Amazon to Open Music Store?
Posted by Anne B. McDonald | Friday, February 17, 2006 8:50 AM PT
Our friends over at
IDG News Service tell me that the
Wall Street Journal says that Amazon.com plans to launch its own Internet music service. I don't know all the details, but I think it would be good for Apple and iTunes to get a substantial rival. (By the way, IDG is our corporate parent, and the New Service is a bunch of hard-working reporters and editors stationed all over the world.)
For one, I'd continue to think that songs at 50 cents a pop is the price that is going to turn my wallet loose. I can't quite embrace 99 cents per song on a regular basis. Also, as an iPod mini owner, I'm dreaming of the day that Apple ditches its one-player, one-PC rule that drives me nuts--the music I want to pour into my player is NEVER on the PC I'm near. (I interact with three on a daily basis.) I'm talking about my own purchased CDs that I've ripped to get into the iPod.
However, the
Journal said that Amazon, the world's largest online retailer, plans to sell its own branded portable music players, and a subscription service that would offer deep discounts and preloaded songs to users of its music players. Oh great, another proprietary player.
Apparently Amazon is in advanced talks with four global music companies about a digital music service that could be launched as early as this summer.
The report also said Amazon may tap South Korea's Samsung Electronics to build its digital music player.
Amazon has discussed offering the portable music players free as part of a long-term subscription package, or selling them with preloaded music that could be swapped out for other songs during the course of the subscription, according to the
Journal.
Am I the only owner of a digital music player who would like my expensive hardware to have all access to all music and have it loadable from any computer--or at least any computer I regularly use? I'm happy to pay a reasonable price for this. And what's your sweet spot for paying for a song?
I know. That's why I use WMP 10. For all its problems, at least I can rip my music, buy from MSN, and play it on multiple computers.
whoop de do
Do you people not realize that iTunes and iPods do NOT require that you buy music from the iTune Music Store???
You can have as much music on as many computers as you want if you rip it yourselves.
It's true users can rip their own music and place on as many computers as they want. But music industry support of dowloading is based on the protected model that Apple has so successfully promulgated. Though I am one of them, the percentage of users that are annoyed by the locked computer model is probably pretty small. So I agree that the only way this will get "fixed" is with competiton that segments the market; different models and pricing for users of varying sophistication demanding different levels of service. Ain't free markets great?
there are other players out there that you can use w/ PC or Mac and not have to install anything to grab music from the hard drives. I like my IAudio X5.
Agreed that DRM is very bad for the consumer. I have chosen to use the iTunes Music Store understanding full well the implications and don't really like them but use it anyway.
The time will have to come when there is a DRM standard, or the DRM goes away or something...
However, it's wrong to state that Apple and/or the iPod prevent free use of music. It's the iTunes Music Store complying to license agreements with music labels and RIAA that prevent that free use. Even CDs now are starting to have DRM preventing ripping the CD.
So ... it's NOT the audio player (iPod) or audio software (iTunes) ... they are very good at what they do and do nothing to prevent using music freely if you import/rip/own your own music and choose not to use the iTMS. They just happen to "also" work with DRMd so-called "FairPlay" music from the iTMS which seems to confuse people.
Ultimately, I can't wait for the digital music environment to be more consumer friendly, so serious competition can only be a good thing. Even when Sony ruled the world with Walkmans, they couldn't dictate where and how your music could be played and used, so it's absolutely wrong that just because something is now a digital file instead of physical shiny platter or magnetic tape that I can't use it as freely when I've paid for it.
I have ripped hundreds of my own CDs and use them on my 2 iPods. As long as the downloads remain expensive ($1.00 a song), and proprietary, I'm not spending a single penny on these services. At 50 cents per song, and the ability to use it on as many devices as I choose, I'd be willing to send some of my money their direction. But, there are obviously a lot of people that are willing to pay $1 per song, so they are making some serious profit and I'm sure they want that to continue.
limeware.
I use WMP exclusively as my music player. I do like it's easy use of ripping music from cds I already own.
I'm not a huge fan of Walmart in general but I tend to download most of my music from them - I had a lot of trouble with bad downloads from buy.com but they did refund without question all money spent on bad downloads. I would rather pay per song than do a monthly subscriber fee. 88 cents that Walmart charges seems fair to me - I don't think I would want to pay more than a $1 for any song.
My biggest beef with music downloading sites (and it's really a record company / lawyer issue) is the unavailability of of large portions of older material (ie The Beatles, a lot of 60s & 70s music). There are several songs from the 80s I would like but are not available for legal download yet.
Who pays for music anymore? That's so Y2K.