Microsoft iTunes-a-like music shop 'to open next month'
Posted by malebolgia on 31 July 2004 - 22:18 · 56 comments & 3968 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(12 replies)
#1 Posted by danbalsh on 31 Jul 2004 - 22:29
- I don't get it... Apple have iTunes Music Store to sell iPods, what are Microsoft hoping to sell???
Or are they just after more domination? -
#1.1 Posted by supersaiyanjericho on 31 Jul 2004 - 22:40
- you should ask the same question about wal mart's music store
-
#1.2 Posted by danbalsh on 31 Jul 2004 - 23:28
- The Music Stores that are there to promote another product are;
Apple's iTunes - Sells iPods
SonyConnect - Sells them things whatever they are called
-
#1.3 Posted by supersaiyanjericho on 31 Jul 2004 - 23:49
- what about just selling music?
-
#1.4 Posted by Galley on 01 Aug 2004 - 00:35
- Perhaps Portable Media Centers, which are coming soon from Creative, Samsung and iRiver. MS makes money from the licensing.
-
#1.5 Posted by shihchiun on 01 Aug 2004 - 01:13
- they don't really make that much (if any) money from that though.
-
#1.6 Posted by shao on 01 Aug 2004 - 16:07
- and of course, any way they can screw apple has to be good [in the eyes of ms].
the pmc's is the most likely answer though, and because of that i can imagine ms will be selling more than just music... movies / tv shows being the logical answer for anyone with a pc / xbox.
they've also publically stated pmc's have the power to run simple games, so i'm sure we'll see a market for that spring up soon after the release of the devices. -
#1.7 Posted by cal2002 on 01 Aug 2004 - 20:41
- They are looking to get more WMA out their. Do they make much in licensing to one company, no. Do they make a ton of money licensing to over 100 companies, you bet. Remember their are over 500 device's out their that support WMA. from portable players, dvd players, audio/video receivers, car players, windows mobie devices, pocket pc, and so on.
MS is smart. Apple on the other hand, still wants to control AAC w/ Fairplay. -
#1.8 Posted by STV on 01 Aug 2004 - 20:59
QUOTE (#1.7) They are looking to get more WMA out their. Do they make much in licensing to one company, no. Do they make a ton of money licensing to over 100 companies, you bet. Remember their are over 500 device's out their that support WMA. from portable players, dvd players, audio/video receivers, car players, windows mobie devices, pocket pc, and so on.
MS is smart. Apple on the other hand, still wants to control AAC w/ Fairplay.
exactly. its as if apple didnt learn anything from the last time they fell. I think the two main reasons that WMA is being licensed more and more is because of the yet-to-be-broken DRM and the cheap licensing cost.
isnt AAC supposed to be an open standard? oh wait is it, but apple just thinks they own it.
STV-
#1.9 Posted by cal2002 on 01 Aug 2004 - 21:08
- AAC is owned and licensed by Dolby. This is one of the things i HATE about Apple. They release all of these Press Releases talking about "their" formats. Apple only had QuickTime (A Container, like AVI).
-
#1.10 Posted by STV on 01 Aug 2004 - 21:15
QUOTE AAC is owned and licensed by Dolby. This is one of the things i HATE about Apple. They release all of these Press Releases talking about "their" formats. Apple only had QuickTime (A Container, like AVI).
its like with the iPod and the G5. I dont think that they give the iPod hard drive manufacturers and IBM enough credit. they like to pretend that it is theirs. the G5 cant work without the G5 processor(s) from IBM and the iPod wont work without the hard drive from Toshiba, etc.
STV-
#1.11 Posted by noyb on 01 Aug 2004 - 22:57
- I think you will find that thats the same with any company have you ever seen someone like Dell promote the hard drives in their systems?, does MS ever promote the original inventors of IE and DOS the two products that have given them such success in the OS market. (Before anyone jumps in, im not having a go, and yes i know that apple didn't create freebsd or the safari engine, count to ten it will be OK) Do they give credit to the designers of the xbox GUI.
However alot of component makers have learned that they need to get their name out there namely nvidia, AMD and especially Intel who force people to show the logo in any use or promotion of their products and even have to play that annoying little jingle in any AV promotions (rightly so though) -
#1.12 Posted by STV on 02 Aug 2004 - 04:43
QUOTE (#1.11) I think you will find that thats the same with any company have you ever seen someone like Dell promote the hard drives in their systems?, does MS ever promote the original inventors of IE and DOS the two products that have given them such success in the OS market. (Before anyone jumps in, im not having a go, and yes i know that apple didn't create freebsd or the safari engine, count to ten it will be OK) Do they give credit to the designers of the xbox GUI.
However alot of component makers have learned that they need to get their name out there namely nvidia, AMD and especially Intel who force people to show the logo in any use or promotion of their products and even have to play that annoying little jingle in any AV promotions (rightly so though)
great point. didnt think of it in that way
STV
-
(2 replies)
#2 Posted by apollos on 31 Jul 2004 - 22:36
- I guess they will release a player shortly after, it's not like Microsoft to leave a market untouched when it comes to big money earners
-
#2.1 Posted by nspeds on 31 Jul 2004 - 22:43
- The iTMS isn't really a "big money earner", however.
Edit: And yes, I know it aids in the selling iPods. However, the there is no actual profit derived from the music store itself.
Last edited by 18667 on 31 Jul 2004 - 22:58 -
#2.2 Posted by eminem213486 on 31 Jul 2004 - 23:07
- i think for apple. the profit is brandname quality and assurance. they are trying to get themselves out there. many people still dont know waht the fark apple is.if they start to provide quality (for some) and usefullness along with easability peopel will start to talk about it.
:bleh:
-
(19 replies)
#3 Posted by sadatkarim on 31 Jul 2004 - 23:00
- I guess that they will sell it in WMA which isnt compatible with my iPod or iTunes.
-
#3.1 Posted by Sn1p3t on 01 Aug 2004 - 00:42
- You can always convert to MP3. WMA is IMO better anyway (besides the fact you can't play on iPod)
-
#3.2 Posted by sadatkarim on 01 Aug 2004 - 15:18
- Nah, AAC > WMA. And plus, transcoding is bad for the music..
-
#3.3 Posted by noyb on 01 Aug 2004 - 15:51
- Actually the chip in the Ipod is designed to play WMA, its just locked out in the firmware.
-
#3.4 Posted by STV on 01 Aug 2004 - 16:45
- WMA is good.
@sadatkarim: it makes more sense to say, "I guess that they will sell it in WMA which my iPod or iTunes cant play." it is apple's fault that iPod cant play WMA. in fact, i dont see why they wouldnt want it to, other than pure pride. WMA is cheaper in licensing terms when compared to MP3.
STV -
#3.5 Posted by noyb on 01 Aug 2004 - 18:43
- MP3 is in their so people don't have to go through the motions of converting or encoding their old stuff again, MP3 is still the the most widely used format (Mainly due to its age) so Apple needed to satisfy the the majority of people. As for adding WMA it is not their for two reasons
1) Even though both Itunes and Ipod have the ability to play WMA once enabled they would have to pay the licensing fees and they are already paying for AAC so its an extra expense. This is the same reason that you cannot play AAC on alot of players.
2) Its the same deal with Real WMA is a competitor to ITMS both with services such as Napster and MS new store opening soon.
Also for those that wonder why other formats such as OGG are not on the Ipod, its because its done with hardware decoding and the chip thats in there only supports MP3 (Not Pro) WMA, AAC and WAV also OGG is a more complex algorithm than any of those mentioned and would put a serious strain on battery life.
Oh and one last point the rumor that AAC is less proprietry than WMA is a myth, You still have to pay for encoders and decoders and you still need permission to modify it, the reason that people like Real are using AAC is that its only slightly cheaper than WMA
Also if anybody needs an example of how licensing restricts a players use - MS won't shell out (and shouldn't) for the mpeg2 decoder, thats why you need to buy it yourself to play DVD's in media player and other apps.
Last edited by 63624 on 01 Aug 2004 - 19:00 -
#3.6 Posted by cal2002 on 01 Aug 2004 - 20:36
- ...and no, you can not convert these WMA's 2 MP3 or anything other format. DRM remember. We can't do it with iTunes.
-
#3.7 Posted by noyb on 01 Aug 2004 - 21:05
- Any standard WMA's can be converted into AAC with iTunes (Without burning before somebody jumps in) not sure about protected ones because i don't use Napster and why would you wan't to convert a WMA into MP3 not only are you losing quality by conversion but MP3 is a lesser format
-
#3.8 Posted by STV on 01 Aug 2004 - 21:08
QUOTE (#3.5) MP3 is in their so people don't have to go through the motions of converting or encoding their old stuff again, MP3 is still the the most widely used format (Mainly due to its age) so Apple needed to satisfy the the majority of people. As for adding WMA it is not their for two reasons
1) Even though both Itunes and Ipod have the ability to play WMA once enabled they would have to pay the licensing fees and they are already paying for AAC so its an extra expense. This is the same reason that you cannot play AAC on alot of players.
2) Its the same deal with Real WMA is a competitor to ITMS both with services such as Napster and MS new store opening soon.
Also for those that wonder why other formats such as OGG are not on the Ipod, its because its done with hardware decoding and the chip thats in there only supports MP3 (Not Pro) WMA, AAC and WAV also OGG is a more complex algorithm than any of those mentioned and would put a serious strain on battery life.
Oh and one last point the rumor that AAC is less proprietry than WMA is a myth, You still have to pay for encoders and decoders and you still need permission to modify it, the reason that people like Real are using AAC is that its only slightly cheaper than WMA
Also if anybody needs an example of how licensing restricts a players use - MS won't shell out (and shouldn't) for the mpeg2 decoder, thats why you need to buy it yourself to play DVD's in media player and other apps.
so let me get this straight. they dont enable WMA support because AAC cost so much? where did you get the licensing cost information? i got mine from here:http://www.musemagic.com/papers/licensinginfo.html#_Toc48655025. seems that WMA is cheaper that AAC and MP3. surely the cost of enabling WMA wouldnt be too much?
first you say that AAC is expensive, then you say that it is slightly cheaper the WMA, well which one is it? it seems the me that WMA is cheaper (in price) compared to AAC.
STV-
#3.9 Posted by cal2002 on 01 Aug 2004 - 21:10
- Any good DRM system does not allow transcoding to any other formats. Fairplay doesn't allow you to, WMRM does not allow you to.
Apple vs. Microsoft. Apple will NEVER choose to support WMA, pricing is not an issue. MS could give it to them, they would reject it. -
#3.10 Posted by STV on 01 Aug 2004 - 21:12
QUOTE (#3.9) Any good DRM system does not allow transcoding to any other formats. Fairplay doesn't allow you to, WMRM does not allow you to.
Apple vs. Microsoft. Apple will NEVER choose to support WMA, pricing is not an issue. MS could give it to them, they would reject it.
FairPlay can be cracked, WMDRM hasnt been since version 7.
in the end, this is not about money then, it is about pride. right?
STV-
#3.11 Posted by cal2002 on 01 Aug 2004 - 21:16
- All drm systems can be cracked and will be at some point, but ya, it's about little old Apple trying to overthrow what MS is doing. Apple has done a okay job, but if they would learn to license what they have, they could catch ms.
-
#3.12 Posted by STV on 01 Aug 2004 - 21:18
QUOTE (#3.11) All drm systems can be cracked and will be at some point, but ya, it's about little old Apple trying to overthrow what MS is doing. Apple has done a okay job, but if they would learn to license what they have, they could catch ms.
exactly. i think that this is just stupid from a business point of view. i think steve has too much pride. i bet he has so much that he doesnt have any MS software on his Mac.
STV-
#3.13 Posted by noyb on 01 Aug 2004 - 21:34
QUOTE (#3. 
so let me get this straight. they dont enable WMA support because AAC cost so much? where did you get the licensing cost information? i got mine from here:http://www.musemagic.com/papers/licensinginfo.html#_Toc48655025. seems that WMA is cheaper that AAC and MP3. surely the cost of enabling WMA wouldnt be too much?
first you say that AAC is expensive, then you say that it is slightly cheaper the WMA, well which one is it? it seems the me that WMA is cheaper (in price) compared to AAC.
Did you even read my post?????? did you read point 2???????
In much of this i was actually defending WMA, and where licensing comes in if they enabled it they would have to pay not one big discounted sum but per encoder and decoder thats 4 generations of Ipod + the mini + 2xItunes and they would have to do that annually. I suppose its pointless mentioning as no doubt you just scan through and look for points that you think are disrespecting your cherished MS, that other popular players like iRiver and Creative don't support AAC. I wonder why that is???
Oh yeah and FYI MP3 is the happy medium both AAC and WMA don't have anywhere near the level of support that MP3 have in CE's and total use.-
#3.14 Posted by STV on 01 Aug 2004 - 22:29
QUOTE (#3.13) no doubt you just scan through and look for points that you think are disrespecting your cherished MS
oh, no, ive been found out.
anyways, i did read your post (for the second time, just to humour you). to me it just seems that this:
QUOTE Even though both Itunes and Ipod have the ability to play WMA once enabled they would have to pay the licensing fees and they are already paying for AAC so its an extra expense. QUOTE Oh and one last point the rumor that AAC is less proprietry than WMA is a myth, You still have to pay for encoders and decoders and you still need permission to modify it, the reason that people like Real are using AAC is that its only slightly cheaper than WMA
conflict.
that is the only problem i found. the other parts i agree with. please dont get like that unless you want others to be the same way. i dont want this to start something bad. cool down, and if you already are, think before you post with too many question marks.
no offense,
STV-
#3.15 Posted by tapo on 01 Aug 2004 - 22:35
- STV, you're missing a huge point here. Why would Apple WANT to add WMA support? Sure it's cheap, but it's not like WMA is extremely popular and needs to be supported. Why pay money for more formats when already you have the market leading digital music player?
It's also that Apple probably trusts Dolby with the future of the format more then Microsoft, and that's why they went with AAC for their music store.
(Quick question, are you sure it's Dolby? I thought AAC/MP3 patents were held by Thompson.) -
#3.16 Posted by noyb on 01 Aug 2004 - 22:38
- In that last point i was defending WMA as it gets alot of flak for being a proprietary format and i was stating that its no different with AAC which alot of misguided people (Mainly mac fanboys and those that think Bill gates is in league with the devil) seem to think is open.
-
#3.17 Posted by noyb on 01 Aug 2004 - 22:40
QUOTE (#3.15) Quick question, are you sure it's Dolby? I thought AAC/MP3 patents were held by Thompson.)
MP3 Pro is owned by Thompson, MP3 is Frauenhofer (Please correct my spelling) and AAC is dolby/via-
#3.18 Posted by cal2002 on 01 Aug 2004 - 22:47
- AAC was developed by FhG, Dolby, AT&T, Sony, and Nokia. I think Dolby owns the rights to license it. http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/standard.html "VIA Licensing: By Dolby"
FhG developed MP3, Thomson is the sole licensor for the format. -
#3.19 Posted by cal2002 on 01 Aug 2004 - 22:56
QUOTE (#3.15) STV, you're missing a huge point here. Why would Apple WANT to add WMA support? Sure it's cheap, but it's not like WMA is extremely popular and needs to be supported. Why pay money for more formats when already you have the market leading digital music player?
It's also that Apple probably trusts Dolby with the future of the format more then Microsoft, and that's why they went with AAC for their music store.
WMA is much more popular then AAC, AAC is great, sounds better then WMA Std.
AAC itself is open (I think), but Apple's AAC (i.e the addition of Fairplay) is the MOST proprietary format out now (okay, maybe Sony's ATRAC)
WMA can be used by ANYONE. Licensing is SIMPLE and CHEAP. Again, MS licenses WMA and WMRM to ALL of their BIGGEST competitors!!!! Apple could really care less, even though MS will license WMA to Apple in a flash.
WMA Pro is the future of WMA. They already have tons of portable devices that "can" support it (firmware upgrade needed), it supports upto 8.1 audio, had AVR's that already decode it, etc.
Apple can not claim any of this, because they will not license it to ANYONE. Nor can Dolby (at this point) for AAC.
-
(2 replies)
#4 Posted by Randall_Lind on 31 Jul 2004 - 23:39
- Will it be added in to Media Player?
-
#4.1 Posted by figgy on 31 Jul 2004 - 23:58
- Yes. To Media Player 10
But unlike Apple which only allows its own site,
Microsoft's implementation allows any vendor to add their store to Windows Media Player.
-
#5 Posted by inziga on 01 Aug 2004 - 00:08
- Sounds about right. They've been working behind the scenes at http://beta.music.msn.com/ for three months now.
-
(4 replies)
#6 Posted by yert* on 01 Aug 2004 - 00:22
- I can't wait to see their "Ipod Killer"! mp3 player
-
#6.1 Posted by R002092 on 01 Aug 2004 - 13:38
- I'm thinking that if, and I stress if, Microsoft release the MS-Pod, its gonna be harder for it to gain sales, considering, theres not that much difference from one mp3 player to the next. I think its gonna be harder for them than it was for Apple, considering there late intro into the market.
-
#6.2 Posted by STV on 01 Aug 2004 - 16:51
- let me give you several examples of when MS was "late to the party."
1) Internet Explorer and its battle against Netscape made it the most used browser.
2) Windows and the PC against Apple's offering which made Windows the most used operating system.
3) Mobile devices. while this isnt exactly a "real victory," it has the potential to become one, because Windows Based devices are (by leaps and bounds) out selling PALM based ones.
STV -
#6.3 Posted by tapo on 01 Aug 2004 - 22:40
- 1) Wasn't this illegal?
2) True. The open and cheap x86 platform kicked the **** out of Apple's closed platform. This is why many think that Linux will be the next OS to dominate.
3) This is one of those rare instances where Microsoft gathers together and introduces a kickass product, though Palm wasn't hard to beat. Many mobile device manufacturers didn't trust licencing an OS from Palm, who was also competing with them. Now that PalmOne and PalmSource are seperate, hopefully the Palm market will grow again.
-
#7 Posted by snippet1 on 01 Aug 2004 - 01:37
- Heh - this's been happnening with NineMSN for months! Pfft - the rest of the world is always so far behind us!
-
(2 replies)
#8 Posted by Soviet on 01 Aug 2004 - 04:31
- just proves that the only thing Apple can really do is UI and case design.
-
#8.1 Posted by Aaryn Kasra on 01 Aug 2004 - 07:04
- Scanning post for logic.... <none found>
-
(4 replies)
#9 Posted by nX07 on 01 Aug 2004 - 04:35
- Remember people Microsoft is planning to release a HardDrive MP3 Player that will amost be 50% Cheaper than the iPod for about 90% of the product. Pretty good deal! -- I read this on NeoWin a while ago.
-
#9.1 Posted by dmbandfan22 on 01 Aug 2004 - 17:55
- It'll only succeed if it is designed well. So far, most competitors have not released something as simple or easy to use as the iPod (other than maybe the Creative Zen Touch). We'll have to see if it makes a difference in a year.
-
#9.2 Posted by T-Grey on 01 Aug 2004 - 18:58
- MS (or any other company) will never EVER create a device which will upset the ipod's throne. as long as there are people with more money than they need, there will be a market for overpriced, really really cool looking products. the fact that the ipod costs more than most mp3 players is one of the reasons its so popular, even if that may sound backwards.
-
#9.3 Posted by daze369 on 01 Aug 2004 - 20:06
- apparently you failed to read the followup article that talked about how they were misquoted and that it wouldnt be 50% cheaper...
-
#9.4 Posted by STV on 01 Aug 2004 - 21:11
QUOTE (#9.2) MS (or any other company) will never EVER create a device which will upset the ipod's throne. as long as there are people with more money than they need, there will be a market for overpriced, really really cool looking products. the fact that the ipod costs more than most mp3 players is one of the reasons its so popular, even if that may sound backwards.
do you remember what happened to apple's reign (with respect to computers) back in the day?
it seemed that MS did it once with windows and I think that if everything goes smoothly, they can do it again.
STV
-
#10 Posted by kainashi on 01 Aug 2004 - 15:34
- i can't wait to see the music store and player.
-
#11 Posted by Shiranui on 02 Aug 2004 - 02:44
- I'd rather give Microsoft my money for a music player than Apple.
It's thought that the service will be run on a pay-per-download basis - in the iTunes style - rather than on a subscription model, favoured by some song shops, such as Napster. The song shop is likely to appear as a feature on the MSN homepage - giving it a potential audience of 350 million visitors a month.
This tool will not:
Detect or remove any viruses or worms other than Mydoom.A, Mydoom.B, Mydoom.E, Mydoom.F, Mydoom.G, Mydoom.J, Mydoom.L, Mydoom.O, Zindos.A, Doomjuice.A, and Doomjuice.B
Detect or remove future variants of Mydoom, Zindos, or Doomjuice
Prevent a machine from being re-infected with Mydoom if, for example, an infected e-mail attachment is re-executed
Detect or remove malware that exists on a system as a result of the backdoor component created by a Mydoom variant, besides Zindos.A, Doomjuice.A and Doomjuice.B
Delete any e-mail that contains a Mydoom variant
Run on any version of Windows NT 4.0
The user must be an administrator to run this tool.
Release History:
Version 1.0 - Released 2/5/04. Detected and removed Mydoom.A and Mydoom.B. Support for Windows XP and Windows 2000.
Version 2.0 - Released 2/9/04. Added detection/removal for Doomjuice.A and support for Windows 98, Windows ME, and Windows Server 2003.
Version 3.0 - Released 2/11/04. Added detection/removal for Doomjuice.B.
Version 4.0 - Released 7/29/04. Added detection/removal for Mydoom.E, Mydoom.F, Mydoom.G, Mydoom.J, Mydoom.L, Mydoom.O, and Zindos.A.
It is recommended that all users run the current version of the tool even if a previous version was used.