[Peter]

To attract current iPod users Microsoft is going to let you download for free any songs you've already bought from the iTunes Music Store. They'll actually scan iTunes for purchased tracks and then automatically add those to your account. Microsoft will still have to pay the rights-holders for the songs, but they believe it'll be worth it to acquire converts to their new player.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/06/m...yer-working-o/

That could be really expensive for Microsoft, no?

[mduell]

Ignoring the politics and organizations involved, it seems totally reasonable. You've already paid for a license to the song, so you should be able to have it in any format you like (for the cost of delivery... which is just about $0.00 for downloaded music).

However I doubt the RIAA will "give up" another $0.70 they could make per song... maybe MS can negotiate a decent deal?

[Ghoser777]

Microsoft is willing to lose a little money to get momentum/marketshare.

[porieux]

...

[Amorya]

so, who's going to hack it to tell the MS app that you have hundreds of downloaded tracks, and get them delivered free?

[GSixZero]

There's nothing that says you'll own the music... I'm pretty sure this is just a feature of a subscription music service...

"We know none of your ITMS songs will play on our device, so we're happy to scan your iTunes library for purchased music and automatically add the subscription versions of the same songs to your account automatically! Just keep paying the $12.95 per month to keep them!"

[Doofy]

"We know none of your ITMS songs will play on our device, so we're happy to scan your iTunes library for purchased music and automatically add the subscription versions of the same songs to your account automatically! Just keep paying the $12.95 per month to keep them!"

Dear Micro$oft,
Uncle Doof does not rent. Uncle Doof owns.
Please try harder next time.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by porieux

As I said in another thread, they could open themselves to another antitrust lawsuit for this practice.

I was about to bring up the same point. I was dreadfully late.

Nephew Jawbone doesn't rent either, Uncle Doof.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by porieux

As I said in another thread, they could open themselves to another antitrust lawsuit for this practice.

Why is that exactly? They are just giving customers an extra way to play their already purchased songs. It's not like it would disable or delete any of the iTunes track on your harddrive or iPod or anything.

[porieux]

...

[- - e r i k - -]

Yes. But please go ahead and enlighten me as to how this is relevant to this type of action.

[porieux]

...

[Chuckit]

I was actually just wondering how antitrust laws were relevant in this case.

[Kerrigan]

Microsoft makes rather good hardware, it'll be interesting to see what this is like.

[rickey939]

Oh my god, the end is near.

[MaxPower2k3]

it means there's an extra licensed copy of the songs floating around. what's stopping you from authorizing your PC with a friend's iTunes account, getting all of his music from microsoft, and then deauthorizing the iTunes account again? Is it smart enough to check that? Even if you have to have a copy of the files on your computer, it'd be easy to nab them off of an iPod and then get your own legal and paid-for copy from Microsoft.

[slugslugslug]

Why aren't y'all discussing this in the "OMG The iPod Killar is coming!!!1elentyone!!1" forum.. er, I mean iPod forum, where Simon and I have already said, um, smart stuff. And where I scooped you, Peter. Okay, now I'm just whining.

I hadn't thought about the subscription part. That seems way more plausible, since they probably have some per-subscriber rate already negotiated with the Devil, um, labels.

I was also just wondering to myself if they'll make you buy the iPod Killer Personal Portable Edition™ in order to use the iTunes Music Store Killer Windows Media Portal Shopping Experience™ on a PC. Cause if not, then someone with an iPod could just sign up and make MS have to re-pay for all their iTMS-purchased songs without Microsoft getting a cent out of it. That'd be kind of cool, but of course only if this whole deal is about buying files, not renting.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by porieux

Well, you aren't if it's not obvious to you.

Lamest. Comeback. Ever.

I'm happy to be educated on how this relates to antitrust. Get cracking.

[Visnaut]

Originally Posted by porieux

Are you aware of the laws regarding antitrust, and what got M$ 'busted' the first time?

Actually I'm just downright ignorant. Please enlighten me.

PS. I'm really lazy when it comes to clicking links or googling. kthxbye

[memory-minus]

1) I'll believe it when I see an MS press release, and
2) It's highly likely, if it's even true, they'll just add the tracks to your subscription (similar to Napster) as GSixZero mentioned above.

[Gossamer]

Arrg...how come no one knows how to burn a CD??? Everyone everywhere acts like Apple's DRM is OMGUNBREAKABLELOL!!1!1 when all it takes is a CD and a couple minutes (or a simple readily available program)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by porieux

As I said in another thread, they could open themselves to another antitrust lawsuit for this practice.

In this case, what would make them anymore exposed to an antitrust lawsuit than Apple?

[Salty]

actually JHymn hasn't been updated for iTunes 6
which sucks cause I'd really like to De-DRM my music again. Not because I wanna share it but just because having unprotected files makes me feel more comfortable.

[Jawbone54]

Competition =

This will be good for everyone.

[IceEnclosure]

Originally Posted by Salty

actually JHymn hasn't been updated for iTunes 6
which sucks cause I'd really like to De-DRM my music again. Not because I wanna share it but just because having unprotected files makes me feel more comfortable.

huh? burn a disc and re-encode. jeez(us).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Competition =

This will be good for everyone.

There's a pretty fine line between competition and anti-competitive behavior. The second is more Microsoft's style.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

There's a pretty fine line between competition and anti-competitive behavior. The second is more Microsoft's style.

How's that? Wouldn't anti-competitive behavior be selling music which is only playable on a device you also sell? And wouldn't it be competitive behavior for a competitor to come up with a way (that doesn't involve reverse engineering) to play that music on the competitors device?

Please explain how Apple is being competitive by not allowing ITMS music to be playable on any device other than the iPod.

Please explain how M$ is being anti-competitive by coming up with a legal way to make music purchased through ITMS playable on their device.


Personally, I think M$'s solution is a pretty clever solution to entering a market currently monopolized by Apple.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Please explain how Apple is being competitive by not allowing ITMS music to be playable on any device other than the iPod.

It's a necessary business move. It's not that you can only play it on an iPod, but that you can only play it on YOUR devices. Either every mp3 player conforms to the same standards of DRM or Apple just gives you straight mp3s, which the record companies would never allow. With any online service, there has to DRM, it's a necessary evil.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

It's a necessary business move. It's not that you can only play it on an iPod, but that you can only play it on YOUR devices. Either every mp3 player conforms to the same standards of DRM or Apple just gives you straight mp3s, which the record companies would never allow. With any online service, there has to DRM, it's a necessary evil.

Except you're supposed to be able to play iTMS tracks on any number of iPods. It's not the DRM that makes it so you can only play your tracks on your devices, but the syncing system that associates each iPod with a single user's instance of iTunes. That whole system even keeps un-DRMed tracks playable only on your devices.

The fact is that it is through Apple's maneuverings that not every DAP conforms to the same standards of DRM, and it's precisely to prevent iPod users from defecting if something marginally better comes along that can play iTMS songs without a hitch. A little obnoxious as a business practice, yes. Whether it's really unethical, I'll leave up to y'all.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

I'm happy to be educated on how this relates to antitrust. Get cracking.

Microsoft is perfectly willing to throw the excess of cash they have at the market instead of actually playing the game to come out on top, as Apple has done. Microsoft's idea of entering a new market isn't competing with the existing players, but scorching the playing field with a flamethrower and then standing on top of all the dead bodies.

It really does surprise me that someone CAN'T notice when Microsoft is thinking about anti-competitive practices. Throwing cash around to get the market and then overcharging the consumer after they've dominated it is what got them in trouble in the first place, I thought.

edit: overcharging the consumer or pretty much disallowing the consumer from possibly ever considering a competing, possibly superior product.

[production_coordinator]

My 2�

1) Microsoft's player better bay WAY cooler than the iPod, or it's going to flop like the rest.
2) Users of iTunes aren't going to learn another program for little or no reason.
3) It's Microsoft... who's going to buy something from them?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

3) It's Microsoft... who's going to buy something from them?

The Xbox crowd?

[kaze0]

It has to be subscription only or why would anyone buy directly from Microsoft. Just buy from Apple and you get both versions. durrrr

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

3) It's Microsoft... who's going to buy something from them?

That last bit is a joke, right? Plenty of people don't even realize there's any other game in town for OSes or office apps.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

Microsoft is perfectly willing to throw the excess of cash they have at the market instead of actually playing the game to come out on top, as Apple has done. Microsoft's idea of entering a new market isn't competing with the existing players, but scorching the playing field with a flamethrower and then standing on top of all the dead bodies.

It really does surprise me that someone CAN'T notice when Microsoft is thinking about anti-competitive practices. Throwing cash around to get the market and then overcharging the consumer after they've dominated it is what got them in trouble in the first place, I thought.

edit: overcharging the consumer or pretty much disallowing the consumer from possibly ever considering a competing, possibly superior product.

Microsoft is not buying it's way into the game with this move. If their player or music service suck, it doesn't matter that they're willing to replace your ITMS music with versions that will play on their device. What this does is allow people the opportunity not to feel locked into the iPod and ITMS on the outside chance that they find the M$ offering preferable.

[Landos Mustache]

So are they giving you a pure MP3 or a WMA with their own copy protection.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

So are they giving you a pure MP3 or a WMA with their own copy protection.

Well, of course, we don't know what they're giving out. We don't even know if this is real, so it's all speculation. But, I would think it's quite likely that whatever they would give out would have at least a similar level of copy protection as the ITMS music. Of course, it will also probably attempt to lock you to M$ products at least as much as ITMS music locks you to Apple products.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Microsoft is not buying it's way into the game with this move. If their player or music service suck, it doesn't matter that they're willing to replace your ITMS music with versions that will play on their device. What this does is allow people the opportunity not to feel locked into the iPod and ITMS on the outside chance that they find the M$ offering preferable.

And they have to pay for the licenses for that music regardless. It's just another way of buying the customer. You can make **** smell like a rose, but it's still ****.

[Gossamer]

Is there a music service out there that gives you a pure unprotected mp3?

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Is there a music service out there that gives you a pure unprotected mp3?

allofmp3, but the legality of it has been questioned lately.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Is there a music service out there that gives you a pure unprotected mp3?

Is there anyone in their right mind that would go from an iPod to a microsoft Me too product?

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Is there anyone in their right mind that would go from an iPod to a microsoft Me too product?

That's gonna depend on the Microsoft device's quality. We can say it's likely not gonna be as attractive and simple to use as iPod/iTunes, but we don't know for sure until it's in people's hands.

[Dopetrackalistic]

I think this new player will suck ass, but MS will probably sell it for peanuts, like $50 or less, and lose $100 on each one purely to break into the market.... just like they did with the Xbox. Sure, no other ipod competitor is as good as the ipod, but I don't think Samsung, or any of these companies has the bank OR the balls to sell players at a total lost like microsoft WILL.

Heed this warning folks... their player wil suck, but it WILL be major competition purely because of the drastic price cut.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

That's gonna depend on the Microsoft device's quality. We can say it's likely not gonna be as attractive and simple to use as iPod/iTunes, but we don't know for sure until it's in people's hands.

Microsofts 1.0 hardware is always horrible. HORRID!

They will have to be at rev 3 before it is even worth a look and by then Apple will be waay ahead.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Is there anyone in their right mind that would go from an iPod to a microsoft Me too product?

95% of the market is already not necessarily in their right mind.

[onlykaria]

Originally Posted by Peter

http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/06/m...yer-working-o/

That could be really expensive for Microsoft, no?

yes, but its not like MS is short on cash. this (free versions of all your itunes tracks) could be the beginning of the end for itunes.

[imitchellg5]

Maybe we all should do it and try to make Microsoft bankrupt.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Maybe we all should do it and try to make Microsoft bankrupt.

My guess it that if they are actually doing it, they've got some deal that won't bankrupt them.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

How's that? Wouldn't anti-competitive behavior be selling music which is only playable on a device you also sell?

Not unless you go into the field with some huge advantage, like an already existing monopoly, and, say, start selling your device at a huge loss because everybody else will go bankrupt long before you do, and then you'll have another monopoly.

[Dopetrackalistic]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Not unless you go into the field with some huge advantage, like an already existing monopoly, and, say, start selling your device at a huge loss because everybody else will go bankrupt long before you do, and then you'll have another monopoly.

Exactly why I think their new device, however shitty, will succeed. It's sad. Apple can't afford to sell at a loss, neither can any other company.