Microsoft Opens MSN Music Store 690
pbranes writes "Microsoft has opened their online music store today with 1 million songs and it will be officially opened tomorrow when Windows Media Player 10 is released. Music costs $0.99 and $9.90 for albums ($0.09 less than iTunes). Also, music is at a higher quality - 160kbps VBR. You can browse the site with Mozilla, however, ActiveX is required for full functionality so IE is required to use the store. Also, Microsoft takes a hit at Apple for not licensing iPod functionality to third parties (kind of ironic when ActiveX is required to use the site).... If you are an iPod owner already and unhappy about this policy, you are welcome to send feedback to Apple requesting that they change their interoperability policy."
One Pondering Question (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One Pondering Question (Score:3, Insightful)
"Would you like to add a Passport to Windows XP?"
Sound familiar?
Re:One Pondering Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Ms getting into the content distrobution market is especially scary. If IE and a number of other windows apps are any testament, MS may very well throw DRM out there in their next version of WMP or just autoinstall it through some undocumented API on your machine when you visit their site for support. All of a sudden, the other music companies DRM becomes invalid, and MS's rules supreme on PC's with their DRM and their music store which is the only store from which you can buy music from which'll work.
Did I also mention they're adding in a virus scanner, and that virus scanner may decide to uninstall p2p apps or block websites deemed by MS as virus havens?
Then how many years/decades will it take the DOJ to kill the monopoly?
I'v got my tin foil hat, how bout you?
FUDdy Dud (Score:3, Insightful)
T
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think it's a bullshit reason to not participate in online sales which doesn't have to be defended because it's "artistic" in origin. I guess these artists don't like their songs played singly on the radio, either? Or single videos on MTV? Whatever.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Rodeohead - Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Funny)
No ActiveX required.
No iPod or iTunes required, neither. Props to "Hard N' Phirm [hardnphirm.com]."
Regards and Yee Haw -
acitveX for moz (Score:5, Interesting)
look in the moz project directory
URL for Re:acitveX for moz (Score:5, Informative)
Re:acitveX for moz (Score:5, Insightful)
Linkage.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Linkage.... (Score:3, Funny)
You're making bathroom humor jokes when your candidate is named Bush? You're making this stuff too easy...
Re:Linkage.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Linkage.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:acitveX for moz (Score:4, Funny)
Re:acitveX for moz (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nah (Score:3, Interesting)
Irrelevant (Score:3, Interesting)
Irrelevant, especailly since it has been out for so long now - obviosuly Apple cannot kill it. You are only speculating when you say Apple wishes it were dead. They tried a half-hearted attempt to not read the Hymn files then gave up.
2. Hymn (and playfair before it) didn't out until quite a while after the iTunes Music Store appeared. The MSN Music Store just opened up on a beta basis yesterday. Give it time.
But MS DRM, the same DRM that's in
Re:acitveX for moz (Score:5, Informative)
Umm, dude, do you?
AAC (Advanced Audio Codec) is the successor to MP3. It's also known as M4A (unprotected) and M4P (protected, or DRM'd). AAC is not lossless; that would be the Apple Lossless Encoder, which claims to be able to compress to half the size of uncompressed with no loss of sound quality. Mention of it is made on Apple's site here [apple.com] and here [apple.com].
(tig)
Re:acitveX for moz (Score:5, Funny)
Gee, why don't I just go and install Banzai Buddy (or some such crap) and save myself the trouble?
-nova20
Re:acitveX for moz (Score:5, Informative)
In case you didn't know, on XP SP2, the "Are you sure?" dialogs are largely replaced (mainly within IE) with a modeless "infobar" [msdn.com] at the top of the window that you can easily ignore and that you have to explicitly click on and go through a menu to unblock whatever "unsafe" behavior just got blocked (like a file download or activex). There is no in your face dialog to which you can accidentally say Ok.
After this was first seen (as an IE feature) in the SP2 beta, Mozilla copied it. From mozillazine [mozillazine.org]:
Oops, are we not supposed to talk about that here? I know that acknowledging when Microsoft adds something good or fixes one of their problems violates the party line that Microsoft never "innovates" and that OSS never copies from them, so feel free to go back to bragging about how stable linux is compared to Win95.
Re:acitveX for moz (Score:3, Insightful)
Unsandboxed Windows-only binary executables run via your web browser -- that's not how the web's supposed to work.
Macs need not apply (Score:5, Informative)
HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS
Windows 98 SE, Windows 2000, or Windows XP
Internet Explorer5.01 (or later), which supports 128-bit encryption
Windows Media Player7.1 (or later), we recommend the latest version
A 233 megahertz (MHz) processor (such as an Intel Pentium II or Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) processor) or faster
64 megabytes (MB) of RAM or more
Speakers and sound capability
Payment with a valid credit card with a U.S. billing address
To enjoy high-quality audio as a Radio Plus subscriber, you will need Windows Media Player 9 Series (or later)
Re:Macs need not apply (Score:5, Funny)
But Penguins... (Score:4, Interesting)
Did you notice the type of available music? (Score:5, Funny)
More info (Score:4, Informative)
160kbps VBR - Higher Quality ? I think not. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:160kbps VBR - Higher Quality ? I think not. (Score:5, Funny)
This is Microsoft we're talking about here. Apple's with lemons is more likely.
Re:160kbps VBR - Higher Quality ? I think not. (Score:3, Informative)
A 134kbps (VBR) Lame-encoded MP3 sounds almost as good [rjamorim.com] as a 128kbps iTunes AAC. (In the final analysis, they're statistically indistinguishable.) I highly doubt a 192kbps MP3 can't beat a 128kbps AAC. But neither is as good as a well tuned Ogg Vorbis (aoTuV) encoding.
Re:160kbps VBR - Higher Quality ? I think not. (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently, it is. [rjamorim.com] You can see that LAME MP3 actually does better than iTunes AAC on about half the tests - and at approximately the same bit rate. The overall results are extremely close.
I actually took part in that listening test. This was a double-blind test (like all of Roberto's listening tests) so I had no idea what codec I was listening to, and I could barely tell any difference between any of them. It was only a
Feedback (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Feedback (Score:5, Interesting)
They can wave their arms and gripe all day about the iPod not supporting WMA, but the bottom line is that Apple's not doing anything to prevent Microsoft themselves from supporting DRMd WMA files in Windows Media Player for Mac. If their appeals for openness were genuine, as opposed to strictly self-serving, a good place to start would be to make their own DRM compatible with their own media player on OS X.
Quality? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Quality? (Score:5, Informative)
iTMS AAC is a type of VBR known as ABR (Average Bit Rate). Instead of the frames being a variable number of bytes they are instead grouped into blocks of a constant size. This means that you can have variable-sized frames that have a constant, dependable size over the long-run. ABR is pretty much as good as regular VBR but it is a better format for streaming because of the regularity of the average bit rate.
There is an explanation of the formats here. [sourceforge.net]
Re:Quality? (Score:3, Informative)
Generally, you're allowed much the same as MP3: ABR with small bit reservoir, ABR with regular bit reservoir,
most A3 tracks are lossy-encode *more than once* (Score:3, Insightful)
Worse yet, you will find no documentation telling you which of the available bitrates is the "original". Is it the 384k CBR or is it the 320k
I don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't understand (Score:5, Informative)
2 pass VBR, the average bitrate is 160.
IPOD Owners taking a hit? (Score:3, Funny)
Higher quality? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure you're not falling for the old megahertz trap there?
Higher quality because, in independant double-blind tests, people could hear the difference? Or higher quality because this-here number is bigger'n that one?
C'mon people, this is /. not cnet. I thought after watching Intel & AMD play the numbers game for years we'd be wise to this stuff. Seems not. Seems all Microsoft has to do is publish a bigger number, and we're all ready to slap "higher quality" on it without even a cursory look at file sizes, compression standards, or those pesky things like some kind of semi-objective test.
But this one goes up to eleven....
Re:Higher quality? (Score:3, Informative)
Commence critiquing the benchmark, but at least try to find an equally or more credible benchmark that has different findings. From everything I've seen the believe that WMA just must suck is wishful thinking.
As for the MHz "myth," MHz is perfectly fine for comparing within a single architec
Requirements (Score:3, Interesting)
HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS
* Windows 98 SE, Windows 2000, or Windows XP
* Internet Explorer 5.01 (or later), which supports 128-bit encryption
* Windows Media Player 7.1 (or later), we recommend the latest version
* A 233 megahertz (MHz) processor (such as an Intel Pentium II or Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) processor) or faster
* 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM or more
* Speakers and sound capability
* Payment with a valid credit card with a U.S. billing address
* To enjoy high-quality audio as a Radio Plus subscriber, you will need Windows Media Player 9 Series (or later)
A little further down the page
Enable cookies[...]You must be an administrator on the computer in order for the ActiveX control to install properly. You need not be an admin to use the service once the control has been installed.
(All scripting options need to be enabled too)
So why would I need to enable cookies to download music, or have administrator rights, just to visit a site...
Details: Here [msn.com]Re:Requirements (Score:3)
Interesting Business Partnerships (Score:5, Informative)
From radio to your library: If a particular song on MSN Radio gets your attention, you can click to download it and instantly make it a part of your music library. And if you prefer plastic, we'll connect you to several online CD sellers, including Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.com.
Amazon and B&N - those are some heavy lifters. A new Axis of Evil? =)
Interesting though, this is an area that Apple has avoided: making the connection to the hard-copy world. This could provide Microsoft with even more backing and support from some of the entrenched, big players in the music industry. Scary.
Downloading to iPod (Score:3, Insightful)
And hasn't Real already figured out how to properly encrypt a song to load on an iPod? So MS could use that approach, too, and sell DRM-enabled songs that would load directly to the iPod. (and don't even start me on whether that's legal or not -- it clearly is, under interoperability clauses, though it'll probably take a court ruling to get that through people's heads).
Sounds to me like MS is *choosing* not to support iPods.
Re:Downloading to iPod (Score:4, Insightful)
The only common DRM formats out there are Apple's AAC FairPlay and WMA.
Re:Downloading to iPod (Score:3, Informative)
Meanwhile, illicit data sources for music continue to flourish. All the convenience of click-at-home without any of the restrictions that make you wonder when you'll run in to the glass ceiling that stops you from playing your favorite tune on your new audio gadget.
Sure. Yo
Higher bitrate != higher quality (Score:3, Informative)
I hope someone does a full listening test with a blind panel
Look at those security requirements! (Score:5, Interesting)
(from the FAQ at Microsoft)
- ActiveX controls and plug-ins -> Download signed ActiveX controls: choose "enabled" or "prompt"
- ActiveX controls and plug-ins -> Script ActiveX controls marked safe for scripting: choose "enabled"
- Scripting -> Active Scripting: choose "enabled"
- Miscellaneous -> Navigate sub Frames across different domains: choose "enabled"
You also need to install the ActiveX Control to use MSN Music with administrator rights.
Of course, if you're using an insecure configuration of IE, this is already your settings. Otherwise, you need to setup a new Internet Zone for Windows Media Player with these low security settings and cross your fingers there'll never ever be any exploits to run code in WMP 10's security zone. There's already a well-known exploit in the wild for IE that will work if Active Scripting is enabled (was that scrollbar trick recently in the news, I think).
Don't you just love the implications of IE integration with media players and all sorts of other stuff?
Re:Look at those security requirements! (Score:3, Insightful)
>choose "enabled" or "prompt"
Yeah, enabled is the way to go. Why get bothered with an annoying prompt when shady companies want to install software on your machine!
Welcome to the world of Bonzai Buddies, mystery pauses and crashes, and no privacy! I hope you enjoy your new ever changing homepage too!
Its
Re:Look at those security requirements! (Score:3, Informative)
The whole "security zones" model is the biggest security issue in Internet Explorer. There should not be a mechanism in a web browser to run code outside a sandbox. Not just "for the Internet zone", but anywhere. Having a program (and by this I mean the whole MS HTML control, IE is just a wrapper around it) intended for safely viewing untrusted documents able to grant local user rights to that document is just asking for people
bitrate != quality (Score:3, Informative)
no, bitrate in not equal to quality. iTMS has the far superior AAC, while Microsoft uses WMA wich comes last (or close) in most tests (except the ones Microsoft pays for
two tests here:
1 [heise.de]
2 [xiph.org]
cheaper higher quality music (Score:5, Interesting)
Just had a look through their selection... (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the reasons I'd gladly pay for downloading music is because it's old or obscure and I can't find it elsewhere. If I wanted Britney Spears or some crap like that, all I'd have to do is look for it on any P2P program and I'd get a billion results.
Do they think people's motivation for using pay-to-download site will just be the fact that it's legal?
Walt Mossberg's review (Score:5, Informative)
-only about 500K songs
-no audio books, gift certificates, spending limits for kids
-Microsoft runs ads on its search pages
-click the "Buy" button, it changes to read "Purchased," but that doesn't mean you have the song
- several thousand of Microsoft's songs will cost more -- some nearly $4 each
-WMP choked when tried to synchronize songs purchased in Microsoft's own format from the Musicmatch, Wal-Mart and Napster online stores, saying it was "unable to obtain license
-Overall, MSN Music is no match for iTunes -- yet.
Mossberg thinks eventually MS will catch up.
http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20040902.html [wsj.com]
Re:Walt Mossberg's review (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did he get this figure? MSN Music site itself says they have over a million.
Mossberg thinks eventually MS will catch up.
Right. Version 3 will probably be slick. Hey, you know, the site design is already pretty clean and easy. The focus is clearly on the music, almost the detriment of the site itself.
Wow, albums are 9 CENTS cheaper@!!@#!!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Ah Irony, thy name is Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, Microsoft, they are all about "choice."
Microsoft != Open Standards (Score:3, Insightful)
allofmp3.com (Score:3, Interesting)
It costs $10 per GB you download and is legal (because of strange Russian copyright laws).
MS and Real intentionally misunderstand the iPod (Score:3, Interesting)
MS and Real are both allowing export to a restriction-free format to enable use of music purchased from them in other devices (CD players) that do not support their DRM scheme. If they really wanted their music to play on the iPod they could do the same thing with no more ill effect to their business model. Why won't they do that? It must be a misguided gambit to increase market share. And that's fine. They're businesses and naturally want to increase their market share. But don't misrepresent your competition as more closed than you are when that's clearly not the case.
Feh. The iTMS is cheap, easy, and works on both my Mac and my PC. Its songs play just fine on my iPod, and I can easily burn them to CD. I am happy with the quality of its songs. It's going to take something more compelling than this to draw my attention. It doesn't even look like their music catalog is any better.
Store UI Is Lacking (Score:4, Interesting)
But this comes to no suprise. As many of you may have noticed over the last few months images on the microsoft site have been artifacted beyond belief, they need to fire the kid that does their graphics and web UI's; seriously. Like come on, opposing gradients? WTF!?
Anyway, here is my point, the people being targeted on this MSN project are not you and me, it's mom and dad and those out-of-the-techie-loop friends of yours. Which from a designer's perspective require a very SIMPLE UI. Not to mention, these are the people that don't understand the web security stuff or DRM and will drop this fast out of frustration. I predict a major redesign over the next few months, this service will fail simply because people won't be able to find and do what they want.
Rant rant rant....
Any ideas? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Provided my hotmail login (passport)
2) My credit card was on file (which is scary since I haven't purchased anything from them in years.
3) The credit card on file had expired in 2003 and the expiry date was correct on the MSN Music Store page (correctly showing as expired)
4) The store allowed me to purchase the music anyway, the credit card is from Canada and the address on file is from a hotel in the US. Not only did they not verify CC information but it's expired
5) When I check my account via the 'Microsoft Billing" page it shows 'Unbilled Activity for MSN Music' and shows my song purchase, so they bill after a certain period without even checking the credit card on file?
Huge potential for abuse here... It'll probably change pretty quickly.
Album prices (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft has exactly duplicated the iTunes pricing structure, from what I can see so far.
Feedback echoes Real (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this remind anyone else of Real's recent petition to whip up public opinion against Apple [com.com]?
In the same FAQ answer [msn.com], Microsoft offers a workaround for getting music purchased from the MSN store on to your iPod:
[I]t is still possible to transfer MSN Music downloads to an iPod, but it will require some extra effort. To transfer MSN-downloaded music to an iPod, you need to first create a CD with the music, and then you need to import that CD into iTunes.
I appreciate how open Microsoft is to defeating their own DRM.
No stand alone client (Score:3, Insightful)
Sour grapes here? (Score:4, Insightful)
How can I get MSN Music downloads to play on my iPod?
Although Apple computers and Apple iPods do not support the PC standard WindowsMedia format for music, it is still possible to transfer MSN Music downloads to an iPod, but it will require some extra effort. To transfer MSN-downloaded music to an iPod, you need to first create a CD with the music, and then you need to import that CD into iTunes. This process will convert the music into a format that can play on the iPod.We're sorry that this isn't easier - unfortunately Apple refuses to allow other companies to integrate with the iPod's proprietary music format.If you are an iPod owner already and unhappy about this policy, you are welcome to send feedback to Apple requesting that they change their interoperability policy.
First off, WMA is only a "standard" on Windows not all PCs, and only because MS makes it so. The iPod plays a lot formats (MP3, AAC, WAV, AIF, Audible, Apple Lossless), just not WMA. The only proprietary format the iPod uses is the DRM attached to AAC files purchased from the iTunes Music Store. And that is the iPod owner's choice if they buy music online. It sounds like sour grapes because MS isn't making the licensing fees that would be attached to every iPod that plays WMA format.
There must not be any advantage for Apple to support WMA or they would have by now. Sure they could sell iPods that would work with other music stores, but that may just cut down the sales from the iTMS.
Besides, I don't see MS shipping a compatible version of WiMP or IE so Mac users can use the store, and even on Windows you have to use IE (or an ActiveX compatible one) as your browser. MS shouldn't point the finger at Apple when they are using proprietary formats themselves.
Plus MS apologizing for a lack of ease of use, that's a first, but they're putting the blame on Apple for this. And the balls they have to get people to tell Apple that Apple should change their interoperability policy...HA!
So sad how it *almost* works so very well (Score:3, Interesting)
I just came from helping a friend burn her first on-line purchaed songs from Microsoft. Too bad they will be her last. Between downloading the songs, getting them into Music Match with the rest of her songs, and then burning them on a CD (after being sure to buy the right CD-RW media that will work with her 4X burner) the songs still weren't able to be played on her portable jukebox, which was the purpose of the whole exercise.
"Next time, I'll just buy a CD", she resolved after she spent $15 on-line, wasted 4 CD-RWs along with three hours of her time (and one of mine).
This is the scenario that unfortunately awaits so many folks tempted into legal music downloading by disjointed services looking for a piece of the action.
In my opinion, it is only the complete solutions (at this time only provided by, by by no means limited to, Apple) that will prevail.
I say this because of the stark contrast of this friend's experience when compared to my Mac owning cousin of equal computer illiteracy. He, a year ago, sat down and bought a couple CD's of music from the iTunes Music Store, burned them, and was off and running in an hour, including music catalog browse time.
I don't know what the future holds for on-line music, and I know Micorosft is really gearing up for on-line video so it doesn't give Apple the foothold, but my recommendation is that if the solution is not complete, no company will be able to provide just a slice of the action and be successful.
Re:Monopoly? (Score:5, Informative)
If you can legally download an mp3 song then you can play it on your ipod.
Re:Monopoly? (Score:3, Funny)
Uh, you can play "illegally" downloaded mp3s as well. I did it once just to test it. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Re:Monopoly? (Score:4, Insightful)
We're sorry that this isn't easier - unfortunately Apple refuses to allow other companies to integrate with the iPod's proprietary music format.
Which is entirely untrue. The iPod plays industry standard mp4 and AAC (part of the mpeg4 standard, not a proprietary Apple standard as some think). What MS really means is, "Sorry, but we haven't been able to convince Apple its in their best interest to license our proprietary music format.
Re:Monopoly? (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: I don't really fit your "Apple fan" description since the last time I owned Apple hardware was in the 1980s.
Re:Monopoly? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not that far off.
and if Apple were trying to leverage this market share to take over other markets, I might agree with you.
Like, leveraging a near-monopoly on legal music downloads to take over the portable digital music player market?
Currently, I believe Apple is absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing related to the iTMS and iPod; they both enjoy great success simply by being the best* service and product (respectively) available. However, Apple does need to proceed carefully, as their market share grows further.
It will be interesting to see how big a dent Microsoft's marketing wizards can make in Apple's market share. That's what will really set Microsoft apart from the competition.
* Other players may be better than the iPod in some way, but when all factors are taken into consideration (including things like style, and availability of ridiculously overpriced specialized accessories), the iPod is the clear winner for most people
Re:Monopoly? (Score:5, Informative)
I think part of the problem is that folks are looking at AAC as 'Apple's format.' It's not. AAC -- Advanced Audio Coding -- is an open standard; there's an ISO number for it, and it was come up with by the MPEG standards group. AAC is to MPEG4 what MP3 (MPEG1 Audio Layer 3) was to the original MPEG. AAC itself is quite widely played by software players -- more than just iTunes -- and is more or less the intended successor to MP3. (NOTE: Intended. I make no predictions about whether or not it will actually happen.)
Where you can point the finger at Apple is on their DRM implementation on top of AAC; that's not part of the AAC specification, and so means that while an un-protected AAC file can play on iTunes, WinAmp, etc., a protected iTunes Music Store one cannot. THIS is a little unfortunate; I'd love to be able to load protected AAC onto my NetMD minidisc player without having to burn it to CD first.
WMA makes me more nervous as a format, because as far as I know it's controlled by a single entity (Microsoft) instead of an open group (MPEG standards group). However, it can't be discounted that WMA's integration of DRM has made it the more attractive commercial option for folks, since it's possible to make differing players handle the same DRM-protected files.
Whether or not AAC with some form of DRM will catch on remains to be seen, I guess.
Re:Monopoly? (Score:5, Informative)
The same applies to Fraunhofer for MP3 if I believe, although I can't find pricing information right now. Unfortunately, the most free and open format [vorbis.com] lacks market penetration.
Re:Monopoly? (Score:5, Insightful)
So Apple is using an open standards media format for playing content - regular mp3s, non-DRM'd AAC (or m4a) files, in addition to a DRM'd version of AAC. Everybody seems to slam Apple for being jerks about the DRM mechanism, "I should be able to make a million copies of that song", or "i want to play this song on some other player". But people consistently miss a fundamenetal point: the iTunes Music Store is a store, they sell products, and if they don't sell products you like, go shop somewhere else.
Are you gonna slam a record shop for only carrying vinyl when you want to buy CDs? No, you would just go to a record store that sells CDs (or whatever other medium you're looking for). If you want to buy music and play it on your Linux box, or you want to convert it into Ogg Vorbis, go buy it somewhere else. I half-expect to hear things like this from the iTunes Music Store slamming crowd: "McDonald's doesn't have any good vegetarian options for me, I'm going to sue them!", "I can't buy a steak at a donut shop, those bastards!", etc.
I'm not trying to be flamebait here, I'm serious. I really do not understand why so many people can blame a business for selling a different range of products than you might like. People, that's not how our economy works. If I sell products and people buy them, then I am meeting a demand and have market support.. If my product is not what people want (think RealPlayer subscription b.s.), people will not pay for it.
The other key point that seems lost on so many people is that, prior to (and even after) Apple's introduction of the iTunes Music Store with their very specific DRM mechanism, no other store had the same kind of awesome content, most music stores sucked (or still do), and consumers didn't give a shit. What's different with Apple is that they devised a DRM scheme that the record companies were happy with, and now they have hundreds of thousands of songs, many of which are awesome. Why is it Apple's fault that they recognized (and followed-through with) what it takes to play with the big boys in Hollywood?
aka "Competition" (Score:3, Insightful)
It's amazing how many computing "problems" can be solved by using existing industry standards instead of creating lock-in prototocols and licensing. In the end most businesses prefer open standards where they can leverage competition between implementations.
With the number of applications for simple security wrappers on various media content for delivery, it's clear that the attempts to "patent" the idea of any form of content-specific data delivery is silly. You need a security envelope, a transport o
Re:Monopoly? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple didn't started with a monopoly to become #1 for music players and digital music stores, that's the difference.
(I'm not an apple fan)
Re:Monopoly? (Score:5, Informative)
Second, the "monopolies commission" can come down like a ton of bricks on Microsoft because they are using their monopoly position to further themselves in the marketplace. Other companies can hardly be established, let alone successful, in certain arenas. The classic example here was MS leveraging their Windows desktop monopoly to crush Netscape.
Apple, on the other hand, enjoys no such monopoly. Sure, they don't license their DRM technology, but this is for competitive reasons in a market in which their is ample room for competition. Apple has no "lock" on the market like MS has on theirs. A monopoly is not created by a company selling a device and trying to lock you into that device. This would be a monopolistic situation if Apple had 98% market share and bundled iTunes with the operating system and would let it only work on iPods at the same time they were actively trying to crush other music services.
I'm not sure how clear this explanation was, but I hope it makes sense.
Re:Monopoly? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because iTunes is available for both Windows and Mac, which leaves only *nix zealots pissy. And, of course, if you legally purchase albums the old fashioned way (CD), you can put any songs you *do* manage to rip to MP3 from them onto an iPod as well.
(No, I'm not an Appleite. I use one at work; I dislike it about as much as I dislike the Windows PC and the Linux PC I use at home. If someone wants to give me a Solaris laptop, I'll be happy to add that to my equal-opportunity despite.)
Re:Monopoly? (Score:5, Informative)
Monopolies are defined by an artificially created barrier of entry to a market. In other words, apple can use whatever technology that interacts or doesn't with other types of music or hardware, that's fine. If, on the other hand, apple were to sell their iPod for $5 and make it so that after your computer is set up for the iPod no other music player would work, then that would be getting into monopoly territory. The iPod is by no means a monopoly, you have a choice. If you don't like the fact that it means you have to use the iTunes music store (which of course you don't, it's just the easiest way) then you can buy another player, of which there are plenty on the market.
Re:Monopoly? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Locking people into a technology" is not inconsistent with healthy competition (ref. Playstation vs. Xbox vs. Gamecube - all of these lock users into a technology, but compete plenty). Microsoft has been accused of leveraging a dominating position in one market (operating systems) to compete unfairly in related markets (browsers, media players). So it is "competing unfairly" that is the complaint, not walled-garden technology.
This is of course the legal aspect. You can still choose to dislike Apple for the iTunes model. Some might also choose to sell the stock, as failing to license is a mistake that has already proved disasterous for Apple once (can you say: Mac vs. PC?).
Re:Monopoly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's policies are meant to lock you into their technology and service, but you are free to choose any of the many alternatives to the iPod. Perhaps they are hoping to create a monopoly, by making the iPod the nr 1. choice... it'll have to do so on its own merits against the competition.
Microsoft on the other hand uses an existing monopoly in the Operating System market, to push other technology down your throat and locking out competitors (as well as use strongarm tactics on vendors). That's why they are in trouble with the watchdogs.
That is entirely untrue. (Score:3, Informative)
There are a large number of sources from which you may legally download music for the iPod, for example here. [warprecords.com]
Re:Monopoly? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) You agree to be locked in when you buy an iPod, just like you agree to be locked in to Memory Stick when you buy virtually any Sony consumer product, etc. There is nothing monopolistic about a vendor trying to lock you in.
2) You have a choice. Lots of them, actually. There are plenty of other music players on the market, and some of them are actually quite good.
Re:But I have an iPod and iTunes works for me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You better bet that M$ is going to be rolling out the marketing machine on this baby, and spending money Apple could never dream of matching...
Re:Blatent rip-off (Score:5, Funny)
If it aint broke, don't fix it. Steve Jobs has been Microsofts unifficial director of research and innovation for years and this has been enormously profitable for MS. Why would they fire him now?
Re:Blatent rip-off (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not even funny how much Windows resembles MacOS, right down to the colors, look, and feel of the desktop. There's even a recycle bin/garbage can!
It's not even funny how much MacOS resembles the desktop interface at Xerox PARC, right down to the colors, look, and feel. There's even a mouse!
Seems that no one can even design a retail OS without plagerizing someone else's UI.
Re:Blatent rip-off (Score:5, Informative)
It's not even funny how much MacOS resembles the desktop interface at Xerox PARC, right down to the colors, look, and feel. There's even a mouse!
It's not a blatant rip off when you pay to use a technology.
Real history of the GUI [sitepoint.com]
A walk in the Parc [virtualaltair.com]
Please try to gain a bit more knowledge instead of repeating nonsense that you've heard. There's this thing called the internet that you can use to check facts. Look into it.
Still, this is a good thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
higher quality music? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, bitrate and sound quality are only relevant for a particular encoding scheme. For instance, I could take a 128kbps AAC (aka, "mp4" or m4a [m4a.com]) file and compare that to a 160kbps mp3 file, and the lower bitrate AAC file usually would sound better than the mp3 (or at the very least would sound the same as the mp3). Because AAC [m4a.com] (which, by the way, is an open standard defined by the MPEG Group) is a better encoding mechanism than mp3, you can produce a smaller file with a lower bitrate and still capture the same quality (if not higher) of an mp3.
So bringing this point to the current discussion, we know that Microsoft is offering downloads at a higher bitrate, but who says the quality is better? If it is, then it's better than what? A 128kbps Windows Media File?
I think the question is this: how does a 128kbps AAC file (like you would get from iTunes Music Store) compare in actual sound quality (not bitrate) to a 160kbps Windows Media file from Microsoft's site?
Re:higher quality music? (Score:5, Informative)
1 [xciv.org], 2 [ekei.com], 3 [infoanarchy.org], 4 [rjamorim.com], 5 [rjamorim.com].
Recently found on Slashdot.org [slashdot.org]
Overall the tests tends to show that
So if we trust these studies, we can say
YES, you're right.
160kbps WMA are better than 128kbps WMA, but it's no way better than what you can found on concurrent services at 128kbps.
Therefore : we can conclude that microsoft's service won't that good, because you get the same quality as everywhere else, only the file will be bigger, and in the end you'll be able to squeeze less musique of the same quality on the memory of your player.
Re:higher quality music? (Score:4, Insightful)
The EKEI.com test is last updated in 2002, and includes a WMA version two versions too old (v7 vs. v9); significant improvements have been made to the encoder since then.
And, about somebody calling themselves "infoanarchy", do you, like, expect them to be _impartial_ and _professional_ when judging a product by Microsoft, of all companies?
Re:This Is a Good Thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Hares should never underestimate turtles, especially when the turtles are known to engage in illegal, unfair, anti-competitive abuses of monopoly.
or maybe you should have said,
Hares shouldn't underestimate mass murderers. Netscape was murdered.