iTMS Competition Ramping Up

[MacRumors]

This MSNBC article (http://www.msnbc.com/news/916856.asp) describes other services scrambling to ramp up their music distribution services in response to the early popularity of the iTunes Music Store.

After several years of unsuccessfully trying to convince music fans who download songs for free from Internet file-sharing networks to pay monthly subscription fees for access to digital music, suddenly it?s all about the single.

Notable players include Amazon, MSN, AOL (MusicNet), and MusicMatch. While the per-song sales mentality is spreading, News.com notes (http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-1009794.html?tag=fd_lede1_hed) that Microsoft is adding security enhancements to allow current subscription services to work in conjuction with portable music players.

[alset]

If Apple can push their service to windows quickly they will be able to get a strong following and hold it. They would be as difficult to dethrone as M$ is for OS needs.

Then again, if a monthly service gets the edge, people will build a music collection that basically demands that they keep using the service. It's like having a company charge you to access your own CDs. You may get fed up, but you aren't gonna go and start your collection over.

Dan

edit: I have never had first post to a news article, before now. I guess playing a video game instead of going to bed has it's advantages. :)

[ZildjianKX]

I just wish they'd up the music quality in all these online music stores... if I'm going to pay for an AAC/MP3... I want it to be CD quality and then I can downsample it if I want it smaller...

With all these new plans popping up to have secure downloadable music... its going to end up that some standards get obsolete and your music will be worthless in a year or so. Just my $0.02.

[peterjhill]

A good reason for Apple to work hard on iTunes for Windows. The reason these people are moving so fast is that they want to be there first in the windows market-space.

What Apple needs to do is keep the labels happy so that they have the best selection of music. They also need to add features, like "add to wishlist" and customer reviews, amazon has them, I personally like those features and am sure others do also.

This CNet (http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-1009794.html?tag=fd_lede1_hed) article explains how "Microsoft is betting that new security enhancements planned for later this year could make renting music, rather than owning it, more attractive to consumers."

I disagree, and I hope the rest of the market thinks this is a bad idea. Once my computer is authorized by Apple, I don't believe that it needs to check in with the mothership. Therefore, Apple could go down the drain and I could still listen to my music and burn it on to CDs and transfer it to my iPod. With the Microsoft plan, you are hoping that they continue the service, if they don't, you are out on the bricks with no music. If you stop paying, all of your music disappears. I don't want Bill Gates to my the landlord of the content on my iPod.

This is another case of Microsoft trying to push a standard that only benefits them. They want their DRM to be THE DRM (digital rights management). They want to either force Apple to implement their plan on the ipod or coerce all the music labels to work only with "the standard" Look what Microsoft did for web browsers.

I don't want what MS has to offer. I would rather have Apple compete with Amazon, as long as the Amazon solution does not use the MS DRM.

[iJon]

Originally posted by ZildjianKX
I just wish they'd up the music quality in all these online music stores... if I'm going to pay for an AAC/MP3... I want it to be CD quality and then I can downsample it if I want it smaller...

With all these new plans popping up to have secure downloadable music... its going to end up that some standards get obsolete and your music will be worthless in a year or so. Just my $0.02.
i thought 128k aac was right around cd quality?

iJon

[Falleron]

I just wish that Apple had the windows version of iTunes out. Its always the same. Apple comes up with something cool + other people make the money out of it!

[maradong]

Originally posted by alset
If Apple can push their service to windows quickly they will be able to get a strong following and hold it. They would be as difficult to dethrone as M$ is for OS needs.

Then again, if a monthly service gets the edge, people will build a music collection that basically demands that they keep using the service. It's like having a company charge you to access your own CDs. You may get fed up, but you aren't gonna go and start your collection over.

Dan

edit: I have never had first post to a news article, before now. I guess playing a video game instead of going to bed has it's advantages. :)
lol :D

@ topic: one more reason why apple shoudl release the client for windows AND linux ! as otherwise other music services might have fixed their position on winbloze machines...

[Sol]

I am glad Microsoft is going ahead with its subscription model because that leaves Apple with the superior alternative. The Apple Music Store is here today and it works great. The competition is still catching up.

We should not frown at the fact that all these companies want a piece of the music pie; after all, competition will surely drive down prices and improve the services available. Provided that all the music services offer the same content we the people buying the music would be the winners. If on the other hand the record companies tie themselves to one particular service then it would be back to square one for music downloads.

By the way, Roxio recently bought Napster and that would be one service worth looking out for when it is re-launched. I just hope Roxio does not shaft us Mac users like they do with the majority of their software.

[nagromme]

Originally posted by peterjhill: Once my computer is authorized by Apple, I don't believe that it needs to check in with the mothership. Therefore, Apple could go down the drain and I could still listen to my music and burn it on to CDs and transfer it to my iPod.

Yes. You couldn't re-authorize NEW computers if Apple went under, BUT you could still use your music freely and forever at the FULL original downloaded quality, on any brand of portable player, CD player, or computer. How? Just burn your downloaded music to Audio CD, and you can fall back on that version universally forever. Audio CD won't lose any quality from the AAC. But what about when/if you re-rip later, for a computer or MP3 player that Apple's not around to authorize? No problem. Just rip UNcompressed then. No loss, STILL sounds like the original AAC, and NO DRM. True, it will take more storage space for those songs--but we are talking far future, worst case here. Storage will be cheap. Bottom line, you have full-quality, no-DRM use of your downloads forever without limit, at the minor expense of some storage space.

Regarding 128-bit AAC quality: Apple's songs for sale seem to be reviewed as indistingushable from CD. Songs you rip yourself use the "Fastest" rather than "Best" QuickTime AAC encoder, so even at 128 bits they may not equal the quality you buy from iTunes. Not that everyone has the ears or equipment to tell! (And supposedly, Apple is internally is using an even better encoder than QuickTime's "Best"--which you can access to rip files manually IF you have QT Pro.) All 128-bit AACs are not created equal. But I must say, I can't tell any of my ripped 128 AACs from the original CDs, personally.

Regarding iTunes wish list: Defintely a good idea! I use the Shopping Cart (see iTunes Preferences) as a wishlist in the meantime.

Regarding competing services: Others may be first on Windows, but the press will compare them to iTunes and they won't look so good. Then when Apple's on Windows too, the "real thing" will be praised. Let's hope that's sooner rather than later--but it doesn't have to be "first" to succeed. It just has to be soon--and best (which is a given!). As for subscription-based services--that's great, I'm all for choice. I wouldn't choose that personally.

[daRAT]

Maybe some of you are old enough to remember ...

But there was a time when you could not own a telephone, you "rented" the device for about 2$ a month from Ma Bell ...

The phone was just a cheap rotary dial that probably cost the homeowner 300$ over the life of the phone.

If I remember right, it took the courts to make the option of buying a phone possible.

MS's susbscription service has benefits, if for 20$ a month you could download unlimited number of songs to play. Good for the consumer. The bad side is it is greater for MS and it's partners, that is guarenteed money per month, unlike people buying a few songs on an odd scedule, such as myself.

The security thing will win over some record labels, my worry is these labels may force Apple to add tighter security to thier service.

All in all, i'll wait for Itunes for Windows, if MS was smart, they would welcome this and work with Apple on getting it out faster.

Microsoft & Security.

Heh, I just had to say those words together, they don't go well together though...

[caveman_uk]

...and while the respective companies fight it out in the US the other 95% of the worlds population will keep stealing music because no-one seems to care enough to offer us legal downloads....

[iJed]

Originally posted by caveman_uk
...and while the respective companies fight it out in the US the other 95% of the worlds population will keep stealing music because no-one seems to care enough to offer us legal downloads....

This is nearly as important as getting iTMS on Windows. Surely someone else is going to launch other services throughout the world which could take market share that Apple could of had should they ever get round to launching their service outside the US.

[cgmpowers]

Wow, that actually brings back some memories.. I remember actually when we bought our first phone.. Hah. and to think now I've seen cheap phones for less than $10...all over the place. They're also not crap either...

Anyway all about the 3 computer limit. Just burn them to CD & rerip them and then it doesn't matter....

I don't know what loss in quality from AAC to CD then reripped to AAC.. But it worked for me on 1 purchased CD.

Christopher

Originally posted by daRAT
Maybe some of you are old enough to remember ...

But there was a time when you could not own a telephone, you "rented" the device for about 2$ a month from Ma Bell ...

The phone was just a cheap rotary dial that probably cost the homeowner 300$ over the life of the phone.

If I remember right, it took the courts to make the option of buying a phone possible.

[NavyIntel007]

Subscription services are never going to work. Most people like owning things. Who ever rented cds? And if they did, who didn't copy them on a tape? Come on people, Microsoft is like the Catholic Church in that they are totally out of touch with people. I see this happening. Joe Blow joins this service because they have a few songs that he likes that he can't find on iTMS. So he starts paying the $20 a month, downloads about 60 or so songs but can't seem to find any more that he likes. 8 months later, he's realized that hes paid $160 or $2.66 a song! Then he realizes that he can't stop paying because his music will disappear. So basically he goes and downloads Kazaa and downloads them all for free and cancels the service. He's pretty happy with getting it for free.

See, another problem is Microsoft has a major problem in that many of it's customers have been using Napster or Kazaa for years (very few of us mac users do because neither of these were on the mac) and getting music for free. So lets look at age groups of buyers.

Preteen (into Rap music but have no money): will not join this service because they don't have any money and mom says that the $20 a month is already going to little joey to play soccer this year.

HS teen: The little money they have goes to paying other things. They might sign up for this service but when the one month comes around that they don't have $20 to take Sally on a date... bye bye music. And they won't return.

College Student: forget it. Every college student I've talked to says "why pay for your music when there's Kazaa?"

Adult: We have enough bills to pay.

Seniors: See above.

I don't think they would capture many audiofiles either because audiofiles want to keep their music even after Microsoft pulls the plug.

I'll give another example of why this will fail. Anyone remember Divx. No, not the video encoding, I'm talking about those DVD-like disks you could buy for like $10 from circuit city and play in the Divx player you bought from them. But everytime you watch the movie you pay something like $3. Complete and utter failure. These subscription services aren't making any money, now they think they can? Come on corperate america, we're not stupid!

[NavyIntel007]

I definitely agree that Apple should focus on iTunes/Quicktime for linux. The desktop linux market is pretty big and they currently have no options but limewire to get music off the web. Apple could pioneer the service to these users and remind them that OS X is unix based. :D

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by alset
Then again, if a monthly service gets the edge, people will build a music collection that basically demands that they keep using the service. It's like having a company charge you to access your own CDs. You may get fed up, but you aren't gonna go and start your collection over.


Except with Microsoft's service, you never own any songs. You can download anything you want, but you need to keep paying to play. I am sure that their scheme will make it difficult to make backup copies of the files. It won't be in MP3 format, it will almost definitely by WMA files. They control enough of the OS that they can make it difficult to write a program to steal the music. I would not doubt that Microsoft might even disable audio input drivers when DRM music was being played. They could do it. If someone tried to write something to get around it, since it is a monthly service charge to MS, they would have a great incentive to block the release of such applications, perhaps disabling all DRM content of computers running the software hacks. They could do it, since every 30 days, you would need Microsoft's blessings to continue the service. I'll take Apple's DRM any day over anything from Redmond

[sweetaction]

Originally posted by peterjhill
I don't want what MS has to offer. I would rather have Apple compete with Amazon, as long as the Amazon solution does not use the MS DRM.

Amazon is using the MS DRM. Bummer. I believe I read that on either /. or news.com.

Here is the link: http://news.com.com/2100-1032-1008950.html

[davem2020]

i don't know why people are so down on subscription services. for $10 a month with rhapsody I have access to hundreds of thousands of songs. I could never spend the money to buy all those individually. Not to mention the hard drive space it would take. $10/month to have a music catalogue larger than that at tower records piped into my home and office seems worth the price, even if i do not own the music and cannot burn it to cd (i cannot remember the last time i actually played a cd). once they are able to stream their music to cell phones this will be the killer app. no need for cd or mp3 players if you can listen to rhapsody's entire catalogue wirelessly.

[P-Worm]

I don't think it is going to be the first service that will do the best, but rather the service that has the biggest selection. Take a look at file sharing networks. Morpheus had it all for a while until they went a route that brought them less selection. Everyone jumped to Kazaa because they could. They are not bound by any contract whatsoever. I think Apple should be more concerned about getting those indie labels out the door than getting iTunes for Windows. I'm not saying that it isn't important to get that going, but when a service is on a sale by sale basis, it's price and selection that counts.

P-Worm

[HornetOSX]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
See, another problem is Microsoft has a major problem in that many of it's customers have been using Napster or Kazaa for years (very few of us mac users do because neither of these were on the mac) and getting music for free.

Not completely true
.....


Napster Had not only an OS 9 client but even an OS X one

but yes we have never had Kazaa

[Windowlicker]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Apple could pioneer the service to these users and remind them that OS X is unix based. :D

indeed. also the wishlist system would rock. I've actually been wondering, why doesn't apple have some kind of a feedback forum for their products? They could easily look what people (not only beta testers etc) actually want.

[cgmpowers]

Granted MS P2P file swapping is a zillion times more prevelant than Mac's but that's due to Mac's being a tiny sliver of the PC Computer world compared to the Windows deathgrip.

Secondly...I had Napster for the Mac. It worked as well (if not better) than the PC version!! Also, there's Limewire and a few others for the Mac... P2P file copying does exist in the Mac Universe..

Christopher

Originally posted by P-Worm
I don't think it is going to be the first service that will do the best, but rather the service that has the biggest selection. Take a look at file sharing networks. Morpheus had it all for a while until they went a route that brought them less selection. Everyone jumped to Kazaa because they could. They are not bound by any contract whatsoever. I think Apple should be more concerned about getting those indie labels out the door than getting iTunes for Windows. I'm not saying that it isn't important to get that going, but when a service is on a sale by sale basis, it's price and selection that counts.

P-Worm

[NavyIntel007]

Well worst case, Apple will probably only have to compete with Amazon because I imagine Amazon being a web based service. Microsoft and AOL will be much more geared towards the windows world.

I still don't think the millions of Kazaa users are going to jump in droves over to a subscription service where they don't even get to keep their music.

[nagromme]

Originally posted by Windowlicker
I've actually been wondering, why doesn't apple have some kind of a feedback forum for their products?

They do, for nearly every product, available on their web site (including the main OS X feedback page) and within the menus of many apps as well. iTunes has it built in, plus the Store itself has a separate feedback section on its home page. And these feedback forms aren't just for bugs, but for feature requests. I submit periodically--and I try to be very clear about what I'm suggesting and why.

[beatle888]

Originally posted by P-Worm
I think Apple should be more concerned about getting those indie labels out the door than getting iTunes for Windows.

P-Worm


i think they can do this simaltaneously. its not like the windows programmers at apple have to worry about adding labels to iTMS.

[tazo]

Originally posted by Sol
I am glad Microsoft is going ahead with its subscription model because that leaves Apple with the superior alternative. The Apple Music Store is here today and it works great. The competition is still catching up.

We should not frown at the fact that all these companies want a piece of the music pie; after all, competition will surely drive down prices and improve the services available. Provided that all the music services offer the same content we the people buying the music would be the winners. If on the other hand the record companies tie themselves to one particular service then it would be back to square one for music downloads.

By the way, Roxio recently bought Napster and that would be one service worth looking out for when it is re-launched. I just hope Roxio does not shaft us Mac users like they do with the majority of their software.

what are you talking about you got TOAST from roxio and Jam and a bunch of other software from em.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by Sol
I am glad Microsoft is going ahead with its subscription model because that leaves Apple with the superior alternative. The Apple Music Store is here today and it works great. The competition is still catching up.

We should not frown at the fact that all these companies want a piece of the music pie; after all, competition will surely drive down prices and improve the services available. Provided that all the music services offer the same content we the people buying the music would be the winners. If on the other hand the record companies tie themselves to one particular service then it would be back to square one for music downloads.

By the way, Roxio recently bought Napster and that would be one service worth looking out for when it is re-launched. I just hope Roxio does not shaft us Mac users like they do with the majority of their software.
Another affect could be to force Apple to continue to add to the service, both in features, as well as artists. Otherwise, Apple could end up doing what they have done in the past... innovate, then sit on it doing nothing new menawhile everyone else offers something better.

We shall see.

[DGFan]

Originally posted by yzedf
Another affect could be to force Apple to continue to add to the service, both in features, as well as artists. Otherwise, Apple could end up doing what they have done in the past... innovate, then sit on it doing nothing new menawhile everyone else offers something better.

We shall see.

Well, the nice thing about success is that everyone wants a piece of the pie (which is really what this article is about anyway). What that means is that smaller labels are banging on Apple's door trying to get in. Right now the format is the best. The only thing lacking is a complete collection of music but I think that will come with time.

[NavyIntel007]

Having the largest catalog and the least intrusive DRM is key. But in the end, it's going to come down to ownership. People will not want to rent music... period.

[trebblekicked]

Originally posted by yzedf
Another affect could be to force Apple to continue to add to the service, both in features, as well as artists. Otherwise, Apple could end up doing what they have done in the past... innovate, then sit on it doing nothing new menawhile everyone else offers something better.

We shall see.

thats true. competition is good for business. hopefully we'll see the windows iTMS release accelerated, aas well as some improvements to iTMS now (higher bitrate encoding, more songs, more complete albums, more exclusives)

[j763]

Why I don't use the iTunes Music Store

Audio Compression: When you purchase music from the iTunes Music store, it is compressed in 128kbps AAC PROTECTED. This throws up a number of issues.

Firstly, there are many of us whom are anti-DRM to the extent that we wont use it. If you remove the DRM (using Toast) and then convert the uncompressed audio into regular 128kbps AAC Audio, then the sound quality is degraded, on most songs, to an extent that it is clearly audible (even to non-audiophiles). So... Either suffer with the DRM or suffer bad quality. I'll take neither, thanks.

The second issue is this... If you burn a CD, then reimport the music (as mentioned above), quality is degraded. Let's stop and think about the implications of this. What happens if you burn the music from the iTunes Music Store onto CD, your mac HD dies and you want to load the music back on. Well, bad luck. You're stuck with poor quality. What if you burn a CD for a friend... They can't put it onto their computer without losing quality as well. That's very limiting.

Thirdly, it's inevidable that a new audio codec will come out in the next few years that will do a much better job than AAC at the compression:quality ratio. Again, when you convert out of AAC into the new standard, you'll lose quality.

Considering that the iTunes Music Store sells music for sometimes marginally below, mostly above what a CD would cost you at Half.com (http://www.half.com) to get the real CD.

It's impossible for Apple to address these issues and I don't hold them responsible for the recording industry's stupidity. These issues will affect all music services, not just Apples.

The freedom and flexibility I gain from purchasing actual CDs far outweighs the occasional meagre savings available at the iTunes Music Store.

(If you haven't checked out Half.com, you might want to. Very cool way to buy music.)

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by j763
Firstly, there are many of us whom are anti-DRM to the extent that we wont use it. If you remove the DRM (using Toast) and then convert the uncompressed audio into regular 128kbps AAC Audio, then the sound quality is degraded,
Well, I guess you will have to stick with buying CDs then. ITMS is made for convience.

What happens if you burn the music from the iTunes Music Store onto CD, your mac HD dies and you want to load the music back on. Well, bad luck.
You can easily make a data CD with the original AAC files. I know I have. Apple recommends doing this to prevent what you are worried about. So what if my HD dies, I can reinstall my OS, reauthorize my computer, reload my AAC files and I am good to go. There is the issue of the computer not being unauthorized and limiting me to only 2 computers. I am not sure how apple will deal with that. I only use one computer (PBG4) and won't worry about it until my second HD fails. I doubt it will happen.

Thirdly, it's inevidable that a new audio codec will come out in the next few years that will do a much better job than AAC at the compression:quality ratio. Again, when you convert out of AAC into the new standard, you'll lose quality.

When that happens, I am sure apple will support both the new standard and AAC. I can't imagine it will save much disk space over AAC. AAC is pretty damn good IMHO. Why reconvert the AAC into mpeg-5 or whatever. Disks are only getting larger and cheaper. Not a compelling arguement to me.

Considering that the iTunes Music Store sells music for sometimes marginally below, mostly above what a CD would cost you at Half.com (http://www.half.com) to get the real CD.
Add shipping to that. I don't need anymore physical CDs. I have quite enough. They take up alot of space. Maybe ITMS is not for you. It certainly works for me.

[Titian]

Originally posted by ZildjianKX
I just wish they'd up the music quality in all these online music stores... if I'm going to pay for an AAC/MP3... I want it to be CD quality and then I can downsample it if I want it smaller...

With all these new plans popping up to have secure downloadable music... its going to end up that some standards get obsolete and your music will be worthless in a year or so. Just my $0.02.

Music quality has never been of any interest for the major music companies since the CDs came out. Today music is nothing else than any object that has to be sold as much as possible and then thrown away as soon as possible because the next piece has to be sold. It is not worth to move a finger for those people (maybe 0.000001 %) who are a little bit educated musicaly and can hear the difference between a natural sound and a computerized one.
Online music stores is just the next step of treating music as a junk object and to take more money out of people's pockets: eat and throwaway...
In this context it is funny to talk about music quality.

[jwthomp]

What Apple should do is find a successful partnership arrangement with Amazon.

The reason is that Amazon is very successful at mainting a site with customer reviews, feedbacks, and affilliates. Amazon also has the capability to alternately allow a customer to purchase the music physically if they would like.

Apple's strength is providing the software that lets you access the store and purchase music in an integrated fashion.

If Apple does not find a strong industry partner, then they may get pushed out due to competition in the Windows arena. Whether this is Microsoft, Amazon, or simply a host of other third party offerings. By partnering with Amazon they have the opportunity to become the defacto standard and in such a way that Microsoft cannot leverage Apple out. This of course requires some long term arrangements with Amazon so they do not allow Microsoft to build software that directly interacts with the service and earn a percentage on the sales rather than Apple.

-Jeff

Jeff Thompson
CTO, CodeTek Studios, Inc.

[areyouwishing]

i think that ideally Apple needs to partner with amazon, it is so win win its disgusting.

remember when cdnow was cdnow, and not amazon, having previews of every single song on most albums, and now they don't do that when amazon bought them, Apple could fill in this hole, and Amazon (cdnow) could use aac (quicktime for windows) for the 30 second previews. Or when someone visits the ITMS if they don't like the encoding quality, there is an option to buy the album from Amazon.

win....win

[peterjhill]

I am not so sure Apple should partner with Amazon. Apple has the partnership deals with the studios. Why share it with Amazon and lower their take? Windows users still need a way to play protected content. The studios are not going to let Apple or anyone do anything with the music, if it does not protect their interests. That is why Apple is working on iTunes for Windows. Once that is released, there is no need to partner with Amazon.

Amazon might win with an Apple partnership, but in reality, they will probably do better with a relationship with MS who would love for Amazon to sell products that only work with their media player.

Apple needs to release iTunes for Windows in the next four or five months. If it does, it has a chance to do pretty damn well.

[Sonofhaig]

Originally posted by Falleron
I just wish that Apple had the windows version of iTunes out. Its always the same. Apple comes up with something cool + other people make the money out of it!

You're so right! Let's hope that the Windows version will be out by Summers end. I'm so tired of hearing about the PC world from fellow colleagues. They have little idea of the crap they really work with.

[coolsoldier]

I think Apple already has some sort of deal with Amazon...since the "1-Click" term they use in iTMS is Amazon's trademark (Says so in the "About iTunes" window)

[Frozone]

Come on Apple, HURRY HURRY HURRY. Maybe we will know about when it will be ready at WWDC. Or maybe Apple could even release it for Windows or go International with it at WWDC. God I only hope. But maybe Apple will start to see how many Companies are on there trail and speed up the porting.

[SoonToGetAMac]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
I think Apple already has some sort of deal with Amazon...since the "1-Click" term they use in iTMS is Amazon's trademark (Says so in the "About iTunes" window) Yeah, I remember reading about the whole 1-Click 'technology' a few years ago.

[guifa]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Come on people, Microsoft is like the Catholic Church in that they are totally out of touch with people.
Watch it. There are Catholics on this board, thank you very much. Make your comparisons with something else.

[SoonToGetAMac]

Originally posted by guifa
Watch it. There are Catholics on this board, thank you very much. Make your comparisons with something else. If you want to offend more people, you can compare Microsoft to Apple :D

[Wry Cooter]

Originally posted by jwthomp
What Apple should do is find a successful partnership arrangement with Amazon.


Who do you think Apple is licensing One-Click from?

Unfortunately, you might see the song availability from iTMS diminish as the labels try to follow Apples lead on using a successful combination of business models, to have everything fall apart again.

I see AOL doing this, with Warner content (I think they are out of bed with BMG, but that was openly available to them) to help AOL subscriptions. (Hey, don't you need a dot mac account for the iTMS? or at least an apple account)

And I see Microsoft doing this, to tie people into their particular media player schemes.

But it really falls apart for any of them if content, available choices, become limited to one label over another. People don't go to a record store to get a force fed selection from one label, they want choice.

[RandomDeadHead]

Music quality has never been of any interest for the major music companies since the CDs came out. Today music is nothing else than any object that has to be sold as much as possible and then thrown away as soon as possible because the next piece has to be sold. It is not worth to move a finger for those people (maybe 0.000001 %) who are a little bit educated musicaly and can hear the difference between a natural sound and a computerized one.
Online music stores is just the next step of treating music as a junk object and to take more money out of people's pockets: eat and throwaway...
In this context it is funny to talk about music quality.


I could not have said it better myself.:)

[rugby]

If Apple gets the windows version of iTunes out before Microsoft has a music store then they should be okay. If Microsoft gets a music store out before Apple gets iTunes ported to Windows, the Apple store will be out of business within days. Microsoft is VERY persuasive in new markets and they WILL get their way.

[h'biki]

Originally posted by j763
Why I don't use the iTunes Music Store

Audio Compression: When you purchase music from the iTunes Music store, it is compressed in 128kbps AAC PROTECTED. This throws up a number of issues.
Firstly, there are many of us whom are anti-DRM to the extent that we wont use it. What if you burn a CD for a friend... [snip]They can't put it onto their computer without losing quality as well. That's very limiting.


Well, the whole point of DRM is to stop you doing the latter because it is illegal.

If people didn't "burn copies for friends"
then we wouldn't have to suffer DRM.

You bring it on yourself.

[Frozone]

I was just listening to TechLive on TechTV and they were talking about how Roxio had Napster and Pressplay. I think there service could be the biggest competition because EVERYONE knows what napster was and if it comes back they will be more familiar with it so they will probably give it a go. But it's supposed to be coming out sometime around next march which would give apple a few months release advance to get a Windows user base. Hopefully PC user's wont' be like they are with Apple Computers and automatically think ohh it's made by Apple so it's trash and can't do anything. And Apple will have to step up it's ad campaign, I've seen a whopping ONE Apple iTMS ad. They should do like DELL where everytime a program goes to commericals you almost always see one.

[bertagert]

Here's something that no one has brought up:

There is a lot more than other companies coming out with a competative product like Apple's music store. They also have to make a peice of software that is as easy as itunes. This is what's going to set Apple apart.

Nice and easy to understand interface, real easy CD burn, super easy upload to ipod (who knows how easy they'll make it for other mp3 players), etc.

Other companies don't have this. It will be a big deal when your friend is having a hard time understanding how to download, burn or sync to an ipod with other software. I think Apple has this in the bag for many years to come.

[Abstract]

The other competitors listed in the first post didn't actually say that they were going to go with a subscription service in the future, did they? So if they want to compete with Apple in the "per-song" download business, won't they need an agreement with all 5 major record companies as well, much like Steve Jobs needed to fight for? If so, then won't it be a long process for them to get all of that worked out? Maybe by the time these companies work out a deal with the music companies, iTunes for Windows would have been out for a long enough time to gain market share early.

And anyway, since it was SJ who proved to the record companies that this would work (and it has thus far), SJ has probably earned the trust, respect, and admiration of all the big-wigs at the record companies. SJ promised, and delivered. Maybe the record companies won't make it as easy for the other companies to leech off SJ's success. These other companies can't sell songs in the "exact" same manner as Apple. They probably need to propose an idea to music execs as to why their idea is different, better, and safer than Apple's, which they may not be able to do immediately.

[munki]

Originally posted by jwthomp
What Apple should do is find a successful partnership arrangement with Amazon.

The reason is that Amazon is very successful at mainting a site with customer reviews, feedbacks, and affilliates. Amazon also has the capability to alternately allow a customer to purchase the music physically if they would like.

Apple's strength is providing the software that lets you access the store and purchase music in an integrated fashion.

If Apple does not find a strong industry partner, then they may get pushed out due to competition in the Windows arena. Whether this is Microsoft, Amazon, or simply a host of other third party offerings. By partnering with Amazon they have the opportunity to become the defacto standard and in such a way that Microsoft cannot leverage Apple out. This of course requires some long term arrangements with Amazon so they do not allow Microsoft to build software that directly interacts with the service and earn a percentage on the sales rather than Apple.

-Jeff

Jeff Thompson
CTO, CodeTek Studios, Inc.

No offense, but I fail to see how this makes any sense for either party. Apple has the storefront and distribution system set up and in place (or will, in the case of the Windows version of itms). What, exactly, do they then gain by partnering with Amazon?

Amazon is a company who's strengths include providing a storefront (for their own offerings or the various other stores (target, toys 'r us, etc.), and managing a distribution system. Hmm, that sounds suspiciously like the work Apple has already done.

The only way I can see Apple partnering with Amazon is if Jobs decided he wanted to take advantage of all those customer eyeballs. However, given the likely slim(ish) margins of the music download business, I can't really see Apple wanting to split the money, especially if they aren't taking advantage of any of Amazon's strengths (aside from the storefront, which, minor digression, is looking crappier and crappier as time goes on), or using Amazon's servers to host downloads, which is exceedingly unlikely, as Amazon uses various outside services (loudeye, I believe does some of it, but I'd bet there're others, too) to host their song previews.

In other words, it doesn't make any business sense, at least insofar as hosting the itms in the windows world, which is what the post -- nonsensically -- implies. Now, if Apple wanted to grant the option to buy a cd off Amazon from within the music store, that's a little different, and I don't see any real reason why not, except that Apple would likely gain too little revenue to make up for technical process of syncing up the catalog, let alone the transactions.

[maxterpiece]

Let's remember that Apple faces some of the same issues as the other music store competitors in bringing ITMS to to Windows. As far as I can tell, the real delay in releasing iTunes for Windows is because the record companies wanted to use the small Apple market as an experiment. Apple has to prove that the experiment has been successful on Mac OS and can be successful on Windows before the big 5 record companies will agree to allow a Windows version of iTMS. Now, Apple does have somewhat of an advantage over others - they at least have the iTMS as an example. I don't think that the record companies will be able to say no to licensing a Windows iTMS if it's mac counterpart's success persists.

[Genie]

Why not just get CD's from the record clubs? They're about $4.49 from BMG music service, including shipping.
THat's uncompressed, and unlimited.
Sheesh- I sound like an ad...

[peterjhill]

Apple licenses one-click from amazon. That is it. They didn't have to make a special deal to use it for the music service, since they already had a deal in place to use it. I certainly hope the deal was broad enough to allow its use in iTunes and iPhoto. This is way different from giving Amazon a cut from every song sold.

As for CD clubs, you need to pay for shipping. I belonged to the DVD club for a while but got real tired of paying $25-30 for DVDs that could be had at the local store for $20. The biggest difference between ITMS and mail order or even the local store, is convience and immediate purchases. Most of my purchases are under one minute from "I wish I had that" to "cool, it is on ITMS and now it is mine"

104 songs and counting from ITMS

[sparks9]

Microsoft is preparing a music service too!! right now.

Source: CNET

Apple has to hurry or their windows servise will be too late.

[Vonnie]

What these competing services have to do:

Go talk with the big 5 labels, convince them that your security will be adequate, and that it will be a success. Also talk to international distributors and labels, again convince them that your service will be a success, convince them that investments in your service won't be lost.

Set up servers with big hard drives, and big bandwidth, develop programs for client and server. Provide secure authentification.

License wma from microsoft. Start ripping 200000 music tracks in wma, set security measures, set information tags like artist, title, album art,... Go beg for exclusive tracks.

Wait for a company to make a new portable music player that supports secured wma, wait for updated firmware versions. Try to get your name attached to as much music players as possible. If you buy a creative zen, you should have a little card in the box: "Download your music from music.amazon.com".

Start marketing and make commercials, get the press onboard. Try to create buzz that is as big as the iTMS buzz.

What apple has to do:

Port iTunes to Windows.

Say to international music distributors/labels: "Look at how much profit we make with iTMS in the US. Want a slice?"

[wchamlet]

IMO, I think this is the one time Apple needs to do something right. If Apple is slow to getting their music service to market on the MS side of the fence, then they will loose out on their biggest money making oppurtunity since the iMac. The way I see it is, if Apple waits too long, and "Proves" that they can sell music on their Macs, and they don't move towards the Windows market, then shame on them. Apple needs to step up this time. They might even have to play it risky, ie as in maybe not being as full featured as we would like. But they have already proved they can make this work. Now they need to make it work on Windows.

Just my opinion of course. More revenue for Apple means more funding for research and development. Maybe we will get a faster Powermac someday. :D

[maxterpiece]

Originally posted by Vonnie
What apple has to do:

Port iTunes to Windows.

Say to international music distributors/labels: "Look at how much profit we make with iTMS in the US. Want a slice?"

you forgot the part about needing to convince the record companies that their DRM policy is the right one. Apple iTMS, to the record companies, was an experiment. It was an opportunity to test out Apple's policy. Impressive sales by the music store obviously provide strong encouragement for them, but the Windows world is not the same as the Apple world. Apple still has a lot of persuading to do. I think if they could have persuaded the record companies that their DRM was the right way, a windows ITMS would be out already. Apple isn't stupid.

edit: the same goes for the international market - different parties have to be convinced.