Yahoo Releases Music Download Service

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://music.yahoo.com/musicengine/' target='_blank'>http://music.yahoo.com/musicengine/</a><br /><br /></div><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/yahoo_music.jpg" /><br /><br />Yahoo has released their new music service with a bang. Either $0.99 a song or an amazing $4.99/mo for unlimited songs. 8O The catalog is smaller than most, but I suspect that they'll be able to increase that quickly. Plus with the subscription, you get ad-free LAUNCHcast radio. The only thing really missing here is Musicmatch (or my guess this is Musicmatch, can anyone tell?). Kind of makes you wonder what they plan to do with that. <br /><br />I personally don't care for music subscriptions, but this price point might just jump start the "format". I doubt they'll make any money at this point on it, but Napster has to be really worried. Unlike Yahoo!, Napster and to a lesser extent Real don't have the ad sales to really compete in this marketplace. You have to wonder how much longer Napster can really go with this kind of pressure. I don't think this really hurts iTunes too much at this point. The jury is still out on subscriptions and I can only assume that Apple would offer them if the market demanded. Another issue I've begun to see is that these new services don't really compete against iTunes, but rather each other. If Microsoft is going to push Apple back, they'll need their partners to work together and not try and put each other out of business.<br /><br />Still, lower prices are good for consumers and I'm guessing others will follow with the $5/month price soon.

[Tim Williamson]

And if you go with the $4.99/month plan permanent downloads are only $0.79. I'm still sticking to buying CDs though, but this price point did catch my interest and at least got me to visit Yahoo's page to see what they have to offer.

[Felix Torres]

Its worth remembering that Napster financials reveal that at $14.95 their service has a 40% profit margin. So breakeven would be at $9.00 or so.
But, unlike Napster, Yahoo is not a music distribution company; they make their profits from ads. So, by tying in to their other products, they could find profit in a below-cost product.

Also worth considering is the terms of the subscription may be different from those of Napster and Rhapsody, which support three portable devices, as well as PC and streaming devices/extenders. Different terms might result in lower costs that might make even the $5 monthly price profitable by reaching to different customers.

Which is good; there is likely room for many different products and business models in the online music distribution business.
One size does *not* fit all.
And since 98% of all music sold is still distributed on CD, there is clearly a *need* for new/different approaches.
The trick is finding a profitable customer base for each different model.
Ad-assisted subscriptions might work.
Or it might not.
But we won't know if nobody tries it.

[Macguy59]

For only $5 a month I'd be willing to give subscription based music a try (assuming no long term committment for that price)

[Macguy59]

And since 98% of all music sold is still distributed on CD, there is clearly a *need* for new/different approaches.
.

It's still 'renting' music

Sorry. Couldn't resist Felix :lol:

[Jason Dunn]

Hmm. Do my eyes decieve me or will this actually work in Canada? 8O :D

[Felix Torres]

And since 98% of all music sold is still distributed on CD, there is clearly a *need* for new/different approaches.
.

It's still 'renting' music

Sorry. Couldn't resist Felix :lol:

And how much cable tv do you buy anyway? :twisted:

[Macguy59]

And since 98% of all music sold is still distributed on CD, there is clearly a *need* for new/different approaches.
.

It's still 'renting' music

Sorry. Couldn't resist Felix :lol:

And how much cable tv do you buy anyway? :twisted:

So your saying viewing habits are the same as listening habits? BTW since I have satellite I don't pay a dime for cable TV. However, even if I did I can still record the programs I choose for playback (via my DVR) at a later time as many times as I choose whether I have the service the next month or not. And guess what? It will playback on virtually any television available for sale rather then just handful :wink: [/i]

[klinux]

Consumers will notice the prioe but the interest thing is the media engine itself. Native MP3/AAC/OGG/FLAC decoding, support for plug-ins etc. I encourage everyone to check it out!

[James Fee]

Consumers will notice the prioe but the interest thing is the media engine itself. Native MP3/AAC/OGG/FLAC decoding, support for plug-ins etc. I encourage everyone to check it out!Do you think it is a variation of Musicmatch or its own design?

[ale_ers]

Do you have to download their software or can you use Windows Media Player?

[Jason Dunn]

Do you have to download their software or can you use Windows Media Player?

It looks like you need to download their software, which pissed me off by installing Yahoo! Messenger even though I said to ONLY install the music client. Guess it comes as one piece, which is lame. But on the plus side, it does seem to work in Canada.

[Felix Torres]

So your saying viewing habits are the same as listening habits? [/i]

I'm saying buying habits are the same.
And the product being sold is the same.

In both cases what you are buying is *access* to entertainment.
With music subscriptions you get access to a catalog, on demand.
With cable (75% market share, btw) or dish, you get access to streamed content delivered at the provider's discretion (i.e. on their schedule) and the right to time shift it for personal viewing.
But you don't own anything.
If you don't beieve this, just run a simple experiment:
Take that show you just recorded and put it up on ebay andd see how far you get. If you can't sell it, you don't own it.

People have no problem buying access-only to content.
They've done it for centuries and they'll keep on doing it for milennia.
Shakespeare was not the first to make money off access to entertainment and Yahoo won't be the last.

[Macguy59]

So your saying viewing habits are the same as listening habits? [/i]

I'm saying buying habits are the same.
And the product being sold is the same.

In both cases what you are buying is *access* to entertainment.
With music subscriptions you get access to a catalog, on demand.
With cable (75% market share, btw) or dish, you get access to streamed content delivered at the provider's discretion (i.e. on their schedule) and the right to time shift it for personal viewing.
But you don't own anything.
If you don't beieve this, just run a simple experiment:
Take that show you just recorded and put it up on ebay andd see how far you get. If you can't sell it, you don't own it.

People have no problem buying access-only to content.
They've done it for centuries and they'll keep on doing it for milennia.
Shakespeare was not the first to make money off access to entertainment and Yahoo won't be the last.

We will just have to agree to disagree about music subscriptions.

[klinux]

Do you think it is a variation of Musicmatch or its own design?

I know it is a brand new design. The executable is built from scratch ground up and is &lt;6 MB. The plug-in architecture is really cool.

This begs the question of what is Y! going to do with MusicMatch (or why did they buy it). Perhaps they were interested in MM's technology or patents? Its subscriber base?

their software pissed me off by installing Yahoo! Messenger even though I said to ONLY install the music client.

Are you sure? I recall it asking but my saying only install music client. I am running a different build/version of Y! Messenger and it was not overwritten. I will have to try it on another PC to confirm this but I am fairly certain Yahoo! does not install additional software if the user specified that it not being installed.

[Jason Dunn]

Are you sure? I recall it asking but my saying only install music client. I am running a different build/version of Y! Messenger and it was not overwritten. I will have to try it on another PC to confirm this but I am fairly certain Yahoo! does not install additional software if the user specified that it not being installed.

I have two options at install: Yahoo! Music Engine and More, and Yahoo! Music Engine only. The description for the latter days "...the Yahoo! Music engine; Yahoo Messenger 6.0; and Windows Media Format runtime."

So, yes, I'm sure. ;-)

[klinux]

Hmm, you are correct... sort of. I went back and did the installation again and indeed Y! Messenger is installed.

However, Yahoo!'s description is completely correct. The latter install option explicitly states that that it will install required components which include Messenger and Windows Media format runtime.

It is not as if you chose (or may choose) just Y! Music Engine and forgo the Messenger or Windows Media format runtime and Yahoo! installed either or both without your permission. It did tell you that Messenger is required and it will install it.

Kinda reminds me of this too: Google Using DivX to Install Toolbar? (http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8024&amp;postdays=0&amp;postorder=asc&amp;start=10)

[Jason Dunn]

However, Yahoo!'s description is completely correct. The latter install option explicitly states that that it will install required components which include Messenger and Windows Media format runtime.

Correct, it does warn you. But I'm still allowed to think it's lame that they force the install of Messenger aren't I? I just want the music client, nothing more. And putting the title of "Yahoo Music Engine Only" is a bit misleading, especially for those of us that skim install text. We both missed it the first time.

Kinda reminds me of this too: Google Using DivX to Install Toolbar? (http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8024&amp;postdays=0&amp;postorder=asc&amp;start=10)

Now you're just being mean.

[klinux]

You are right (again) that the language is indeed misleading.

When the installer says "only", it should mean just that and not this AND that AND that. During the reinstallation, I also noticed that it also put the shortcuts on desktop without permission, adding Messenger to startup, etc. - all annoying practices that software companies should put an end to.

Lastly, while the Messenger function within the Music Engine is nice (it allows you to browse and stream from people on your Messenger list, kinda like iTunes, among other functions), it really should not be necessary in order to run the Music Engine.

This is a reason why I like Media Player Classic. Less than 5 Megabytes but plays any video media format out there.

And sorry for digging up the other toolbar thread!

[ale_ers]

Do you have to download their software or can you use Windows Media Player?

It looks like you need to download their software, which pissed me off by installing Yahoo! Messenger even though I said to ONLY install the music client. Guess it comes as one piece, which is lame. But on the plus side, it does seem to work in Canada.

Hopefully you will be able to use Windows Media Player once it is out of Beta. WMP 10 sure makes things convenient with the ability to switch from store to store to find what you are looking for.

I imagine once you download a song you can use WMP 10 to play and organize it?? Or do they force you to use their software too. And how about connecting players? Can you use WMP 10 for that?