really, apathy on the developer and user base - presto, competition eliminated and monopoly suceeded.
      With their media player, a similar thing will happen. But instead of breaking standards, M$ will force their propreitary format on everyone who wants to use their player, thusly creating the artifical standard. Deja'vu all over again.

      I really hope the EU kicks their ass on this front and them releasing a music (then video, I'm sure) service could potentially add more fuel to the fire. These guys (M$) are due a good ass kickin. We don't need their vision of computing nor their abuses. The real world does not have just one car maker or one company who builds all the houses everywhere, or even one company who makes a variety of cd players. The software world should be no different.

      One reason I can deal with Apple's DRM is because I can take the songs, burn them to a cd and then rip them back in. I still have very good quality, but the songs are not restricted and in a more widely usuable format - mp3. And in the end, compatibility with all my machines is the gold standard of which I try to live by. It's hard, long road, but not an impossible one.
    • I think that people have something else in mind - cutting out the record companies.

      Imagine if someone like iTunes starts getting big enough that people go there for music like they go to a record shop - you can start getting "featured artists" - and iTunes do the promotion directly with the artists or small record labels.

  • much like X-box-- but why? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ghostlibrary ( 450718 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:16AM (#7501200) Homepage Journal
    Given that Apple has said they barely break even at 0.99/song, and Microsoft says they plan a lower price point, it looks like Microsoft is going to eat costs to gain market share.

    Given that the X-Box was rumored to cost Microsoft money for each box sold-- money they hoped to make up in software, it's not as clear how this will work for songs. Songs won't drive sales of Microsoft OS. That's the hazard of being a near-monopoly: everyone either has you, or already doesn't want you.

    So how will they profit? Microsoft doesn't have a history of raising prices after driving off competitors; they're usually content to just rule marketshare and continue sales as usual. But they do have a tendency to use their clout to cut others out in deals.

    So, prediction: Microsoft gains leverage in the market, then starts to cut deals with music companies saying "you only sell through us, not Apple or anyone else". Overall goal: ensure Windows Media Format (and DRM) become the standards, thus ensuring Windows is seen as the only OS for doing music.

    Hazard: Apple already has a good media lock, so they won't be able to be un-entrenched in this.

    Prediction: hell if I know.

    • This is a good thing! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by snooo53 ( 663796 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:31AM (#7501284) Journal
      I take the view that this is a good thing (tm) for Microsoft to do. They're big enough that they may be able to muscle the record companies into cutting them a deal for the songs. This of course will anger Apple and set off a series of lawsuits in every direction. Either way it shakes up the industry quite a bit, and that's what we need. Lots of competition. And I imagine M$ is bound to lose money anyway on this deal, since they don't have a hardware player. And if it did come down to litigation, I don't think anyone would be sorry to see lawsuits directed at the RIAA or M$
      • They're big enough that they may be able to muscle the record companies into cutting them a deal for the songs.

        Well, since WalMart has a revenue stream 10x that of Microsoft's and makes a higher quarterly profit than MS, not to mention the fact that the have a pre-existing relationship with the labels, they should be able to get an even better deal from the record companies. That means they'll be able to undercut whatever Microsoft tries to establish as a new price point.

    • Microsoft doesn't have a history of raising prices after driving off competitors; they're usually content to just rule marketshare and continue sales as usual. But they do have a tendency to use their clout to cut others out in deals.

      Are you nuts? If MS didn't raise their prices you could still get Office and Windows for $25/each (plus inflation over the last 10 years, which is not 2000%)

  • Long time ago... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 1000101 ( 584896 )
    "Interestingly, in this May 2003 analysis piece about Apple's iTunes Microsoft denied any plans to launch a music download service. More at CNet."


    It's half way through November. May was eons ago in IT speak.

  • How important is iTunes to Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sllim ( 95682 ) <achance@earthlink . n et> on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:17AM (#7501206)
    My understanding is iTunes is basicaly a promotional tool to sell iPods.

    I would imagine that Apples longterm plan is in 6 months or a year to renogiate the contracts, pointing out how much more succesful it was then predicted, and start making money then.

    Aside from that I am left with a question, how exactly is Microsoft expecting to turn a profit from this venture?

    Sure they can undercut Apple, but what will that gain them?

    Microsoft has no iPod like device to sell.

    I don't know, if I was Bill 'Money' Gates I would be tempted to give this particular market to Apple.

    • Microsoft might not have an iPod, but they do have one ace up their sleeve that I am pretty sure they will unleash in the future.

      It most likely will be Windows - Media Centre Edition...

      They have had little success in pushing this product, which basically is nothing more than a software package designed to run on dedicated hardware. If they setup their music to be playable using this, and then license said OS to device manufacturers, they could rake in some cash.

  • Early Thoughts... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jschroering ( 611063 )
    Obviously this will simply be crippled WMA files, but then again, AAC files aren't exactly a standard. I hate to say this, but the fight between iTMS and Microsoft on this may simply come down to who has the best selection and can offer the lowest price. I think someone else predicted this service coming when a previous story broke about Microsoft music devices/software. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that Microsoft is going to capitalize on whatever everyone -else- does well. Just some early thou

  • Let me see if I've got this right... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Schwartzboy ( 653985 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:18AM (#7501215)
    So now we're going to be complaining about the Blue Sound of Death? What would that even sound like? Is it anything like one hand clapping?

    Now we're in for it. I can imagine the DRM attached to an MSN music service would the most restrictive yet, allowing only one copy of each file downloaded on one PC, ever. The real run happens when the clueless user installs the latest security patch, only to find that none of their music works, and reads the fine print to discover that a PC is defined as "the unique collection of hardware, software, and specific Windows version that exists at the time of each music download". Don't like it? Well, if you had never stolen that music and put J.Lo out on the streets, this never would have happened, Bobby. Now, pony up for another copy of that track and we'll call it even, and might not even send Lars and Mungo to your house for a visit...say, would you like to buy a Longhorn upgrade?

  • Deja Vu (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DVDAshot ( 723971 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:19AM (#7501220)
    I am in awe of these compaines wanting to jump on the online music bandwagon. I believe with everyone putting all their "eggs" so to speak in the online music basket they are setting themselves up for what I believe could be akin to the .com burst. With so many new online music services coming online, the only for-profit entity coming out ahead are the labels. With the strong-arm tactics currently being used by the RIAA and such towards file swappers, I can imagine there is a lot of overhead involved to run an online music store.

  • Aha, now I understand (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:20AM (#7501226)
    So this would explain why MS were so concerned about shipping a "substandard" version of windows without WMP... ...Otherwise they wouldn't be able to tie in all those European customers to a hobbled music service with a "oh look, you already have the required software installed" media player...

    It's not that MS is necessarily killing competitors with each little feature, its more the way they use each toe hold to push forward into the next market and the next market and so on. Even if they were the worlds best and nicest software producer I think this kind of monopolistic action is extremely dangerous.

    1984 arrives at long last and we discover that it isn't the government watching us, but Bill Gates...
  • At first, Windows Media Player and its "protected" file formats seemed a good way to make alliance with RIAA and MPAA members and provide them secure distribution channels. But now it seems more like MSN will be a concurrent channel.

    Microsoft don't want to have friends in the business ?

    • Microsoft don't want to have friends in the business ?

      Perhaps they think that they're big enough and powerful enough on their own to not need friends in the business. After all, why split profits with others, if you can take them all for yourself?

  • Europe? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by krut ( 473234 )
    The important questions from all Europeans: When will we be able to use it?

    • Re:Europe? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Johnny Mnemonic ( 176043 )

      The important questions from all Europeans: When will we be able to use it?

      My guess is: never. The EU is already investigating Microsoft for anti-trust violations, has apparently taken a rather dimmer view of their behavior than the DOJ in the US, and has specifically mentioned the bundled Microsoft media player as infringing.

      My guess is that the EU will require Microsoft to unbundle the media player for the European market, at least; I suppose that it would still be available as a download, but I ca
      • but I can see that Microsoft may "cut off it's nose to spite it's face" ie not make the player available at all, to spin the judgement against them as "dooming the EU market to a second-class status".

        I really doubt they would do that. It's not like the market for music will disappear just because Microsoft isn't it in.
  • And I am sure their software will come pre-installed on all future windows OS' for your convenience. Another "feature" that you probably won't need and will have some sort of exploit available with default configuration.

  • Well, here we go again. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moonboy ( 2512 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:23AM (#7501241)
    Could this be Netscape vs. Internet Explorer all over again?

    Once again, Microsoft is late to the game. Apple started it this time with iTunes (where it was Netscape with the web browser). Initially, Bill and MS were reluctant to get on the bandwagon with the Internet. Then, it started to leave without them. They smell money and take off after it. "Well, we'll just give our browser away for free and because it's installed by default, why would anyone pay for Netscape?" Of course many "average" users didn't blink and eye used IE and Netscape died.

    Are we going to have the online music wars now? MS, again late to the party says, "Well, we've got Media player already installed by default and it's free. Now all we have to do is undercut everyone else on the prices of singles and albums and we'll own the market. If anyone matches our prices, heck, we've got so much money in the bank, we'll just give the music away. We'll also slip some DRM in and make our compression technology proprietary. Customers will love us for free music and the RIAA will love us for DRM."

    Nahhh, Microsoft is definitely not a monopoly.
    • Could this be Netscape vs. Internet Explorer all over again?

      Who would've thunk I'd stand up against some good, old-fashioned Microsoft bashing?

      If you look at the facts, Microsoft hasn't been able to replicate its "success" with IE in any other arena. Look at mobile phones, where Microsoft has been dumping cash hand over fist and hasn't even made a dent. Look at PDAs, another area where Microsoft has been gushing cash. The largest Microsoft-based competitor to Palm (the iPaq) has less than half of Palm's

  • Maybe they can meet consumer demand. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Technician ( 215283 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:29AM (#7501273)
    Maybe they can have enough clout to get past the DRM restrictions that keep me from playing the stuff in my car. My in dash MP3 player so far is incompatible with everyone else's offerings.

    However since they push the WMA DRM'ed format, I doubt it.

    They can sell bottled water by advertising it's quality over the run of the mill tap water.

    Who will sell high quality MP3's that are better than lawsuit vunerable internet MP3's?

    It makes as much sense as selling 8 track tapes because nobody has the stuff to copy them. It's high cost, not compatible with current generation devices (sure you need to buy new portable devices and in-dash units yada-yada NOT!) just to keep away from a de-facto standard format. Who can't play MP3's? Heck even my DVD player in the living room will play MP3's. There is no other format that will play in my car, portable, living room, etc.
    Too bad the industry is bent on not meeting the consumer demand.

  • MSN Music Club (Score:5, Informative)

    by philbowman ( 707419 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:30AM (#7501278)
    Hang on, don't they already do this? At least in the UK, I already have access to the service, and have downloaded 4 tracks already, which could be burned to a CD for 99p ($1.60?) each. It already works via WMP 9. Maybe we're just the guineapigs.

    BTW, due to an interesting set of circumstances, you can download Tubular Bells parts (sides) 1 and 2 as one 99p track each, or the whole album for 7.99! (assuming 1 credit=1p; this can vary)

  • On a more serious note than 1,2, profit... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by freerangegeek ( 451133 ) * on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:33AM (#7501295)
    I actually feel more sorry for the non-Apple competitors in this arena. They're largely tied into the WMA and Redmond OS and have alread surrendered their souls to the new comptetitor. Talk about squeezed from both sides. At least it's unlikely that competition from Micro$haft will completely destroy the Apple solution.

    It is odd that such a 'technology leader' is always second (or later) to market. I guess they have to rely on the true innovators to show them the path to money. "Your potential, Our passion?" finally makes sense now, as long as our potential is the one to create new markets for them to dominate.

    Just remember, if you are in the software industry, every dime you spend on Office/Windows/... is a dime our passionate friends will use to take your market away once it becomes lucrative enough to pursue.

    • I actually feel more sorry for the non-Apple competitors in this arena.

      Tough shit. Why? You said it yourself: They're largely tied into the WMA and Redmond OS and have alread surrendered their souls to the new comptetitor.

      Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to make that choice. Microsoft lied to them about thier intentions, but frankly, that's not surprising behavior. A third-party company ties itself to Microsoft technology in a market that Microsoft itself may be interested in compet
    • It is odd that such a 'technology leader' is always second (or later) to market. I guess they have to rely on the true innovators to show them the path to money.

      No, that's not odd at all! Thats shrewd. Let other people pave the way, then devise a best-of-breed from what's out there, and make a minor improvement. For example, the consumer electronics adage- that America made it first, and Japan made it smaller. Witness the transistor radio [ce.org].

      The real issue being, can Microsoft get a best of breed produ

  • only one year behind? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:37AM (#7501306) Homepage Journal
    Well. this is an improvement for MS. The announced ship date for a product is only 1 year behind the actual ship date of existing useful products. OTOH, announced ship dates from MS are usually overly aggressive to make MS look less lame in the market place. Since the real production dates run 2-3 years behind competitors, I think we can expect this in 2005.

    Of course, they may have already purchased someone else's software to make this happen. I can't imagine whose. It seems like all the major players have already been purchased by other major players.

    In any case, Walmart seems to be trying to launch it's music service in time for christmas. It is hard to see MS competing with this, especially given that MS has, as of now, no product and no significant relationship with the labels. Even if MS controls the front end and DRM, It would require a massive amount of shenanigans to catch up. They might be able to succeed in the EU, but MS seems to be having a number of difficulties there, and may not ship a music enable Windows after the new year.

  • It's like that magical combination of AOL and Time-Warner all over again. Errr, not it's not, it's more like M$ TV, the xbox, tablet PCs and many other M$ flops.

    M$ has even less going for it than AOL did. That merger between a huge new media company and an old one failed. The old one keeps it's content locked up regardless of it's own new best interest. Time Warner STILL only squezes it's content out through the tightest of bungholes at $1.00/pop-tune. Apple makes no money from the music itself. Do y

  • Only Apple creates both hardware and software necessary for a no-hassle music experience. The iPod and iTunes are meant to work as a unit. For Apple to get iTunes working in a hodge-podge of an operating system such as Windows is a testament to Apple's desire to make the music experience consistant on both platforms.

    Apple is out to sell iPods. Microsoft and all other companies that get into selling music online will see nothing but losses because they, nor Apple, receive any significant funds in selling mu

  • couple thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)

    by X_Bones ( 93097 ) <danorz13@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:46AM (#7501357) Homepage Journal
    Of course MS denied any plans to open a music store back then. The few people outside Apple who had heard of it probably expected it to tank; who was gonna bet that an Apple-only product, competing against p2p/free download services like Kazaa and using a relatively obscure file format, was going to be the success it turned out to be? But now that Apple has shown that people are willing to use services like iTMS, Microsoft will no doubt come swooping in and try to make a billion or two.

    MS has nothing to do with anything until someone else has already made a ton of money in a given market segment (think Xbox after Playstation, game peripherals after Thrustmaster, IE after Netscape, and even the graphical OS after the debut of the Mac). So it's not surprising that they want a piece of the music store pie at this point in time, after others have already spent lots of money figuring out what works for the consumer and what doesn't. It's like free R&D and user testing.

    My only question is how MS is going to make money from this by charging less per song, if even Apple is only breaking even on iTMS. A monthly subscription fee maybe? Who knows, we'll have to wait and see.
  • Interestingly, in this May 2003 analysis piece about Apple's iTunes Microsoft denied any plans to launch a music download service.

    Why exactly is that interesting to you? The denial was in May. That's six months ago. I'm guessing they weren't ready to announce it at that time. Even if they were out and out lying and they had plans to launch a service but they told CNET they weren't, that's still not that interesting. Stop trying to nitpick and find a scandal in everything MS does.

  • Does any one else but me think that MS is just spreading itself too thin by trying to cover EVERY flipping market out there related to IT? Granted I know every business model ends with #.PROFIT, but it is obvious the whole focus on security didn't pan out and we are still waiting for this awesome .NET to take over the internet. Ah screw it, it is Bills' company let him run it .

  • Goddammit! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ender Ryan ( 79406 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:59AM (#7501416) Journal
    Seriously, will anyone ever sell non-DRM`ed vanilla MP3`s? Dammit, I just want something I can play in my home and car stereos! Is that too much to ask? If I was interested in "piracy," I'd actually USE these pathetic services and convert them to MP3 (breaking the DMCA probably) and trade them. But that's not what I want to do, I just want to (legally) play some fucking music in my car and home.

    • and microsoft , the RIAA and everyone else doesn't give a rats ass about you or people like you.

      That is why they fail miserably.

      I have 3 mp3 players (portable) my car stereo, my 2 audiotron players here. NONE of which play any DRM crippled media... oh let's not forget the DVD player that play's mp3's...

      All these companies absolutely despise mp3 files because there is NO WAY to force DRM into it. Well the cat is out of the bag as there are millions of hardware mp3 players out there and consumers WANT mp

  • Extremely Risky (Score:4, Interesting)

    by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @09:00AM (#7501425)
    Talk of this is extremely risky at the moment. The EU is looking at this very problem right now. Word of this only hurts their defensive position and assures harsh punishment by the EU.

  • Royalties under this scheme (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @09:07AM (#7501470)
    I'm posting anonymously to help protect my identity because I *gasp* work for a member of the RIAA.
    I can tell you that these types of services are beginning to bring some interesting problems to the record companies, namely what royalties are paid to the artist. In the actual recording contracts, royalties are VERY specific and their definition is not very open ended. This mainly helps the recording company by taking certain monies from royalties and helps avoid confusion. And then something like music downloading comes along, which simply does not fit into ANY of the pre-determined categories in the royalties contract. And believe me, there are many specifically defined categories. This is especially true for some older contracts, where music downloading was not really a viable option. In those instances, it's attempting to fit the square peg in a round hole.
    On a side note, the RIAA members may have resisted this, for this specific reason. Royalties are obviously huge for the RIAA members and attempting to pay royalties on a category that does not fit into the recording contract is problematic, to say the least.
    Either way, it's simply food for thought.
  • What more can you ask for? The worlds "leading" authority on security will create a online music service.

    I wonder if the record label executives know that ROT13 is not exactly a new break through in cryptography.
  • 1. MS delivers a crippled product. No one buys it, and they flop
    2. MS delivers a good product (large selection, minimal DRM, smaller price). The consumer wins.

    What exactly is the problem here?

    Yes, they could try to leverage current WMP installations, but if the product they are selling is fundamentally flawed (as compared to iTunes, for instance) then it will fail.

    Or is the /. party line that MS should be barred from entering this particular market?
    I say bring it on. They have some large competition

  • Oh, that Microsoft!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by amarodeeps ( 541829 ) <dave@[ ]itable.com ['dub' in gap]> on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @09:32AM (#7501624) Homepage

    Always a step ahead. Always innovating!!

  • "Observers expect that the company will use Windows or the bundled Windows Media Player to gain a competitive advantage over other services that require a software download to use them."

    As long as water is wet, this statement will always evaluate to true. Why does this even have to be stated any more? Can we mod the post to -1 Redundant?

  • Locking the customers out (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mwood ( 25379 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @09:57AM (#7501824)
    "Observers expect that the company will use Windows or the bundled Windows Media Player to gain a competitive advantage over other services...."

    In other words I won't be buying music from Microsoft because I can't use their wares (since WMP won't run on my system). I can't say I'm terribly upset by that, as long as other vendors still exist.

  • Opportunities... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @10:22AM (#7502023)
    I see opportunities for new "independent record companies", ie. new music companies that do not have the huge overhead and excessive middleman costs.

    Right now the artist and consumer are the ones squeezed out. The cost of a CD is almost nothing to produce, it is all the money the music companies spend on advertising, high paid executives, buying time on MTV, etc. that drive costs up. The artists make very little of it.

    But there could be room for a music company that eliminates a lot of the overhead and uses creative methods to advertise and distribute it's product. Possibly free or low-cost downloads of new material to get customers to try a new artist, etc. Most of the music companies big cash flow is in the younger music market. Getting kiddies to buy a Britney Spears album, etc. But as you get into the college ages people start to get inputs from new sources like student radio, etc.

    The big music companies will jump on the MS bandwagon because of the massive size of the captive Windows market (the sheep) and because MS will guarantee them their artificially high prices. But if artists have a different avenue to take that gives them more control over their creative efforts and a better share of the profits they may be willing to take that route.

    The music companies will continue to pump huge money into "last years thing" - think Sony paying Michael Jackson to basically produce nothing for them. Much of these losses will be hidden because the music companies are part of larger corporations that span many markets.

    But over time free market economics would get them. That is if our goverment lets them. Efforts like the DCMA can try to stop this, but in the end I don't think it can. While there may be a law that says it is illegal to sell computer equipment that circumvents copy-protection, there is nothing that say an artist or a new music/media company is forced to release their material in proprietary copy-protected format like Windows media.

    One way the big companies and MS will try to stop this is with "subscriptions". The spreadsheet MBA boys love a constant cash flow. Think cable TV. Think MS software licensing. They want that continued consistent cash flow. That is why MS formed MSN. They saw what AOL was making. So they will try to convince people to pay a monthly fee to download and listen to music. It will be like the cell phone companies. You will get so many minutes of music a month for a certain price. And you will probably pay a premium for going over a limit.

    This could lead to some competition for the subscription market, just like there is in the cell phone business. But I think it may end up like cable TV. You will pay an artificially high price for a "package" deal that includes all kinds of music you don't want. Think the Home Shopping Channel, etc on cable. They will make the costs of buying just the songs you want high enough that many people will just "take the package" and accept it. Think of all the people who are up to their ears in credit card debt and just get by paying the monthly minimums. As long as they can go along with what society tells them they should be, they will pay their little montly charge to "be happy".

    In the end the dinosaurs will go extent. MS may continue it's reign a while longer, but I think they are just stringing things out. There are opportunities available for success that lie somewhere between totally free or pirated, and over-priced and controlled.

    IMHO.
    Valoo !

  • Typo correction (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @12:00PM (#7502933) Homepage Journal
    Observers expect that the company will use Windows or the bundled Windows Media Player to gain a competitive advantage over other services ...

    I think you meant "to gain an anti-competitive advantage ..."

    That's what tie-ins with the OS are all about, y'know.

  • The Crucial question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tylerh ( 137246 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @01:47PM (#7503947)
    iTumes key advantage is that you can use with any CD player on the planet. The CD player is world's proferred music platform, here, not Windows or OS X. If Jane User can't got from her Dell to her Discman with one click, she's not going to use it for music. period.

    So my question, which is: which online stores besides iTuines, support one-click burning to CD-R? These are the only viable competitors. (possbile exception: if most of the*cheap* CD players suppport "some other format," than a competitor may be able to survive on that. )

    Steve understands that all comes down to: "Rip. Mix. Burn."

    Does Bill?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close