“I had my first go at paying to download music the other day and it left much to be desired. I didn’t even look at Roxio because after I wrote about its earnings, I was warned that its software was intrusive. Then, I eliminated RealNetworks’ Rhapsody and Time Warner’s AOL because they both required that customers buy a subscription for the privilege of paying them again to download songs,” Mark Mahorney writes for The Motley Fool.
“Both Sony’s Connect and Apple’s iTunes required that I download software, but with Sony, as far as I could tell, I had to download the software before I could even see what music it had to offer,” Mahorney writes. “With the choices narrowed down to iTunes, Buy.com, and Wal-Mart… I went with Wal-Mart to save a buck, and I got what I paid for. Per the service, I had to read the help files in Microsoft’s Media Player to burn
“Motley Fool” — that rather says it all, doesn’t it?
>even though iTunes’ CD burns couldn’t be more “foolproof.”
He could probably mess up with iTunes, too. “Foolproof devices are; when a fool uses them, you have all the proof you need.”
Yeah, this “review” was pretty weak. I mean come on, he whines because you have to download iTunes first? That’s really the only step you have to take to use the service. Put this guy firmly in the “if it’s not from Microsoft and it doesn’t come with Windows, it must not exist or it’s too hard to use” camp. Microsoft’s core user base.
You can also add this article to the list of all of the “when company X comes out with their online store, they’ll kick Apple’s ass, even though they have no product currently” pieces. I just love how all of these company’s with no products and no experience in the space are touted to beat Apple. Kind of like all of the “iPod killers.”
oh my god.. he didn’t want to actually try the services.. why did he insist on weaseling out of his freakin’ responsibilities… what an immature take on the download market…
he thinks the more webbed a store is, the more successful it will be..but really.. amazon would suck since the songs would just drop into a folder called ‘downloads’ and you would have to then go and put it into your music player.. apple’s solution obviously is the way to go..
what a disappointing take on what is a very fresh market..
oh well.. at least he was able to acknowledge that apple has the strongest brand of all the services.. DUH
“Then I found that none of the services had all the songs that I wanted. That’s not their fault necessarily, as it’s an artist and label issue. But, to get most of the songs on my list, I was going to have to use more than one service.”
It does appear that he tried iTunes, Buy.com and Wal-Mart. He would have had to load iTunes to search for songs. He foolishly (pun intended) decided to purchase via Wal-Mart. He really should have purchased songs from at least two sources to justify an article.
This dude is more foolish than I thought.
And his claim of computer “literacy” also falls short of the mark, too. If he’d been more literate, he would have tried EVERY service he mentioned, and provided a more specific comparison of each separate experience. Since he’s a wintel guy, you suppose he was afraid of what that would have revealed? You bet.
it’s sad, iTunes is the best written software I have on my pc
My 62 year old mother has been using her first computer ever (an iBook) for about two months. She’s buying music on iTunes and putting it on her iPod–without my help after the initial instruction.
Yeah, buying music on the ITMS isn’t for the average user; it’s for the below average user. What does that say about the author of this article?
“Now my computer literacy is well above average — not to brag — “
anyone who doesn’t try iTunes because they have to “download” software for some Windows fear like spy ware or virus, does not have above average computer literacy….. as a matter of fact, i would venture to say anyone beating them self up with every windows problem is down right computer illiterate, while a Mac person enjoys and actually gets work down with their computer.
find out why people “brag” about their BMW’s and Harleys and Macs as they sit in wonder about why people beat themselves up with such poorly thought out products like windows offerings…….
jon.
Just sent the guy an email urging him to try the Apple iTMS before painting all music stores in the same broad brushtroke os suckitude. Geesh I wish people would do research before making statements like he did….
I agree with this guy. Wal-Mart’s music store proves that all download services suck. I don’t buy clothes anymore, either, because all I can find at Wal-Mart is NASCAR t-shirts and camouflage pants.
Errata:
Music Download Firms Don’t Get It [Motley Fool Take] — should be:
Music Download Firms [Motley Fools Don’t Get It]
Fool contributor Mark Mahorney doesn’t own shares of any companies mentioned — should be:
Fool Mark Mahorney doesn’t try products or services he reviews.
What a dillwad. I can’t believe they published it when it is so lame.
Do you ever get tired of incompetence in the world? I just don’t get it. MDN does a great job, on a DAILY basis, of exposes these kinds of people who do things quick and dirty, then publish an article like this.
Thurrott is another great example. I personally feel people like these two clowns are used to working in a half assed manner…probably due to the half assed systems they work on. I mean truely how can this guy write an article like this while ONLY trying ONE site!!!!!!
Hang and quarter him
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Actually, it’s kind of an interesting perspective. True computer novices (most of the world) are going to be shy about downloading software in order to download mustic. So, in a way, this guy was playing the most naive, fickle user he could imagine. that kind of person would want to download music with virtually no commitment, which means no subscription service, and no special software to download. This is akin to walking into a record store and paying cash for a CD–your affiliation with that record store is over as soon as you’ve made your purchase. Not so with any of the better online services–you either have to pay for a subscription, or download software you may not want.
Now, granted, he should have declared that’s what he was doing up front, but it’s still interesting when taken from that perspective. After all, online services are not trying to compete with each other–they’re trying to compete with the only way most people have ever bought music before, which is from bricks-and-mortar stores.
I agree with hairbo. If I have to install a 3rd party application to get something to work, I generally just decide that I can live without it. It usually isn’t worth the hassle.
Also, Amazon was good reference: all you need to get a book or a CD from them is a credit card and a mailing address. If downloading music were that simple I’d probably do it a lot more often. And please, no comments about iTMS simplicity. Yea it’s very well designed but you STILL have to go through iTunes to use it. I, for one, would love it if iTMS were accessible through a standard web browser.
This guy claims computer literacy??? Actually, as I’ve said before, one of the two Motley guys really hates Apple and the other one will at least give Apple positive reviews. You can guess which one wrote this article.
Funny he even wrote the article, since he didn’t even try most of them.
You cannot judge anything until you’ve walked in its moccassins, and this guy is truly a FOOL!
Now, he is doing a comparative piece and he only tried one of them and then lump everyone in the same category. That is smart… I wish I can do the same in my field. What is worse, not only did he not try the market-leading and famously-easy-to-use iTMS, he even posited that Amazon would do it better than Apple.
I’ve never before sent a response to any Apple bashing or misinformation I’ve encountered on the web but being a loyal Motley fool reader and a Mac user I had to send the following letter upon reading that reckless and ‘Foolish’ article:
As a foreword I do own shares of Apple.
I find it very discouraging when someone uses the kind of broad generalizations unsupported by facts that Mr. Mahorney does in support of a malformed thesis consisting of ‘Music download firms just don’t get it’.
Using 1 music service, from a discount hard goods retailer at that, and then claiming that music download services don’t get it is so laughably ridiculous and without empirical merit that to even print this tripe does a disservice to everyone mentioned in the article.
Were someone without any idea of music download services to use this as their introduction or, Mossberg forbid, primary source for making a decision about anything other than Wal-Mart’s inability to provide leading edge software support. They would be misled by such a wide margin that it’s easy to support the notion that they’d be better off and better able to make a decision having never seen the article.
PART II:
The supposition that Amazon would be better able to deliver digital content because…? (they have, many warehouses, a visible brand, you bought a book there) is equally with substantiation.
It’s nice to suppose, when disappointed in the current choices, but since Mr. Mahorney didn’t choose to even sample the leading music service, iTunes, which incidentally uses the most revolutionary aspect/service of Amazon, the One-Click order service, the idea that he’s given us information or done a service by examining his options prior to dispensing his ‘wisdom’ is ridiculous.
As to burning CD’s, iTunes, the current industry leader and critical darling for both Windows and Mac OS, couldn’t be easier to use. You choose a playlist to burn, click burn, follow the prompts to load a blank cd, click burn again. Roughly 1-3 minutes later; depending upon your burner speed, processor speed and length of playlist iTunes changes the encoding from AAC or mp3 and delivers a cd suitable for most cd players.
This is just a secondary function as most legal music downloads are destined for an iPod and will not be burned to cd. Never the less iTunes handles this secondary task as elegantly as its primary.
PART III:
Before this letter is dismissed as another Mac zealot firing off a knee-jerk missive at the slightest hint of an affront to his beloved cult. I should note that I spent many years as an IT support person for windows and UNIX systems and use several different operating systems on a weekly basis. I worked for 9 years in the radio business, both commercial and not for profit. I had no interest in mp3’s until the iPod was released and I have a cd collection that is nearer 1000 pieces than 750. All the hassle of scratched cds and buying an album full of filler for 2 decent songs and 1 good one has become a thankfully distant memory.
I have the ease and convenience of the iTunes music store. I download what I want, whole albums or obscure or hit singles, and it takes 1/100th the time it would take to drive to the store and purchase the cd or 1/1000th the time to order and wait for it to arrive from Amazon.
The delivery of music via this new paradigm should be encouraged by everyone who doesn’t have stock in a record company. As new distribution models evolve and replace the Byzantine and gouging system that has been the norm for so long half-baked and unsupported comparisons or opinions only discourage people from trying the new services and enforce the status quo that has criminally enforced too high prices on consumers while offering artists little of the ill gained lucre.
So many things were supported by his article just none of the ones the author purports: You get what you pay for (.79 vs. 99. Is not that great a disparity and you’re getting an arguably better encoding codec) & You can�t judge a book by it�s cover (Walmart may seem like the cheapest alternative but if you value your time this isn�t the the case). Finally Believe none of what you read and 1/2 of what you see (the multitude of people currently using the iTunes music store show that at least someone has done their homework)
beatsme,
It is much simpler to go through iTunes to get music than to use a generic web browser – it is so direct, no URLs to fuss with, no varying pages based on browsers, etc. iTunes uses Amazon’s licensed one-click technology so I don’t see how Amazon can do any better. And is there anything wrong with iTunes search?
Apple understands that average users don’t want to download and install iTunes; that’s why, they have pre-installed bundling deals with HP (worldwide) and Founder (in China). It’s even non-exclusive, so other computer makers could get it bundled if they wanted, but most of the others are trying to sell their own MP3 players which don’t work with iTunes and compete with iPods …
Motley Fool is a joke!
How anyone can take them seriously is beyond me!
They don’t even test the best online music store – what you got to ask yourselves is WHY???
Maybe theyre affraid of how good it is compared to their 2nd rate service!
At the end of the day they won’t say any good about any online service as they are trying to sell their own service as the best (which it will NEVER be!).
It’s like asking Microsoft to review it’s own software for a magazine – totally biased and pointless!
By the way, my four year old son, who can barely read some words, knows how to operate iTunes and the iTMS. He loves nothing more than to go to the Disney page and listen to :30 second song previews or view trailers. In fact, he’s made a whole playlist of the songs he likes. And with my seven year old daughter who can read, they can work through the whole store, looking for specific songs, music videos, and trailers.
Because of how simple it is to buy (one-click), I do not dare to have an iTMS account remembered on my home desktop because they might accidentally buy too many songs when I’m not around.