Music Match Downloads Announced

[NicoMan]

Re: Competition is a good thing

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]

Re: Music Match Downloads Announced

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?

(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]

New MusicMatch store songs NOT iPod compatible...

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]

Re: New MusicMatch store songs NOT iPod compatible...

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]

AHH

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.

 

[Java]

Quicktime won't die

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

Nice job, Cupertino.

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

 

[sharky2313]

windows media format

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

 

[jettredmont]

Re: Music Match Downloads Announced

Originally posted by Macrumors
USA Today notes 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]

Re: Competition is a good thing

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]

apple drops ball...again

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]

Re: apple drops ball...again

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]

no more ms for me

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]

Re: Re: Competition is a good thing

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]

Re: Music Match Downloads Announced

Originally posted by Macrumors
USA Today notes 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]

Re: Quicktime won't die

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?