Music Match Downloads Announced

[MacRumors]

USA Today notes (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/internetprivacy/2003-09-29-music-match_x.htm) that Music Match launched their new music download service today.

The new service called "Music Match Downloads" is notable in that it has obtained consistent licensing across record labels (similiar to iTunes Music Store), allowing their users to burn songs as well as transfer songs between players with less restrictions.

These looser restrictions will apparently be also given to existing services, including BuyMusic.com.

MusicMatch plans on offering their service under the Windows Media format. These files are not compatible with the iPod player at this time.

[arn]

Good:

Looser restrictions, so that means Apple will get the same deal.

Unclear:

Apple is the only major player not using WMA. The iPod -- while it has a large market share -- does not play these files. This is either an advantage... in that if people want an iPod they will have to use the iTunes Music Service... or a drawback, in that they will appear to be proprietary and exclusive.

arn

[Laslo Panaflex]

Sorry not for me, ITMS is just so well put together and integrated, plus macs are way better.

Waiting for my G5 to come due in tomorrow!

[CrackedButter]

But AAC isn't proprietary and exclusive because it allows mp3's to run on it as well. But i think it is a mistake to have these services in only .wma and cater for everybody without an ipod for other players that support .wma.

Maybe Apple will be forced to use it and add it to the other formats it supports that way they are not left out. But it depends on how strong the iPod is.

Its pretty silly to lock out the biggest and best mp3 out there as well because all it will do is turn people off these other services thus hurting themselves. If i was a windows users still and i had an ipod, i would simply wait for Apple's music store to come out...no biggy anyway. I still buy my music the old fashioned way and rip them.

[off topic] But strange thing is, i am a mac user and i wouldn't buy any songs anyway off itunes because i cannot get them at the desired bitrate i want. Plus i prefer the original CD. If apple sold them as well alongside the digital albums then i will bite.

[snahabed]

This is what puzzles me... I mean I just assumed that work on iTunes for Windows was largely, or at least partly done, back when iTMS was launched, and that delays were the result of stricter Windows licensing.

But now that's not the case? I don't think this bodes well.... tons of Windows people already use MusicMatch, and it is coming to market first. What will be the incentive to download Apple software now that the iTMS is not unique? We could brush away BuyMusic, but MM seems to be just like iTMS.

I guess they can focus on wma vs. aac, but I don't see all that being persuasive to lay people.

I am looking at MM, and it is just so UGLY. I can't understand how Windows people use low rent software like this :)

[igordi]

I don't think this is good news for apple and the music store. I think that a big part of what made the store a success was the lack of restrictions on the downloads. If all the windows services are now going to receive the same deal then no one from that world will bother giving apple a chance...as usual.

Of course we all know what else they'll be missing but they won't. This is the biggest problem with the battle between Macs and PC's. Almost all Mac users it seems have used PC's and switched at some point for some reason but most PC users have never used a Mac and just don't know whta they're missing. This service now looks like it may have the same problem.

[neilw]

My first reaction was the "good" point Arn mentions above: this should remove any doubt that Apple will be able to get the same restrictions on it's Windows-based service as the current.

I can't figure out how the whole WMA vs. AAC thing is going to play out. I mean, people clearly want iPods, and that isn't going to change in the near future. And Apple has good reason not to support WMA, to push people towards their own service. So it seems to me that as long as Apple can do a good enough job implementing ITMS on Windows, the iPod users will go there en masse. Users of other MP3 players will probably use the other services.

I wonder how the quality of the competitive download services compares to Apple's 128kbps AAC?

[macrumors12345]

Originally posted by arn
Apple is the only major player not using WMA. The iPod -- while it has a large market share -- does not play these files. This is either an advantage... in that if people want an iPod they will have to use the iTunes Music Service... or a drawback, in that they will appear to be proprietary and exclusive.


The key word there being "appear", of course. In reality, AAC is an international standard developed and endorsed by the Motion Picture Experts Group. In contrast, WMA is just Microsoft's own proprietary format.

[dho]

choice=GOOD!

not being compatible with ipods=BAD

hopefully this will be temporary

[MasonMcD]

And if anyone wants to burn a mix to take to a party or something, will the WM9 CD play on a regular CD player?

So you have to take a computer around with you to play your burned CDs?

[arn]

http://graphics.musicmatch.com/graphics/screenshot_pc_8_1_lg_02.jpg


http://graphics.musicmatch.com/graphics/music_downloads_image_02.jpg

remind you of something? :)

[Sol]

Originally posted by macrumors12345
The key word there being "appear", of course. In reality, AAC is an international standard developed and endorsed by the Motion Picture Experts Group. In contrast, WMA is just Microsoft's own proprietary format.

If that is true then can Windows users should be able to play AAC files on their computers. Maybe someone can confirm or deny this for me since I do not use Windows.

I think that the competition is slowly but surely catching up to Apple with the online music stores. No service will work as well as the iTunes Music Store with the iPod but for PC users close enough is good enough.

The ball is now in Apple's court and the next move is theirs to make. Will Windows get its own iTunes before the end of the year? Will international users ever buy music online from Apple? Stay tuned and we'll see.

[crap freakboy]

well...apple typically announced the race but forgot to turn up...bless em. Its beyond me how they
a) havent launched the european version (yes, i know cross-boarder licensing issues)
b) didnt have a windows version ready to roll immediately after the mac version (yes, i know licensing issues)

But in all honesty i'll stick with either ITMS (whens its available in the UK of course) and good old fashioned carracho/limewire/poisoned ...erm ....i mean buying cd's and ripping them.

for me its always been a question of getting the balance between price and bitrate...oh and of course the music available.

[howard]

i hate wmf...the sound quality is awful!!

i can't believe that people would even think about wanting that...

i can't believe people actually use music match..its really clunky and ugly...i used to use winamp when i had a pc...itunes beats the crap out of that...

hopefully itunes will do will!!

i think marketing is key to the success of the itms for windows

[irmongoose]

Originally posted by arn

remind you of something? :)

That's what I was thinking... it is so disgustingly similar to iTMS. But with the ugly, Windows-like touch, of course.

Apple better get their gear going and release the Windows iTunes or they're going to be loosing some valuable customers.



irmongoose

[Stella]

Having anything in WMA totally sucks and is a threat to open standards.

Once WMA becomes dominant, Microsoft will pull a fast one and screw us all over.

[Laslo Panaflex]

Originally posted by snahabed
What will be the incentive to download Apple software now that the iTMS is not unique?

Perhaps that is why apple is looking for people to develop new iPods. If Apple cannot hook people with thier software, they will do it with their hardware. The iPod is hands down the best portable MP3 player out there. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

[mainstreetmark]

There's something here that I don't think anyone has mentioned. Neither service is "exclusive". People who use MusicMatch would have no reason not to try iTMS when it becomes available, because doing so won't preclude them from using what they already know. This isn't like Switching, where you have to make a large financial commitment, and hope all the ads were right. With iTMS/MM, you just buy the song from whomever is selling it, and that's that.

So, iTMS may yet have another advantage: longer time in the field, which could mean more songs and more labels. For me iTMS still doesn't have what I want, but that's what i get for not listening to a ClearChannel radio station.

The big question is why Arn is looking for Christina Aguwhateva in Music Match. Hmm....

[macrumors12345]

There is also an interesting economic angle here. The question is, will MusicMatch (and others) actually make any money?

Remember, after royalties (which are 70% of revenue), bandwidth/server costs, credit card transaction fees (these have to be big, for 99 cent purchases), and development/support costs, iTMS does not actually make much money at all. Steve admitted as much a few weeks ago, and conceded that its main function is to sell more iPods.

It's unclear why the math should be any different for MusicMatch, with the key exception that they do not get any revenue from selling portable music players. To put it another way, Apple could probably afford to lower prices to 89 cents/track if it wanted to. It might make a nominal loss on the iTMS, but that would be more than compensated for if it could attract more ppl to the service, which would sell more iPods. In contrast, if MusicMatch lowered prices to 89 cents/track, they would also be making a loss, but they wouldn't be selling any music players. They might attract more users, but that would actually be a bad thing, as it would simply increase their total losses!

It may turn out that this type of service is only profitable when offered by a company that also produces a compatible music player. However, even then there is a key difference. If Apple is the only major AAC service, then they know that people using iTMS are buying iPods (by far the most popular AAC player...well, it's the most popular portable music player period). If I am Creative Labs, and I offer music in WMA format, which is also what all the other crappy Windows MP3 players are supporting, then there is no guarantee that the people downloading my music are actually buying Creative players (as opposed to the myriad of other WMA players). But if I tweak the music format so that it only plays on Creative players, then I've locked out most of the market, and few people will want to use my service. Of course, the same is true of iTMS music only being able to play music on iPods, but we don't consider that a "restriction" because the iPod is the most popular player anyway. So having big marketshare in the portable player market may turn out to be pretty key.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. For the moment, I think it is in Apple's advantage that they are the only big company, both on the store side and player side, fully supporting AAC (ironic, given that it is an actual standard, as opposed to WMA, which is entirely proprietary).

[miradu]

ok, I've been trying it now for like 5 minutes.

The good: It is just like itunes music store, they have copied everything that they could.

Their Music Match (no pun?) service is their killer feature. They looked through my entire collection of mp3's, and suggested 25 songs I don't own yet. More than that, they have it as a radio feature, so that you can listen to your match'ed music (full songs), and while it's playing it makes a list of what played with buttons to buy.

The bad: The sound quality of the previews is crap. I would say good AM quality, bad FM. No where near a good FM quality preview. [Correction: I had the quality set on low, switched to CD and much better, stil lthe default shouldn't be low] Also, maybe because it's its first day, but the service is really slow. Also, It uses WMP.


I really like the new music match interface, it's jsut like itunes. Very nicely done. Overall it is the best windows music store, and I hope that apple can match it's quality.

[macrumors12345]

Originally posted by Sol
If that is true then can Windows users should be able to play AAC files on their computers. Maybe someone can confirm or deny this for me since I do not use Windows.

Sure. Download Quicktime for Windows and install it. I guarantee you'll be able to play (non-protected) AAC files. Is there a iTunes-type app on Windows that supports AAC? I have no idea.

[macrumors12345]

Originally posted by miradu
The bad: The sound quality of the previews is crap. I would say good AM quality, bad FM. No where near a good FM quality preview. [Correction: I had the quality set on low, switched to CD and much better, stil lthe default shouldn't be low]


Low quality previews as default? Sounds like they're already trying to save on bandwidth costs. That sounds like a pretty stupid way to do it though (not a good way to get ppl to want to buy the songs). As I hypothesized above, it appears as if their margins are pretty thin, and they are trying to cut corners wherever they can. Well, we'll see how it works out.

[miradu]

Music match has always had their free shareware version, so I think that this will help make those users pay money to them, and thus make a profit.

Of note, not ALL thir albums are $9.99, infact while many are, a goold portion of popular ones are at $12.9 or $11.99 (nora jones, coldplay, the ataris... etc) So far all the songs have been 99 cents though.

[miradu]

Unlike apple, they do not register a new TCP/IP protocal (itunes://blah), but use weird javascript to interface between websites and their music store... "javascript:%20gotoPageInUI('album',1417499)", (thats just the function call), IE it will be harder to integrate into websites music you like that you find on the various sites.

[Stella]

Competition is good. You really can't expect Apple to be the sole distributor of online music can you?!

Apart from the music selection, the winner will be the one with the best software to interface with the music store.

Apple should absolutely ensure iTunes for Windows is bug free as possible, and up to iTunes standards of the Mac Version. This is a critical element I think. A music store may have a really good selection of music but if buying music is a nightmare, who wants to use it?

Another threat is competitors using WMA ****e. More and more devices are able to use WMA - Apple can't.

This just may be a turnoff for Windows users - WMA - they know what it is, but few know what AAC is. If they can't put WMA music on their iPods, their going to be pissed.

I'm not saying Apple should use WMA, NOT AT ALL! Of course, iPod has the greatest market share, and people with iPods may not use the WMA services and use Apple instead.. plainly because of this - it works with their iPod. So its the iPod <-> iTMS tie in. However, this could be a theat to people considering their new mp3 player - if more online music stores support WMA more than AAC, they are going to go with the device that offers them more choice of music stores that is compatible with their chosen device - namely WMA. Unfortunately.

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by Sol
If that is true then can Windows users should be able to play AAC files on their computers. Maybe someone can confirm or deny this for me since I do not use Windows.
If I am not mistaken, AAC is MPEG layer 4 (aka mp4) audio. So it is an international standard. BUT it doesn't mean that it is a free format. There are licensing terms for AAC (I don't know if you guys remember but there was a spat between Apple and the consortium that manages mp4 - can't remember the name - when Apple was about to release their first version of Quicktime that included the mpeg layer 4 codecs), and that makes it more expensive than WMA (as usual Microsoft is trying to undercut everyone else to get their format a de-facto standard). That's why there is little incentive for people to develop AAC players, apart from Musicmatch that was the media player bundled with the iPod.

[DTphonehome]

Originally posted by macrumors12345
There is also an interesting economic angle here. The question is, will MusicMatch (and others) actually make any money?

Remember, after royalties (which are 70% of revenue), bandwidth/server costs, credit card transaction fees (these have to be big, for 99 cent purchases), and development/support costs, iTMS does not actually make much money at all. Steve admitted as much a few weeks ago, and conceded that its main function is to sell more iPods.

It's unclear why the math should be any different for MusicMatch, with the key exception that they do not get any revenue from selling portable music players. To put it another way, Apple could probably afford to lower prices to 89 cents/track if it wanted to. It might make a nominal loss on the iTMS, but that would be more than compensated for if it could attract more ppl to the service, which would sell more iPods. In contrast, if MusicMatch lowered prices to 89 cents/track, they would also be making a loss, but they wouldn't be selling any music players. They might attract more users, but that would actually be a bad thing, as it would simply increase their total losses!

It may turn out that this type of service is only profitable when offered by a company that also produces a compatible music player. However, even then there is a key difference. If Apple is the only major AAC service, then they know that people using iTMS are buying iPods (by far the most popular AAC player...well, it's the most popular portable music player period). If I am Creative Labs, and I offer music in WMA format, which is also what all the other crappy Windows MP3 players are supporting, then there is no guarantee that the people downloading my music are actually buying Creative players (as opposed to the myriad of other WMA players). But if I tweak the music format so that it only plays on Creative players, then I've locked out most of the market, and few people will want to use my service. Of course, the same is true of iTMS music only being able to play music on iPods, but we don't consider that a "restriction" because the iPod is the most popular player anyway. So having big marketshare in the portable player market may turn out to be pretty key.

Very good point! I agree with your assesment of the situation. I would add one thing, however. iTMS for Windows, if successful, would have made more Windows users "Apple-aware", as the iPod did. While it's true that Apple probably wouldn't profit much from a successful iTMS for Win, it would certainly help as far as brand-recognition is concerned. I switched because I loved the design of the iPod hardware and software, and wanted to replicate that experience across my entire computing life, not just playing music on the road. Mission definitly accomplished!

[Java]

So to get more features, such as faster burning, you have to pay for the software?Faster MP3 Recorder
Unlock recording/ripping speeds of up to 40x and get cleaner, crisper, richer sound at a fraction of the file size with mp3PRO encoding. So what is the quality for the free version?:p

(part of the paid software). Slideshow
Create personalized montages of photos and graphics that play along with your music, right on your desktop. Does this sound familiar too?

[BlueDjinn]

MusicMatch store songs NOT iPod compatible...

OK, so as far as I can tell so far, the new MusicMatch store is essentially a Windows-based complete ripoff of the iTMS, with the sole exception of using WMA format instead of AAC.

At the same time, Apple has been bundling earlier versions of MusicMatch with the iPod for Windows users.

Herein lies my question: What is going to be the reaction of all those WinPod-owning people when they discover that the music they buy from the MM store won't play on their iPod, even though MM is the software that was included *with* the iPod when they bought it???

Will they blame the iPod for being "defective" or will they blame MM for using an incompatible, closed-standard format?

Furthermore, *until* the Windows version of iTunes is available in another month or two, Apple will almost certainly continue to bundle MM with new iPods, which will make this confusion even more of a headache for both companies, I would imagine.

One thing for sure: Apple MUST get iTMS for Windows out there, NOW!!

[timdorr]

Originally posted by BlueDjinn
Will they blame the iPod for being "defective" or will they blame MM for using an incompatible, closed-standard format?

Unfortunately, because it says Apple on the iPod box, I think that's who they're going to blame :/

[TheFish]

EVREYBODY F@#$ING COPIES APPLE! its so sad, what ever happend to invovation?

[e-coli]

Apple is screwed. Quicktime is well on its way to being a dead format.

Nice job, Cupertino. :rolleyes:

[Java]

Originally posted by e-coli
Apple is screwed. Quicktime is well on its way to being a dead format.

Nice job, Cupertino. :rolleyes:

Quicktime is far from dead. If you understand the power of quicktime, you would see its uses broadening, not shrinking.

[sharky2313]

using a windows format is a mistake as most audiophiles will shun such a crappy sounding way of encoding

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Macrumors
USA Today notes (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/internetprivacy/2003-09-29-music-match_x.htm) that Music Match launched their new music download service today.

The new service called "Music Match Downloads" is notable in that it has obtained consistent licensing across record labels (similiar to iTunes Music Store), allowing their users to burn songs as well as transfer songs between players without restriction.


"Without restriction"? Are you sure about that? I don't see that in any of the "official" materials (not even the USA Today article).

On the other hand, it does state that these are in WMA format, and can not be shared online. Which means they have DRM restrictions. Since WMA is not a centralized control system (AAC/p is), that means that you have the "first generation" copy (full use, one computer) and everything else is "second generation" (severely restricted use, any number of computers). If you unrestrict the second generation copies, then you effectively allow full use over file sharing networks. If you unrestrict the first generation copy then you allow all sorts of burning and 2nd-gen creation, etc, but keep the user from doing any of this on anything but the originally licensed computer.

I may be wrong, but I see NO way to allow for relatively "unrestricted" usage using WMA without effectively skipping the DRM entirely.

[jettredmont]

Still has four problems:

1) Without a different DRM provider, DRM is onerous and difficult. Unresolved: can you actually do anything with these files (ie, burn to disk, use in other applications, etc) on more than one computer, and what happens if you ever buy a new computer to replace the one on which you bought your original files?

2) MusicMatch Jukebox is a pretty crappy MP3 player, IMHO. And, yes, I used it through several generations ... until I started using my Mac and iTunes instead.

3) The press releases aren't telling you that the MusicMatch sorftware itself isn't exactly free. Yes, there is a severely limitted "Basic" version which is free (but your burn speeds are severely limitted for one thing ... and things like more-than-one-at-a-time tagging and volume normalization/leveling are kept out of your grasp), but the good stuff (and the iTunes equivalency in features) is sold for $20 a shot.

4) Files are incompatible with over half of the portable players out there (considering that at last count the iPod had >50% market share in the US and Japan).

Some of these may have been resolved by MM, but I don't see it yet. And, yes, this is far tougher competition than BuyMusic could ever dream of being, but that's really a half-assed compliment ...


[edit: two ... four ... who can count that high anyways :) ]

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Sol
If that is true then can Windows users should be able to play AAC files on their computers. Maybe someone can confirm or deny this for me since I do not use Windows.

Yes, Windows users can play AAC files on their computers, as can Linux users.

However, Windows users (and Linux, etc, users) do not have a FairPlay client on their systems. QuickTime 6.3 is a FairPlay client.

A FairPlay client is required for the playing of AAC/p files as sold on iTMS. You can use other methods for DRM protection under AAC, but FairPlay is Apple's method. Without that, all iTMS music is confined to your Mac.

Of course, Apple has committed to bring iTMS to Windows this year, which most likely means bringing their FairPlay client over, which in turn means that your iTMS music is truly cross-platform.

Note also that perhaps by end of year the WMA/p music sold by BuyMusic et al will also be compatible with your Mac, assuming MS gets WMP 9 out of beta and shipping by then.

[sigamy]

Apple should have never used "AAC" in its marketing. It should have used "MP4". Lay people would then have seen that this is the "next generation" of MP3s...I hope I'm not making the general public sound too stupid. It's just that normal people don't care about this stuff as much as we do.

Just look at the Pentium. They had to go create a name so that they'd have something to copyright. Then instead of creating new names for each revision they just dump a number at the end. This makes it nice and easy for people buying PCs at Best Buy or Dell.com.

The whole WMA vs. AAC battle is going to be interesting. Apple should have pushed "MP4" and then they could use tag lines like, " the world's first MP4 player and service"

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by snahabed
I am looking at MM, and it is just so UGLY. I can't understand how Windows people use low rent software like this :)

I hear that.

I used MM for the first time recently - IT WAS SO AWFUL.

Sometimes we mac users forget how spoilt we are.

H

[jmerk]

i can't believe that they let this opportunity slip away.
a lot of good points have been made about why .wma sucks and aac is good but think about it, if someone is perfectly happy with a beige painted metal box and a beige plastic crt on their desk because they got it <$499 do you think they are going to even understand/care that they are getting a bargain basement, proprietary codec?
how does apple come out with the first and definitive online music store (not subscription based i mean), announce a windows version "soon" and then get burned?!
i mean, they obviously had the licensing experience by working with labels for the mac version, exhibited how succesful it would be and how labels would be protected, AND they have the interface already (iTunes)!
so, that left them with figuring out how to get an audio codec that would work on windows...someone already pointed out that Quicktime for Windows will play .aac files! they couldn't do this in 6 months?!
how tough is it to tweak iTunes to use this tech to get iTunes Music Store for Windows to do this?
Quicktime is great, AAC is great but as usual, MS releases "good enough" crap (.wma) and says "it's the standard", lemmings get in line, third party developers release a ripped off app (music match), game over for superior technology.
don't believe me? reference the past twenty years of desktop computing history...

p.o.'ed in minneapolis

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by sigamy
Apple should have never used "AAC" in its marketing. It should have used "MP4". Lay people would then have seen that this is the "next generation" of MP3s...I hope I'm not making the general public sound too stupid. It's just that normal people don't care about this stuff as much as we do.


I disagree. "AAC" is the name of the audio standard (which is one of many ways of encoding audio in an MPEG-4 stream). "MP4", by the way, was already commonly used to describe MPEG-4 files, and also already had a distinct connection with online movie "piratting" operations. MP4 would have been a horrible name to use.

Also, enough people are already confused with the MPEG-1/layer3 being called "MP3" that "MP4" is still said to be "like MP3, but one better!". MP3 was a horrible name to begin with ... time to break that cycle :)


The whole WMA vs. AAC battle is going to be interesting. Apple should have pushed "MP4" and then they could use tag lines like, " the world's first MP4 player and service"

Except, of course, that Apple is not offering MP4's. It is offering AAC or "MPEG-4 audio" if you stretch definitions a bit. Saying you are selling MP4 means that you are selling movies: audio + video.

That would just get people excited and then let down :)

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by jmerk

i mean, they obviously had the licensing experience by working with labels for the mac version, exhibited how succesful it would be and how labels would be protected, AND they have the interface already (iTunes)!
so, that left them with figuring out how to get an audio codec that would work on windows...someone already pointed out that Quicktime for Windows will play .aac files! they couldn't do this in 6 months?!


I believe the delay is still with the labels, not with Apple's software (personally, I can assure you that Windows iTunes has been in development a lot longer than Apple has let on ...)

And, thinking from the label's perspective, it makes obvious sense: you don't want anyone to gain a monopoly in the distribution channel. No industry wants that. Apple got a great lead, an awwesome jump up on the nascent "competition", and from the RIAA's perspective it's, "Okay, that was your turn, now back to the end of the line and we'll take your next step after all these other guys".

From Apple's side, QT AAC playing is done on Windows, has been since the beginning of this year if not sooner. FairPlay should be a fairly easy task, but I can't say for certain. The more time spent polishing iTunes/Windows the better, but I doubt there is not a working product ready to roll out as soon as possible. The key is, and has always been, that the label contracts for iTMS were "probationary" and experimental, to be expanded or ended at a later date depending on how things went.

[new user]

the whole reason i'm eagerly awaiting my pb delivery is because i'm done with the whole ms world, wma and music match included.

it's going to be a tough fight for apple, ms probably has most third party developers in its pocket, what other reason would you think of for adapting wma standard.

still with the news, i'm leaning that it's more of a development issue holding back the window music store. if music match and their relatively weaker industry pull can strike a deal, apple probably has one set up already too.

[jocknerd]

Originally posted by NicoMan
If I am not mistaken, AAC is MPEG layer 4 (aka mp4) audio. So it is an international standard. BUT it doesn't mean that it is a free format. There are licensing terms for AAC (I don't know if you guys remember but there was a spat between Apple and the consortium that manages mp4 - can't remember the name - when Apple was about to release their first version of Quicktime that included the mpeg layer 4 codecs), and that makes it more expensive than WMA (as usual Microsoft is trying to undercut everyone else to get their format a de-facto standard). That's why there is little incentive for people to develop AAC players, apart from Musicmatch that was the media player bundled with the iPod.

I was about to say the same thing. Apple users seem to be gung-ho about claiming how "open" AAC is. The standard may be open, but mpeg-4 is so expensive, there will be very few developers for it.

WMA may win out in the end because its cheaper. The company that licenses mpeg-4 needs to drop their prices if they want to compete.

Personally, I don't see why Apple doesn't just switch to ogg vorbis and put their DRM wrapper around it. Sure, AAC supposedly sounds better at lower bitrates but above 128, Ogg Vorbis pretty much mops up AAC.

[Uragon]

Originally posted by Macrumors
USA Today notes (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/internetprivacy/2003-09-29-music-match_x.htm) that Music Match launched their new music download service today.


MusicMatch plans on offering their service under the Windows Media format. These files are not compatible with the iPod player at this time.

Dell is the iPod

Music Match is the iTunes

[iPC]

So how long until iPod supports WMA? Obviously AAC and mp3 are not enough. Ogg would be nice too...

*sigh*

As to the open vs closed file format debate...

[stingerman]

There is a license fee for WMA too. And, people are not buying the iPod because it is from Apple, but because it is the best MP3 player out there. It has already hit critical mass and everything else is considered a poor man's version. So, people would be embarrassed to be seen with an iPod imitation.

That being said, Apple has not sat on its laurels. Their pace of iPod innovation has been brisk, and iPod sales are still Apple's #1 computer device, even though the new Powerbooks are breathing down its neck followed with the G5's. With so many iPod users Apple has a huge audience for its store.

MM simply is not compatible with AAC DRM and very few older MP3 players can play WMA with DRM files, they require significant processing power. (Apple has two ARM processors in the iPod.) So, not only will MM buyers need to buy a new MP3 player, but they will need to buy a relatively pricey one. Given the choice, the user would instead buy iPod and thus use the iTunes Music store.

Financially, Apple is making a killing on iPod sales and they can justify a huge marketing budget for it. Really, iPod sales are the goal for Apple while braking even with the music store. MM has no such luxury and they will be losing money on their store for some time. buymusic.com likewise is in poor financial shape and it is questionable if is parent buy.com will even be in business a year from now.

Apple is in a really good position.

[Photorun]

Damnit Apple! You should have had the Windoze iTunes ready or almost ready to go when the music store went live. They opened this huge can of worms and Apple's doing their usual job of running behind, too far to capitalize on a good idea.

[Photorun]

... and BTW, WMA format sucks donkey doo!

[e-coli]

Originally posted by Java
Quicktime is far from dead. If you understand the power of quicktime, you would see its uses broadening, not shrinking.

Yes, true. I fully understand that QuickTime is a far superior format. The trouble is, the rest of the world doesn't. And MS has been very busy marketing WM format, and making inroads into nearly every market sector. Apple has not.

If 99% of the online music services use WMP format, and one doesn't, which are you going to use? Which player are you going to use, the one that plays 99% of all downloadable content, or the player that plays 1% of the content. Not to mention that the software that comes WITH your windows iPod sells songs you can't even PLAY on your iPod.

See what I'm getting at?

[stingerman]

Originally posted by Photorun
Damnit Apple! You should have had the Windoze iTunes ready or almost ready to go when the music store went live. They opened this huge can of worms and Apple's doing their usual job of running behind, too far to capitalize on a good idea.

The market for WMA with DRM is far smaller than you know. It's all about the MP3 players. And Apple dominates. Apple's window for opportunity in the Windows market is still very large and the competition has a long way to go.

If Apple releases their Windows Music Store before Thanksgiving, they will have performed a coup in the music store business. If MusicMatch has a similar DRM policy from the industry, than they have to give Apple similar rights for Windows, which really was the only risk factor. So MM's release is really positive for Apple.

[stingerman]

Thanksgiving because that marks the start of the holiday buying season. A very important date for that consumer market.

[MasonMcD]

Can I burn a CD that will play in my car or home stereo with the WM9 format?

[MacFan26]

When the iTMS is released for Windows, will it be running through the Music Match software, or will there be a complete verision of iTunes for Windows users? (sorry if this has already been posted)

[PHGN]

My feeling is that WMV9 is an exceptionaly good codec. WMA also, by I know less about it. The file format has much of teh flexibility of Quicktime type formats and the codecs are perhaps beter than almost any other for High quality @ Low-Medium Bitrate.

Shame it's made my M$. Can't like it realy then. Don't knock WMA and WMV as bad codecs. But do knock them for being MS (ie closed source and development = incompatible).

Waiting for AVC. Roumered to give WMV9 a run for its money.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by MasonMcD
And if anyone wants to burn a mix to take to a party or something, will the WM9 CD play on a regular CD player?

So you have to take a computer around with you to play your burned CDs?

Even this may not be an issue for long. I was at Best Buy yesterday and someone was checking out with a CD player with WMA playback.

A good number of new car receivers support WMA also.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by macrumors12345
Low quality previews as default? Sounds like they're already trying to save on bandwidth costs. That sounds like a pretty stupid way to do it though (not a good way to get ppl to want to buy the songs). As I hypothesized above, it appears as if their margins are pretty thin, and they are trying to cut corners wherever they can. Well, we'll see how it works out.

Could be for dial-up users.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by MasonMcD
Can I burn a CD that will play in my car or home stereo with the WM9 format?

Using your WM9 format files, you can burn a "standard" or "audio" CD which will play on "virtually" any CD player (some old players won't take CD-R media, but this is a media issue, and the same would be true if you were making the disk from iTunes or MP3).

So long as the WMA/p wrapper allows for burning of that particular song onto a CD, once you burn it onto a CD it is just the same as any other CD-Audio song (ie, youcan re-rip unprotected if you want to, although you'll end up with a quality loss).

[spankalee]

As far as I understand the DRM features in WMA are standardized (if you can call it that) by Microsoft. I assume this means that a WMA you buy from BuyMusic.com will play in MusicMatch right alongside the songs you bought from MusicMatch.

This could be a big problem for Apple. Even if iTunes for Windows is better than the other players, if iTunes can't play their other songs they'll use another player.

Apple really needs iTunes to become the de-facto stnadard on Windows, so I think they should embrace WMA a little bit. iTunes should be able to play protected WMA files. This way iTunes becomes the more compatible program, being able to play MP3, AAC, and WMA. but when you click on the 'store' button it's Apples store you go to.

The iPod is an interesting issuse as well. Only playing MP3 and AAC gives Apple a huge advantage to current iPod owners. However, not playing WMA could really hurt iPod sales to anyone who has already bought songs from one of the Windows services. There's a few ways to handle this:

1) Apple might be able to transcode from protected WMA to AAC. It's probably legal even without a go ahead from the RIAA, but it'd be a bad idea. They might be able to get the go ahead though, since the AAC files will still be protected.

2) Apple can offer a discount on the same somg from the iTunes Store.

3) Apple can make the iPod play WMA

4) Apple can play the WMA's on iTunes, but not the iPod, thus keeping the advantage for iTunes.

I like option 1. It shows that Apple is not "proprietary" like many think, brings down a roadblock to the iPod for people who have bought WMAs but at the same time keeps people using iTunes and encoding their CDs as MP3's or AAC.

It's going to be an interesting 12 months. Apple can be a big player in the Windows music scene, but they have to make the right moves, some of which might be different thatn what Apple's traditional culture has done in the past.

[iHack]

Originally posted by sigamy
snip.

Just look at the Pentium. They had to go create a name so that they'd have something to copyright. Then instead of creating new names for each revision they just dump a number at the end. This makes it nice and easy for people buying PCs at Best Buy or Dell.com.

snip.

Another reason for counting up to PIV is that the 'pentium' format is rather awkward when it comes to the next generation. It would have been sexium or sextium. Now that would have been a great marketing decision (salesrep: "ma'am, allow me to demonstrate our sexium! It's a lot faster than what you have experienced so far"). Whoever though of pentium obviously didn't think of the future...

M.

[inkswamp]

I see so many Apple users freak out every time some competitor announces an iPod/iTunes-like service (and even now, the ever-popular parasite Dell is added to that list.) I don't see it as a bad thing. Thus far, every other service has had some fatal flaw. Mainly, it's been overly tight restrictions on how a customer can use the downloaded music. Now, we're seeing the test case for whether or not people will balk at the idea of using a proprietary format like WMA (most Windows users that I know can't stand WMA so I think this is effort is DOA.) The more would-be competitors this weeds out before iTunes for Windows is announced, the better! Think about it. All these near-hits before iTunes comes along and does it right. In a sense (assuming that this one falls flat a la buymusic.com too) this is a fantastic thing for Apple. Let the competition throw themselves on their own swords while Apple is still gearing up for the fight. Sounds like a good strategy to me. :D

So please, everyone, mellow.... Apple didn't become the company they are by being shortsighted and incapable. I'm sure iTunes for Windows will wipe up the competition. Remember, there were plenty of Mac-compatible music services out there before iTunes for Mac. Why don't they own the Mac download market the way Apple currently does? Because they, in a nutshell, sucked. None of them stopped iTunes from being the success it is, and none of these half-arsed attempts at Windows music downloads will stop iTunes for Windows from being the success we all know it will be.

[mjsla]

I used the MM music store today and it doesn't even come close to iTunes Music Store.

[BlueDjinn]

Originally posted by mjsla
I used the MM music store today and it doesn't even come close to iTunes Music Store.

Could you expand on your answer? i.e., what don't you like about it, beyond the WMA format issue? Selection? Interface? Integration? Audio quality?

I'm not trying to be glib, I'm honestly curious.

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Using your WM9 format files, you can burn a "standard" or "audio" CD which will play on "virtually" any CD player (some old players won't take CD-R media, but this is a media issue, and the same would be true if you were making the disk from iTunes or MP3).


I don't think it's a media issue. I think it was a deliberate drive mechanism issue. It's not all "old" cd players. It's cd players that were made 5-7 or so years ago. I have a Sony CD Boombox that's 10+ years old. Handles CDR's fine. So do all the old school square form discmans.

I think at some point back manufacturers tried to switch to different CD mechanisms. Either to save costs or (conspiracy theory) to make CD players incompatable with burned CD's to preemptively strike at copied CD piracy. But like all their anti piracy plans. They enacted it too late. People already were well into the burned audio CD mindset and too many people legitimately copied CD's for mix discs, ect. So they had to go back.

I never understood why CD player packaging started featuring promenently "CDR/RW Compatable" labels. I never had any problem with it before then and hadn't needed to buy a new player in years.

[LinuxGigolo]

Originally posted by jmerk
i can't believe that they let this opportunity slip away.
a lot of good points have been made about why .wma sucks and aac is good but think about it, if someone is perfectly happy with a beige painted metal box and a beige plastic crt on their desk because they got it <$499 do you think they are going to even understand/care that they are getting a bargain basement, proprietary codec?

I don't think they will necessarily 'understand', but I do think they will care. And they'll continue to use Kazaa until a better 'legal' system comes along. If the music sounds like crap (which WMA really doesn't.. until it gets way low in the bitrate), they won't pay for it.

[LinuxGigolo]

What does Apple really have to lose by adding WMA+DRM support to the iPod? They've already said that they're not making money on the music store and probably won't. The real money is in iPod sales. So what's it gonna hurt to support one more format? It may even INCREASE iPod sales.. which will, potentially, increase mac sales (once the new iPod owner sees the light).

[singletrack]

Originally posted by macrumors12345
Sure. Download Quicktime for Windows and install it. I guarantee you'll be able to play (non-protected) AAC files. Is there a iTunes-type app on Windows that supports AAC? I have no idea.

Since I've got a spare PC doing nothing, I use Quinnwares Quintessential Player http://www.quinnware.com/

It has an MP4 plugin which plays all my iTunes ripped AAC files fine. It's about as close to iTunes as I've managed to find for the PC and even has an iTunes skin.

Musicmatch was terrible although I'll have to look at it again if they've updated the normal player.

IME, Nothing beats iTunes for managing your library. I share the folder on my PC with my Mac and only manage the files using iTunes.

[singletrack]

Originally posted by LinuxGigolo
What does Apple really have to lose by adding WMA+DRM support to the iPod? They've already said that they're not making money on the music store and probably won't. The real money is in iPod sales. So what's it gonna hurt to support one more format? It may even INCREASE iPod sales.. which will, potentially, increase mac sales (once the new iPod owner sees the light).

Presumably they'd have to licence the format from Microsoft. I've no idea if that's commercially sensible or even politically ok given recent quotes from Apple about Microsoft's method of creating 'standards'.

[SiliconAddict]

I was afraid of this.
I don't believe that Apple has any choice but to eventually support WMA. While the ipod has the largest % of devices in the market they don't own a higher % of the market then all other devices combined and of those devices the majority supports WMA.
Most other users that don't have an iPod won't consider iTMS simply because their device won't work with ACC.
I'm still holding out hope that iTunes will allow AAC to WMA conversion allowing anyone with any device to use iTunes.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by macrumors12345
There is also an interesting economic angle here. The question is, will MusicMatch (and others) actually make any money?

Remember, after royalties (which are 70% of revenue), bandwidth/server costs, credit card transaction fees (these have to be big, for 99 cent purchases), and development/support costs, iTMS does not actually make much money at all. Steve admitted as much a few weeks ago, and conceded that its main function is to sell more iPods.

It's unclear why the math should be any different for MusicMatch, with the key exception that they do not get any revenue from selling portable music players. To put it another way, Apple could probably afford to lower prices to 89 cents/track if it wanted to. It might make a nominal loss on the iTMS, but that would be more than compensated for if it could attract more ppl to the service, which would sell more iPods. In contrast, if MusicMatch lowered prices to 89 cents/track, they would also be making a loss, but they wouldn't be selling any music players. They might attract more users, but that would actually be a bad thing, as it would simply increase their total losses!

Yes! YES! Apple just lowers prices and destroys the competition! How ironic!

Originally posted by MacFan26
When the iTMS is released for Windows, will it be running through the Music Match software, or will there be a complete verision of iTunes for Windows users? (sorry if this has already been posted)

It'll be iTunes. Apple had a job posting awhile back for someone to work on that project.

Originally posted by iHack
Another reason for counting up to PIV is that the 'pentium' format is rather awkward when it comes to the next generation. It would have been sexium or sextium. Now that would have been a great marketing decision (salesrep: "ma'am, allow me to demonstrate our sexium! It's a lot faster than what you have experienced so far"). Whoever though of pentium obviously didn't think of the future...

M.

i would have bought a Sexium.

They could have called it the Hexium though.

[tizza]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
I was afraid of this.
I don't believe that Apple has any choice but to eventually support WMA. While the ipod has the largest % of devices in the market they don't own a higher % of the market then all other devices combined and of those devices the majority supports WMA.
Most other users that don't have an iPod won't consider iTMS simply because their device won't work with ACC.
I'm still holding out hope that iTunes will allow AAC to WMA conversion allowing anyone with any device to use iTunes.
This is the crazy thing about standards like mpeg4 (aac) when you have a big player like MS - they can come up with their own format and then, simply because of their size, more people will end up using their format rather than the latest standard!! Crazy!!

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by SeaFox
I don't think it's a media issue. I think it was a deliberate drive mechanism issue. It's not all "old" cd players. It's cd players that were made 5-7 or so years ago. I have a Sony CD Boombox that's 10+ years old. Handles CDR's fine. So do all the old school square form discmans.

I think at some point back manufacturers tried to switch to different CD mechanisms. Either to save costs or (conspiracy theory) to make CD players incompatable with burned CD's to preemptively strike at copied CD piracy.


I believe you are correct regarding cost. Yes, most first-generation CD players (first-generation being a very broad definition) will play CD-R's just fine. I also had an old Sony player that played my CD-R burned mixes like a charm until one too many moves and Mr Murphy stepped in to take it away from me.

Sometime in the early 1990's the industry moved to cheaper laser pickups which didn't have any measurable effect on most consumers and pressed CD's. However, alongside these, the "audiophile" lines continued to use more "forgiving" (and more expensive) pickups. This was always a quality issue (the better pickups forgave scratches a lot better than the cheapos did as well ... until my Sony died I never found a CD it couldn't read, including those that refused to play on my friends' and roommates' newer players).

However, the core issue is of media. The difference between a CD-R-compatible pickup and a CD-R-incompatible pickup is that the CD-R compatible pickup is more sensitive to reflections and the "shape" of CD-R "pits" ... The point being: this has nothing to do with the music being put on it, and especially not the historical source of said music (AAC or WMA or MP3 or WAV). It is a physical-layer incompatibility.

Back to the point: given that in most cases a CD player you buy today will at least be compatible with CD-R media (if not also CD-RW), there is no issue with playing a WMP-generated CD.

You can, alternatively, burn the WMA files themselves to disk (just as you can MP3 files), which allows about 10x as much music to fit on the disc, but then you are not talking about a CD-Audio disk at all, but a CD-ROM containing WMA/MP3 files. Some special players (more and more each day) can read such data disks and decode the WMA/MP3 files therein. But that is completely separate from pure CD-Audio.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
i would have bought a Sexium.

They could have called it the Hexium though.

Now come on. You've seen the Bible-thumpers wailing in protest over Harry Potter. Do you think they'd let an Evil Computer with a "Hexium" gain influence over their weak-minded children?

[iHack]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Now come on. You've seen the Bible-thumpers wailing in protest over Harry Potter. Do you think they'd let an Evil Computer with a "Hexium" gain influence over their weak-minded children?

Yay, a Hexium and Windows by the Gates of hell. :D

I like where this thread is going! What was the topic again?

M.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by jettredmont
However, the core issue is of media. The difference between a CD-R-compatible pickup and a CD-R-incompatible pickup is that the CD-R compatible pickup is more sensitive to reflections and the "shape" of CD-R "pits" ... The point being: this has nothing to do with the music being put on it, and especially not the historical source of said music (AAC or WMA or MP3 or WAV). It is a physical-layer incompatibility.

Just some more background, as an FYI.

Standard CD's work by reflecting a laser off a CD surface that has pits and lands representing zeroes and ones. CD-R's and their brethren work by changing the color of disc, which is coated with chemicals that are susceptible to that stimulation. That simulates the reflective properties of the pits and lands, apparently so well that the original CD players can't tell the difference.

Originally posted by jettredmont
Now come on. You've seen the Bible-thumpers wailing in protest over Harry Potter. Do you think they'd let an Evil Computer with a "Hexium" gain influence over their weak-minded children?

Sexium it is then! (Wait, the fundies wouldn't like that, either...)

I guess Intel isn't cool enough to take them on. Oh well. At least Apple was, with the Apple I, priced at $666.

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Now come on. You've seen the Bible-thumpers wailing in protest over Harry Potter. Do you think they'd let an Evil Computer with a "Hexium" gain influence over their weak-minded children?

And don't forget the stink over Apple's promoting of 'Darwin'.

[mproud]

Apple has the advantage:

THEY HAVE THE iPOD!

Apple is the clear winner. The iPod has name recognition. People own iPods. Lots of people. Infinitely more than the Dell player (since as I'm aware, has not been released yet).

People want to have a music library at their fingertips that they can play wherever they are. This is why people like car steroes! Wow, talk about an old technology!

Ultimately, it comes down to the player. Unless someone can come out with an extremely cheap, sexy music player, which Apple is the current winner in, Apple will remain the heavy-weight (or perhaps I should say "light-weight") champion.

a) AAC isn't playable in WMP
b) The iPod doesn't like WMA
c) People own iPods mainly because of mp3s

So, Apple has truly lucked out as every player is trying to find a new format. By getting the iPod out and about, the release of iTunes and the iTMS will be like GOLD.

[arqsagi]

I would like to see the news in a week or two about how great or bad is this music store, for been comparable it must be about 9 times as the itunes (for the rest of the 95%),

I dont think apple feel presure to support Windows media format since is the competition and the ipod will always be the best of mp3 players

About standards I dont know why many people look at windows media as the best, long before I buy my first mac I have always feel quicktime was easier and with more features than the competition and you can use it for different kinds of presentations (in-demand, broadcast, etc.)

I love my ibook, I love my ipod, I love itunes, I cant wait any more to my powerbook 15 to arrive, well we mac users will always love and support the people we trust this is something no other computer brand have.

Any way apple sure la unch itunes for windows in october before others try to copy again

[Dippo]

You have to remember that Microsoft wrote the DRM, so there is a good chance that it will be hacked eventually.

Just think of the RIAA's reaction when people can share their "protected" music with anyone they want!

Of course this would probably be bad for iTunes as well.

Just a thought :p

[SeaFox]

I wonder if TechTV will have another survey? :D

[mproud]

Has there been a firm release date yet? Will it be at the late October event?

We need a countdown!

[elmimmo]

Originally posted by Sol
If that is true then can Windows users should be able to play AAC files on their computers

NO they cannot. AFAIK.

We are talking about protected AAC, which is a propietary format and the only format iTMS provides, which is only compatible with one portable, Apple's, and they will have to wait until Apple releases iTunes for windows as sole software compatible with that format.

80 negatives votes against 15 postive ones on an initiative to give more choice to the people besides Apple's one, which clearly wants to block any third party to mess with its business.

That attittude reminds me of a word describing an attittude...

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by jettredmont
I may be wrong, but I see NO way to allow for relatively "unrestricted" usage using WMA without effectively skipping the DRM entirely.
And you know perfectly well that the labels won't allow it to happen.

[SiliconAddict]

I'm off to download and try the software right now. If I see ANY suspicious activity on my firewall or so much as a single pop-up from this software I'm done with the trial period. I've found more then a few "free" pieces of software have had strings attached in the way of spyware/adware.

[Update: Cute. Well first off before anything else it required a reboot after the software was installed. There are very few reasons to require a reboot now a day, The only reason is usually if you are dinking with the system and a music player shouldn't be doing this. Yes if I had a CD burner installed it might need its own drivers but I have no burner on this system and right now have no CD drive so it’s a moot point.
Secondly after a reboot the software came up and I scanned for the 3 songs I copied to my local HD. The software realized that the tags weren't up to date and suggested that I edit them. Going into the tag editor crashed the program. :( After closing the app and opening it again things "seem" (Note the "") normal. I might attribute this to Window blinds skinning. Some prog just do not like to be skinned.
I am somewhat amazed by the amount of bloat. MM like many other programs have TSR progs running in the background at startup allowing faster load times of the program. MM has 2 progs running mm_director and mm_tray. These 2 mini prog alone take up 7MB of RAM. Not a lot but considering I'm not even running MM at this point it’s a tad nuts. Upon opening the app it opens 2 more apps, mmjb.exe and mmdiag.exe bring the amount of used RAM to just a tad under 29MB. Now consider winamp at 5.7MB.
Besides that it seems like a decent player.
The coolest feature I've found so far is the ID tagging. Does iTunes have the ability to download tag info from just the file name? Because this is a KILLER APP reason for me to plunk down the cash for this app right now. I have literally thousands of MP3's that I've been going through and hand updating the tag info. If I can automate the process for 20 bucks I will. I'll play with this player over the next few day but I get the feeling I'm going to end up going back to Winamp.
As for the store experience and keeping in mind that I don't have a Mac yet so no "iTunes has that" bitching at me. I like the browsing by Era, and suggestions by what you already own. Its an interesting method. FYI it does ask your permission to scan your files on your system. I read someone was complaining about the default audio quality on the preview. Nit picking. The quality is OK, nothing fantastic and simply clicking the "Radio Quality" to CD it clears that problem up. This would be a very good feature for those on a dial up connection. All in all if Apple doesn't get their **** together soon iTunes for Windows could be dealt a large blow before its even released.

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by Dippo
You have to remember that Microsoft wrote the DRM, so there is a good chance that it will be hacked eventually.

Just think of the RIAA's reaction when people can share their "protected" music with anyone they want!

Of course this would probably be bad for iTunes as well.

Just a thought :p


FYI. Someone already broke the DRM5 encryption that was in their MS Reader E-Books. I think that was summer/fall of 02.

And honestly just because its a MS product doesn't mean its going to be hacked faster then anyone else's product. Look at DVD encryption? They originally said that was hack proof. Look at Sony's encrypted CD's. That was foiled with, of all things, a black magic marker. If Apple makes headway with iTunes for Windows I can bet you it will be cracked within a year or two. Its never a matter of if...but of when.

[MorganX]

Can anyone confirm that MusicMatch uses 160k WMA? I'm reluctant to try because I'm not interested in MusicMatch's player. But 160k WMA downloads might change my mind.

I hope there is a WMA codec upgrade for the iPod. If there isn't, I'll have to look at the Toshiba coming out. AAC is too limited, it's basically iPod/Quicktime and nothing else. I want a small keychain player for times I don't want to lug around the iPod and they're WMA/MP3, so all my iTunes purchases are worthless unless I re-encode from CD.

In addition, I think I'm going to buy myself a PocketPC phone this Christmas and if I can get a good number of MP3 or WMAs on it I can be with one DLDevice most of the time which is something I'm really shooting for.

I don't think there's really much competition between AAC and WMA. It's really not that close IMO. I hope Apple decides to entrench the iPod and the best player period, and not use it to try and push AAC, I don't think they can win. But the iPod can win the best player race.

[new user]

music match is not only going against apple's music store, it's also up against dell's music store.

considering apple and dell would be a big reason why people use music match in the first place, this will more likely than not be a big problem in the future.

if people have to download or (heaven forbid) pay for the app (assuming ipod and dell won't include a competitor software on their product), music match might find themselves less likely to draw people to their product.

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by elmimmo
80 negatives votes against 15 postive ones on an initiative to give more choice to the people besides Apple's one, which clearly wants to block any third party to mess with its business.


What business is that? Last time I checked, Apple wasn't in the Windows music store business.

Nobody wants to "block any third parties to mess with its business". Right now, the iTMS only works with Macs, and the others only work with Windows. So they aren't really in competition. The negetive ratings are because what fundamentally has kept the Windows music stores from taking off is the super-restrictive DRM. Now that is gone. If Apple already had a Windows iTunes I would have no qualms. It would all be a level playing field. But Apple doesn't. So now all the PC knockoffs have a headstart at the customers. The formats are different and the media players can't play each other's files. So people aren't likely to use more than one service. It would either be a hassle launching different apps, or a waste of money rebuying tracks at different stores.

Apple is set to lose its chance at the online music biz on the PC side and the only reason that business really exists is because of Apple pioneering the non-subscription, liberal usage base.

And all this happens after Apple supposedly has been delayed because they couldn't get the record labels to agree to the same DRM standards for the PC they did for the Mac side originally. People were mad at the record labels, blaming their greed for the lack of an iTMS for Windows. We all thought iTunes for Windows was done but unreleased because of these issues. But now, the record labels have "suddenly" dropped the restrictions for MusicMatch AND BuyMusic.com. I doubt they would object to Apple's terms now. They did it to make it clear it was Apple's inability to get iTunes for Windows done that was the real reason we haven't seen it yet. Otherwise it would be out NOW.

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Well first off before anything else it required a reboot after the software was installed. There are very few reasons to require a reboot now a day, The only reason is usually if you are dinking with the system and a music player shouldn't be doing this. Yes if I had a CD burner installed it might need its own drivers but I have no burner on this system and right now have no CD drive so it’s a moot point.

It still has to install files in case you hook up an external USB burner at some point like I do. Also, MusicMatch interfaces with the audio hardware without goig through the system. If I change my output source from the built in audio on my Dell to the USB audio device, I have to relaunch Jukebox to get it to see the change. Not so with other apps.

I am somewhat amazed by the amount of bloat. MM like many other programs have TSR progs running in the background at startup allowing faster load times of the program. MM has 2 progs running mm_director and mm_tray. These 2 mini prog alone take up 7MB of RAM. Not a lot but considering I'm not even running MM at this point it’s a tad nuts. Upon opening the app it opens 2 more apps, mmjb.exe and mmdiag.exe bring the amount of used RAM to just a tad under 29MB. Now consider winamp at 5.7MB.

mm_tray is the system tray icon thingamajig. You aren't required to run it, and I don't. I don't have the director thing running in my processes (I'm not running the current store-compatable version of MMJB, though). But I do have the mmdiag running. I think that a diagonstic/bug reporting system like Windows has for itself. Also, take into account MMJB has CD burning built in, something Winamp does not. So I have 19megs for MusicMatch and 3megs for the diagnostic (if that's what it is).

As for the store experience and keeping in mind that I don't have a Mac yet so no "iTunes has that" bitching at me. I like the browsing by Era, and suggestions by what you already own. Its an interesting method. FYI it does ask your permission to scan your files on your system. I read someone was complaining about the default audio quality on the preview. Nit picking. The quality is OK, nothing fantastic and simply clicking the "Radio Quality" to CD it clears that problem up. This would be a very good feature for those on a dial up connection. All in all if Apple doesn't get their **** together soon iTunes for Windows could be dealt a large blow before its even released.

I'd like to try the store, but I'm running MMJB version 7.5. They charge for each full version number and there's no upgrade path unless you pay double for a lifetime licence. I only bought the one time Plus licence ($20) and don't want to spend another twenty to try the store. If I try to upgrade the software it will take away my Plus registration and so far the store's the only reason I want to upgrade from 7.5. When I registered originally I figured iTunes from Windows would come out and I'd start using it since navigation was better.

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Well first off before anything else it required a reboot after the software was installed. There are very few reasons to require a reboot now a dayActually, it says that it does .. but it works just fine without one.The coolest feature I've found so far is the ID tagging. Does iTunes have the ability to download tag info from just the file name? Because this is a KILLER APP reason for me to plunk down the cash for this app right now. I have literally thousands of MP3's that I've been going through and hand updating the tag info. If I can automate the process for 20 bucks I will.Good catch.

One other thing that I noticed is that its very good at prompting you to actually download (and pay) for music. Being able to buy and save the currently playing radio track, for example, is a great piece of integration that Apple could do well to add into iTunes, where the radio doesn't seem to have much to do with the rest of it.

While its similar to iTunes in many ways, there are enough 2nd-mover features added that I don't think dismissing the client as a copy is really fair. Although, I've had it complain about script errors a couple of times too, which iTunes has yet to do...

-Richard

[reedm007]

So, here's my worry with all of this:

MusicMatch uses WMA. I'm guessing that will basically be true for all music stores released from here on out besides the Apple iTunes music store. People here have argued that:

iPod is the most popular MP3 player, therefore, people won't download WMA files.

Hrm. To me, this could just as easily go the other way -- the iPod can be seen as a niche toy that only supports a proprietary format. (which, of course, isn't true -- WMA is the proprietary format, not AAC) If online music downloading becomes more popular and common through the us of these services, unless EVERYONE uses iTunes music store, people will be upset they can't play their songs on their iPod.. and I'm guessing they'll blame Apple for not supporting WMA, not the other way around.

Plus, another problem nobody has mentioned is: what can you use AAC with on a PC *besides* iTunes and QuickTime? Folks, if you're offered music stores that allow downloading of music that will work seamlessly in your home movies or your slideshows and even in your pro audio apps, vs. a format (AAC) that *only* plays in one particular MP3 player, you will clearly pick the first one. It's just common sense.

Basically, here's what Apple is offering to PC people: A cool MP3 app called iTunes and the ability to download music that will play within that app, burn to CDs, and work on the iPod. It will only work on the iPod, not any other MP3 players, and it will play on your computer, but only in Apple's own app. So, while some people may like iTunes, there are a lot of people who still want to use their favorite MP3 program, and the fact that iTMS only uses AAC may be enough for people to steer clear of it entirely on the PC side.

I don't think we'll be seeing 9 times the sales when Apple releases iTMS for Windows, unless they've got something clever up their sleeves... I'm just worried we'll see the downfall in popularity of the iPod and the downfall in popularity of AAC. But I'd love to be proved wrong.

Here's to hoping iTMS for Windows is taking a long time to be released because they've got something new in "store" for us... (haha, sorry, I couldn't resist)

[SiliconAddict]

There is some massively twitchy things about the UI. The forward and back buttons that allow you to move back a page. I've had some funky experiences with it. Example. I did a search for Fast and the Furious. I have the first CD but want to get the music from the second one. I do a search. Click on the album. The site basically tells me they don't have it yet. This in and of itself I don't like. MM has albums listed that they don't even have yet. (Another example is Underworld.) Only after you click on them do you find this out. Massive waste of time and more likely then not to piss someone off. Why even include it if you don't have it?!?!
The problem starts when you go back. First off you have to double click back because of how it displays titles/tracks it doesn't have yet. It quickly renders the top half of the page that displays the title and then renders the bottom half that doesn't display anything. This has the effect of making the back button think it's rendered 2 pages and I suppose it has.

Also you can't go back to the results from your search. It clears that out. And even better it occasionally resets the dropdown field that allows you to select Artist, album, track back to artist even though your previous selection was Album. Even when it doesn't reset itself and stays on album when you click search again it acts like the selection was artist and returns results sorted by artist. Apparently the search bar is also part of the internal web interface. I'm not a fan of this. IMHO the search bar should be outside the web interface and the results should be web based. I suppose it makes the UI easier to upgrade in the future but its still somewhat a sketchy method of doing it.
Speed. I have broadband. I've browsed the site occasionally between 12AM CST today and 11PM CST today. The speed is relatively the same: Somewhat slow for previews. Maybe 5-10 seconds? And page renderings. Heh. Also a good 5-10 seconds. I suppose they could be getting slapped around with new users. What really sucks is that there is no throbber. No method of seeing that its attempting to render the page. So I end up sitting there wondering if the its doing its thing or not. All in all it’s a good first attempt. There IS some cleanup that needs to be done. Its not perfect but from comments I've read from the various boards neither is iTunes. Playing with a friend iBook and iTMS I think the interface between the player and the store is a bit more consistent then MM. The MMS has the definite feel of a rushed product. I think there is going to be some major tweaking to the site and the UI before the end of the year. Honestly I did expect this. I've never been all that impressed with MM. Their software has always been slow, clunky, and a PITA to use. This version of the MM player is a major upgrade. Thank god they got rid of the damn metallic skin and went with this toned down version. I think for the time being I'll use MM as my main player. The question I have is should I shell out 20 when I know iTunes for Windows is coming out. As I mentioned before I like the super tagging utility that comes with this software. Unfortunately in typical Apple style we don't have a clue when and what is going to be released for windows. No features no nothing. So I may just go ahead and grab the plus version.

PS- Another thing I noted. *FREE CD-quality radio available for a limited time. get it while you can folks. I wonder how much they are going to charge per month for this service?

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
I did a search for Fast and the Furious. I have the first CD but want to get the music from the second one. I do a search. Click on the album. The site basically tells me they don't have it yet. This in and of itself I don't like. MM has albums listed that they don't even have yet. (Another example is Underworld.) Only after you click on them do you find this out. Massive waste of time and more likely then not to piss someone off. Why even include it if you don't have it?!?!

Because then they have the appearance of having more music than they really have. When they have 500,000 songs by the end of the year like they claim, who's going to go try to download all of them to make sure it's true.

I bet if you email them asking how big a percentage of their catalog is not available, you'll get the same response I got when I emailed BuyMusic asking for the names of a few artists with songs for 79 cents. They gave me instructions how to search for an artist by name.

I've never been all that impressed with MM. Their software has always been slow, clunky, and a PITA to use. This version of the MM player is a major upgrade. Thank god they got rid of the damn metallic skin and went with this toned down version.

Haha. That was the main reason I used Winamp on my mom's PC years ago. The metalic skin on MusicMatch was so butt-ugly I couldn't stand it.

[SiliconAddict]

Ugh. That's annoying at heck. I was listening to an alternative music station and heard something I liked. I clicked on add to wish list. A few minutes ago I decided to make an initial test purchase to see how well the process goes. It took me about 10 minutes to figure out that to get to my wish list I have to start up a radio station then in the track listing right click and select view wish list. Crappy logic there. I went to download White Wings and low and behold [see image below]
I can guarantee you this is going to piss off A LOT of people. I know I am. I was expecting something that I added to my wishlist to be available for D/Ling. Sorry but this music store sucks. If I can't guarantee that what I add to my wishlist or what comes back from a search is actually available what's the point other then wasting my time? :mad:

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
I can guarantee you this is going to piss off A LOT of people. I know I am. I was expecting something that I added to my wishlist to be available for D/Ling. Sorry but this music store sucks. If I can't guarantee that what I add to my wishlist or what comes back from a search is actually available what's the point other then wasting my time? :mad:

They're Windows users. Sadly, they're used to it.

But Apple will probably still win.

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by MacFan26
When the iTMS is released for Windows, will it be running through the Music Match software, or will there be a complete verision of iTunes for Windows users? (sorry if this has already been posted)
There will be a iTunes for Windows, IIRC.

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by tizza
This is the crazy thing about standards like mpeg4 (aac) when you have a big player like MS - they can come up with their own format and then, simply because of their size, more people will end up using their format rather than the latest standard!! Crazy!!
It's not because because of MS's size (even though that stems from it), but because when the MP4 consortium announced their licensing terms, MS decided that THEIR licensing terms should be almost NIL. It's called 'dumping' when Japanese carmakers do it to the US market, but it's called 'normal business practice' when MS does it...

Oh well.

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by NicoMan
It's not because because of MS's size (even though that stems from it), but because when the MP4 consortium announced their licensing terms, MS decided that THEIR licensing terms should be almost NIL. It's called 'dumping' when Japanese carmakers do it to the US market, but it's called 'normal business practice' when MS does it...

Oh well.

No. Dumping is having drastic price differences between the products originating country and the rest of the world or region. So, as an example, if Sony sells their PS2 for $500 American in Japan and then drops the price to $300 American here in the US that is what dumping is. (FYI Nintendo charged Sony with just that, Or maybe it was the reverse. Its been a while.) In the case of MS they are charging next to nothing across the board.

[fraeone]

Music Match is a bloated disaster, and I'm not interested in buying *any* music that has DRM. I have 30 year old records, who wants to wager on how many DRM protected WMAs (or even AACs) are going to be around in that long? That combined with the recent studies that CDR media lasts only a couple of years in most cases and we're all getting screwed.

fraeone

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
No. Dumping is having drastic price differences between the products originating country and the rest of the world or region. So, as an example, if Sony sells their PS2 for $500 American in Japan and then drops the price to $300 American here in the US that is what dumping is. (FYI Nintendo charged Sony with just that, Or maybe it was the reverse. Its been a while.) In the case of MS they are charging next to nothing across the board.

I don't think anyone overseas would complain if Apple started dumping Macs :)

[plasticparadox]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
There is some massively twitchy things about the UI. The forward and back buttons that allow you to move back a page. I've had some funky experiences with it. Example. I did a search for Fast and the Furious. I have the first CD but want to get the music from the second one. I do a search. Click on the album. The site basically tells me they don't have it yet. This in and of itself I don't like. MM has albums listed that they don't even have yet. (Another example is Underworld.) Only after you click on them do you find this out. Massive waste of time and more likely then not to piss someone off. Why even include it if you don't have it?!?!
The problem starts when you go back. First off you have to double click back because of how it displays titles/tracks it doesn't have yet. It quickly renders the top half of the page that displays the title and then renders the bottom half that doesn't display anything. This has the effect of making the back button think it's rendered 2 pages and I suppose it has.

Also you can't go back to the results from your search. It clears that out. And even better it occasionally resets the dropdown field that allows you to select Artist, album, track back to artist even though your previous selection was Album. Even when it doesn't reset itself and stays on album when you click search again it acts like the selection was artist and returns results sorted by artist. Apparently the search bar is also part of the internal web interface. I'm not a fan of this. IMHO the search bar should be outside the web interface and the results should be web based. I suppose it makes the UI easier to upgrade in the future but its still somewhat a sketchy method of doing it.
Speed. I have broadband. I've browsed the site occasionally between 12AM CST today and 11PM CST today. The speed is relatively the same: Somewhat slow for previews. Maybe 5-10 seconds? And page renderings. Heh. Also a good 5-10 seconds. I suppose they could be getting slapped around with new users. What really sucks is that there is no throbber. No method of seeing that its attempting to render the page. So I end up sitting there wondering if the its doing its thing or not. All in all it’s a good first attempt. There IS some cleanup that needs to be done. Its not perfect but from comments I've read from the various boards neither is iTunes. Playing with a friend iBook and iTMS I think the interface between the player and the store is a bit more consistent then MM. The MMS has the definite feel of a rushed product. I think there is going to be some major tweaking to the site and the UI before the end of the year. Honestly I did expect this. I've never been all that impressed with MM. Their software has always been slow, clunky, and a PITA to use. This version of the MM player is a major upgrade. Thank god they got rid of the damn metallic skin and went with this toned down version. I think for the time being I'll use MM as my main player. The question I have is should I shell out 20 when I know iTunes for Windows is coming out. As I mentioned before I like the super tagging utility that comes with this software. Unfortunately in typical Apple style we don't have a clue when and what is going to be released for windows. No features no nothing. So I may just go ahead and grab the plus version.

PS- Another thing I noted. get it while you can folks. I wonder how much they are going to charge per month for this service?

You're being unfair in your review of MusicMatch. The reason that MusicMatch displays albums it doesn't have tracks for, is that it recommends music similar to that.

If you subscribed to MusicMatch MX, the premium radio service, you would understand much better. But let me try to explain.
There are 2 tiers of service for MusicMatch MX Radio; Gold and Platinum. Both give CD-quality sound, but Premium allows you to hear music just from one artist. You can hear every song that a specific artist has put out. With Gold, you can hear some music from that artist, and some similar artists/genres. That's why it displays albums it doesn't yet carry -- if you happen to search for it, the program will recommend similar music.

I realize that this is a Mac forum, but MusicMatch is, in my opinion, the best jukebox available for Windows. We MusicMatch users don't knock iTunes, so don't knock us.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by plasticparadox
I realize that this is a Mac forum, but MusicMatch is, in my opinion, the best jukebox available for Windows. We MusicMatch users don't knock iTunes, so don't knock us.

In other news, those of us who drive decrepit Yugos from 1978 do not criticize Mercedes-Benz owners for their choice of vehicle, and humbly ask for the same consideration.

NOTE: I am not comparing MusicMatch to a decrepit Yugo, I am simply pointing out an obvious logical fallacy by means of exaggerated analogy. Please do not act like fools and emphasize the wrong part of my argument or I will be forced to punish you.

[eyelikeart]

so who's wearing panties around here? :eek:

seriously...I've used the MusicMatch jukebox on my dad's HP...it's pretty cool I'll admit...

but as an overall preference...I like the ease of use of iTunes better... ;)

[plasticparadox]

Originally posted by eyelikeart
so who's wearing panties around here? :eek:

seriously...I've used the MusicMatch jukebox on my dad's HP...it's pretty cool I'll admit...

but as an overall preference...I like the ease of use of iTunes better... ;)

Yeah, so do I. My biggest complaint about MusicMatch is that it's bloated. iTunes is 10 times better than MusicMatch.