Apple Says Microsoft's Music Service Is Out Of Tune

[Kent Pribbernow]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/MSN+Music+is+off-key%2C+Apple+says/2100-1027_3-5345131.html?tag=nefd.top' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/MSN+Music+is+off-key%2C+Apple+says/2100-1027_3-5345131.html?tag=nefd.top</a><br /><br /></div><i>"The creator of the trendsetting iPod music player and iTunes music service on Thursday took its on-again-off-again rival to task for the new MSN Music download service, saying it has fewer features and fewer songs than the market-leading iTunes. "Its biggest problem may be that its downloaded songs can not play on the iPod," said Eddie Cue, Apple's vice president of applications."</i><br /><br />Do I detect a hint of fear in Apple's PR spin? Could it be they tremble at the thought of the 900 lb. gorilla from Redmond entering into their territory...and I'm not talking about Steve Ballmer. It remains to be seen whether Microsoft's music service is successful or a complete dud. But it's nice to see Apple sit up and take notice that they no longer have the driving lane to themselves. Coming up from behind them in the passing lane is Microsoft. And I would advise Steve Jobs to read the warning label on his mirror...<i>"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear"</i>.

[klinux]

Time for Apple to up its bit rates. I love competition.

[phillypocket]

Somehow I don't see how not being able to play (directly) on an Ipod is a deep flaw to a music store. From this statement I assume that with apple's store it is a simple process to put music on a zen or an i-river? (I haven't loaded itunes, cause I don't like apple's interface styles). In fact I suspect it will be much more of a problem for apple that microsoft. Right now buying the music a novel part of the ipod experience. I remember when buying cd's were a novel experience. I seem to recall having fun shopping for the wonderous new platic disks with their booklets with lots of images and lyrics and extras. But eventually I came back to the music. I was buying songs not the shopping experience. And I suspect as buying music online becomes the norm the same thing will happen here. We will take large collections, artist information, album reviews, and the like as the norm and online stores will compete just like brick and mortar. And some how I believe people will become intolerant of a store which sell music for one player or a player that plays music from only one store.

The other thing I don't get is why there is an asumption that keeps being propped up that this is a zero sum game? Why must microsoft dominate in this particular field? It's a store. They may become huge, like a wallmart (or they may not), but that doesn't mean everyone else will go away. And frankly the biggest way I see apple losing is if they stay focused on only themselves. Our songs on our player. If they open up, they become normal big store in a growing market with a good lead. Which seems like a good thing to me. Or it would if I were a stockholder.

[Jason Dunn]

That's some of the best/worst PR rhetoric I've ever read. Hah! :lol:

[Mojo Jojo]

In fact I suspect it will be much more of a problem for apple that microsoft.

Actually, it all depends on what you have for a player. In the case of getting iTunes to play on an iRiver versus getting a Windows Media Store file to play on the iPod... the solution is the exact same. Download, burn to disk, re-rip. One is no better then the other.

Microsoft puts the spin on it and says they are more players to use with their store [which is true] however Apple makes a good point [paraphrase here] and says people already decided by buying a iPod.

It is not like a frilly design or icon (from either of the companies) is going to make people suddenly throw out a $250-$400 device.

I have to agree and say that the battle isn't for current users, the DRM's of both companies keep that from being practicle, but the battle is for new users who haven't committed.

[phillypocket]

Actually, it all depends on what you have for a player. In the case of getting iTunes to play on an iRiver versus getting a Windows Media Store file to play on the iPod... the solution is the exact same. Download, burn to disk, re-rip. One is no better then the other.


I wan't saying that microsoft's "spin" on it was any better that apples (although I don't recall microsoft saying apples store was broken because it doesn't "work" with most players). I was saying that I belive apple will have more problems, as the market place grows, if it's limited to ipods. I'm not saying that their player is broken because it doesn't play .wma (I'm not faulting their player at all), I'm saying they will become less of a music source and more of the exclusive supplier of ipod content. Which may be exactly what they desire.

Today, that sounds fine. They have a great selection of songs, and the world is new. Tomorrow, who knows? Maybe they'll piss off a distributor, and all of a sudden a whole group of artists are no longer legally available to ipod users. Or maybe there"ll be a lablel they choose not to go after because their market's too small or they don't like how they do business. I'd be much less likeley to encounter these kinds of issues in the future with 4 or 5 companies with different business models and corporate cultures.

Those are my personal issues, but I think consumers in general will expect music to play. I don't think the common consumer cares about format past what they can physically see. They expect the music of today to play at least as well on the player of tomorrow. This could certainly be an issue with microsoft also, but I think it's more likely to be an issue for apple. As the price of players come down and the availability and visibility goes up, I belive the likely hood of a subsequet player not being the same brand of the previous player goes up. Maybe they'll want a small solidstate auxilliary player for working out. Maybe they'll want to by a unit for the car. Today at least, these are not ipods.

I don't believe from an average consumer standpoint, the closed eco-system is the best for future growth.

[James Fee]

I don't believe from an average consumer standpoint, the closed eco-system is the best for future growth.Except Microsoft's "platform" is closed unless you own a Windows PC and a WMA compatible device. Mac OS, Linux, iPods and other need not apply. The excuse that Windows in on over 95% of computers doesn't not mean the system is not closed.

The bottom line is Microsoft is using Windows Media to drive sales of their products. I have not problem with that, but don't claim their system is open when in fact it truly isn't. There are only two differences between Apple's system and Microsoft's.

1. Microsoft has licensed WMA to many Hardware companies, but has not provided a player on Mac OS.
2. Apple has not licensed AAC to anyone other than Motorola, but offers their player on Windows.

In the end, if you only have Windows, then you see no problem with saying it is an open system, but the real fact remains that Microsoft only wants people who have Windows to take part.

There is only one true open system that is playable on almost 100% of all digital music players out there and it is MP3. Of course that won't get you downloads, but playback of MP3 is open.

[dean_shan]

"Ask kids in the back of a car on a two-hour trip, 'Hey, would you like to have your videos there?' My kids would," Gates said. "I guess Steve's kids just listen to Bach and Mozart. But mine, they want to watch 'Finding Nemo.' I don't know who made that, but it's really a neat movie."

:lol: Um Jobs did.

[dean_shan]

There is only one true open system that is playable on almost 100% of all digital music players out there and it is MP3. Of course that won't get you downloads, but playback of MP3 is open.

Emusic (http://www.emusic.com) offers downloads as MP3.

[phillypocket]

1. Microsoft has licensed WMA to many Hardware companies, but has not provided a player on Mac OS.

Actually, I would bet that they haven't provided media player 10 for that particular 3% of the market yet (It's just out of beta in windows). I agree that they may (however then again, for music sales the just might) not provide one on linux, however (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) I thought that the Janus technology was something that they were eager to license to all comers. If so couldn't red hat decide that they wanted their linux distribution to play purchased .wma files?

Whether its "fair" or not there is a tremendous difference in apple deciding they want a piece of the other 95% of the market than microsoft wanting a piece of the hostile (to them) 3%.

This actually brings me to another pet peeve of mine. For some reason if a company makes a business decision that "only" supports windows its seen a negative. I see it all the times in reviews; under "cons: windows only". However if another company brings out a product for mac or linux somehow the fact that most people can't use the software is never held against it. It only appears in the "pro" column or not mentioned at all. Apparently mac and linux products "cater to their market" while windows products discriminate again the l33t and elite.

[James Fee]

You are totally missing my point. Microsoft controls WMA, therefore to call it open is misleading. If WMA was truly open, Microsoft would not control it.

This actually brings me to another pet peeve of mine. For some reason if a company makes a business decision that "only" supports windows its seen a negative. I see it all the times in reviews; under "cons: windows only". However if another company brings out a product for mac or linux somehow the fact that most people can't use the software is never held against it. It only appears in the "pro" column or not mentioned at all. Apparently mac and linux products "cater to their market" while windows products discriminate again the l33t and elite.
So what does this have to do with ANYTHING? All I said was WMA DRM only works on windows and is therefore a closed system. I said above, I have no problem with WMA nor Microsoft, but I do have a problem with people claiming that WMA DRM is an open system when it is not.

[Crocuta]

You are totally missing my point. Microsoft controls WMA, therefore to call it open is misleading. If WMA was truly open, Microsoft would not control it.

There is only one true open system that is playable on almost 100% of all digital music players out there and it is MP3. Of course that won't get you downloads, but playback of MP3 is open.

Well you can't have it both ways; you're using two different definitions of 'open' in these two posts. Fraunhofer Institute controls MP3 so if being non-prorietary is what defines 'open' (as in the top quote) then neither MP3 nor WMA is open. If you define 'open' as widespread on a large number of devices of various types (as in the bottom quote), then they are both open.

[James Fee]

WMA isn't playable on as many devices as you think, especially WMA9. Sure on the PC and digital players, but in cars, home theater and other places, it just doesn't play as well as MP3. As I said, MP3 isn't truly open either, but it is playable almost everywhere, which WMA cannot claim yet.

[phillypocket]

So what does this have to do with ANYTHING?

I said it was a pet peeve. Your brought it to mind in the post where you said this Except Microsoft's "platform" is closed unless you own a Windows PC and a WMA compatible device.

Anyhoo, at this point I'll agree to disagree. Enjoy your labor day :)