Microsoft Software Drives New Online Music Offerings
Posted by malebolgia on 18 July 2004 - 20:53 · 12 comments & 1506 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
-
-
(1 reply)
#1 Posted by Major_Tom on 18 Jul 2004 - 21:01
- Hmmm lets see what has worked. No-subscription, limited DRM and owning the song (I mean you download it, not stream) And MS does the opposite of ALL that, oh yeah its bound to succeed!
-
#2 Posted by bluarash on 18 Jul 2004 - 21:11
- I think this actually might go over. A universal format (not opensource though) that cost very little to aquire the rights to (WMA). At a cost of about $10-30 per month the end user would be allowed to download an unlimited number of tracks and transfer them to a portable device like the Dell DJ or Creative Nomad. If you want to own the work (you can't actually own a song) then a flat rate of .99 to 1.29 would be charged to your account.
The problem with be how they roll out their service. I can see a flat fee of $20 per month for the subscription and then only being able to download less popular tracks and none of the older generation of songs either. At that point the service will basically be pointless...
Just my thoughts.
-
#3 Posted by sumeet on 18 Jul 2004 - 21:15
- This will fail miserably
-
#4 Posted by JadeWolf324 on 18 Jul 2004 - 21:34
- of course. almost all services that microsoft offer, imo, are never really taken to a professionally used level because:
A: marketing
B: Design (try keeping a uniform look for once in its life)
C: Usefulness
ill only a fan of MS at the server end...and sometimes im not even that.
i predict this wont go very far at all.
-
#5 Posted by Galley on 18 Jul 2004 - 23:57
- Rhapsody is only $9.95, so I think MS would have to shoot for that pricepoint.
-
(2 replies)
#6 Posted by tomaras on 19 Jul 2004 - 01:08
- I've had a Napster subscription for a number of months and the subscription concept works great for me as I listen to lots of music I'd never buy. I use it on my desktop and on my laptop when travelling. I also make use of Microsoft's MSN Music Radio Plus with a yearly subscription. I don't miss purchasing music whatsoever. I still buy the CD's I want and listen to everything else for $9.95 per month. I think it's a fine model that probably has less appeal to youth which seem to make up most of the posters here. FYI kids....there's a whole bunch of music consumers in thier 30's, 40's, 50's and beyond that won't have any problem with subscriptions.
-
#6.1 Posted by angrybrit on 19 Jul 2004 - 06:50
- I got one for you: I'm not interested in music CDs costing me more than 80$+ down the road. iTunes has the biggest selection of music. And yet they still don't have a small percentage of what I listen to. Over 8 months, a subscription would cost me 80$, using Napster as a base for price, just for 10 songs. Which would you rather pay: 80$ or 10$?
Subscription plan is flawed and is too costly in the long run. With the money you save from using iTunes instead of a subscription service, I can get an iPod Mini.
-
#7 Posted by mram on 19 Jul 2004 - 01:47
- It's better than satellite radio. Get what you want, when you want it, at an unlimited rate.
Consider that before you say "it'll never fly." Satellite radio exists, and you can't even choose what you want to hear. (for an example, check out XMRadio for 10/month)
I find the concept very intriguing with that in mind... especially given that the internet is far more reachable to users than the satellite radio appliances.
Last edited by 48053 on 19 Jul 2004 - 02:03
-
#8 Posted by imtoomuch on 19 Jul 2004 - 03:43
- People will automatically write the service off because it's from Microsoft, but the subscription service is a much better deal for a lot of people.
-
#9 Posted by macrosslover on 19 Jul 2004 - 05:10
- well just have to wait and see what happens when it comes out. the main thing i'm interested in, is the lower prices of the mp3 players that will come out when MS enters the field and pushes for the lower prices, then maybe the ipod could get some "real" competition and we can see a price/feature war on the devices.
Hoping to put a dent in the popularity of Apple Computer Inc.'s music download service, online music subscription providers are readying services that allow users to shift rented songs to portable digital music players. If the offerings catch on, it would mark a victory for Web music providers such as Napster, MusicNow and MusicNet(at)AOL and for Microsoft Corp., which is providing the software designed to ensure that the enhanced subscription-based services can be offered without opening a new front for digital piracy.
Music subscription providers allow members listen to an unlimited number of songs for a monthly fee, but the services have been hamstrung by restrictions on transferring the songs to digital music players. But providers say the new digital rights management technology, code-named Janus, from Microsoft, will enable subscribers to listen to music subscriptions on the go, while providing assurance to record companies that their copyrighted content will not be pirated. By contrast, Apple's hugely popular online music store iTunes allows users to buy songs outright that they can then transfer to one of the company's popular iPod music players.
Updates
According to the article at MSNBC, the new iPod will also contain the following features:
Personally, I am hoping that some of these new features will be made available to existing users through firmware updates. I guess we will just have wait and see...