Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
theRebel said:
Who cares? Sony does not have William Hung!

The American Idol star's new album "Inspiration" will not hit store shelves until April, but you can get the exclusive pre-release from the iTunes Music Store today!

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=5892661

I would love to see William Hung make it onto the Billboard chart for online digital sales.
I thought "She Bangs" was bad, but "I Believe I Can Fly" is even worse.
I think I'll get the EP. :)
 
Bengt77 said:
Then I realised that a while ago WM9 was selected to become the standard format for DVD-Video discs

not the format for DVD video, but one of 3, plus for microsoft to get it there it couldn't be proprietary anymore. much like AAC and MP4 being derived from (proprietary) quicktime codecs...
aparantly WM9 (or VC-9 as the non-proprietary version is called) is a very good codec, only problme being that it only plays on windows media player 9 at the moment, and there is practicly nothing actually encoded in it yet (all wma music stores use the sub-MP3 quality wma7)
 
Bengt77 said:
In most discussions about iTMS and it's rivals and about iTMS being the (main) driver behind iPod sales, people who suggest that the iPod should also support WMA get flamed almost without exception. Though, didn't Apple specifically state that iTMS is mainly meant as a means to sell iPods? Wouldn't it, thus, be teriffic if the iPod would support playing back WMA? If it would, people using other download services would also be able to use the iPod as their music player of choice. Who's the loser here? Certainly not Apple, if you ask me. Apple would clearly be the winner in that situation. The tricky part would be to actually support the DRM'ed WMA-format. But since other players are supporting it and most of those players are (also) based on the chip that drives the iPod I'm guessing it wouldn't be too difficult for Apple to build in the needed hard- and/or software. All in all, I think it would definitely be a Very Good Idea for Apple to include the ability of playing WMA in the iPod. And to include it in iTunes too, of course. Make playing music as transparant as possible so that users don't have to think about what player works with what download service. No, just have the iPod be the playback device.

Disagree? Why?

here are some reasons:

1) apple will need to pay M$ to license WMA

2) an important advantage iPod/iTMS/iTunes offers is the seamless integration. you buy a Mac/install iTunes and it just works with iPod and iTMS. if apple was to make iTunes/iPod compatible with not only WMA but DRMed WMA from 3rd party music stores, offering seamless integration will be that much more difficult.

3) apple is the current industry leader. just about everyone is craving for an iPod. someone wanting an iPod will not be turned off because it won't support non-iTMS music stores - rather, they will just use iTMS as the music store instead. also, many people have their music collection in MP3 - a format iPod can handle - and not WMA. i think apple wisely chose to risk ignoring the market of customers who have all of their music in WMA because i think trying to cater to that market (which i personally believe is fairly small) will be more trouble than it's worth.

4) lastly, especially given the history between the two companies, i believe jobs would like apple to get away from supporting a format that is proprietary and owned by a convicted monopolistic company if at all possible. (oh, what wouldn't he give to be able to rip up the agreement on windows GUI!)
 
This will NOT incrase sales, because only sony's players will work with it. Man, apple shure has created a HUGE fad.
 
How about Starbucks???

You know, Starbucks has teamed up with HP as a technology partner. Now that there's the HP/Apple thing with the iPod and iTunes, it's not entirely impossible for there to be Starbucks/iTunes promotion.

Perhaps an iTunes blend?
 
jxyama said:
here are some reasons:

1) apple will need to pay M$ to license WMA

2) an important advantage iPod/iTMS/iTunes offers is the seamless integration. you buy a Mac/install iTunes and it just works with iPod and iTMS. if apple was to make iTunes/iPod compatible with not only WMA but DRMed WMA from 3rd party music stores, offering seamless integration will be that much more difficult.

3) apple is the current industry leader. just about everyone is craving for an iPod. someone wanting an iPod will not be turned off because it won't support non-iTMS music stores - rather, they will just use iTMS as the music store instead. also, many people have their music collection in MP3 - a format iPod can handle - and not WMA. i think apple wisely chose to risk ignoring the market of customers who have all of their music in WMA because i think trying to cater to that market (which i personally believe is fairly small) will be more trouble than it's worth.

4) lastly, especially given the history between the two companies, i believe jobs would like apple to get away from supporting a format that is proprietary and owned by a convicted monopolistic company if at all possible. (oh, what wouldn't he give to be able to rip up the agreement on windows GUI!)

1) Apple would NOT have to pay to license wma. The money comes in by liscenseing the DRM.

2) Maybe, maybe not. I honestly don't think it would be that hard, ESPECIALLY with the cooperation of other services.

3) WRONG! As this becomes more and more popular, music stores will probably become more stylistic (Coke does Rap/R&B, MS does Rock and Roll, ect), and if other players support other stores (i.e. if the Napster player supports Coke, Walmart and MS as well as their own store) then people will likely choose another player. At some point it WILL become nessessary for the iPod to co-operate at one level or another with other services. It's like Sony building a CD player that only worked with Sony Music CDs. For now, Apple can do pretty much whatever they please, but it won't be this way forever.

4) I'm sure steve would love to pretend that MS doesn't exsist, but he knows Apple's survival depends on co operating with the other 95% of the computing world. As much as we would like to believe Apple is an island, it's not.
 
bensisko said:
1) Apple would NOT have to pay to license wma. The money comes in by liscenseing the DRM.

if apple decides to support WMA, iTunes will need to support WMA. so WMA codec is licensed free?


4) I'm sure steve would love to pretend that MS doesn't exsist, but he knows Apple's survival depends on co operating with the other 95% of the computing world. As much as we would like to believe Apple is an island, it's not.

that "95%" is already covered - it's called iTunes for Windows.

either way, right now, apple is not yet in "trouble." apple is clearly the leader and i believe the right thing to do is sit and see if others will follow the industry leader and support AAC.

WMA is far from being the industry standard. having many stores supporting the format does not mean it's the industry standard since iTMS is the one doing the most business. apple has vested interest in trying to make AAC the standard as well.

anyway, when jobs said iTMS is there to sell iPods, it was implied that selling iPods to turn more profit - not just to sell iPods for the sake of selling them. i believe supporting WMA at this point is not (yet) necessary, worthwhile nor profittable.
 
jxyama said:
if apple decides to support WMA, iTunes will need to support WMA. so WMA codec is licensed free?

that "95%" is already covered - it's called iTunes for Windows.

either way, right now, apple is not yet in "trouble." apple is clearly the leader and i believe the right thing to do is sit and see if others will follow the industry leader and support AAC.

WMA is far from being the industry standard. having many stores supporting the format does not mean it's the industry standard since iTMS is the one doing the most business. apple has vested interest in trying to make AAC the standard as well.

anyway, when jobs said iTMS is there to sell iPods, it was implied that selling iPods to turn more profit - not just to sell iPods for the sake of selling them. i believe supporting WMA at this point is not (yet) necessary, worthwhile nor profittable.

First of all, yes WMA is free. You can goto microsoft's web site and download the Windows Media Encoder which will make video into WMV and audio into WMA. The DRM companies use, however, is not free. i deal with this on a daily basis.

As for the other 95% being covered by iTunes for Windows, this only covers people who want the iPod and want to use the iTunes Music Store. It's very true that iTMS is there to sell iPods (or so Steve says...), which just proves the point that, right now, you choose your portable music player based on which service you want to use (unless you don't want to use any, in which case you choose based on features, cool factor, whatever). And yes, there is no denying the fact that iTMS and the iPod are on top and are not currently in any danger of loosing that.

However, if Microsoft were to orgainize music stores using WMA and companies making portable devices (like they did with Pocket PCs), you would be foolish to not see a threat. it's to both music stores and device manufactures best interests to be banding togeather, and Apple will once again be the outcast. Would your average music fan raher buy an iPod that can only listen to music Apple decides to make available through iTMS, or one that can listen to music from Coke, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and others. Sony might be somewhat successful if they can convince fans of Sony Music that nothing else is any good. (BTW - Other music services can use AAC all they want, but unless they are using Fairplay, it won't work with your iPod/iTunes.)

I'm not saying Apple has no future in the portable music business, I'm just saying that there may come a day where Apple will have no choice but to adopt other formats. Right now, Apple is being very isolationist. No other portable will work with iTunes and the iPod won't work with any other service. This will keep iPod sales going for now, but once other music services start comeing out with good business models (i.e. a unified DRM for wma), and the music players start using that, then Apple will have to decide to support it or be left behind. Right now there is no reason to support anything else, but there will come a day.

Remember something: Sales do not make the standard. Microsoft makes the standard. Windows CE spent years at the bottom of the market until it's third revision became Pocket PC. In no time MS went from a 5% share (versus Palm) to a 30% to a 55%. True MS does not yet dominate the PDA world, but Palm doesn't eather, and unlike other companies, MS has the time, money, and resources to 'wait it out.' Unless MS comes into serious financial troubles (look at everything that has happened to it, yet they still exsist, and still dominate), they will be a strong player in the portable music business.
 
bensisko said:
Remember something: Sales do not make the standard. Microsoft makes the standard.

here's my take on online music industry.

1) portable player makes the difference. for most consumers, music is music - it doesn't matter how it's encoded or to a degree, how much songs cost - because portable players cost between $100 to $500 and that's where the bulk of the money goes. no one will decide whether or not they will get a $200 Rio or $250 iPod Mini based on the codec (WMA/AAC, etc.) or compatibility between 88 cents and 99 cents services (walmart/iTMS, etc.). consumers pick the player they like and then go with a download service that works with it. (all of them must support MP3, of course, it's the "standard" outside of download services.)

2) download services have a tough time differentiating themselves, other than portable player compatibility. prices can't be cut too low without directly affecting the bottom line. walmart can afford to drop their prices and sell at even more of a loss because the loss from their music operation is a drop in the bucket compare to their retail operations. selection can't be made "exclusive" short of buying out an entire label. even if one company manage to pay a lot of money to lure, say, beatles, others can still go get music by buying a CD. this isn't like Halo and Xbox, where the game really was exclusive. music can be had by means other than download service.

3) since every iPod comes with iTunes, M$ dominance in the PC world plays less of a role. M$ cannot leverage its monopoly effectively in this case - because codec consideration is secondary to portable music player consideration. short of M$ bundling a portable music player with windows (extremely costly and even M$ won't get away with something like that), their monopoly is not very useful. in addition, if M$ design department really believes the one to unseat iPod is the behemoth of a media player in the news a few days ago, then apple can rest easy that iPod is not going to be replaced anytime soon.

conclusion: apple is better served by concentrating on keeping iPod the best portable music player than trying to incorporate WMA support into it.
 
adzoox said:
Now, the way you CAN get a free chance is by doing something that IS legal and IS allowed - double cupping.

Maybe you should run that buy the store manager and watch him have a stroke. Those kinds of stores don't get charged for the syrup/CO2, but by the cup. Allegedly it's easier to charge the store and for inventory purposes.

Pinching two cups means they pay the wholesale price for two drinks, whatever that might be.
 
jxyama said:
here's my take on online music industry.

1) portable player makes the difference. for most consumers, music is music - it doesn't matter how it's encoded or to a degree, how much songs cost - because portable players cost between $100 to $500 and that's where the bulk of the money goes. no one will decide whether or not they will get a $200 Rio or $250 iPod Mini based on the codec (WMA/AAC, etc.) or compatibility between 88 cents and 99 cents services (walmart/iTMS, etc.). consumers pick the player they like and then go with a download service that works with it. (all of them must support MP3, of course, it's the "standard" outside of download services.)

2) download services have a tough time differentiating themselves, other than portable player compatibility. prices can't be cut too low without directly affecting the bottom line. walmart can afford to drop their prices and sell at even more of a loss because the loss from their music operation is a drop in the bucket compare to their retail operations. selection can't be made "exclusive" short of buying out an entire label. even if one company manage to pay a lot of money to lure, say, beatles, others can still go get music by buying a CD. this isn't like Halo and Xbox, where the game really was exclusive. music can be had by means other than download service.

3) since every iPod comes with iTunes, M$ dominance in the PC world plays less of a role. M$ cannot leverage its monopoly effectively in this case - because codec consideration is secondary to portable music player consideration. short of M$ bundling a portable music player with windows (extremely costly and even M$ won't get away with something like that), their monopoly is not very useful. in addition, if M$ design department really believes the one to unseat iPod is the behemoth of a media player in the news a few days ago, then apple can rest easy that iPod is not going to be replaced anytime soon.

conclusion: apple is better served by concentrating on keeping iPod the best portable music player than trying to incorporate WMA support into it.

Wow... just...wow.
Somebody probably said the same thing at Apple back when MS introduced Windows. "Don't worry Steve, if we stay the course and concentrate on the Mac and how we make a better product than them, people will still by us over them." Ignoreing MS won't make it go away. Wma WILL become widely used in the industry, it's just a matter of time. Now may not be the best time to bring in wma as DRM is still being worked out on their side.

People choose players now for the player, yes. Style, price and hard drive size. However, there are quite a lot of people who have chosen the iPod, not based entirely on how cool it is, but also because of iTMS.

Once there is some real good compition out there, that has a good business model, we can come back and see whos right. Right now, there really isn't any compition to speak of except for Napster. (BTW- If you're a Windows person who used Windows Media Player to convert their music collection, then you probably won't choose the iPod BECAUSE it doesn't support WMA. There ARE users out there who choose their player based on file format, and, to a lesser extend, compatability with other services.)

in the end, selling iTMS isn't as important as selling iPods. If the decision has to be made (keep iPod at the top by letting it sync with other players [or at least use music from other services], or letting iPod slip to 10% of the market just to keep the iPod with iTMS only) the smart decision would be to add wma support. Again, not now, but in the near future (within the next 5 years).
 
Bengt77 said:
I just learned that AAC has become the format of choice to be included on DVD-Audio discs as a lossy addition to the real audio-contents on such discs (URL). Then I realised that a while ago WM9 was selected to become the standard format for DVD-Video discs (URL). Isn't it a possibility then that people will believe the WM9-formats to be the high quality and the MP4-formats to be the low quality ones? Has anything concerning the (new) DVD-Video standard been decided for real yet? Or could it be that the DVD-consortium rethinks it's earlier choice and goes with MP4 for the DVD-Video discs too?

:confused:

You do realize WMV is MP4 based right? WMA just sucks. Better than MP3, but not much.
 
Well said!

Bengt77 said:
In most discussions about iTMS and it's rivals and about iTMS being the (main) driver behind iPod sales, people who suggest that the iPod should also support WMA get flamed almost without exception. Though, didn't Apple specifically state that iTMS is mainly meant as a means to sell iPods? Wouldn't it, thus, be teriffic if the iPod would support playing back WMA? If it would, people using other download services would also be able to use the iPod as their music player of choice. Who's the loser here? Certainly not Apple, if you ask me. Apple would clearly be the winner in that situation. The tricky part would be to actually support the DRM'ed WMA-format. But since other players are supporting it and most of those players are (also) based on the chip that drives the iPod I'm guessing it wouldn't be too difficult for Apple to build in the needed hard- and/or software. All in all, I think it would definitely be a Very Good Idea for Apple to include the ability of playing WMA in the iPod. And to include it in iTunes too, of course. Make playing music as transparant as possible so that users don't have to think about what player works with what download service. No, just have the iPod be the playback device.

Disagree? Why?
 
FUTURE SWITCHERS!

People who are already buying Window's format.... they are the future market. Let them switch to iTunes without a hitch!
jxyama said:
3) apple is the current industry leader. just about everyone is craving for an iPod. someone wanting an iPod will not be turned off because it won't support non-iTMS music stores - rather, they will just use iTMS as the music store instead also, many people have their music collection in MP3 - a format iPod can handle - and not WMA. i think apple wisely chose to risk ignoring the market of customers who have all of their music in WMA because i think trying to cater to that market (which i personally believe is fairly small) will be more trouble than it's worth.
 
You know you're wrong.

jxyama said:
if apple decides to support WMA, iTunes will need to support WMA. so WMA codec is licensed free?




that "95%" is already covered - it's called iTunes for Windows.

either way, right now, apple is not yet in "trouble." apple is clearly the leader and i believe the right thing to do is sit and see if others will follow the industry leader and support AAC.

WMA is far from being the industry standard. having many stores supporting the format does not mean it's the industry standard since iTMS is the one doing the most business. apple has vested interest in trying to make AAC the standard as well.

anyway, when jobs said iTMS is there to sell iPods, it was implied that selling iPods to turn more profit - not just to sell iPods for the sake of selling them. i believe supporting WMA at this point is not (yet) necessary, worthwhile nor profittable.

The iPod is Very profitable! Even without selling a single song.
 
itunes promos

wordmunger said:
I have to say, I'm a little disappointed with the marketing on the Apple/Pepsi promotion. Yeah, they show that commercial every once in a while, but in the grocery store, where you actually buy the drinks, there's nothing. Meanwhile there's a huge display with candy bars (baby ruth I think) offering "Download free music!"

You are so right. I loved the Pepsi promo. they didn't promote it at all. I drank Pepsi everyday for months. i looked under the cap to be sure i got a winner.

http://www.methodshop.com/mp3/articles/hackpepsi/index.stm

but im sad McDonalds backed out. it would have been good for Apple.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.