Microsoft Music Store?

[MacRumors]

LATimes (http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-brand10jun10,1,5345124.story?coll=la-headlines-technology) reports other big players are in the wings with Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon, AOL, and even MTV looking to compete against Apple's iTunes Music Store in the coming weeks.

Microsoft is even reported to be demoing their version to record execs:

Microsoft has recently shown its version of a downloadable music store to executives at several record companies. Sources said Microsoft plans to give consumers more music-related information to guide their purchases than the iTunes Music Store does, and that its store might be accessible via Xbox game consoles as well as computers. Microsoft officials declined to comment.


Rumors of rising competition as well interesting partnerships have emerged after the early lead of Apple's iTunes Music Store. Some rumors have had Apple partnering with AOL (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/04/20030428174629.shtml) or Amazon (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030602080822.shtml)

[Wash!!]

MS can be without copying everything Apple does... they suck

[eric_n_dfw]

"For the first time in history*, you can now buy just the music you want."



*First time in history does not nessesarily mean that the capability was not available in history before this release.

[Wonder Boy]

Oh ******, We're screwed.

This is just another situation of Apple being unprepared to defend a great idea.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
Oh ******, We're screwed.

This is just another situation of Apple being unprepared to defend a great idea. I'm not so sure, didn't Jobs say they had a bunch of patents for the way iTMS works. I wonder what those patents entail.

[coolbreeze]

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
Oh ******, We're screwed.

This is just another situation of Apple being unprepared to defend a great idea.
Yeah, I really hope Apple has a disaster control plan. Surely Apple didn't think Microsoft was going to sit around and drink cheerwine while iTMS was being ported to Windows.....or did they....:eek:

[ozubahn]

Hmm, interesting. If Microsoft follows its usual business models, it will probably sell the broken tracks from Kazaa, with pops, fadeouts, and cutoffs, then gradually fix them with a series of patches. Can't wait.

[mac15]

did anybody seriously consider apple has known about this M$ stuff for ages, and the same goes for M$ knowing about apples store.

Apple beat them to the chase, now jobs can 'it doesn't matter' 'I got the loot!' - from pirates of silicon valley

[syrreg]

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by syrreg
....

If MS wants to knock Apple down again, then I think Apple should just go for it and put out an OS product for x86.

.... And this would help how?

[mac15]

releasing a product that would diminish apple hardware sales would be extremely dumb. marklar is crap in my thoughs anyways

[trp]

Xboxing - What IS that in your pocket?

[Blackcat]

That's 50 users straight away!:D

[vanillamike]

Originally posted by ozubahn
Hmm, interesting. If Microsoft follows its usual business models, it will probably sell the broken tracks from Kazaa, with pops, fadeouts, and cutoffs, then gradually fix them with a series of patches. Can't wait.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! so true and the blue backlight on my iPod will turn on reminiscent of the blue screen of death.

Mike

[synp]

Although Microsoft may or may not be getting into the music distribution business, I don't see why everyone's so hysterical.

Apple makes about $1,000,000-$1,500,000 a month revenue from the iTMS. In terms of profit, it's much lower. even considering that the market could expand by adding Windows users and foreign users, we're talking a $500M business revenue for the entire world.

Compare this to Apple's current yearly revenue of several billions or to Microsoft's tens of billions and you get the picture. This is relatively small fry for both companies.

Will Microsoft get in the market and push Apple out? Maybe, but only if they put out a workable Mac client. Otherwise Apple will continue to rule the Mac market and be a niche player in the PC market. Some good may come out of this: It may push Apple to offer foreign and PC users a client faster.

Some people have been fantasizing about Apple getting hundreds of millions of PC users to sign up to iTMS and make them rich so that Apple could offer us great hardware cheap. That is not going to happen.

[Trimix]

apple still has a huge reservoir of purchasers waiting in the wings, i.e. non-us-based apple-users. that should propell turnover to new astronomical heights.
i doubt, that the pc-pack would as loyally use the m$ alternative as apple-ites are using the apple music store.
we vote with our feet
:D

[wilhelmd]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I'm not so sure, didn't Jobs say they had a bunch of patents for the way iTMS works. I wonder what those patents entail.
I totally agree. Jobs did say something about that, we just don't know what those patents were protecting.

And just once, why can't MS do something original? No matter how bad they do it, if they release it before iTMS for Windows, they will seize the Windows market (except perhaps a few %). The standard, gullible PC-user will accept allmost anything that Microsoft tries to sell them - just look at how many are using technologies like MSN Messenger or Windows Media Player - just because they were building it right into their OS. PC-users will be like "Other music store? Whaddaya mean? Is there anything else than the Microsoft Music Store out there?", and Apple will lose potential customers, because not many people are willing to swap provider of such a service after they have signed up with another one to begin with.

[RHutch]

Originally posted by synp
Some people have been fantasizing about Apple getting hundreds of millions of PC users to sign up to iTMS and make them rich so that Apple could offer us great hardware cheap. That is not going to happen.

I'm not as concerned about the money as I am about Apple's ideas being stolen again. I want Apple to get the iTMS up and running for Windows users before a M$ offering. Then PC users have to admit Apple was first. And since it will be first to them, they will probably try it. Then they might have to admit it's the best.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by Blackcat
That's 50 users straight away!:D

Actually Xbox Live! has over 350,000 users.

[wilhelmd]

Originally posted by Trimix
apple still has a huge reservoir of purchasers waiting in the wings, i.e. non-us-based apple-users. that should propell turnover to new astronomical heights.
i doubt, that the pc-pack would as loyally use the m$ alternative as apple-ites are using the apple music store.
we vote with our feet
:D
I _really_ hope that Apple iTMS users won't swap to a Microsoft alternative - that would be really bad. But they won't switch (the wrong way).

I, for one, would use the iTMS if it was available in Norway, but it's not. Not that I am against downloading from services such as Limewire, Direct Connect etc., it's just that with the iTMS, you get things a) Faster b) Better quality c) Straight to your music library and iPod and d) With correct tag information.

First priority: Go international
Just-below-first: Go Windows
Just-below-just-below-first: iTunes for Windows (which might be a part of iTMS for Windows)

[wilhelmd]

Originally posted by MorganX
Actually Xbox Live! has over 350,000 users.
Imagine trying to find just the song you want in a 200.000-song library with your game console remote. If done properly, it might work, but when did Microsoft do anything properly?

I seriously don't think that many people use their Xbox as a music library - and I don't even dare to compare it to the iPod.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by RHutch
I'm not as concerned about the money as I am about Apple's ideas being stolen again. I want Apple to get the iTMS up and running for Windows users before a M$ offering. Then PC users have to admit Apple was first. And since it will be first to them, they will probably try it. Then they might have to admit it's the best.

Apple's ideas aren't being stolen. Music Services existed before iTMS. Apple's implementation of someone elses idea, has proven to be much more integrated and easier to use, resulting in more use, more revenues.

With Microsoft's strong support of DRM, the only thing that will be different from the music stores that exist now, will be that it's bundled in the OS and therefore will immediately reach millions of users.

One of the biggest reasons aside from DRM responsible for the limited success of music stores that existed before Apple, whose ideas Apple stole and extended (sarcasm), is that they have a limited users base. Not too many home users go out on the web and sign up for a music service. If it's right there integrated into the OS and built in media player you use everyday, that's a different story.

If you review the advanced DRM MS has been building for years, you will know that Apple's iTMS has simply hastened plans already in motion. Now that that's out of the way, the answer is for Apple to get busy and get iTunes over to Windows ASAP. And iTunes for Xbox with and iPod kit wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Apple just doesn't have the killer instinct because they are focused on margins which they can get from a small market willing to pay.

[snahabed]

Apple HAD to have seen this coming! I cannot imagine why Apple would have not developed a full Windows version CONCURRENTLY with the Apple version. I know the licensing isnt done, but at least get the code setup and READY TO GO the second the agreements are signed.

If I were Steve, I'd be putting hardcore resources on this. Even pulling away from Panther and 970 -- hell we can wait a few more weeks :) Because if MS gets a store out first, iTMS is OVER. Windows people will JUST use what Microsoft gives them. I download Phoenix or whatever it is called now on my friends XP machine and said JUST give it a try. It was trashed -- nay, recycled -- within seconds. "Why should I?"

[RHutch]

Originally posted by MorganX
Apple's ideas aren't being stolen. Music Services existed before iTMS. Apple's implementation of someone elses idea, has proven to be much more integrated and easier to use, resulting in more use, more revenues.


I'm not saying that it was Apple's idea to sell music or to sell it online. But I am assuming that M$ will steal some of the details of the way Apple has done it better than its predecessors. If Apple's store and ideas have nothing to do with the new services being contemplated, why did everyone wait until Apple showed how it could be successful before trying it themselves? You didn't hear a bunch of talk about everyone opening online music stores at once before Apple did.

[weev]

Originally posted by RHutch
I'm not as concerned about the money as I am about Apple's ideas being stolen again. I want Apple to get the iTMS up and running for Windows users before a M$ offering. Then PC users have to admit Apple was first. And since it will be first to them, they will probably try it. Then they might have to admit it's the best.

This is a crucial point. Being first to market gives you a kind of brand aura, at least for a while, and at the moment, no-one is doing this properly for Windows.

Don't forget it needs more than M$ money to make it happen, the record labels (at least the big 5) have to go with it and perhaps they might have a bit of loyalty to Job's vision (and style), or am I deluded here?

Having Microsoft mp3's of a couple of labels won't be better than the big 5 and a swag of indies on iTunes for Windows, and there is the copy-protection issues as well, which M$ will no doubt make a botch.

This story is puffery thus far and only states the obvious - that Apple will soon have stiff competition for its music service.

Was it the LA Times that "broke" the Apple buying out Vivendi story? Brohahahaha

[chubakka]

I don't think they'll do it better... and how many will even bother doing it for the Mac?

Mac users have a music store they can use seamlessly with their iPod and iTunes. Is there really any competition for us? Didn't think so.

I don't think the iTMS is that strong of a switcher vehicle. It's great for us but it's not that big of a deal to people who aren't into music or perfectly happy waiting for Microshaft to come out with their own crappy rip-off.

I don't think any of this will affect mac users much. Unless M$ starts trying to get exclusive deals with labels and artists and you won't be able to get some sellouts on the iTMS.

[maradong]

well it seems like that has happened what i already saw arriving at the beginning. the itms, not able to spread fast enough over all the platforms, will now be overtaken by ms mstore... Consumers will take the first ms aviable, they will not switch in the middle of their buying to apple, once they release the itunes version for windows. looks like the itunes music store dream is over. welcome back in the real m$ an propretary world. :(

[CheekyGit]

I, for one, won't be using the "Microsoft Music Store" because I don't want my credit card number being sent to every hackers in the world on behalf of .Net's security (now there's an oxymoron).

CheekGit :D

[mymemory]

M$ doesn't really care about selling songs, they care about the creation of iTunes for PCs, a software that would be so practical that will make in a short term a lot of people to switch, THAT is M$ desperation.

BTW, you can bet that in the M$ version of iTUnes you will find pop-ups windows every where. I think the information iTunes offers is enough, more than that is juts contamination.

[D*I*S_Frontman]

I think we need not worry about this for a number of reasons:

1) Apple did a good job all around in the design and implementation of their service. The quality of the downloads is consistently high and the interface has typically Apple user-friendliness. M$ will have a hard time faking that, and they can only steal so much without being draged back into court yet again.

2) Look at the iPod. There are hundreds of mp3 players out there, but the iPod rules due to its high design and quality standards. Building cheaper but inferior units has not helped the competition diminish iPod sales. So it will most likely be with the competing music stores. People are picky about their music--quality, usability, copying permissions, etc--and Apple's solutions to online music purchasing are brilliant, preserving the rights of the copyright holders and consumers alike.

3) If Apple can get a windows version of iTunes out by, say, September of this year, they will be in great shape for selling Windows iPods for Christmas. It is always nice to have the Windows world financing Apple Computer's hardware and OS R&D! Couple that with 970-based Powermacs (& PowerBooks?), and this holiday season shoud be a ball-crushing grand slam home run for Apple. Time to buy Apple stock, if the rumors are to be believed.

4) Finally, so what if competition comes forth? Apple will still make a lot of money from this ITMS venture and it will likely be the service more discriminating music listeners choose. You need a couple of terrible copycats out there to highlight the excellence of ITMS by comparison.

[RHutch]

There is one other thing that should work against M$'s efforts at an online music store: subscriptions. I'm almost certain that there was a story here a couple weeks back about how M$ planned to have a subscription-based service, where if you stopped paying, all of your music was lost. I really can't see people wanting to pay for music and then not get to keep it.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by RHutch
If Apple's store and ideas have nothing to do with the new services being contemplated, why did everyone wait until Apple showed how it could be successful before trying it themselves? You didn't hear a bunch of talk about everyone opening online music stores at once before Apple did.

You didn't hear about it because you're a Mac user. The reason there's buzz now is because Jobs' got record companies to relax their licensing restrictions.

For that I give him credit. Whether or not they will remain relaxed when you start selling to the remaining 97% of users remains to be seen.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by weev
Having Microsoft mp3's of a couple of labels won't be better than the big 5 and a swag of indies on iTunes for Windows, and there is the copy-protection issues as well, which M$ will no doubt make a botch.


The music stores using DRM already have agreements with all the labels and have larger music libraries than iTMS.

There is nothing particularly innovative about iTMS, what is evolutionary is the relaxed licensing and the integration (only with iPod though)

[RHutch]

Originally posted by MorganX
You didn't hear about it because you're a Mac user. The reason there's buzz now is because Jobs' got record companies to relax their licensing restrictions.

For that I give him credit. Whether or not they will remain relaxed when you start selling to the remaining 97% of users remains to be seen.

But why am I hearing about all of it now? I am still a Mac user. It seems that a lot of news is flying around about companies wanting to get involved in online music services, now that Apple has shown how to make it work. Are you really trying to say that all of this stuff was being talked about before-AOL, Amazon, MTV, and M$ online music services? So everyone has had their service in the works for months now, and I am just hearing about them now because I'm a Mac user and somehow missed out on these things because I only pay attention to what is going on in the Mac world? Your claim is weak, at best.

[Wonder Boy]

Originally posted by ozubahn
Hmm, interesting. If Microsoft follows its usual business models, it will probably sell the broken tracks from Kazaa, with pops, fadeouts, and cutoffs, then gradually fix them with a series of patches. Can't wait.

The thing is, M$ will put out crap but everyone will still use it. The simplicity of Apple is really no match for the simplicity of keeping your inexpensive dell box and struggling through with it. Sad, really...

[macmax]

Originally posted by Iceman06
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

i feel the same:mad:

[MorganX]

Originally posted by maradong
well it seems like that has happened what i already saw arriving at the beginning. the itms, not able to spread fast enough over all the platforms, will now be overtaken by ms mstore... Consumers will take the first ms aviable, they will not switch in the middle of their buying to apple, once they release the itunes version for windows. looks like the itunes music store dream is over. welcome back in the real m$ an propretary world. :(

The music store isn't going to make any meaningful number of users switch anyway. There are million of MP3 players that iTunes does not and probably never will support. New miniature 1GB hard disks will bring even smaller MP3 players that are popular with PC users.

The iTMS isn't over. The dream apparently wasn't to be "the" jukebox and music store for everyone. If it was, Apple wouldn't be so late with a Windows version. It's an afterthought that may be too late. It will still be a great product, if only for Mac. And it's not over yet. But even if it is released for Windows, it will only have limited success if it is iPod only, and doesn't have CD burning features.

Furthermore, if MS can't get the same licensing deals from record companies that Apple has gotten for it's much smaller market, there's no telling what might happen. It's really not about the store, and store is a store is a store. It's about the cost of the music, and the licensing. And I haven't heard anything about MS loosening their DRM.

[MorganX]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo more flooding. Thanks.

[robotrenegade]

Sorry guys but the fun is over. Apple has always been first but never stayed on top. I'm in a bad mood now. **** YOU MICROSOFT!:mad:

[MorganX]

Originally posted by RHutch
Are you really trying to say that all of this stuff was being talked about before-AOL, Amazon, MTV, and M$ online music services? So everyone has had their service in the works for months now, and I am just hearing about them now because I'm a Mac user and somehow missed out on these things because I only pay attention to what is going on in the Mac world?

Of course. Where have you been? Every heard of Pressplay.com? (edit: or Listen.com?) You are hearing about it now, because you're a Mac user and Apple is doing it now. The big news is Apple's licensing and limited DRM. That's what the noise is all about. Strict DRM has limited music services. With Apple getting execs to go for limited DRM, the floodgates are open.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by wilhelmd
I seriously don't think that many people use their Xbox as a music library - and I don't even dare to compare it to the iPod.

They haven't thus far. But hey might with the release of Music Mixer for Xbox. I wouldn't compare it to the iPod, I would compare it to a PC in the living room running iTunes or Media player.

I would like to see an iPod kit for the Xbox that could access the iTMS and sync with iPod. Preferable to whatever MS will offer.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by wilhelmd
Imagine trying to find just the song you want in a 200.000-song library with your game console remote.

It's all in the software, as any iTunes user should know ;) What more do you need than up, down, left, right, select, back?

[VIREBEL661]

Typical M$... Wait for Apple to work out the kinks first - then they'll claim they invented it and every PC weenie out their will believe it.... Just another technology stolen from Apple...

[MorganX]

Originally posted by snahabed
I'd be putting hardcore resources on this. Even pulling away from Panther and 970

I wouldn't go that far. iTMS isn't goign to make or break Apple. The next generation of OS and hardware could.

As long as the other stores are subscription based with heavy DRM, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by VIREBEL661
Just another technology stolen from Apple...

What technology is being stolen from Apple, in regards to music stores?

[e-coli]

The Microsoft Music Store will more than likely be encoded with Windows Media player files, and as we all know, that player / compression sucks. Plus it will be subject to Microsoft's Palladium DRM (plus whatever DRM they add into the music).

I wouldn't worry.

[pkradd]

M$ will have the same constraints in getting their music store to go internationally. Artist contracts and albums released on sometimes different labels for different territories continue to hold up offerings outside North America. Apple's 1 touch ordering system is owned by Amazon. They licensed it from them. Other patents claimed by Apple don't restrain other versions of music stores being developed.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by wilhelmd
Imagine trying to find just the song you want in a 200.000-song library with your game console remote. If done properly, it might work, but when did Microsoft do anything properly?

I seriously don't think that many people use their Xbox as a music library - and I don't even dare to compare it to the iPod.

Yeah, what the hell do you do with songs on an xbox?

[RHutch]

Originally posted by MorganX
Of course. Where have you been? Every heard of Pressplay.com? (edit: or Listen.com?) You are hearing about it now, because you're a Mac user and Apple is doing it now. The big news is Apple's licensing and limited DRM. That's what the noise is all about. Strict DRM has limited music services. With Apple getting execs to go for limited DRM, the floodgates are open.


You really are missing the point, aren't you?! Pressplay.com and Listen.com. Yep. Heard about them. Isn't that all they do? Are they major tech/entertainment companies like Apple, M$, AOL, Amazon, MTV? Companies that most people know? Please tell me that you can see the difference between Pressplay/Listen and these other companies. Yes, there have been attempts at online music services. But have they been by such large companies? No. But now there are several major companies who are going to attempt this or are at least interested in it.

Why now? Because Apple did it and showed that it could work.

[VIREBEL661]

Originally posted by MorganX
What technology is being stolen from Apple, in regards to music stores?
Why don't you tell me? I KNOW you're dying to....

[QuiteSure]

Why all the moaning and complaining? Once upon a time during the last century, someone came up with the idea of selling records from a brick and mortar store. Someone else thought that was a great idea and also started selling records from a store. Competition! Good for consumers! More and more stores were set up.

Then, someone came up with the idea of selling records in department stores. Korvettes! Bradlees!

Then Malls were born. Someone thought we should have records sold in them. Sam Goody's made lots of money establishing stores in malls across America. Then Carousel records. Then others.

So, Apple is the first to apparently succeed in selling music over the internet. That's great! Apple has a great system. I hope that Apple continues to add new artists and sell 99¢ records. I will continue to buy! Maybe Amazon will be better. Maybe Microsoft will be better. More choices for the consumer. All excellent!

These are all good developments. If not for competition we would all still be flying the Wright Brothers' single prop airplane.

[mactastic]

The major record labels are very nervous about entering this field, I think they went with apples proposal because it provided a large enough test market without being too large to allow massive piracy if things didn't work. Entering the music distribution business with microsoft will be a very different kind of gamble for them. Microsoft's reputation for security (or lack thereof) is well known, and probably causes these record executives diahhrea worrying about whether these legal downloads will quickly be shared. I think they are watching us and our apple community to see how we behave with this stuff for now, and I think they will be more hesitant before granting licenses to MS. MS will most likely have to put tighter DRM restrictions than most consumers would like in order to satisfy the record labels, and the fact that they even exist at all was a bone of contentions for many around here even. In addition, kazaa provides a fairly robust file swapping community that doesn't exist on nearly that scale on the mac. MS will have to convince people that there is a good reason to stop getting music for free and pay for it. When iTMS first came out and I was all excited and showing it off to PC users, their first statement was always "But you have to pay for this! You can just go get it for free on Kazaa." Very few people I talked to were interested in paying for music they could get for free. As one windows user put it, "Why buy the cow, when you can get the cow for free!"

[QuiteSure]

Originally posted by mactastic
When iTMS first came out and I was all excited and showing it off to PC users, their first statement was always "But you have to pay for this! You can just go get it for free on Kazaa." Very few people I talked to were interested in paying for music they could get for free. As one windows user put it, "Why buy the cow, when you can get the cow for free!"

You should gently persuade them by furnishing their name address and phone number to the FBI. Suddenly "free" music will lose its appeal.

[elo]

While you are correct that iTMS is not intended as a Switch vehicle, you are not correct about Apple's intentions to become the prominent offering. Apple isn't "late" at all, but forced to wait until the negotiating and legal work is done. (The same is true for the international market.) In fact, the widely publicized meeting with independent record companies was probably partly a gambit to let the major player still holding out that Apple intends to move forward anyway. Apple absolutely will have its technology ready to go by the time the legal work is done.

As for the Microsoft effort, yes, we should be concerned. But if it intends to change the DRM in any way from what is currently used by Pressplay, etc., then it too will have to negotiate with the record companies just as Apple is now. My guess is that Microsoft's service will launch with a more restrictive DRM than Apple's, but that the tunes will play on more devices. Apple still probably has an advantage with the library itself, however. Some company representatives have indicated that they are more comfortable making a deal with Apple than [other companies] because they feel that Apple's philosophy is more compatible with the way they want their music distributed.

Oh, one more thing: There isn't a chance Apple won't be first to get the service running on Windows.

elo




Originally posted by MorganX
The music store isn't going to make any meaningful number of users switch anyway. There are million of MP3 players that iTunes does not and probably never will support. New miniature 1GB hard disks will bring even smaller MP3 players that are popular with PC users.

The iTMS isn't over. The dream apparently wasn't to be "the" jukebox and music store for everyone. If it was, Apple wouldn't be so late with a Windows version. It's an afterthought that may be too late. It will still be a great product, if only for Mac. And it's not over yet. But even if it is released for Windows, it will only have limited success if it is iPod only, and doesn't have CD burning features.

Furthermore, if MS can't get the same licensing deals from record companies that Apple has gotten for it's much smaller market, there's no telling what might happen. It's really not about the store, and store is a store is a store. It's about the cost of the music, and the licensing. And I haven't heard anything about MS loosening their DRM.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by QuiteSure
You should gently persuade them by furnishing their name address and phone number to the FBI. Suddenly "free" music will lose its appeal.

Too many people to go after. The FBI would have to arrest nearly everyone over 8 and under 21.

edit: and quite a few of the over 21 crowd too

[MorganX]

Originally posted by springscansing
Yeah, what the hell do you do with songs on an xbox?

Play them through the digital out going into your home theatre. Use them as custom soundtracks on many games.

With Music Mixer for Xbox strip vocals and do karaoke and what not. Not my thing, but I'm sure someone digs it.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by elo
Apple isn't "late" at all, but forced to wait until the negotiating and legal work is done. (The same is true for the international market.)

Late is referring to an iTMS client for Windows. If Apple does want to be the leader for the entire market, not just the Mac market then they should have had the foresight to have a PC client available on launch. Even if it meant delaying the launch.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by VIREBEL661
Why don't you tell me? I KNOW you're dying to....

Actually, I really wanted to know because I don't believe there is technology being stolen from the iTMS.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by RHutch
Why now? Because Apple did it and showed that it could work.

Apple is trying to partner with Amazon, and MS created the DRM that the other services use.

Everybody already knew a music store with virtually no DRM (Apple's DRM is so light I don't consider it DRM at all. The biggest DRM in iTMS is only allowing 128bit downloads IMO).

It remains to be seen if record execs will allow the much larger PC market so much licensing freedom. If they do, I would be on whichever store gets on users desktop first.

[P-Worm]

Seriously. All of this 'As soon as Microsoft gets their version out, we're through!' is nonsense. I know that Apple has been screwed in the past, but this is different. This isn't a program that you buy, or a subscription that you pay for. This is an online store. That means that people have the choice. Amazon is the biggest online store on the internet. Is that because people can't choose other stores? Of course not! It is simply because they have developed a good system and people keep coming back for more. Apple is the company that starts these systems. Apple is an innovator. And in the online store market, that is all that matters.

Amen.

P-Worm

[rjwill246]

If ever a newspaper has shown its utter contempt for a company, the LAT- (rine) has taken the cake. They published incorrect and financially damaging crap about Universal- Apple's shares dropped like rocks- and then reported lasciviously that others were entering the market to compete with Apple once Apple opened the Music Store. Well, they are almost certainly right on the latter, as it takes no ingenuity to know that MS, among others, have had to be developing similar plans. Hello?
The consolations for Apple are many, however... the Lat-rine was wrong on all first rumour counts about Apple and the music industry, and they have no special insight into MS et al. 'wanting' to get into the same arena. Very bloody insightful, I don't think. As many here have pointed out Apple is well in front on this endeavour. The reviews coming in are almost embarrassing in their praise (the industry execs wil be noticing this favourably) and Apple has yet to get to the rest of the world on this with 'iTunes for Windows' or its own Mac version overseas.
It simply isn't going to fail.
Read this, if you still need to feel better! (http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=38003)

[Hawthorne]

Originally posted by snahabed
Apple HAD to have seen this coming! I cannot imagine why Apple would have not developed a full Windows version CONCURRENTLY with the Apple version. I know the licensing isnt done, but at least get the code setup and READY TO GO the second the agreements are signed.


Because it's always a game of one-upmanship. Look how many mp3 players tried to beat the original iPod on features / price. Apple just sat back, and trumped them again with the new one.

Microsoft will release their version, and it will suck ("Hey, we have this unused dog icon from Bob. Maybe if we put some headphones on him..."). Apple will release iTMS for Windows, and people will say "Ahhh, that's the way it SHOULD be." Microsoft will then cripple iTMS for Windows with a service pack "upgrade", steal their ideas, mangle them, and release v2.0 of their service, claiming they thought of it all along. ;)

[edenwaith]

...and history repeats itself. I had hardly heard of the other music services before the iTMS came about. Partly because of some PC-only based services, but also because of lack of press. Rolling Stone has continually been tracking iTMS's success. All things considered, it is doing very well, especially since there is a relatively small audience...only those who use Macs which can support iTunes 4 and have access to U.S.-based credit card. Think of the flood which will result when it becomes world wide, or at least supports more currencies such as the Canadian and Australian (sp?) dollar, Yen, the British Pound, and the Euro.

And this hasn't even touched the Windows world yet.

Ah, what would the computing world do without Apple to help lead and show the way so many times? Not to say that Apple comes up with every great idea, but they have the genius and marketing power to back it up.

[nuckinfutz]

My Gawd why the pissin' and moaning.

Apples just fine. They have advantages with the success of the iPod and iTunes which exceed what Amazon and Yahoo have.

The service as we know it is only the tip of the iceberg. When Amazon started they only sold books right? Now look at what they sell. iTMS is just the first launch of what is quickly becoming a Web Services arena.

Apple is still well positioned and must use iTMS to further the DLD genre. I'm still waiting for the "Home iPod" something that makes sharing Digital files in the home easy as pie.

I'm still waiting for Mulitchannel Downloads. I'm still waiting form MPEG4 Video with AAC files.

There is so much that is going to happen for all these services in the next 4 years. The winner will be the one that offers the best set of features and integration. Apple is strong in this area and I know where I'll be spending my money.

[csimmons]

Microsoft has to do something to sell some XBoxes, right?:D

Seriously, I believe the reason that iTMS works so well (and gets so much great press, which is important), is that it's very easy to use, and it isn't a subscription service. From what I've read, these other forthcoming services are still more or less subscription based, which is why they probably won't work as well as iTMS, from the end users viewpoint.

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by P-Worm
Seriously. All of this 'As soon as Microsoft gets their version out, we're through!' is nonsense. I know that Apple has been screwed in the past, but this is different. This isn't a program that you buy, or a subscription that you pay for. This is an online store. That means that people have the choice. Amazon is the biggest online store on the internet. Is that because people can't choose other stores? Of course not! It is simply because they have developed a good system and people keep coming back for more.


The biggest fear that many of us have is understanding what Microsoft is and how it works. One of the biggest problems here is expecting people to realize that they have a choice. Why do so many people use IE? Because it's there. That really is about it. It hasn't shown any innovation or advancement (does IE 6 even have tabs yet?), and there are tons of better browsers (many of them Mac-only, of course). Perhaps it may take several generations for people to learn computers and be weary before just taking whatever is handed to them. When buying a new car, do people just go to the first lot and buy whatever the salesman points out? Generally not. Many people do some research and look around for what is best for them (and their budget).

To wrap up this idea, the worry about MS putting out their own product, is that they will package it with their OS again, and then Average Joe will probably just use that product and not really worry or care about finding an alternative.

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by QuiteSure
Why all the moaning and complaining? Once upon a time during the last century, someone came up with the idea of selling records from a brick and mortar store. Someone else thought that was a great idea and also started selling records from a store. Competition! Good for consumers! More and more stores were set up.

So, Apple is the first to apparently succeed in selling music over the internet. That's great! Apple has a great system. I hope that Apple continues to add new artists and sell 99¢ records. I will continue to buy! Maybe Amazon will be better. Maybe Microsoft will be better. More choices for the consumer. All excellent!


To reiterate much of my last post or few is that what worries many of us is M$ trying to butt its head into yet another market which it probably has no reason trying to invade.

Yes, competition is good, and iTunes competing against the other music services is also a good thing. From what I've heard about the other services, I don't like the sound of them. I enjoy just being able to look for a few songs and buy them (or perhaps buy the entire album). Already we have seen that Apple has lighted a fire under many other companies' posteriors to get them into action and try and play catch-up. My guess is that some of those companies have been sitting on their duffs and haven't really been putting forth the proper effort into their products.

[sjjordan]

Doesn't apple own Universal Music? Can't they keep other Music stores from using there music. From what I've heard Universal holds many, many albums. And I agree, Apple better get that windoze version out soon or they're toast.
They won't disappear, but the only windows users that'll use are those that like the interface.

[AppleMatt]

Apple should release a number of updates for the iPod software that changes how it communicates with PC's, giving Microsoft the run around and making them re-code portions of their store program, delaying their progress and allowing Apple to get closer to release iTunes for Windows.

I'm so evil.

AppleMatt

[P-Worm]

Originally posted by edenwaith
The biggest fear that many of us have is understanding what Microsoft is and how it works. One of the biggest problems here is expecting people to realize that they have a choice. Why do so many people use IE? Because it's there. That really is about it. It hasn't shown any innovation or advancement (does IE 6 even have tabs yet?), and there are tons of better browsers (many of them Mac-only, of course). Perhaps it may take several generations for people to learn computers and be weary before just taking whatever is handed to them. When buying a new car, do people just go to the first lot and buy whatever the salesman points out? Generally not. Many people do some research and look around for what is best for them (and their budget).

To wrap up this idea, the worry about MS putting out their own product, is that they will package it with their OS again, and then Average Joe will probably just use that product and not really worry or care about finding an alternative.

In many respects, you are right. But I still don't fear Apple's future with the music store. I think that this is different than Internet Explorer. Here, we have Apple in the press and there is now a legit digital music revolution. Just like the file sharing networks, there are many, and many use different kinds. But in the end, it is the one with the best service (Kazaa) that takes the trophy.

P-Worm

[Pipian]

I found more info on the Microsoft music service.. Apparently you will pay a flat rate like 150$ a year to download all the songs you want, but you can't burn them to CD, and if you stop paying yearly they make the songs "expire" and you won't be able to play them anymore...

[Digidesign]

I for one am glad that MS is planning a music service. Hopefully this will propel Apple to seriously consider the flaws of their music service.

For one, the selection is small. Granted it's a new service and the whole copyright/licensing per-song-pizazz, but come on, 75% of the music I want to purchase I can't find on the store. Not to mention the fact that most of the artists they add are usually Top 40 artists.

Second, the whole partial album thing is a joke. Usually it's the entire album, minus ONE freakin' track - in some cases I've seen the complete album (20/20 tracks - i.e., Ray Romano's comedy CD) but it still says partial album. There's no way I'm paying $20 for the whole thing. Or, it's like they have the clean version complete and available, but the explicit version is missing that ONE song (i.e., 2Pac's Until the End of Time). C'mon Apple.

Third, the pricing is NOT $9.99 per disc across the board. Some are like $15. (i.e., No doubt's Rock Steady) That's total BS. And some songs can only be purchased with the album. Again, more BS.

The store is a great idea, but it's slow going, and frustratingly obtuse at times. if Microsoft's service can add some healthy competition which in turn will kick the ITMS into shape, then I am all for it.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by Digidesign
Third, the pricing is NOT $9.99 per disc across the board. Some are like $15. (i.e., No doubt's Rock Steady) That's total BS. And some songs can only be purchased with the album. Again, more BS.

In general I don't have a problem with pricing but I do think for albums costing more than $9.99 you should have the option of downloading a higher bitrate.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by Pipian
I found more info on the Microsoft music service.. Apparently you will pay a flat rate like 150$ a year to download all the songs you want, but you can't burn them to CD, and if you stop paying yearly they make the songs "expire" and you won't be able to play them anymore...

I would say I doubt this, but have no information to the contrary. If it is true, it will be a total flop/failure from day one. That's why I doubt it.

[Fukui]

I would like to see an iPod kit for the Xbox that could access the iTMS and sync with iPod. Preferable to whatever MS will offer.
Sorry, XBOX is MS's platform. Apple would need to get a licensing agreement with MS to distribute their software on their console (something like $20), so uh, you think MS is gonna say, OK apple, heres your XBOX SDK and license, good luck competing on our service that we'll bundle with the XBOX LIVE so every player sees our music service and only our service...It will never happen.

[Fredo Viola]

For me it's going to come down to choice... if the Microsoft store has a better selection, that's where I'll be buying. I'm sorry to say that, because I LOVE Apple and really don't like to support Bill Gates in any way, shape or form. I know it's early on, but I am extremely disappointed with the iTunes Music Store. It's mostly crap. There's very little Jazz, practically no classical, and only the tiniest smidgeon of independent music. Jobs will only have a winner on his hands, IMHO, if he covers all his cultural bases!

[MorganX]

Originally posted by AppleMatt
Apple should release a number of updates for the iPod software that changes how it communicates with PC's, giving Microsoft the run around and making them re-code portions of their store program, delaying their progress and allowing Apple to get closer to release iTunes for Windows.

I'm so evil.

AppleMatt

You thinking to Mac-centric, where the only meaningful portable MP3 device is the iPod. Whatever store becomes dominant on the PC platform won't be reliant (in the case of Apple, shouldn't be) on the presence or success of the iPod.

The iPod is #1, but hardly the only game in PC-town. Miniature players are hot right now too.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by Fukui
Sorry, XBOX is MS's platform. Apple would need to get a licensing agreement with MS to distribute their software on their console (something like $20), so uh, you think MS is gonna say, OK apple, heres your XBOX SDK and license, good luck competing on our service that we'll bundle with the XBOX LIVE so every player sees our music service and only our service...It will never happen.

Who said bundle it with Xbox. Sell it like any other Xbox title.

[jamilecrire]

Originally posted by RHutch
I'm not as concerned about the money as I am about Apple's ideas being stolen again. I want Apple to get the iTMS up and running for Windows users before a M$ offering. Then PC users have to admit Apple was first. And since it will be first to them, they will probably try it. Then they might have to admit it's the best.

Who cares about idea's being "stolen". If Apple cannot compete because someone else does it better, then so be it. I guess by your contention Apple computers shouldn't get on the Internet because it was copied. Hell OS X is copied from BSD not to mention the GUI from Xerox PARC.

I guess since apple has copied: BSD, Xerox GUI, Internet Connectivity, ... the only thing left is Desktop Publishing (Oh wait WYSIWYG wouldn't be available without the GUI).

Grow up and enjoy what you have and quit whining about MS.

[Kid Red]

What concerns me isn't M$, they have a habit lately of screwing things up themselves, it's thaty they are teaming up with AOL, Yahoo, Amazon and Viacom. M$ can't **** enough with all of those high rollers involved. Too bad Apple couldn't get Amazon and AOL first, would've taken the wind outa M$ windows' shades.

[ces1965]

No way is any Microsoft service out in the near future going to be as easy to use as the iTMS. They are going to use Windows Media player, which is much harder to use than iTunes, in part because it tries to be too much (music and video). iTunes is single purpose and does it extremely well, indeed far better than anything else out there.

Yes, history often repeats itself but this time it is different because the superior apple solution will not require buying a new computer, just downloading a free app.

As far as the Internet Explorer analogy (PC people just use what is installed), I think it fails for a number of reasons:

(1) IE beat Netscape because IE was free and Netscape was not (in the early days);

(2) alternative browsers like firebird are a relatively recent phenomenon. IE got entrenched before real competition (other than the more costly Netscape) became a real thing;

(3) there's no marketing or publicity pushing alternative browsers in the PC world; however, there has been marketing and lots of publicity for the apple store;

(4) iTunes Music Store will work with the best and best selling portable player, while the Windows solution won't; alternative browsers have had no comparable advantage over IE;

(5) alternative browsers have less compatibility than IE because of all the sites designed around IE

(6) alternative browsers don't offer that much more. Don't get me wrong, I love Safari and it's 10X better than IE, a real pleasure. but I use IE all day at work and it's fine. a browser is a browser. point and click. there's not as much going on as a online store/jukebox program. not as much to suck. there's a lot more to suck in a MS online store.

[RHutch]

Originally posted by Fredo Viola
For me it's going to come down to choice... if the Microsoft store has a better selection, that's where I'll be buying. I'm sorry to say that, because I LOVE Apple and really don't like to support Bill Gates in any way, shape or form. I know it's early on, but I am extremely disappointed with the iTunes Music Store. It's mostly crap. There's very little Jazz, practically no classical, and only the tiniest smidgeon of independent music. Jobs will only have a winner on his hands, IMHO, if he covers all his cultural bases!


Did you see the story about Apple meeting with the Indie reps last week? They can't just put up the music without the permission of the labels. They are working on it. So many people want everything done perfectly and immediately. I wonder how many people could perform their jobs at the level they expect from Apple. Would people think it fair if their employer found someone who could do their job faster than them, so they just fired them?

[RHutch]

Originally posted by jamilecrire
Who cares about idea's being "stolen". If Apple cannot compete because someone else does it better, then so be it. I guess by your contention Apple computers shouldn't get on the Internet because it was copied. Hell OS X is copied from BSD not to mention the GUI from Xerox PARC.

I guess since apple has copied: BSD, Xerox GUI, Internet Connectivity, ... the only thing left is Desktop Publishing (Oh wait WYSIWYG wouldn't be available without the GUI).

Grow up and enjoy what you have and quit whining about MS.


It has nothing to do with someone else doing it better. It has more to do with someone else using monopolistic practices to unfairly force users to use some service. And there is a difference between improving upon an idea and repackaging something without adding anything to it. You can't patent the telephone now, but you can patent an improvement to the telephone. I see the examples you offered as Apple improving on an idea. I see the possibility of M$ repackaging rather than improving.

[pleing]

Originally posted by Digidesign

For one, the selection is small. Granted it's a new service and the whole copyright/licensing per-song-pizazz, but come on, 75% of the music I want to purchase I can't find on the store. Not to mention the fact that most of the artists they add are usually Top 40 artists.

Second, the whole partial album thing is a joke. Usually it's the entire album, minus ONE freakin' track - in some cases I've seen the complete album (20/20 tracks - i.e., Ray Romano's comedy CD) but it still says partial album. There's no way I'm paying $20 for the whole thing. Or, it's like they have the clean version complete and available, but the explicit version is missing that ONE song (i.e., 2Pac's Until the End of Time). C'mon Apple.

Third, the pricing is NOT $9.99 per disc across the board. Some are like $15. (i.e., No doubt's Rock Steady) That's total BS. And some songs can only be purchased with the album. Again, more BS.

According to Apple's meeting with the independent labels it's not Apples job to post and price the music. It's up to the labels.

(I'd link to the article but it was pulled.)

[dongmin]

Originally posted by MorganX
You didn't hear about it because you're a Mac user. The reason there's buzz now is because Jobs' got record companies to relax their licensing restrictions.


Actually the real reason you're hearng about this is that Apple sold more songs in the first week than all other services combined sold in a year. Apple's service works; the others didn't. It's as simple as that, and that's why everyone else is jumping on the band wagon.

[Ugg]

Apple cannot sell what the labels won't allow it to. If a label or an artist doesn't want to have their music sold via iTMS, it's not going to be there. To blame Apple for lousy offerings, ignores that fact. Also, to blame Apple for the pricing configurations is also stupid. Apple doesnt' control it, the artists/labels do.

Unfortunately since Apple is selling the service they are getting blamed for these issues. I wish people would focus on the artists/labels instead of Apple.

[MattG]

Originally posted by snahabed
If I were Steve, I'd be putting hardcore resources on this. Even pulling away from Panther and 970 -- hell we can wait a few more weeks :)
"we" who? :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Ugg
Apple cannot sell what the labels won't allow it to. If a label or an artist doesn't want to have their music sold via iTMS, it's not going to be there. To blame Apple for lousy offerings, ignores that fact. Also, to blame Apple for the pricing configurations is also stupid. Apple doesnt' control it, the artists/labels do.

Unfortunately since Apple is selling the service they are getting blamed for these issues. I wish people would focus on the artists/labels instead of Apple.
Yeah, for all those griping about apple not offering enough, or charging to much, or not having the full album selection it's not apples fault! Apple would probably like to have every song ever recorded for sale, individually or as part of an album, and for $0.99/song and $9.99/album as well, but until the artists/labels get on board its not gonna happen. But on the plus side, it won't happen for M$ either. Bands like Metallica won't allow anyone to sell their stuff online (stupid lars) apple or MS until they are comfortable with the distribution system and the fee structure as well as the DRM stuff. iTMS is an evolving project, more and more people will get on board as time goes by.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by dongmin
Actually the real reason you're hearng about this is that Apple sold more songs in the first week than all other services combined sold in a year. Apple's service works; the others didn't. It's as simple as that, and that's why everyone else is jumping on the band wagon.

The service is as simple as selling music with restriction. Apple's licensing works. Do you think the sales would be the same with the DRM restrictions in the other existing online music services?

Right now if Pressplay and Listen dropped subscription fees and DRM and used the same pricing as iTMS they would see even more success due to higher volume, with or without and elegant interface.

[MUrhino]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
"For the first time in history*, you can now buy just the music you want."



*First time in history does not nessesarily mean that the capability was not available in history before this release.

lol...Ahh that cracks me up. It's funny cause it's true :p Poor pathetic MS. Always stealing others ideas.

Nice post:D

[Mr. MacPhisto]

This has me thinking about the rumor of Apple buying Roxio. The CD-burning tech in XP is Roxio-based, is it not? The big CD burner is EZCD Creator. My bet is that if Apple purchased Roxio then they could set back M$'s plans a little bit by making them go elsewhere for CD burning. And how could would it be to have Roxio's name on a new player for Windows that connects to the ITMS - and can burn or dumpthe songs onto the iPod - and maybe other players that can support AAC.

[RIP]

Originally posted by Fredo Viola
For me it's going to come down to choice... if the Microsoft store has a better selection, that's where I'll be buying. I'm sorry to say that, because I LOVE Apple and really don't like to support Bill Gates in any way, shape or form. I know it's early on, but I am extremely disappointed with the iTunes Music Store. It's mostly crap. There's very little Jazz, practically no classical, and only the tiniest smidgeon of independent music. Jobs will only have a winner on his hands, IMHO, if he covers all his cultural bases!

I would rather wait than give liars and cheats my money...

[nagromme]

They should go for it--an early demo is easy, but it's not as simple as that. Apple doens't have to be the only music store, just one of the best. I expect it will be THE best for some time to come. It may or may not be first on Windows.

Remember that the music companies have hesitated to agree to something like the iMS beyond Mac. That barrier affects everyone--and whoever persuades them, that could benefit everyone.

TRYING to copy Apple is one thing. Succeeding is another.

And anyway, worst case, Apple never breaks into the potential new market of Windows music sales. That's too bad, but we still have the iMS for us!

[macdong]

Originally posted by springscansing
Yeah, what the hell do you do with songs on an xbox?

well, for one thing when you want to share your music with your friends you can carry the xBox to your friends' places...
err... exercise of the day? :p

[acj]

Originally posted by MUrhino
lol...Ahh that cracks me up. It's funny cause it's true :p Poor pathetic MS. Always stealing others ideas.

Nice post:D

MS steals what you see, Apple steals what's hidden (stable OS core, dynamic memory allocation [and it's about time!], fully implemented dual CPU support, etc.

[macmax]

supports more currencies such as the Canadian and Australian (sp?) dollar, Yen, the British Pound, and the Euro.

the caribbean man, the caribbean:D

[-hh]

Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
I think we need not worry about this for a number of reasons:
...
3) If Apple can get a windows version of iTunes out by, say, September of this year, they will be in great shape for selling Windows iPods for Christmas. It is always nice to have the Windows world financing Apple Computer's hardware and OS R&D! ...


Actually, it would be pretty clever move by Apple if they could have the "iTunes for Windows" store require an iPod as the MP3 hardware implimentation.

The justification for this would be for security, to try to limit Piracy on the PC side, which is what the Record Labels want. Also, as a form of a "hardware dongle", it helps to slow down and control the adoption rate into the broader Windows marketplace, in case the Record Labels think that there's trouble.


And Apple supports PC-iPod --> Mac-iPod migration, for the "Switchers".


-hh

[bretm]

Originally posted by weev

Don't forget it needs more than M$ money to make it happen, the record labels (at least the big 5) have to go with it and perhaps they might have a bit of loyalty to Job's vision (and style), or am I deluded here?

Yep. Deluded.

[bretm]

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
This has me thinking about the rumor of Apple buying Roxio. The CD-burning tech in XP is Roxio-based, is it not? The big CD burner is EZCD Creator. My bet is that if Apple purchased Roxio then they could set back M$'s plans a little bit by making them go elsewhere for CD burning. And how could would it be to have Roxio's name on a new player for Windows that connects to the ITMS - and can burn or dumpthe songs onto the iPod - and maybe other players that can support AAC.

Or maybe, just maybe, a copy of iTunes for windows would come in the roxio box. Or maybe, just maybe, APPLE ezcd creator "lite" comes free with every iPod.

I see something interesting brewing! The iPod already dominates the market. Now, they start handing out iTunes and cd burning software to the iPod users. Suddenly, their favorite device runs their favorite software. Ther's little apples everywhere on their PC!

[chewbaccapits]

Microcrap intends on selling the idea of RENTING music, according to this older article on CNET Renting music??WTF! (http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-1009794.html?tag=fd_lede1_hed) ....

Also, someone posted that ITMS was basically crap and I have to say,we would be discussing any kind of music store had Apple not successful redrawn a better way to download music legitamently. For the moment, Apple's ITMS is successful (http://www.macnn.com/news/19589), thus, the reason for the others coming out of the woodwork to beat Apple...

[bretm]

If apple can keep the windows version from working with the iPod, then it's essentially useless. Let's not forget that Apple's iPod is also part of the core coolness of the whole iTunes music service. Who wants to burn all those aacs or mp3s onto a buch of audio cds?

Windows has quite a hurdle here. Same hurdle they haven't tried to clear with the iPod.

This whole music business might just be a back door into a world of switchers. Who'd a thunk it?

[Ugg]

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
Microcrap intends on selling the idea of RENTING music, according to this older article on CNET

Renting music only works if you're tethered to your computer 24 hours a day or if you want to preview lots of new music. I just don't see why anyone would want to go that route. There is such a broad mix of online radio stations and I'm sure that it will only get larger as time goes on.

For the life of me, I can't see why anyone would want to rent. XM makes sense, renting music does not.

[VIREBEL661]

Originally posted by MorganX
Actually, I really wanted to know because I don't believe there is technology being stolen from the iTMS.

My apologies.... Just seems to me Apple did this first.... Just my perception - I'm just a normal schmoe who has no inside information or anything like that. By 'technology', I'm referring to the fact that I PERSONALLY first heard of this with Apple ironing out all the kinks and making it work... They did all the work (negotiating with record labels, setting up the business model for others to copy, etc.)... How about 'Another BUSINESS MODEL stolen from Apple'... Happy now? Jeeeesh....

[Gyroscope]

:) Im sure if apple decided to start producing condoms, microsoft would do the same very next day.
But heh brrr who d buy microsoft condom with their security track record. Heh they d say , dont panic patch is on the way :)

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Gyroscope
:) Im sure if apple decided to start producing condoms, microsoft would do the same very next day.
But heh brrr who d buy microsoft condom with their security track record. Heh they d say , dont panic patch is on the way :)

Can you imagine the child support they'd end up having to pay?!?

[MacKid]

Originally posted by VIREBEL661
Typical M$... Wait for Apple to work out the kinks first - then they'll claim they invented it and every PC weenie out their will believe it.... Just another technology stolen from Apple...


I just wanted to say probably at least 1/6 of the PC using population (maybe more) has heard of the iTMS. It's been in hundreds of articles and news broadcasts in the U.S. alone.

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by Pipian
I found more info on the Microsoft music service.. Apparently you will pay a flat rate like 150$ a year to download all the songs you want, but you can't burn them to CD, and if you stop paying yearly they make the songs "expire" and you won't be able to play them anymore...

What's this? Lessons on how NOT to sell/rent music? I wouldn't want to pay some lump fee and then only be able to essentially rent the songs with no CD burning and losing them if you don't continue with them. I've used iTMS a few times, and those songs I've purchased are mine. Mine. I can do what I want with them and won't worry about losing them.

I will reiterate (from previous comments) that I think Apple selling many of the songs on a pay-per-song basis is great. If all I want to buy is one song, then that is great and I don't need to waste money on other wasted time or services.

[MacKid]

Originally posted by RHutch
You really are missing the point, aren't you?! Pressplay.com and Listen.com. Yep. Heard about them. Isn't that all they do? Are they major tech/entertainment companies like Apple, M$, AOL, Amazon, MTV? Companies that most people know? Please tell me that you can see the difference between Pressplay/Listen and these other companies. Yes, there have been attempts at online music services. But have they been by such large companies? No. But now there are several major companies who are going to attempt this or are at least interested in it.


Why now? Because Apple did it and showed that it could work.

Not trying to p**s you off, or anything, but I think since they were started by fairly large companies (i.e., RealPlayer), the big thing with the iTMS is the fact that it's not monthly and that it didn't "treat the consumer like a criminal"

So really, it's just that the companies realized, HEY! we can make money, AND not be illegal!!! AND get the companies to go along with it!!!

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by Digidesign

For one, the selection is small. Granted it's a new service and the whole copyright/licensing per-song-pizazz, but come on, 75% of the music I want to purchase I can't find on the store. Not to mention the fact that most of the artists they add are usually Top 40 artists.

Quite understandable, and the iTMS has similar problems that I have with Columbia Music. Just not enough selection, especially from the bands I like. Personally, I'd like to see more from Steamhammer/SPV records to bring over some European music I enjoy.

But it seems like Apple is trying to take some strides to bring in music from the smaller music publishers.

Hopefully Apple does recognize where it still needs improvement and continues working on these issues. Otherwise if Apple gets too cocky and drunk on their success, then it will just be a repeat of the 80's again where Apple got arrogant and lazy and got blind sided by the PCs.


Second, the whole partial album thing is a joke. Usually it's the entire album, minus ONE freakin' track

I've seen this a time or two and got burned, so that is understandable. Or the flipside where some songs (Don Mclean's American Pie) need to be purchased with an entire album.

[MacKid]

Originally posted by Digidesign
I for one am glad that MS is planning a music service. Hopefully this will propel Apple to seriously consider the flaws of their music service.

For one, the selection is small. Granted it's a new service and the whole copyright/licensing per-song-pizazz, but come on, 75% of the music I want to purchase I can't find on the store. Not to mention the fact that most of the artists they add are usually Top 40 artists.

Second, the whole partial album thing is a joke. Usually it's the entire album, minus ONE freakin' track - in some cases I've seen the complete album (20/20 tracks - i.e., Ray Romano's comedy CD) but it still says partial album. There's no way I'm paying $20 for the whole thing. Or, it's like they have the clean version complete and available, but the explicit version is missing that ONE song (i.e., 2Pac's Until the End of Time). C'mon Apple.

Third, the pricing is NOT $9.99 per disc across the board. Some are like $15. (i.e., No doubt's Rock Steady) That's total BS. And some songs can only be purchased with the album. Again, more BS.

The store is a great idea, but it's slow going, and frustratingly obtuse at times. if Microsoft's service can add some healthy competition which in turn will kick the ITMS into shape, then I am all for it.

I must say I partially agree. The only thing that ticks me off (and I mean the ONLY thing), and it's quite annoying, is the partial albums!!! Sure, I like downloading the songs that I like or whatever, but maybe I want the artist's album, so I can say, "Hey, I have her CD!" Instead of, "Yea, I have 7 out of the 11 songs on her CD!"

The whole thing about LimeWire (among other things) is that you can only download the songs you know, or that other people have pirated, so unless you (somehow) have a copy of the songs in the CD, you won't know what songs you don't have, and if you do, it's nearly impossible to find them, since everyone only has the 1 or 2 most popular songs.


Whoo. Rant done. Fingers. . .tired.

[barhoptheworld]

this is completely speculation but maybe this could rush apple to release iTMS for XP at WWDC.

[MacKid]

Originally posted by -hh
Actually, it would be pretty clever move by Apple if they could have the "iTunes for Windows" store require an iPod as the MP3 hardware implimentation.

The justification for this would be for security, to try to limit Piracy on the PC side, which is what the Record Labels want. Also, as a form of a "hardware dongle", it helps to slow down and control the adoption rate into the broader Windows marketplace, in case the Record Labels think that there's trouble.


And Apple supports PC-iPod --> Mac-iPod migration, for the "Switchers".


-hh

Then again, it might kind of be. . .un-clever, if that's a word. Look at the opposite:

PC Version Requires iPod=Die Hard music fans buying iPod

PC Version Requires iPod=Some average people buying iPod

PC Version Requires iPod=most people using MicrosoftMusicStore because they want to use the MP3 player they want or already have. . .

See?

[MacKid]

What happens when you get old ?

Or older, anyway?

Let's say you're 20. You sign up with Microsoft's subscription service. You slowly accumluate music over the next 40 years, let's say. And just for a light example, say you bought 250 songs each year. So, you're about 60, you're done downloading music or whatever. . .so you cancel your service, and you lose your music. All of your music. All of it.

10,000 songs.

Gone.

What do you do then? I just realized the deeper meaning behind Steve Jobs saying something along the lines of "You should own the music you've bought". . .

Just my thoughts. . .

[mim]

...iTMS on Playstation3

mwahhaha
MWahahaha
MWAHAHAHAHAHWMAMMA

Sony and Apple have definitley been talking. I wonder what they've been talking about?

[ollywilson2003]

Originally posted by MacKid
What happens when you get old ?

Or older, anyway?

Let's say you're 20. You sign up with Microsoft's subscription service. You slowly accumluate music over the next 40 years, let's say. And just for a light example, say you bought 250 songs each year. So, you're about 60, you're done downloading music or whatever. . .so you cancel your service, and you lose your music. All of your music. All of it.

10,000 songs.

Gone.

What do you do then? I just realized the deeper meaning behind Steve Jobs saying something along the lines of "You should own the music you've bought". . .

Just my thoughts. . .



Yeah but luckily the M$Music Store wont exsist in 40 years.
(Well newer versions probably, but not the one from 2003.)

[-hh]

Originally posted by MacKid
Then again, it might kind of be. . .un-clever, if that's a word. Look at the opposite:

PC Version Requires iPod=Die Hard music fans buying iPod

PC Version Requires iPod=Some average people buying iPod

PC Version Requires iPod=most people using MicrosoftMusicStore because they want to use the MP3 player they want or already have. . .

See?


I guess I didn't articulate my thoughts well on that...what I was thinking was that the initial Windows roll-out would require an iPod, but later ones might not.

The idea is that this keeps a lid on the initial Windows adoption rate, which will help make the Record Labels worry less about Pirating.

The next step is the "if and when" Pirating seems under control on the Windows side, the iTunes/Windows store could relax the restriction, by adding more "Supported MP3 Players".

The result is that your hardcore & early adopters get iPods, and maybe you get some Mac switchers. If all goes well, they pave the path for the rest of the Windows and MP3 players market.


-hh

[-hh]

Originally posted by MacKid
What happens when you get old ?

Or older, anyway?

. . .so you cancel your service, and you lose your music. All of your music. All of it.




Yup. I currently qualify for the "Older" tag, and my buying habits are very sporatic. Its not unusual for me to go 6 months between purchases.

When I do buy something, its usually some event that prompts me to go find for something specific (usually non-mainstream). If I find it, I'll usually pick up something else at the same time. The result of this is that my monthly purchasing goes something like this:

(Year 1): 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
(Year 2): 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(Year 3): 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0


Bottom line is that I won't even consider a subscription-based service of any sort.


-hh

[tychay]

Originally posted by jamilecrire
I guess since apple has copied: BSD, Xerox GUI, Internet Connectivity, ... the only thing left is Desktop Publishing (Oh wait WYSIWYG wouldn't be available without the GUI).

Why do these myths keep coming up?

BSD is available under the BSD license. Apple follows this license and there is nothing wrong here. Also, Apple has one person with commit privileges on the BSD kernel and they release all their changes back into the public that they are required to, as well as a few things that they are not required to (for instance, the BSD license does not require them to, but GPL does). Given the names of some of the employees on Apple's payroll, I guess they have no less claim to "ownership" of BSD as any other company.

Xerox PARC had done demos of their Alto computer (the first one that implement Window Icon Mouse Pointer user interface) for years before the Mac team came. Since Jef Raskin (of the Mac team) had seen the demo, he wanted to expose the rest of the team to the ideas behind it. To get Xerox to open its doors, Apple gave a huge chunk of options at a time when Apple stock was skyrocketting. A lot of those Xerox PARC employees were later hired by Apple (and Apple employees later hired by Microsoft). Also, there are a lot of things that didn't exist in the original Alto WIMP design that Apple improved on and are essential for what we call a GUI today: the concept of the desktop and trash can (icons only represented actions, not files), the location of the menu bar (menus were contextual before this), command-key equivalents (Apple UI engineers noticed that expert users would have to move mouse focus in order to perform menu actions), etc.

The key was the packaging though. Look at the cost and "look" of the Alto or the Lisa and compare it to the Macintosh. It is obvious why the latter became an icon and the former pair is just a footnote.

Internet Connectivity? What do you mean by this? Do you mean the BSD-stack which is the layer found in most operating systems including Windows? Nobody claimed Macs were the first here, though a lot of "firsts" did come from the Mac: the first graphical e-mail program, Eudora, for example, came from the University of Illinois. Then again, the first web browser was brought to us on a NeXT machine (aptly-called "World Wide Web"), but few remember this.

Apple was responsible for giving us AppleTalk, the first truely useable plug-and-play LAN. Those of us who remember/curse token-rings and Novell netware appreciate it. Rendevous is AppleTalk reborn.

Apple didn't invent desktop publishing. There were a lot of products at the time (Ready-Set-Go, PageMaker, etc) and none of them were produced by Apple to my knowledge. Of course, we had WYSIWYG (detrimental when purchasing a monitor at the time), an AppleTalk LAN, and an affordable laser printer running something called PostScript (again, not an Apple invention(thank God)). The Mac platform may have made the conditions "ripe" but I don't think they predicted DTP. In fact, the LaserWriter project was almost canned by Apple management.

No, Apple isn't responsible for all computer innovation. In fact, they're probably not responsible for half the stuff attributed to them. But before you start spewing conventional wisdom, please get some of your history straight.



Back on topic:

Rhapsody, PressPlay and Listen were created by various labels. They've been out for years and with miserable adoption rates. Analysts said this was because they didn't have enough selection which was corrected about 8 months ago. Then they said it's because you can't purchase and they added burning (for 99c/song). Their adoption numbers are so dismal not one of these companies admits to the actual numbers.

Now RealPlayer and Roxio are entering the fray with the same services redone/relabeled (the burn price for RealPlayer Rhapsody has dropped to 79c). The fact is, after all this time, I'd still have to pay a subscription fee and then an additional fee to burn.

Microsoft isn't necessarily promoting their own subscription service. There is enough of that. The new "theory" is that people want to take their music with them and not be "tethered to a computer" as someone put it. Thus, they are modifying the DRM in Windows Media Player to allow the user the download the music onto their portable music player (but it will still destruct at a given time). They are confident they can do this. They are also confident that if it doesn't work out, they can modify the DRM again to do something like Apple's FairPlay.

Now if they are also planning their own music service also, color me unsurprised. I believed at one time Rockefeller owned nearly everything from the oil well to the gas pump. This wouldn't be the first time Microsoft has competed with the companies that depend on them. I believe Apple does the same thing, in many ways.

However, I believe there is a difference between:
[list=1]
giving a product to an employee to form his own company because your developers fear being marginalized because it is superior (4th Dimension).
starting your own company under a different name so as not to have an edge based on your brand (Claris)
hiring an entire staff of a company who makes a product in order to may your audio player (C&G SoundJam and iTunes)
[/list=1]
and
[list=1]
bundling a browser whose revenues are based on royalties with your OS and strongarming another company into doing the same (MS, Spyglass, Apple)
Hijacking a competing video standard by default and breaking plug-in support (QuickTime and RealPlayer)
stealing IP, bundling, and then killing development (Stacker).
[/list=1]

No matter how much you hate Microsoft, you got to give them points for chutzpah. :)

Take care.

[delton05]

I'm sick of Mac users claiming that Apple are THE creative ones ... and that MS has never had an original idea ... and that everyone else copies Apple's immense genius.

It's as stupid as Intel fans saying that Apple computers merely copied Intel. Intel invented the microprocessor, so isn't every microprocessor-based computer since, including every Apple computer made, a rip off of Intel's original inventiveness???

Back to the topic ... I would not be surprised to learn that MS let Apple's music service hit the streets 'first' so that others could never accuse them of establishing a monopoly, ie. that the comsumer has choice. Besides, it's hardly a secret that MS has been working towards just this type of thing for a long long time, so maybe Apple could also be accused of copyings ... who friging cares!!! ... just those with an inferiority complex, no doubt!

Let the best system win, and I couldn't care whose system that is.

Apple's competitors will no doubt use the fact that Apple let the 'genie out of the bag' with itunes version 4.

Besides, with any of these schemes, once the downloaded file is in audio format, it can be re-encoded into any format you like, and burnt to CD in any format, as well.

So rent, hire, buy doesn't matter a frig! The genie is well and truly already out of the bottle there, as well.

[MacKid]

Originally posted by -hh
I guess I didn't articulate my thoughts well on that...what I was thinking was that the initial Windows roll-out would require an iPod, but later ones might not.

The idea is that this keeps a lid on the initial Windows adoption rate, which will help make the Record Labels worry less about Pirating.

The next step is the "if and when" Pirating seems under control on the Windows side, the iTunes/Windows store could relax the restriction, by adding more "Supported MP3 Players".

The result is that your hardcore & early adopters get iPods, and maybe you get some Mac switchers. If all goes well, they pave the path for the rest of the Windows and MP3 players market.


-hh

I do kind of see what you're saying. I remember reading a post about one of the reasons Apple probably didn't have a Windows version at the exact same time or a few weeks later is because Mac users are such a small (and enlightened) population, it would be a good "test", which makes sense.

[MacKid]

Originally posted by delton05
I'm sick of Mac users claiming that Apple are THE creative ones ... and that MS has never had an original idea ... and that everyone else copies Apple's immense genius.

It's as stupid as Intel fans saying that Apple computers merely copied Intel. Intel invented the microprocessor, so isn't every microprocessor-based computer since, including every Apple computer made, a rip off of Intel's original inventiveness???

Back to the topic ... I would not be surprised to learn that MS let Apple's music service hit the streets 'first' so that others could never accuse them of establishing a monopoly, ie. that the comsumer has choice. Besides, it's hardly a secret that MS has been working towards just this type of thing for a long long time, so maybe Apple could also be accused of copyings ... who friging cares!!! ... just those with an inferiority complex, no doubt!

Let the best system win, and I couldn't care whose system that is.

Apple's competitors will no doubt use the fact that Apple let the 'genie out of the bag' with itunes version 4.

Besides, with any of these schemes, once the downloaded file is in audio format, it can be re-encoded into any format you like, and burnt to CD in any format, as well.

So rent, hire, buy doesn't matter a frig! The genie is well and truly already out of the bottle there, as well.

While you're totally justified (and I happen to agree with you), I think what most people are saying is it's just SO STEREOTYPICAL. I mean, Microsoft has a reputation among people who don't like that company as a stealer of ideas and innovation. The point is, Microsoft has done things like this more than a few times in the past, and it's just that it's SO THEM. So, while I am annoyed with all the "Apple is great!!! I hate Microsoft! They steal everything!!!", posts, I think most of them are just based on a "Here we go again. . ." thought.


But, since certain things were recently discovered, I personally have no concerns because Microsoft's service will be subscription based, therefore, it will fail.:cool: :D ;)

[delton05]

Why would MS' subscription based service fail, if during the first month someone joins, they can get unlimited downloads!!

One month would be all I needed to get every song I could think of ... How much would that cost with Apple's service?

AND, as I said earlier, would it not be easy to circumvent their timed usability constraints that a lot of people here are hung up about by simply re-encoding the audio of said downloads and burning numerous audio CDs? Would I then not 'own' the downloaded songs?

Sounds like value for money to me ...

No, I believe, the portable music market will explode onto the cell phones that everyone now carry around anyway... The Nokia 3300 may revolutionize portable music. The iPod may be doomed!

[Ugg]

Originally posted by delton05
Why would MS' subscription based service fail, if during the first month someone joins, they can get unlimited downloads!!

One month would be all I needed to get every song I could think of ... How much would that cost with Apple's service?

AND, as I said earlier, would it not be easy to circumvent their timed usability constraints that a lot of people here are hung up about by simply re-encoding the audio of said downloads and burning numerous audio CDs? Would I then not 'own' the downloaded songs?

Sounds like value for money to me ...

No, I believe, the portable music market will explode onto the cell phones that everyone now carry around anyway... The Nokia 3300 may revolutionize portable music. The iPod may be doomed!

Well, it would fail if the labels/artists found out about it. Remember, they control what can be sold. If any service turns out to be a free for all like p2p then it's going to be shut down and the artists/labels will only sell their music to the service that protects their music. I really don't see the subscription/renting idea as being workable. It is too close to what XM offers although there may be some convergence between XM and "rented" music.

The cell phone/digital music player sounds very cool but I think most people like the idea of having ALL their music on one player and the 64 Mb storage that the 3300 offers holds only about 11 hours of music. Until cell phones can offer substantial storage, the ipod will rule.

Who knows though, things can change pretty darned fast.

[bbirdsr71]

Once again Apple leads and Micro$oft follows and copies Apple. The closet idea M$ has ever have is putting the little wheel on the mouse.That innovation! Way to go M$!

[macdong]

Originally posted by delton05
Why would MS' subscription based service fail, if during the first month someone joins, they can get unlimited downloads!!

One month would be all I needed to get every song I could think of ... How much would that cost with Apple's service?


very true. but what are you going to do after that?
unsubscribe?
your music expire.
so unless you keep paying, your music will expire someday.
pay to listen to unlimited downloaded music, or listen unlimitedly to a payed music?
your choice.
me? i go with iTMS.

[Sabenth]

I know this is kind of strange but if apple are porting I tuines over to windows then isnt this more of a gamble on Microsofts part they have to :

1 make there music store do dang doo da much better
2 make it avalible to the world not just the usa n
3 if MS finaly do make a product that dosnt crash or burn everytime you stick somthing in it then it might be a good product for a change ..
4 apple could always start selling more i life stuff to windows users is say sell because its a privlige to own mac software were as owning windows software is more of a night mare..

5 so whose copied who whos had a mulit audio player softwre thing first windows or mac..

6 dose anyone really care what i am saying because i dont think i do
7 Mac this windows that for once cant we all just get along ...

AND I OWN BOTH MAC AND PCS BOTH WITH THE LATEST VERSIONS OF BOTH OPERATING SYSTEMS AND I FIND JAG RUNS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN XP.. BUT WINDOWS DOSE MORE THATSALL... FOLKS

[macdong]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sabenth
1 make there music store do dang doo da much better

from what we've seen, M$'s music store is already crap.

2 make it avalible to the world not just the usa n

There are as many hackers in asia, if not more.
especially china.
if M$ can't even make their music store secure enough in US, the record company won't allow them to go international.

3 if MS finaly do make a product that dosnt crash or burn everytime you stick somthing in it then it might be a good product for a change ..

yeah... but what was the last time this happened? ;)

4 apple could always start selling more i life stuff to windows users is say sell because its a privlige to own mac software were as owning windows software is more of a night mare..

i... don't know about that.. :)

[sinclairZX81]

Originally posted by delton05
I'm sick of Mac users claiming that Apple are THE creative ones ... and that MS has never had an original idea ... and that everyone else copies Apple's immense genius.

so let's see a list of Microsoft's greatest innovations then...

[ColoJohnBoy]

You just know any Music Service Micrsoft releases will be clunky, excessively difficult, and clogged with obnoxious advertising. I'd love to see go down in a dazzling flourish of brightly coloured flame.

[tychay]

Originally posted by delton05
Why would MS' subscription based service fail, if during the first month someone joins, they can get unlimited downloads!!

One month would be all I needed to get every song I could think of ... How much would that cost with Apple's service?

The downloads are in Windows Media and are subject to DRM restrictions. This means that they will expire and not play back at all when your subscription ends. Only players that are Windows Media-enabled and have the firmware update to support the "on the go" version will play back these things at all.

If you want downloads that are more permanent, you would get them in a burnable Windows Media format for an extra $.75 to $.99/song. Also note that unlike the iTunes Music Service, currently not all the songs available to listen to are available to download. This means a popular song cannot be purchased. Another thing is you will lose the metadata on the file and MUST waste the extra step of re-encoding the file and tagging it again.

It is not "really easy" to circumvent. Apple's FairPlay is basically digitally watermarked with the account e-mail, but Microsoft's DRM is far more powerful. Circumvention involves having to patch things on the OS level. If Palladium finishes, the file will also be locked based on your exact output hardware also. The only circumvention would then to pipe the data out in analog and back in through a digitizer (decoding, D->A conversion, A->D conversion, and then encoding) which would reduce the quality exhorbitantly. Depending on how restrictive the format you encode to, the file would be watermarked and restricted to only play back on a certain DRM-enabled hardware that you are registered as owning.

Microsoft is not a stupid company. Like Apple, if they find out that their restricted music file format becomes an avenue for piracy, they will come down hard.

BTW, you don't have to wait for Microsoft to launch their own. You can subscribe to such services right now if you have a Windows machine. The only restriction is that there is no way currently the DRM allows you to download the music file onto your portable player. No matter, because you think that circumventing Windows Media Player DRM is "really easy" so you obviously think you have an acceptable, automated way of turning your subscription into downloads.

Take care,

terry

[tychay]

Originally posted by sinclairZX81
so let's see a list of Microsoft's greatest innovations then...

Here they are... (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=microsoft&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=ptxt)