“The music download service Rhapsody has stepped up competition against Apple’s iTunes by making its catalog of five million songs available without electronic restrictions on playback or duplication,” Ben Sisario reports for The New York Times.
MacDailyNews Take: On June 19, 2008, Apple announced that music fans had purchased and downloaded over five billion songs from the iTunes Store and that iTunes is the number one music retailer in the US with the largest music catalog with over eight million songs. That’s 3 million more than Rhapsody (and about 4,999,999,999 more tracks sold, too). The competition’s really been stepped up there, Ben.
“With its announcement on Monday, Rhapsody, a joint venture by RealNetworks and MTV Networks, became the latest digital music service to do away with digital rights management, or D.R.M., which prevents users from making unauthorized copies of songs and can also determine which electronic devices can be used to listen to the songs,” Sisario reports.
“Apple has used D.R.M. since it began selling music on iTunes five years ago… but the other major download services, Amazon.com, Napster, Wal-Mart and eMusic, all sell music without restrictions,” Sisario reports.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Apple offers over 2 million DRM-free music tracks in its iTunes Store (from EMI and many independent labels). In fact, it was Apple CEO Steve Jobs who called for the end of music DRM in the first place. You’re welcome, Real. Apple would offer all tracks DRM-free if the remaining music cartels weren’t colluding against iTunes in a transparent effort to prop up Apple’s roadkill like the aforementioned Real Rhapsody. Instead of regurgitating press releases, do some research next time, Ben.
Contact: New York Times:
“@shen, just look at readership numbers of all these left wing lib rags and you’ll notice they’re all slithering into the sewer along with the lib mainstream media, whilst Fox News continues to grow and dominate the cable networks. See a trend?”
lets see, headlines anyone?
“Fox News viewership drops by half in 6 months …
Since the United States presidential election in November of 2004, viewership in the 25-54 age bracket of Fox News has fallen from over …
Study shows Fox News viewers misinformed about war, Iraq, WMD …
Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions….
No Surprise: FOX News’ Viewership Declining….
and my fav
Daily Show viewers better informed; Fox News viewers less so”
thats right, a comedy show informs you better than fox.
yes, i see a trend, you are an ignorant ill informed cretin, and you watch fox news. it is a disturbing trend. and one that has turned a large chunk of america into the heart land of ignorance.
are you proud to be a part of that?
and thanks for the link to “Obama’s political inspiration”
“Maya Soetoro-Ng, when asked if her mother was an atheist, said, “I wouldn’t have called her an atheist. She was an agnostic. She basically gave us all the good books — the Bible, the Hindu Upanishads and the Buddhist scripture, the Tao Te Ching — and wanted us to recognise that everyone has something beautiful to contribute.”[18] “Jesus, she felt, was a wonderful example. But she felt that a lot of Christians behaved in un-Christian ways.””
so basically, she was thoughtful and intelligent, and you are a mouth breathing xtian fundie? lemme guess you are a creationist too? and this should make me want to change to your reasoning why?
you. like the majority of the right wing, are just another poorly informed putz who blusters through life on “information” that when it is actually inspected is just so much baseless tripe.
you are the political equivalent of the brainless microsoft lemmings that come here to post “90% install base! suck it MAC dorks” and the fact that you have a single fact (OS X superiority) in sea of ignorance is all that gets you to this site.
your ignorance makes the baby jeebuz cry. now go away, and take your lack of critical thinking with you.
It’s easy to forgive the NY Times. MDN blows it daily and usually more than once a day too!
Nice rant, Shen. Well done.
Well said MacMan.
The truth is that the NYT in this case did report the story accurately, but in leaving out the broader background of the record labels motives and collusion, they didn’t tell the whole truth. There is room for criticism without claiming bias. Still, I agree that NYT writers, when politics is involved, can’t seem to stop themselves from injecting bias. Case in point: after reading the MS Monolith story yesterday I linked over to a NYT book review. The book was about the Cuban Missile Crisis; and event that took place more than 45 years ago during JFK’s presidency. The reviewer skillfully laid out the premise of the book and its qualities for two pages. But that wasn’t enough. The last two paragraphs, which were totally unnecessary, went on to speculate what MIGHT have happened if George Bush had been President, and the nuclear Armageddon that would have obviously ensued because Bush is so stupid and ham handed compared to JFK. It is that sort of writing that needlessly injects anti-Republican spin into stories needlessly that has Conservatives disliking the NYT.
As for Fox— I always hear Dems/Libs/Leftists decry the right wing bias at Fox News, and then go on to cite Hannity and O’Reilly as examples. Those shows are not NEWS programs. They are opinion and commentary shows. Viewers go into those shows knowing that the commentators have a point of view and you’re going to get a load of their OPINION. The Left has Keith Olberman (sp?) on MS/NBC who raves every night. I would like someone, just one time, to give me an example of where the NEWS on Fox was reported inaccurately or slanted with anti-liberal rhetoric.
I’ve said it before, I am American first, then Conservative, and Republican last. I am proud to draw a line in the sand, Shen, when the left wants to tug us somewhere we think is a bad idea. I’d restrain a child that wants to jump into the surf, not recognizing that there is a rip-tide, even though that child screams that I’m spoiling the fun. Even if he hates me for it.
— back to your normal Mac news and opinion.
Actually, the New York Times is a warmongering rag that cleverly disguises itself as “liberal”. If I recall, it was Judith Miller who beat the war drums against Iraq, and it’s Michael Gordon repeating on Iran.
It was the New York Times and the Washington Post, another “liberal” rag who invented the phony Watergate scandal, pushed for a special prosecutor, and when the first one didn’t suit it, pushed for another one that got “results”. (see Gene Lyons, Fools for Scandal on this. Haven’t heard of it? Gee, there’s a surprise.
You guys should stop buying into the “liberal” New York Times myth. It’s a cover, and a good one.
Shen sites left wing headline drivel to make his/her moonbat case.
Air America anyone??
Ok, ok. I’ll write a real post and not a MS-fanboy post.
Here’s my general take on iTunes versus others (Amazon, for example). I’ve used iTunes, MSN Music, Urge, and now Amazon. With the MSN and Urge DRMed files, if I transfered to an new computer, I had to restore the licenses. Since I never did that with iTunes songs, I can’t comment. It could be frustrating, but no big deal.
But right now, I prefer DRM-free files, and Amazon offers those. There are no problems with transferring files, moving to MP3 player/iPod, or burning to CDs. In addition, Amazon’s prices are much cheaper in most cases ($.89 or $.99 for tracks and albums starting at $5.00). The AAC/MP3 argument is negligible because most of the world uses iPods.
So yes, on price and DRM-free, Amazon wins. Don’t give me that 5 billion nonsense; iTunes has been around for 7 years.
@ loki
I’m well aware that iTunes is also management software. But Apple doesn’t make any money when people organize their music in iTunes.
@ Jordan
the iTunes music store is 5 years old. the software is 7 years old. just to clear that up.
second of all, Amazon offers every single song in MP3 format. Apple, on the other hand, offers 2 million songs in DRM-Free 256 kbps AAC format, and the rest of the 8 million in 128 kbps AAC. There’s a BIG difference between MP3 and AAC. MP3 has only 2 channels, and AAC has 48. MP3 is a very old technology, and AAC was created based on the flaws of MP3. Plus, AAC even takes up less space.
I would like you to do a test. Find a song that is on both itunes and amazon. Listen to the itunes sample, and then listen to the amazon sample. Clearly listen and tell me which one is better.
Look up on Wikipedia to see the differences between MP3 and AAC. Loads of them.
@ anonymous
I certainly recognize the difference between MP3 and AAC and I agree there is a difference. When I rip CDs, I do it to WMA VBR at 300+ kbps (WMA has been shown by some to be inferior to MP3 and AAC, but I’m not started an argument there). So yes, I recognize and value the higher quality files.
But you also pointed out yourself: roughly 3/4 of iTunes songs are only available in 128 kbps AAC! There’s no way you can tell me that 128 kbps AAC sounds better than a 256 kbps MP3!
The problem with Walmart is that it’s service is proprietary to Windows-only even though they claim to sell MP3 formatted music!
Of course, I don’t shop at Walmart ever, so I don’t care what they do with their online music store
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />