“With Apple Computer’s dominance over the digital music business growing, Microsoft is planning to bolster its own online song store with a new subscription service later this year, sources familiar with the plans say,” John Borland writes for ZDNet.
Brland reports, “sources say Microsoft is also considering a more direct attack on Apple, seeking rights from copyright holders to give subscribers a new, Microsoft-formatted version of any song they’ve purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: We have to wonder how Yahoo, Napster and the other Microsoft WMA-based also-rans would welcome this move.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Report: Apple iTunes Music Store more popular than most peer-to-peer file sharing services – June 07, 2005
Apple’s iTunes Music Store passes 430 million downloads, market share increases to 82-percent in May – June 07, 2005
Note that is says “give subscribers” new M$ songs of any iTunes song. And then when you stop subscribing, does your music disappear too?
“may allow”? Ahhh, there goes the old M$ FUD attack: “Hey, let’s announce a product we have no hope of actually getting to market.”
MDN Magic Word: “hospital”. Hahahahahahaha
version of any song they’ve purchased from the iTunes store so those songs can be played on devices other than an iPod- so the songs are FIRST bought on iTunes, and then converted? Yeah right. I smell a lawsuit…
1. The songs aren’t converted, they are re-downloaded.
2. It wouldn’t be for the subscription model because if you have a subscription you can download all the songs you want anyway.
Either way, the article states that the iTunes/WMA song idea probably won’t work out anyway.
stantheman(the real one):
I give up.
Cool. Go away now.
Re: Stantheman
“I give up.”
Hooray! Best news I’ve heard all week. The surrendur flag is a-waving folks!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Magic Word: college, as in son, I say son, why doncha go to college, school, that is and learn you some manners? Am I talking here or just getting exercise flappin’ my gums? Is any of this gettin’ through to you son? Just nod your head if you understand me…[/Foghorn voice]
Man, it must suck to be locked into the Windows platform using one of those non-iTunes music stores. Oh well, at lease all of those non-iTunes music stores together only have 18% of the market.
wonder if they’ll let it work the other way
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
“From: stantheman(the real one)
I give up.”
Now go buy a Mac and be done with it.
why would anyone in their right mind want to give up what works so well for something that is just starting up? is this service really going to be that good that people are going to want to convert their songs?? because that alone can’t be the selling point-i didnt start using itunes because it can convert wma, i started using itunes because it is a superior program…and THEN i wanted it to be able to convert wma.
this is really sad marketing if this is all MS can come up with…
yeah MS would have to offer something really wicked that apple wouldnt be able to reproduce in the future for me to switch over to whatever program it is…otherwise, why give up something so delightfully simple and wonderfully easy to use…
nothing MS does is easy to use, so why should i believe this will be.
at least they are doing it the MS way-late to the game.
Steve has played every card right so far with the iPod. I still think that at some point he should license out Fairplay more but the timing has to be right. They are riding so high right now that it is hard to argue that now is the time. They should watch carefully tho and be ready to switch policies quickly if the tide starts to turn.
Given all the brilliant moves with regards to the iPod and digital music, you gotta look at the Intel switch with a more positive eye. Steve has proven very cunning so far.
stantheman:
you really should stick to topics you know about, but judging by your posts, that doesn’t seem to be much.
The film industry is not all over Windows Media format. As was stated previously, the next generation of DVD’s will all be in H.264, which is QuickTime.
There is a point being missed here.
Some of us don’t buy enough online music to justify the subsciption model. Why pay to keep being able to use something you downloaded a month or more ago?
iTMS has gotten a whole $54 out of me since they opened. They wouldn’t have gotten anything at all if it was a subscription service. I’ll buy the CD before renting it by the month and having it disappear if I hate their service. I can always buy it used if the labels try to raise their prices again.
Why do MS and the others think that people want music the way we get cable or DirectTV, when many of us would rather get cable or Sat more like the way we get music from iTMS? Don’t think Apple doesn’t know that.
I know I’m not an online music store’s target audience, but if there are a million or more casual buyers like me in the world (and likely many more than that) does a company really want to turn down that much cash because it’s made up of small increments? The music biz is based on small incremental sales. iTMS just brought it down to it’s most basic form.
And, do you really see the artists endorsing a business model where their fans can lose their favorite music because their subscription service went out of business, or merged, or just got lost in a billing glitch? That’s not good for business.
Ugh…. I’d rather use Kazaa on a PC.
(1) Microsoft has tried again and again to develop an annuity-type stream of income. (MSN, software by subscription, etc.) This is another try at doing the same thing. Record companies like the idea because they have seen shrinking revenue–when your revenue has been shrinking annuity type income sounds great.
(2) There are all kinds of things the record labels want to do that Apple won’t let them do. The labels despise Apple’s insistance on the 99 cents per song, 9.99 per album price scheme. The labels want to charge $9.99 for catalog albums, $19.99 for new releases, $14.99 for releases they want to promote, which they then want to jump up to $21.99 once the album starts selling, and they absolutely do not NOT *NOT* want to sell for 99 cents the only the song on an album anyone will ever want to hear–they want the $19.99. People talk about Apple stifling competition for online music, but Apple isn’t taking the normal course a monopolist takes of gouging consumers–but rather is standing up to the real monopolists, the labels, and forcing on them a pricing scheme consumers want. Take a look at the subscription models, variable pricing models, etc.–this is what the labels want, not consumers. The labels destroyed retail music sales with this crap and rather than learn from their mistakes they now want to rape consumers online.
(3) Finally, here is the reason Apple will not open up Fairplay. Apple will not open Fairplay because Microsoft has the money to piss away signing exclusive contracts with big-money artists, while Apple, unlike MS, cannot over any long term (or short term, really) sacrifice the profitibility of its music (ipod + itunes) division. Right now iPod+iTunes is the game in online music, and no significant band wants the embarassment of signing an exclusive deal with the online version of SteinMart. So instead you see them either making their tracks available to all services, or to none. Apple knows that if one day at 9 a.m. you can start buying music from another store and transfer directly to the iPod, by noon the Beatles, whatever top 40 acts, rappers, etc. will have signed multi-million dollar exclusive contracts with Microsoft, or one of Microsoft’s fronts. And those exclusive contracts won’t be for 99 cents a song and $9.99 an album–they’ll be for the same type of retail scheme pricing discussed above.
(4) The major labels and Microsoft can’t want to take Apple down. The only things standing in their way have been the consumers.