Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Businesses Media Music

Microsoft's Music Subscription Service 364

Posted by Zonk from the itunes-has-company dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In a bid to compete with Apple's iTunes music service, Microsoft is planning to set up its own subscription-based online music store later this year. It is said to be working with record labels and copyright holders in preparation for the launch. Last September, the company unveiled its MSN-branded music site but it didn't have a subscription plan." From the article: "The tentative features of the new service -- which is still under development -- include advanced community aspects and playlist-sharing. But sources say Microsoft is also considering a more direct attack on Apple, seeking rights from copyright holders to give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song they've purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's Music Subscription Service More

Microsoft's Music Subscription Service

Comments Filter:

  • .mp3 format? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ZiakII ( 829432 ) *
    Why can't these companies use a normal format like .mp3? For these programs its not hard for the average user to convert the song there are many available, I understand if there doing this to keep other users from sharing the music but its really not that hard to continue to share after they convert the file, so why not just use the format that everyone knows how to use?

    • Re:.mp3 format? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by savagedome ( 742194 )
      Why can't these companies use a normal format like .mp3?

      It doesn't have DRM 'feature'.

    • Re:.mp3 format? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DrinkingIllini ( 842502 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:43AM (#12779256)
      Um, because they want a more proprietary format to monopolize the online music industry? They know that most users don't know that they can convert file formats and will blissfully by themselves an ipod/whatever crappy mp3 player microsoft will certainly launch soon, if they own a bunch of songs with that format.
    • Online digital music services have to get the big record labels to sign on before they can sell any (popular) music. To do that they need to give the recording industry's execs a warm fuzzy feeling by demonstrating how their technology will limit the online piracy that the RIAA has been fighting against for so long.

    • Re:.mp3 format? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EggyToast ( 858951 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:50AM (#12779330) Homepage
      it's very hard to "sell" a media file that has no copy protection. Two reasons -- one, it's hard to get producers to agree to the format, as there's no protection in it for them; two, it can be difficult to convince buyers to buy an unprotected format because they can simply get a copy from a friend/p2p. Having a group of people all go in to buy one CD and copying to all of their computers is precisely what it's trying to avoid (the p2p stuff is more of a side effect).

      That's why you're not seeing just MP3s from the majority of these companies. Those that do sell mp3s without DRM tend to be record labels or indie groups -- bleep.com, the mp3 branch of Warp Records, sells high quality mp3s.

      While I agree with the sentiment, most people still call these files MP3. Personally, I applaud Apple's use of AAC, as it's actually a better format than MP3 -- it compresses smaller at the same bitrate, and it sounds better at the same bitrate. AAC rivals OGG in some sound tests.

      WMA is one of the worst, beat only by Real's format and ATRAC3. Not that many consumers really care -- many of the artifacts and glitches in p2p-acquired mp3s aren't present in the first place, so the quality doesn't present itself as that different (plus they get no CD to compare it against).

      Still, iPods don't play WMA files, and their dominance of the portable music scene pretty much guarantees that when people hear "you can't use Microsoft's service with your iPod," it will be relegated to a niche almost immediately. /prediction

      • Re:.mp3 format? (Score:3, Informative)

        by yeremein ( 678037 )

        it can be difficult to convince buyers to buy an unprotected format because they can simply get a copy from a friend/p2p

        What?! Are you saying you prefer to buy music that is artificially incompatible with your MP3 player and is likely to disappear entirely [blogspot.com] when you upgrade your computer?

        DRM is the reason I don't buy music online, and it boggles my mind that the record labels are so myopic that they think crippling their product will improve sales.

        • Re:.mp3 format? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by EggyToast ( 858951 )
          I didn't say I prefer it. Just that for selling media, it's hard to convince people to buy it. Not because it's in their best interest, but because it presents it in a one-to-one transaction.

          The DRM may cause some people to run in fear, but for others, it presents a sort of permanence. I know it's weird, but it makes people think "this is mine, not my buddies, and I didn't download it and I couldn't have just downloaded it, because it's protected." There is definitely a distinct mental separation betw

    • Re:.mp3 format? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:57AM (#12779406)
      Why can't these companies use a normal format like .mp3?

      Having worked with downloadable music content I can tell you that getting the music industry labels to agree to non-DRM'ed content in any format is practically impossible. They are so paranoid about their music being "stolen" that they won't accept anything else.

      (which, to be fair, the volumes traded on Kazaa do give their paranoia some justification - even if DRM has been proven time and time again not to actually work or prevent it)

      The music industry attitude that I've come across is simple ... if you aren't prepared to sell our content with DRM, then you don't get our content.

      Granted, the big labels aren't the be all and end all and there are labels which have a more enlightened view - however 80% of a services revenue will be chart related and, as such, they have to have the big labels on board to be able to provide that coverage.

      Finally, I do understand that there are some legitimate sites out there that do sell MP3's with no DRM. I've never been to them, but if they are selling big label content like this legally then I have no idea how they managed to agree such a deal.

      • Stock Response (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Crash Culligan ( 227354 )

        The music industry attitude that I've come across is simple ... if you aren't prepared to sell our content with DRM, then you don't get our content.

        That's their choice. They have the right to control their product however they want. They have the right to release it DRMed to the gills so that only a single model of player can play it. They have the right to snip it up into 5-second segments that play in random order in the wrong player. They have the right to apply filtering and clipping to turn crysta

    • You have to pay to use MP3, there's no lock in or copy control. Hence additional music formats.

    • Re:.mp3 format? (Score:4, Funny)

      by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @09:06AM (#12779480) Journal
      Hey, you're right! You should go tell the RIAA that, I bet they'll let Apple switch as soon as they hear your well-reasoned argument.

    • Re:.mp3 format? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by unenviabletask ( 827481 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @09:11AM (#12779506)
      I found a tune I wanted on the UK MSN site, so went to download it. I checked the FAQ first and was told that I only needed WM player 7 or above. So I went to get the song. I paid 69p for it having to make a credit first. Then I got taken to a page where I was informed that I had to download Music Manaager software BEFORE I could download and play the song. This was NOWHERE in the FAQ. So I cancelled the subscription, and complained informing them that I used another provider instead, and was extremely disappointed in the sly tactics at getting me to install DRM software. GOt my money back at least, but peed off anyway. DON'T USE MSN MUSIC IN THE UK!!

  • This market is already overcrowded!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ID000001 ( 753578 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:41AM (#12779231)
    Oh great. One more attempt...
    At least we won't need to worry too much about Apple monopolying the market? (!?)
    Seriously, do we need yet another music provider? I like to see some number or a pie chart as in who are taking the majority of the market and at what precentage.

    • Re:This market is already overcrowded!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:44AM (#12779265)
      You obviously missed Steve Jobs telling us Apple have 82% of the digital download market, I'd say we definitely need more players.

      • Re:This market is already overcrowded!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by sl3xd ( 111641 ) * on Friday June 10, 2005 @09:25AM (#12779630) Journal
        That being said, Steve Jobs also said that one thing the consumers surveyed insisted on is that they did not want a 'subscription' music service; but that they wanted to buy their music outright.

        Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, it's just another subscription service, which is something consumers have repeatedly told the industry they would not accept. (Both with their pocketbooks and in surveys).

        I honestly believe one of iTunes's greatest strengths is that they do not have a 'subscription' service-- you buy the song, or don't. You never have to keep paying to hear that song.

        Not that I would use a WMA-based service even if it didn't try to force a subscription model on me; for all the ranting about FairPlay being a closed format, WMA is an even more closed format. Fairplay is the open AAC format, then uses AES encryption (another standard) for DRM; all the details are documented and freely available on the web (albeit not from Apple). WMA? It's not even published; the exact nature of it's non-DRM compression isn't available; in fact, more is known about its DRM than about its codec.

      • You obviously missed Steve Jobs telling us Apple have 82% of the digital download market, I'd say we definitely need more players.

        We need MS to be that player like we need Enron to open a accounting firm. Having more, cross-compatible device manufacturers and music services would be nice, but there is a down side and there is a huge down side to MS being one of them.

        The music industry in the U.S. and much of the world is a cartel, convicted of manipulating the market and artificially inflating prices.

    • First the market is non-existant, then it is over-crowded. In time, it will balance itself out and clear winners will emerge.
    • ...except that nobody is doing it the right way. DRM, crappy file formats, vendor lock-in, etc. Until there is a service that provides what I want, I'll not pay for it. I'm not going to buy an I-Pod. I have maybe 10 devices at home or in my car(s) that are already perfectly capable of playing just about any reasonable digital music format.

      Sell me music that I can put on all my music servers, in my car, and on my computers and I'll buy it. Until then the online music market is non-existant (or is limi

    • The market is overcrowded, yet the RIAA is trying to get retail prices increased? Hello, antitrust legislation!

    • No, I think it is great, the more competitors we have the better the service will be and suddenly one of those companies will come with a kind of service that does not suck (like every service does right now)

  • Dude Bill (Score:4, Insightful)

    by maelstrom ( 638 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:41AM (#12779234) Homepage Journal
    Do you have to be in every god damn business in the tech market? Let one or two of them go for once.

  • Summary. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Eric_Cartman_South_P ( 594330 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:41AM (#12779235)
    1) Every idiot in PC Magazine will go "WOW! Can't wait"
    2) Store opens up. Late.
    3) User interface sucks.
    4) iTunes keeps on truckin'.
    • Given Microsoft's history, they will then make a second attempt... which will burn down, fall over, and then sink into the swamp.

      But Microsoft usually doesn't give up just because of two massive failures, and rarely loses on their third try at something.

  • Ownership of the music... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drunkrussian ( 619107 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:41AM (#12779236) Journal
    Creating another proprietary system isn't going to solve the underlying issues...people want ownership of the music itself, and the first service that does that is going to be rewarded handsomely by consumers.

  • Caution: sarcasm follows... (Score:3, Funny)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:42AM (#12779240)

    Music online???

    Boy, that Microsoft sure is innovative...

    ^_^

  • With media player (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thammoud ( 193905 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:42AM (#12779244)
    it will fail miserably. MS needs to redesign the user interface of this thing. It is confusing and convoluted. I would love to see MS simplify it to just audio and add podcasting.
    • Its not using media player, it will use a completely new an apparently seperate client.
    • From the article:
      the service is being developed as a piece of downloadable software separate from the standard Windows Media Player

      It doesn't look like this service will be integrated with Media Player. However, I'd venture that only Media Player will be the only player that supports these files on the PC (at least at first).
    • Why do you say "add podcasting"? That's exactly the kind of thinking - add the in thing of the moment to the player proper - that got it this bloated and confusing in the first place. Let media player play the media and let a podcasting program do the podcasting.
    • it won't use WMP but I agree about its interface.

      who was the genius that came up with the idea to have a button on the GUI for "slightly change the colour shade of all the wasted space". it's like the worst design built on top of the worst design. I don't believe it's meant to be a joke but the level of retardedness required at so many levels (management, design, coding) for it to have gone through as a serious feature is just astounding.

  • Whew (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Oh, thanks goodness. I was afraid the RIAA already made the music industry as soulless and profit-hungry as it could get.

  • DRM (Score:3, Funny)

    by Poromenos1 ( 830658 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:42AM (#12779247) Homepage
    so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod.

    But only once...
  • ...to give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song they've purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod.

    There's another semisentence at the end of that. "...Devices with draconian Microsoft-approved DRM."

    • Re:Other devices (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Angostura ( 703910 )
      I predict that this decision won't pan-out the way that Microsoft intends. Users will see it simply as an additional reason to buy from the iTunes store "buy AAC get Windows-version free.

    • Yeah, but who knows what DRM is? They'll probably dress it up as:

      "Microsoft songs have DRM features, giving artists more control over music, thanks to Microsoft!"

      or something, and the end-user won't have a clue.
  • I doubt physical media will be phased out anytime soon, but it seems that's only thanks to the millions who think Walmart is the only place to buy music and who cower at the sight of a computer. Most everyone I know who is even slightly technologically savy has jumped the on the MP3 bandwagon without so much as a second thought.

    Where's the contingent of computer geeks who simply like having an album in hand, with artwork, lyrics, and songs arranged in the order the artist intended? There's something very s

    • Re:Anyone left who just wants CD's or records? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cecille ( 583022 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:54AM (#12779380)
      I totally agree...I listen to cd's in my car all the time (I'm a loser with no car mp3 player) and I honestly don't think I will stop buying cd's for a long time. I went through my download phase, but I've gone back to cd's...even now when I download a song or two I usually end up buying the whole album anyway. It just seems so much more cohesive that way. And there's something great about being able to just hand someone a big 'ol book and telling them to put on some music.
      • Ditto. I have an in dash mp3/cd player and a 10 disc changer, although the mp3 player usually has an mp3 cd in it, usually a compilation of a bands entire catalog, such as The Cure, which takes up to cds of mp3s. My ten disc changer usually gets a refresh every tuesday, when the new releases come out.
    • Interesting question.

      Obviously you can buy albums at the iTunes music store, and you'll get the identical experience to listening to them on CD.(*)

      I think three things trump albums for most people:

      * Random access to music - if I want to listen to Enigma, I can have them up in seconds courtesy of my iPod. If I wanted to listen to the Enigma CD, I'd have to walk over to some big dispenser, locate the CD, bring it to the CD player and play it. That might take a few minutes in a well organized household, w
      • * Lower cost. CDs of recent music are horribly overpriced. I stopped buying CDs long before digital music came about; I just did without. Now I will buy music online because the $ 0.99 a track is a fair price I can live with.

        how is 11.99 for the new NIN album overpriced?
        • That's not bad.

          But last time I was in a CD store, the latest music was pushing $18.99 a CD, which is absurd. If NiN has the clout to get labels to charge lower prices, I salute them. I also love what they did with GarageBand. Pity I can't stand that type of music, or I would buy their album for sure.

          One thing I glossed over in my message, of course, is that you can get old music CDs for $6.99. In that case, it's the difficulty of finding good $6.99 music that makes it not really worth it. I visited o
      • If you can't tell the difference between a 128k compressed version and the original CD, maybe that audiophile equipment is wasted on you. I know AAC is supposed to be better than MP3, but you're still throwing away *most* of the information in the track. Hell, I know people who don't think 44.1kHz CD is good enough and still listen to their old LPs on terrifyingly expensive Linn turntables.

        I only have experience of MP3 personally, but I'd say that 128k is only good enough for the car, while 256k is good e

  • I don't see it.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Crimson Dragon ( 809806 ) * on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:47AM (#12779298) Homepage
    "... Microsoft is also considering a more direct attack on Apple, seeking rights from copyright holders to give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song they've purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod."

    Wouldn't Microsoft's new service, to remain legal, have to verify that the purchase was in fact made from iTunes, and that the purchase was made by that subscription holder and not another? To do this, wouldn't Microsoft need the purchase data and information from Apple, or at least a mechanism for obtaining it? Absent these assurances that the music is in fact purchased, what is the difference between this idea and JHymn?

    What are the chances that Apple will give ground to Microsoft, release all their information, and set themselves up for loss of the market monopoly? They need to survive long enough (Apple) for the Intel announcement to bear fruit.... they risked enough revenue announcing this early as it is. Apple would undoubtedly focus on the fact that while the artist owns the music, who is providing the service, servers, and the encoding for the files? Undoubtedly there are other contractual ties as well between artist, label, and iTunes restricting this. Would Apple be that fast and loose with their service? Is there any direct evidence to believe as such?

    Doesn't make sense to me....
    • set themselves up for loss of the market monopoly?

      Last I checked, Apple didn't have a monopoly on anything.

      (Except Macs, and who knows about that in the future...)

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

        by Crimson Dragon ( 809806 ) *

        Well, is there any reason to think Apple is lying [apple.com]?

        Assuming this isn't a lie, this would constitute a majority of the market share, and begins to breach monopoly status. I was speaking to a more general point, however, in regards to loss of market share. Call it hyperbole if you wish. Here's some more support [extremeipod.com] of the market penetration in the legal downloading category by iTunes.

    • Maybe the RIAA required Apple to provide them with purchase information as a condition of licensing their music to them?
  • I find it interesting that in the early 90's, Apple fell hard because of the difficulty of creating hardware or software for their machines. Microsoft Windows, on the other hand, was based on IBM PC's, a format that encouraged third party support.

    Now, Microsoft is trying to once again get that third party support by allowing it's music to be played anywhere; as opposed to Apple's iPod only being able to play iTunes music. I don't know if this tactic will work the second time around, but it will definitely

  • If you are trying to take down iTune... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ID000001 ( 753578 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:49AM (#12779319)
    You must build a portable music player that will beat iPod first!
  • I believe this is what N is for. An incentive to download Media Center without going against court order.

    In other news, iPods are more popular than most other MP3 players and iTunes is the most popular online music store.

    Bottom line: Apple wins.

  • Evil (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:50AM (#12779329)
    Before we get the inevitable whine of people claiming that Microsoft's DRM is evil, please be aware that (up until this announcement) they merely provide the functionality for someone else to make a DRM'ed item of content as "nice" or as "evil" as they'd like.

    In other words, you can't blame them if Napster set the DRM of certain music to the most fascist restrictions possible. That wrath should be directed at the people who made that decision, not those that made that functionality possible.

    Personally, I'm interested to see what buying power they will have with the labels who will, naturally, try and enforce heavily DRM'ed content which will only serve to put customers off.

    In addition, how the EU (America might make noises, but as shown in the past, won't do anything much about it) will view the integration of their music service with the "buy music" link in XP.

  • Google? iPods? Marketshare? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by webword ( 82711 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:50AM (#12779335) Homepage
    Here's my take on it:

    Google Audio Search [oristus.com]

    Audio content on the internet is in chaos. To reign in the chaos, and to capitalize on internet audio file assets, Google will launch an audio search engine or audio file search tool by 2006, but probably sooner.

    I think that podcasting will fit into the equation. More and more audio content is flowing onto the web but it is in the dark corners right now. The podcasting directories and search engines basically stink. As time goes on, and as this content grows, it'll be time for Google to enter the fray. There is every reason to believe that advertising would work just fine with podcasting, especially if you find the content have the Master Index (read: Google).

    But what about music? iPods are so dominant. Near the end of 2004 Apple's share of the MP3 market was about 87% [pcmag.com]. Even if that drops it ain't no big thing since the entire pie is still growing like crazy. This dominance of hardware drives dominance of iTunes. (I'm looking for disagreement of course, but throw numbers at me please.)
  • I couldn't find the word innovate anywhere in the article. Surely if it was really Microsoft they would be "innovating a new music service". Does this mean that Microsoft are no longer innovating and innovative?

  • It was late in ack. the revolution that is the Internet.

    It was late in ack. that a search engine was a very vital piece of the internet pie.

    It was late in ack. that people will pay for downloading music to play on devices even if it is on devices and formats other than Microsoft owned I doubt they have a chance of pulling the rug from under Apple's feet. Maybe they should sell the whole album for $1 and give away free copy of Windows.
    Oh, and tthey should go back to *not* breaking the Internet.

  • Launch a service that duplicates what's already out there, and make it so that the downloads play on players that nobody buys.
  • Anyone know how Yahoo's service is doing? That might give us a pretty good clue as to how Microsoft's likely to fare.

    Microsoft doesn't seem to have a very good record in online services, so I doubt this one will do all that well.

    Where's Google Music? It would be interesting to see how Google might try to balance the needs of labels with the needs of users, since so many users consider the needs of labels "evil".

    My tentative guess is that we'll never see Google Music for this reason. But if it's in the

  • Me Too! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Horrortaxi ( 803536 )
    Mother: Now Microsoft, if all the other companies jumped off a bridge it doesn't mean that you have to.
    Microsoft: Of course it does!
  • Illegally leveraging their monopoly
    • Before anyone says "but apple" ,
      Apple do not have a monopoly , they may have very large market share in the portable music market but it is by no means a monopoly.
      Microsoft have a monopoly on desktop computing and i am fairly sure they will include this by default in longhorn with plenty of ads on it , Hearsay thus far but i wouldn't put it past them
      • Go on then, tell me the difference between apple's non-monopoly on the large capacity portable music player and MS's monopoly on the desktop operating system. Go on, try and find one bit of difference.

        • Re:4 words (Score:3, Insightful)

          by FidelCatsro ( 861135 )
          Easy , Microsoft have been convicted of abusing their monopoly making them an illegal monopoly . They are using it to break into other markets and the courts do nothing apparently.
          Apple has a large majority in portable and online music for that player (the same market) microsoft have a monopoly on OSs and are using that monopoly to push into another market

        • Re:4 words (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Doctor_Jest ( 688315 ) *
          Easy.

          Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic practices. Apple has not.

        • Re:4 words (Score:3, Insightful)

          by circusboy ( 580130 )
          Apple sells lots of iPods because they are popular and easy to use and high quality (I think so anyway.) Of the many varieties of mp3 player, more people choose the iPod.

          Microsoft sells lots of copies of Windows because they have 'forced' manufacturers to include their software on the manufacturer's product. Of the many varieties of personal computer that are out there to buy, all of them (unless you build it yourself (or buy an Apple)) will come with Windows. (okay, okay, Linspire.)

          When you buy an mp3 pl
  • MS has been announcing an awful lot of vapourware lately, with stuff scheduled years into the future - weird.

  • iPod (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jav1231 ( 539129 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @08:58AM (#12779417)
    Okay, if I've downloaded an iTunes song in Apple format, it would seem obvious that I have an iPod. Why would I want to have it in another format? Pretty-much my only motivation would be to share it, no? Yet, DRM and all the nice PSA's we see from the RIAA tells us NOT to share it. Now they are probably hoping they will have people move to the format and abandon the Apple format. So far, Apple format is superiour to mp3, from what I understand. M$ will need to improve upon the quality in order to steal people away. Not only that, if I have a large number of files purchased from iTunes how will this help me? Is M$ saying they will let me have the same songs for free? If this is the case, they only get revenue on new song purchases. Not sayin they can't make money that way, I'm just saying I'm not sure you're going to have a mass exodus from iTunes with just this set of features. I think M$ has a history of spreading themselves thin. They have this mentality that they must do everything in technology. "Oh! There's a search engine! We need one!" Enter MSN which just isn't attractive. "Oh! There's a chat client! We need one!" Enter Messenger! (crickets chirping) "Oh! Media services!" Blah blah!

    • Re:iPod (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @10:32AM (#12780185) Homepage
      There are a lot of people, myself included (at first), who used the store without owning an iPod. If Apple had wanted to restrict the store to iPod owners, they could easily have done so, but they didn't. In short, you can't assume that .m4p file implies iPod.

  • Not Again! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HaydnH ( 877214 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @09:01AM (#12779434)
    "seeking rights from copyright holders to give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version"

    MS Lawyer: "We have to remove media player from Windows - the courts are demanding it"
    Bill Gates: "OK, well lets delay it until we can find a way to turn media player in to a monopoly"
    MS Lawyer: "What do you suggest?"
    Bill Gates: "Why don't we make an audio format that will only run in media player, give away loads of music until we have a large market share and then refuse to give any details of the file format to anybody so that we have no competition"
    MS Lawyer: "You mean like we did with Office and all our other products? I like you thinking Batman!"
    Bill Gates: "Stop sucking up and get back in that court room, theres still 700 law suits against us."

    I hate the MS 'drug dealer' mentality:

    - Give away products free
    - Wait until they're hooked
    - Charge loads for future products
    - Profit!!
  • Microsoft copying off someone else? Imagine that??!! Seriously, mod me down if you want, but does MS EVER do anything first or on their own? This is so pathetic is makes me wanna spit...
  • There are enough Music sites...why do they think they need to add to the mix?

  • ...even for Microsoft.

    Last September, the company unveiled its MSN-branded music site but it didn't have a subscription plan.

    Nothing like launching a boat before the bottom is in to inspire customer confidence. Free copy of Duke Nukem Forever with every subscription, btw.

    ...to give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song they've purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod.

    "Hey Bill, let's be sure to not target the single most pop

    • Think of Microsoft's ambition. No one is going to make a great deal of money from music downloads because the labels get the lion's share of the revenue.

      Apple doesn't care because it is in the game to sell iPods.

      Microsoft doesn't care because it is entering the market to reinforce WMA and WMV as the dominant formats.

  • My Hero (Score:5, Funny)

    by flood6 ( 852877 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @09:09AM (#12779493) Homepage Journal
    "give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song they've purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod."

    Thank God we have Microsoft to save us from vendor lock-in!

  • I just don't see subscription based services supplanting the per-track download sites. The all-you-can-eat concept is compelling at first, but I think people want to be left with something when they inevitably cancel their subscriptions.

    The concept of renting movies has been accepted because most people are OK with watching a particular film once every great while. When it comes to music, people want to hold onto what they get, burn it, move it onto portable devices, and have ready access to it at all Time

  • This stands no chance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by el_womble ( 779715 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @09:24AM (#12779618) Homepage
    Apple have understood that iPods arn't a geek application, they are a user application. In order to make them successful you need the holy trinity:
    • Player
    • Library
    • Store

    All of these must work well individually, but when applied in unison, must absolutely rock. The only reason that Apple have succeeded is because they control each and everyone of these, allowing them to fine tune the user experience to such an extent that even a first time user can use them all as if they are a single application - because they are.

    Apple are not winning because their store is the cheapest or most complete, it isn't. They are not winning because their player is the best, it isn't. They are not winning because their library is best, although it is. They are wining because it is easy, and people don't feel threatend by jargon and choice - they plug and play.

    To acheive the choice that Microsoft knows we want, we would need:

    • A standard file format
    • A standard protocol between library and player
    • A standard protocol between library and store
    • A google like superstore that allows you to search the various stores, and compare the costs

    This could possibly be achieved if the RIAA defined them and enforced them on pain of loosing distribution rights. People might then have the freedom to buy a new player and know it will work with the library they like and the store thats the cheapest. Until then Microsoft opening a new store, will make no difference at all.

  • Let's say I want a song in Mp3 format- I can get it. I can also get it in Ogg-Vorbis format, or any format I want. Do I want to listen to music and not buy any? Can do it for 50$ a year (which, when compared to XM Radio and the like, is cheaper). And then I can grab music to DO WHATEVER I WANT to for 79 cents a pop. In whatever format I like.

  • Half the solution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @09:30AM (#12779663)
    The reason that Apple has been so successful with iPod/iTunes/iTunes Music Store has to do with two words: easy and integrated. Before and after iPod there are plenty of portable music players. Not all of them were intuitive and easy to use. Before and after iTunes, there has been media players. Most of them are about equal in performance with some easier to work with than others. Before and after iTunes Music Stores, there were ways to get music online. Not all of them easy or intuitive to use. Progress has been made all three sides, but nobody but Apple really has been able to get the integration to work seamlessly. They can do that because they control the hardware, the software, and the online store. Microsoft at best can control only two of the three.

  • Subscription Music Services (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Qwavel ( 733416 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @09:59AM (#12779891)

    I've always been the type who likes to create a collection of my own music. In the last few years, that has meant ripping stuff myself into FLAC format and then generating compressed files as needed (usually Ogg).

    But now that I've tried out a subscription service (Yahoo) I'm a convert.

    I don't worry anymore about what I own or have access to. I have everything. All I worry about is what I like, which is expressed through the rating system. I love it, and in my opinion, this is the future of music.

    Regarding the Yahoo service in particular, I'm finding it quite good. The music is all 192Kbps (WMA), the selection is very good, and the UI is good. On the downside, the client software is buggy (it is in beta still) and the lock-in factor is pretty huge.

    But for me, the biggest problem is the that subscription services - though available from a variety of retailers - are only available on Windows. Give me a cross-platform version of Yahoo (where cross-platform includes Linux) and I'll sign up for life.

    (DRM/WMA is a big issue and I won't get into it here.)

  • Because the recording industry is so generous... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mpaque ( 655244 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @10:08AM (#12779978)
    ... Microsoft is also considering a more direct attack on Apple, seeking rights from copyright holders to give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song they've purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod.

    Because we all know how the recording industry loves to give away copies of music for free, rather than sell them over and over.

    I remember when that crate of CDs arrived to replace all those LPs, so I wouldn't have to buy them again. What a bunch of nice folks...

  • one question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sootman ( 158191 ) on Friday June 10, 2005 @10:09AM (#12779983) Homepage Journal
    "... Microsoft is also considering... seeking rights from copyright holders to give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song they've purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod."

    I'm very curious to know how many people download music from the iTMS that don't own a portable player at all.... and even more curious to know how many people download music from the iTMS and own a non-Apple music player. Is it just me, or is this a solution looking for a problem?

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close