Microsoft thinks iTunes will fail

[Mudbug]

I think the comment about this being a closed system points out what is inherently good about the whole thing. Most consumers don't care one little bit what file format they use for something (or even know the difference, honestly) and so keeping things simple and direct makes consumers happy. They don't want to know how it works, they just want it to work. Apple is providing a closed system in order to provide just that - a system that just works. And now it "just works" for a whole lot more people than it did, which will show a lot of those curious consumers how the "closed system" Apple way of doing things really is a better way to do it. There are optional ways of doing things, just not millions of them that don't work. And incorporating the iTunes button in AOL/Music is not only incredible integration and product placement, it also helps Joe and Jill Consumer use their existing products to better their experience with the technology they already own. And people buy AOL service because (in their opinion, I tend not to agree) AOL just works. 25 million people think so. Seems like a match made in heaven.

And the Pepsi deal is Cross-Marketing of products at it's absolute finest. Reaching your core audience is great no matter how you do it. I admit I am not a Pepsi drinker, but I can stomach Sierra Mist, and plan to start up my drinking fest of it come February. Anyone that doesn't want to participate - send me your bottlecaps .

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by 1macker1
...
Why would apple think people would flock to the iTMS and have to buy and ipod (299.99 for the low end) when they can get WMA, MP3, music player for 100 dollers...

I am confused.
I had been using a RIO mp3 player with iTunes for about a year ago.
When I plugged it into my USB port it appears a playlist in iTunes.
I simply just have to convert songs to mp3 before I can add the to the RIO playlist.
Is this no longer possible?

 

[Mudbug]

Originally posted by arn
I understand that. I was wondering: if I was a 3rd party MP3 player manufacturer... how do I license FairPlay for use in my player? who owns it?

arn

Maybe this will help:
http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2003/04/20030430002640.shtml

It's also listed as a trademark under the legal pages at Apple.com:
http://www.apple.com/legal/appletmlist.html

 

[peterj1967]

Re: Speaking as a Windows user ...

I use this...

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/14077

Edit: Oops, that's meaningless if you're on a PC, my bad. Better buy a mac ;-)

Originally posted by racolvin
.
Now there is one feature I've found lacking from iTunes ... it doesn't have any way (that I can find) of printing a CD jewelcase liner or CD label. I will admit I would like to be able to print a nice cd jacket with track listing, etc.

Other than that, its seemingly perfect.

 

[yamabushi]

My understanding of Fair Play is that it is not necessary or appropriate for manufacturers. It is only a contract between Apple, the owner of the song, and the consumer. Manufacturers would only have to deal with Dolby for the right to use AAC.

 

[arn]

Originally posted by yamabushi
My understanding of Fair Play is that it is not necessary or appropriate for manufacturers. It is only a contract between Apple, the owner of the song, and the consumer. Manufacturers would only have to deal with Dolby for the right to use AAC.

Well, there is some technology involved to implement the Digital Rights Management. My impression is that Apple developed this technology.

You can't play a Protected AAC in a "regular" AAC Player. It has to know how to authorize/decode the file (aka 'FairPlay').

Anyhow... I don't want this to get into a discussion on FairPlay. My only point was that while people are saying that AAC is an "open" format... Apple appears to have their hands in the DRM version that they use in the iTunes Music Store.

I don't know the entire answer, but my impression is that you can't just go to the MPEGLA and get a license for AAC and expect to be able to decode iTunes Music songs.

Again... if anyone has any other information on it, I'm interested.

arn

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by 1macker1
I sorta see what he is trying to say. It's a valid point. If a person buys from the other Music stores, they can use the same MP3 player, but is they buy from the Apple store they are stuck with the iPod. (not that's a bad device to be stuck with). Either Apple need to support WMA or the others need to start supporting AAC.

Umm, no.

If a person buys from the other music stores, he MIGHT be able to put it on one of several WMA/p-compatible portable music players. Not all MP3 players also play WMA, and of those that do play WMA, only a minority of them play WMA/protected, which is what the music stores for Windows sell.

And, of course, 30% of the MP3 players out there are the iPod. And, yes, 70% of the money spent on MP3 players go to buying iPods, which tells us that those with discretionary money tend to buy the iPod. Those with discretionary money are the ones who buy music online rather than steal it or live without.

So, no, in that context it is *not* understandable. WMA/p is JUST as proprietary and MORE non-standard (standard meaning defined by an external and not sales-driven organization) as AAC/FairPlay.

More vendors make WMA/p portable players, but more consumers buy AAC/FairPlay portable players.

 

[medea]

Originally posted by arn
I understand that. I was wondering: if I was a 3rd party MP3 player manufacturer... how do I license FairPlay for use in my player? who owns it?

arn

the license would have to come from apple.

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by 1macker1
I think apple is jumping the gun with the iTMS for Windows. I mean what windows users is really going to get rid of their WMA for AAC. I think (and i could be wrong) that most people by PC's due to their low cost. Why would apple think people would flock to the iTMS and have to buy and ipod (299.99 for the low end) when they can get WMA, MP3, music player for 100 dollers. Sure it's not the same quality as the iPod, but if they were worried about quality, they'd be using a Mac to begin with.

IMHO, the vast majority of Windows users do not use Windows out of sheer cheapness.

The most important factors are:

1) Their computer at work is Windows, so they have the same at home.

2) They have proprietary work programs that require Windows.

3) They have a massive back-catalogue of legal and semi-legal shareware and freeware utilities and such that they never really use but don't want to give up just in case.

4) Games, game GAMES!!!

5) They don't know that there is an alternative available (really. This is a big one!) I'll lump into this those folks who have convinced themselves that Windows is actually more productive for them

6) They are too cheap to get a Mac, either through faulty analysis (not taking into account the value of their time and the long-term costs of Windows) or through circumstance (their time is worth nothing, and they have to live for today, not tomorrow; TCO is bunk!)

An iPod is clearly a valid choice for the folks in groups 1-4. I'm not positive we really want the other two groups

 

[yamabushi]

A proprietary standard has some benefits. For example, the owner of the standard has some control overf how it is used. That means that if a company such as Microsoft attempts to hijack the standard and alter it, as they did with Java, they will get sued.

This could help the consumer by maintaining a single consistent standard. That way you should be able to play a song you bought five years ago on the player you just bought yesterday and vice versa.

 

[medea]

my opinion is that iTunes for Win. is an attempt to get the attention of windows users and that is it, it is not meant to dominate the windows market, it's a free program. apple hopes people will use the program, use an iPod and think about using a mac......
apple will not adapt the iPod to use Windows Media because it will not help apples cause, and as far as the iPod being the only music player itms is compatable with, that is perfectly ok, plenty of windows users already own iPods and they continue to sell just as well. Apple is not getting in the business of making windows software here, they are using windows to get people interested in the software apple already makes, for macs.

 

[Armsreach]

Well, if someone on a PC had an mp3 player that supported mp3 but not AAC, but really enjoyed purchasing from the itms, then they could always burn a CD, rip it to an mp3 and then put it on their player. A bit ass backwards, but it works for them and saves them $300 on an iPod that they may not be ready to buy. From what I understand on some of the other windows music services (I;ve never used them myself, so I don't know) doing that is a bit more difficult, especially if you only use windows media player. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, since I haven't touched a PC since early in the win98 development and haven't even looked at the other sites.

 

[Le Big Mac]

Originally posted by arn
My only point was that while people are saying that AAC is an "open" format... Apple appears to have their hands in the DRM version that they use in the iTunes Music Store.

As I understand it, AAC is "open" but fairplay, which provides the DRM, is apple proprietary, and they haven't yet offered it for licenses. So, you and I could rip music in AAC format, and play it on any player that can read AAC, but if I buy a song in AAC with fairplay DRM, for now I'm stuck playing it on an iPod.

So really, AAC with Fairplay is not too different from WMA, except that Microsoft has licensed WMA.

Now, Apple has two choices: license Fairplay or not. I say they should license it. First, didn't they learn their lesson with the mac OS? Second, if they do license it, what are they giving up? A few iPod sales perhaps, because Roxio (for example) can make an mp3 player that could be used with iTMS in the place of an iPod. But that's really it. If the iPod is superior, then people will buy it. If not, it's exclusive ability to play iTMS songs will not be seen as an advantage by many, and sales will be hurt.

Now, the counterargument is "we can't use iTMS to sell iPods if it's not exclusive." Well, true, but that doesn't mean you won't sell any. First off, you have cross promotion: a lot of people will think to buy an iPod solely because of iTMS. Second, if the iPod is better, people will buy it. Third, you at least get some iTMS sales from folks who want to use a third-party player. Sure, that's not a lot of money, but isn't it better than having them go to a competitor for everything?

 

[tychay]

Originally posted by 1macker1
I think (and i could be wrong) that most people by PC's due to their low cost. Why would apple think people would flock to the iTMS and have to buy and ipod (299.99 for the low end) when they can get WMA, MP3, music player for 100 dollers.

You mean the same people downloading mp3s like mad from Kazaa? Last I checked, MP3 support is equal and better on the free iTunes for Windows (full speed encode, VBR, + fixings) than any other free (crippled) player for Windows. Last I checked, Kazaa and other services weren't trading WMA. Has anything changed in the last day?

In the Mac world we should complain that iTunes doesn't support OggVorbis or FLAC (both free and open software standards) long before a Windows user has cause to complain that Apple doesn't support WMA.

Maybe Microsoft will get off their FUD and support full MP3 encoder for Windows Media 9? Hmm, a company with 30 billion in the bank can't spare a few pennies to Fraunhofer, et. al. and yet Apple with a fraction of that amount can for a competing os!

This is a typical microsoft strategy. Look at how they pointed to AIM/ICQ as being proprietary closed and demanded that they open it up? What's happening now--3rd party chatting systems are dropping like flies off of MSN.

Take care,

 

[chickengrease16]

i guess that the whole "itunes music store is 70% of the market share" thing has absolutely nothing to do with it. i just think that microsoft is trying to compensate for their lack of... good software... by using valid, but unimportant, remarks about a company that actually has its head on straight.

 

[neutrino23]

I don't see any advantage for Apple to support WMA files. On the other hand, there would be a lot of extra expense. It would cost more to develop the firmware for iPod and software for iTunes, there is probably some license fee or other control given over to micro$oft, and if they had to support both AAC and WMA formats in iTMS that would double the size of the song database. It would also lead to endless confusion as people download the wrong format by mistake or find that some songs were only supplied in one format and not the other (the music company encodes the song, not Apple). Apple likes things clean and neat and orderly. Keep it simple. One format. No confusion.

 

[Stike]

Fester says, Apple is using a closed system... that it is about choice. And that the customer will decide, and the most convenient system will win.

Here we have it: Compare it to consoles: M$ uses a closed system, they even deny the installation of Linux or modded XBoxes on their Live service. Game companies are not happy with MS´s business model (royalties), so the number of games stays low...
Sony has a (somewhat) closed system too, but they did it right...

In the end, it is not (okay, partly) the "closedness" of the system, which decides the success. Apple did it right, or, at least better than everyone else now.

We all have a choice. I can get the PS2 or the XBox (a nod to Gamecube people, these are just examples - youre not forgotten ). I can get myself iTunes, and I can uninstall it if I think that one alternative is better. All that criticism about a closed system is yadda yadda. I could even sell the iPod if something better comes along (who laughes here?). Okay, thats just a theory

Final: I have choice. I decide where my money is spent. May the best win...

 

[jettredmont]

Re: Speaking as a Windows user ...

Originally posted by racolvin
Now there is one feature I've found lacking from iTunes ... it doesn't have any way (that I can find) of printing a CD jewelcase liner or CD label. I will admit I would like to be able to print a nice cd jacket with track listing, etc.

Other than that, its seemingly perfect.

Well, just to make things a smidge easier for you, at least you can avoid re-typing all those track names. If you select a bunch of tracks (or all the tracks in a playlist), right click on them, and select "Copy", the text shown in the window will be3 put on the clipboard (fields tab-delimitted). You can then Ctrl-V this into your favorite cover art editor program.

And, no, Ctrl-C does NOT work in place of right-click/select copy. Oops.

 

[rjrufo]

Re: Re: Speaking as a Windows user ...

Originally posted by arn
Haha.... you are the Poster Child for Apple's iTunes Windows.



Nope... no feature for that yet in iTunes.

arn

I don't know about Windows, but there is an Applescript that builds a CD case insert with Appleworks through iTunes. Now, if it would take the album art and add it into the insert...

 

[SoGood]

MP3 rules

Who cares about WMxx (whatever it's called) or AAC. Don't most people still use MP3?

Even if people starts to buy music online, you'd stay with your hardware wouldn't you? Be it iPod or whatever the competition might be.

Further, the ultimate format winner will be the one that has the largest buyer. If iTMS really is taking 70% of the consumer market, then that's the most fearsome number to take note.

However, I agree that Apple will need a cheaper model to haul in those buyers. But yet again, those may just be too cheap to even care to buy any songs online.

 

[Dippo]

Why is Micro$oft calling iTunes a "closed" system. They are the one that wants everyone to use their stupid WMA crap.

Micro$oft said some similar things when Linux came out, but they were unable to stop it. They are scared because they know iTunes and the iPod are better than anything else out there.

I do wish that the music bought from iTunes could be played on other devices. I am sure MP3 player companies would want to support AAC with Fairplay, or did Micro$oft sign some exclusive deal with all of them?

 

[VIREBEL661]

Originally posted by arn
no, I think that's backward.... the iTunes Music Store for Windows is to sell iPods, and eventually Macs.

Apple's basically said so.


arn

I agree with you, however I think it works both ways. A good move for Apple either way.

 

[VIREBEL661]

Originally posted by Dippo
Why is Micro$oft calling iTunes a "closed" system. They are the one that wants everyone to use their stupid WMA crap.

Micro$oft said some similar things when Linux came out, but they were unable to stop it. They are scared because they know iTunes and the iPod are better than anything else out there.

I do wish that the music bought from iTunes could be played on other devices. I am sure MP3 player companies would want to support AAC with Fairplay, or did Micro$oft sign some exclusive deal with all of them?

It's closed because it doesn't use advanced microsoft proprietary technology!

 

[ginjg]

Re: Re: Speaking as a Windows user ...

Originally posted by jettredmont
Well, just to make things a smidge easier for you, at least you can avoid re-typing all those track names. If you select a bunch of tracks (or all the tracks in a playlist), right click on them, and select "Copy", the text shown in the window will be3 put on the clipboard (fields tab-delimitted). You can then Ctrl-V this into your favorite cover art editor program.

And, no, Ctrl-C does NOT work in place of right-click/select copy. Oops.

Just choose export playlist from the file menu to creat a text file.

Then you could edit the unwanted info out
Or
use Discus (free with Toast) to import the file (it gives you a dialogue to select just the info you want). I'm sure theree are other label programs that will let you do this as well.

 

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Funny that he doesn't see the MS disadvantage - their stuff can't work with iPod, the most popular and coveted MP3/AAC/tons of other stuff player on the market. My guess is that it is only a matter of time until MusicMatch can't communicate with the iPod anymore. I wouldn't be surprised of there are near 2 million iPods sold overall by the turn of the year. That means iPod is in clear control - especially over the non-flash players. If iPod and iTunes Music Store gain a large percentage of the market (over 50% on the PC) then it is Microsoft and company that will be having to beg Apple to let them in. So I'm not shocked that MS is predicting failure. I think they're worried that there store will enter the market too far behind and with too many bugs. If there's a good third-party WMA to AAC or MP3 encoder then Apple doesn't have a problem.

And I also find MS hypocritical anyways. They don't allow MP3 encoding (without shelling out cash) - so why aren't they presenting MS customers with options? And if Windows customers like options so much then wouldn't they consider Apple and the Mac a viable option with the release of iTunes and iTMS? If I were Microsoft I'd say that MS customers are lemmings and have no choice but to use MS, because if they truly wanted options then MS would be in deep doodoo.