People need to remember why iTunes is so popular. It's the quality of the interface. Just go to Amazon or any of the alternative music sources. Searching, browsing, sampling, buying, it's all one big PITA. The other music "stores" suck mightily as far the user experience and ease of use are concerned.
1. The average customer cares about ease of use in terms of finding and buying music.
2. The average customer could care less about DRM.
3. The average customer will continue to use and buy from the iTMS because it has been implemented so well.
I don't see any real competition to the iTunes/iTMS. A colleague at work tried to satisfy his teenage daughter with a couple of mp3 players. He finally was basically forced to buy her an iPod. He's a long time Windows user and even he has stated that he now uses iTunes as his main music player because it's so well written and easy to use. It's easy to fall prey to all the criticisms of the iPod/iTunes/iTMS system by the very vocal minority. Remember these are the people who predicted Apple's failure because of no user replaceable battery, no FM tuner, DRM, et al. They're also still waiting for Ogg Vorbis support, har har.
This unknown outfit will more than likely be an also-ran like the rest of them even if it actually works. It's gonna take a whole lot more than DRM free music or so-called free music to dethrone the iPod/iTunes/iTMS ecosystem. And contrary to another very vocal minority it's not a monopoly either.
Now, I will pay for all the music and movies. But I want them lossless, DRM-free and for $1 each CD, DVD or Blu-ray downloaded via legal P2P. That wipes out piracy from the face of the planet Earth overnight. Will they get it eventually or die like old dinosaurs?
Any ideas how they might achieve DRM protection but still be able to play in on an iPod, and presumably iTunes, without Apple's assistance?
Since when does a similar typeface make one a wanker?
If Shawnathan is right, it's not just similar, it's the same typeface. Still, I really don't think that's a big deal unless Apple owns the typeface. Nothing else of the website is remenicent of Apple. Personally, I don't understand the typeface geeks. Maybe I'm just some lowly philistine, some of their complaints about one face vs. another amount to what would be a subpixel or less on for regular sized text (12pts) a monitor.
I love Apple and iTunes but i love FREE even better. Regardless of the messy interface or usability if the end user can download FREE tunes without fear of the internet police knocking on their door then it'll certainly appeal.
Whilst QTrax isn't a household name, it won't be long before word gets around and much bigger brands with bigger ad revenue copy the model and step into the arena.
This is one example where Leopard running XP will come in handy. Cheers Apple
Over the long term, I don't expect Apple to stay in the music retail business: it's not where their strengths lie.
However, they have a bright future in the music playback and distribution business, through iPod+iTunes. In some ways it's good news for them that iPod will supposedly work with this company's DRM (as horrible as DRM is) because it challenges the notion that iPod is a lock-in, and helps Apple with their problems with the EU competition commission. I know it's not a lock-in for DRM-free media, but it is for DRM-enabled (or disabled, I should say).
The best thing for iTunes would be for Apple to lease out space for Amazon and others, including individual musicians, to set up storefronts.
Why are so many of you being so negative about this? Is it because, for the first time, Apple might have some serious competition on their hands?
DRM has been an issue but only with music we've had to pay for. In this scenario, if you have a track on your computer that you want access to on another computer, just download it again.. for free.
This sounds like a great idea to me. I would happily put up with a few ads for what is essentially free music that doesn't expire and works on an iPod.
The AI article also suggests Apple may attempt to circumvent Qtrax compatibility in order to maintain the iTMS's strong lead but this is ridiculous. Is Apple giving up MP3 compatibility so that Amazon's tracks don't work on iPods? Obviously not...
Bah. The competition for this is FREE, not Apple. Apple's competition is Amazon.
That so many of you think that Qtrax is going to happen. Free, legal, digital downloads? Yeah, right.
It can't happen. And Apple is way back in the line of those who would scream bloody murder if such a scam surfaced. The music industry would instantly be out of business and this includes any artist who made a living from selling music. All you could get from Qtrax would be music recorded before March 2008 and amateur music thereafter (I can't wait to get some plumber's cover of "Helter Skelter" )
Qtrax is a fraud, and if it ever sees the light of day, it will be destroyed immediately.
Right now, everyone is heading over to Qtrax. That traffic will show the labels this model might be viable. It's a cowboy way to get their attention, but it just might work. It caught them all on a busy day while they're watching the spectrum auction.
With respect to Apple being in the music (and tv show/movie) sales business, Apple has said recently that the iTMS is there on a "just above break even" basis and exists to sell iPods.
I would assume that now includes movie rentals with regard to the iPods, iPhones, and Apple TV.
So, I doubt that Apple is worried about ANYONE getting into the business of selling music that is playable on an iPod. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is fairly happy with having Amazon getting in on the MP3 music download business. The quality is not as good, and the store front is not as good.
But in the long run, anything that can play on an iPod is to Apple's benefit.
The quality is not as good, and the store front is not as good.
Have you compared tracks from both? I thought the word from those that tried both found that Amazon's quality is a lot better than the standard iTunes track, and about equal to that of iTunes+ tracks. The variable bit rate encoding on Amazon is supposed to make up for it being MP3. iTunes sells them as constant bit rate tracks.
I seriously doubt this service's ipod support promise. If the company can boast support from major labels without a real contract is signed, it can well boast ipod support without a line of code is even written.
Bah. The competition for this is FREE, not Apple. Apple's competition is Amazon.
Given a choice between paying for something or getting it free, I know which one I'd go for. Obviously it depends on how exactly ads are implemented. If ? as someone above mentioned ? you get hot dog ads between tracks then clearly this system isn't going to work. However, if this service actually offers legally available "free" music with unobtrusive ads, I know a lot of people who would avoid paying for it on iTunes entirely.
Comments
1. The average customer cares about ease of use in terms of finding and buying music.
2. The average customer could care less about DRM.
3. The average customer will continue to use and buy from the iTMS because it has been implemented so well.
I don't see any real competition to the iTunes/iTMS. A colleague at work tried to satisfy his teenage daughter with a couple of mp3 players. He finally was basically forced to buy her an iPod. He's a long time Windows user and even he has stated that he now uses iTunes as his main music player because it's so well written and easy to use. It's easy to fall prey to all the criticisms of the iPod/iTunes/iTMS system by the very vocal minority. Remember these are the people who predicted Apple's failure because of no user replaceable battery, no FM tuner, DRM, et al. They're also still waiting for Ogg Vorbis support, har har.
This unknown outfit will more than likely be an also-ran like the rest of them even if it actually works. It's gonna take a whole lot more than DRM free music or so-called free music to dethrone the iPod/iTunes/iTMS ecosystem. And contrary to another very vocal minority it's not a monopoly either.
Now, I will pay for all the music and movies. But I want them lossless, DRM-free and for $1 each CD, DVD or Blu-ray downloaded via legal P2P. That wipes out piracy from the face of the planet Earth overnight. Will they get it eventually or die like old dinosaurs?
Any ideas how they might achieve DRM protection but still be able to play in on an iPod, and presumably iTunes, without Apple's assistance?
Since when does a similar typeface make one a wanker?
If Shawnathan is right, it's not just similar, it's the same typeface. Still, I really don't think that's a big deal unless Apple owns the typeface. Nothing else of the website is remenicent of Apple. Personally, I don't understand the typeface geeks. Maybe I'm just some lowly philistine, some of their complaints about one face vs. another amount to what would be a subpixel or less on for regular sized text (12pts) a monitor.
Whilst QTrax isn't a household name, it won't be long before word gets around and much bigger brands with bigger ad revenue copy the model and step into the arena.
This is one example where Leopard running XP will come in handy. Cheers Apple
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/01/28/d....ap/index.html
Only the Windows version of itunes does that.
Thats lame, I wonder why that is a "feature" of the OS X version.
Dont get your hopes up yet...
Whoops!! A classic case of Cart Before The Horse
Whoops!! A classic case of Cart Before The Horse
It is bad faith to announce a deal before it's actually signed. I don't expect them to survive long doing that sort of boneheaded maneuvers.
However, they have a bright future in the music playback and distribution business, through iPod+iTunes. In some ways it's good news for them that iPod will supposedly work with this company's DRM (as horrible as DRM is) because it challenges the notion that iPod is a lock-in, and helps Apple with their problems with the EU competition commission. I know it's not a lock-in for DRM-free media, but it is for DRM-enabled (or disabled, I should say).
The best thing for iTunes would be for Apple to lease out space for Amazon and others, including individual musicians, to set up storefronts.
Why are so many of you being so negative about this? Is it because, for the first time, Apple might have some serious competition on their hands?
DRM has been an issue but only with music we've had to pay for. In this scenario, if you have a track on your computer that you want access to on another computer, just download it again.. for free.
This sounds like a great idea to me. I would happily put up with a few ads for what is essentially free music that doesn't expire and works on an iPod.
The AI article also suggests Apple may attempt to circumvent Qtrax compatibility in order to maintain the iTMS's strong lead but this is ridiculous. Is Apple giving up MP3 compatibility so that Amazon's tracks don't work on iPods? Obviously not...
Bah. The competition for this is FREE, not Apple. Apple's competition is Amazon.
It is bad faith to announce a deal before it's actually signed. I don't expect them to survive long doing that sort of boneheaded maneuvers.
Steve might even stick it to the record companies more thanks to their underhanded dealings. Screw 'em.
It can't happen. And Apple is way back in the line of those who would scream bloody murder if such a scam surfaced. The music industry would instantly be out of business and this includes any artist who made a living from selling music. All you could get from Qtrax would be music recorded before March 2008 and amateur music thereafter (I can't wait to get some plumber's cover of "Helter Skelter"
Qtrax is a fraud, and if it ever sees the light of day, it will be destroyed immediately.
That would be anti-competitive if it could be proven that Apple purposely prevented it.
Why? The QTrax option is free. How, in a businesslike manner, can apple compete with free?
Why? The QTrax option is free. How, in a businesslike manner, can apple compete with free?
It's free only if you ignore the cost of your time exposing yourself to advertising.
Assuming this thing is real.
Why? The QTrax option is free. How, in a businesslike manner, can apple compete with free?
Exactly what JeffDM said. Just because one service is free doesn't mean there is no revenue stream or that they don't charge for a different service.
I would assume that now includes movie rentals with regard to the iPods, iPhones, and Apple TV.
So, I doubt that Apple is worried about ANYONE getting into the business of selling music that is playable on an iPod. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is fairly happy with having Amazon getting in on the MP3 music download business. The quality is not as good, and the store front is not as good.
But in the long run, anything that can play on an iPod is to Apple's benefit.
My 2 cents.
The quality is not as good, and the store front is not as good.
Have you compared tracks from both? I thought the word from those that tried both found that Amazon's quality is a lot better than the standard iTunes track, and about equal to that of iTunes+ tracks. The variable bit rate encoding on Amazon is supposed to make up for it being MP3. iTunes sells them as constant bit rate tracks.
Bah. The competition for this is FREE, not Apple. Apple's competition is Amazon.
Given a choice between paying for something or getting it free, I know which one I'd go for. Obviously it depends on how exactly ads are implemented. If ? as someone above mentioned ? you get hot dog ads between tracks then clearly this system isn't going to work. However, if this service actually offers legally available "free" music with unobtrusive ads, I know a lot of people who would avoid paying for it on iTunes entirely.