Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Music Match Downloads Announced

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

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

If Apple releases their Windows Music Store before Thanksgiving, they will have performed a coup in the music store business. If MusicMatch has a similar DRM policy from the industry, than they have to give Apple similar rights for Windows, which really was the only risk factor. So MM's release is really positive for Apple.
 
Thanksgiving because that marks the start of the holiday buying season. A very important date for that consumer market.
 
When the iTMS is released for Windows, will it be running through the Music Match software, or will there be a complete verision of iTunes for Windows users? (sorry if this has already been posted)
 
My feeling is that WMV9 is an exceptionaly good codec. WMA also, by I know less about it. The file format has much of teh flexibility of Quicktime type formats and the codecs are perhaps beter than almost any other for High quality @ Low-Medium Bitrate.

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

Waiting for AVC. Roumered to give WMV9 a run for its money.
 
Re: Burning CDs?

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

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

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

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

Could be for dial-up users.
 
Re: Again, CDs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Apple can make the iPod play WMA

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

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

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

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

snip.
Click to expand...

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

M.
 
Why is this so bad?

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

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

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

I'm not trying to be glib, I'm honestly curious.
 
Re: Re: Again, CDs?

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think they will necessarily 'understand', but I do think they will care. And they'll continue to use Kazaa until a better 'legal' system comes along. If the music sounds like crap (which WMA really doesn't.. until it gets way low in the bitrate), they won't pay for it.
 
iPod + WMA + AAC + mp3

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

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

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

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

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

IME, Nothing beats iTunes for managing your library. I share the folder on my PC with my Mac and only manage the files using iTunes.
 
Re: iPod + WMA + AAC + mp3

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

Presumably they'd have to licence the format from Microsoft. I've no idea if that's commercially sensible or even politically ok given recent quotes from Apple about Microsoft's method of creating 'standards'.
 
I was afraid of this.
I don't believe that Apple has any choice but to eventually support WMA. While the ipod has the largest % of devices in the market they don't own a higher % of the market then all other devices combined and of those devices the majority supports WMA.
Most other users that don't have an iPod won't consider iTMS simply because their device won't work with ACC.
I'm still holding out hope that iTunes will allow AAC to WMA conversion allowing anyone with any device to use iTunes.
 
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!
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

M.
Click to expand...

i would have bought a Sexium.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

They could have called it the Hexium though.
Click to expand...

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

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

Just some more background, as an FYI.

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

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

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

I guess Intel isn't cool enough to take them on. Oh well. At least Apple was, with the Apple I, priced at $666.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back