Comments on: Digital music's move back to the Web

AOL, Napster and RealNetworks are all pushing their music services online, but will this help them catch Apple's elusive market share?

[Roman12]

Digital music's move back to the Web

I really like this idea, I don't want extra software slowing my laptop down. I hope Itunes store would offer a web-store too.
__________________________________
R.K.
http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/

[bommai]

Manage/Play

If you are using a website to download music, how are you going to manage your songs and play them? Don't you need another application for that. Also, if these companies are touting the web, they don't really mean the web!! They mean IE6 on Windows Web. Try telling them you have linux and want to use Firefox. Good luck!! Apple is not perfect, however at least they have iTunes working identically on Mac OS X and Windows.

All the other competitors are microsoft's slaves. They will tell you all about competition but within the Microsoft biosphere (they ignore the rest of the world).

[GGGlen]

Mental retardation?

Oh, so instead of using a single program to download AND PLAY
your music (ala iTunes), it somehow takes fewer programs to
DOWNLOAD the song, then use a seperate program to PLAY it?
Is math a forgotten art? iTunes=ONE PROGRAM to manage your
complete experience.
Web based services use TWO programs, your BROWSER and your
PLAYER.
I hope Napster et al die a slow and lingering death ;-)

which browser(s)?

Different browsers can use different "players". If the latest Microsoft Media Player is required to play a song, and the user is on Linux with Firefox, it might not even be possible to play the song.

I believe AOL will not box itself in by restricting play, but they could, if they didn't think about it.

Message has been deleted.

[GGGlen]

Sure does!

Yes, it makes perfect sense... just as long as the artists are being
paid royalties. If they aren't, then I hope you're willing to call it
what it is... THEFT.
If you're getting music that artists aren't being compensated for,
you're a thief and you're stealing. It can't be stated any easier than
that.

[PCCRomeo]

It should have remained on the web...

Having to download seperate applications sucks. I was planning on downloading a song from Napster the other night. I downloaded the software and searched their archive only to discover it was not available. Total waste of time. I will give it to MSN Music, atleast they let you browse their store from your web browser before you have to download a plugin for WMP.

[clpdan]

Why?

Why use the smaller stores when Apple's iTunes has the largest
collection of legally downloadable songs (and now videos and TV
shows) in the world? You would have probably found your song on
iTunes in one search.

Rhapsody: just don't ruin it!

Rhapsody's first web client was awesome. Simple and easy to use. The most recent version, with it's DRM, different interface, and less-simple/more awkward navigation is making the service less intuitive. That, fewer songs are available as part of the subscription it seems (must buy). I fear the next rendition will spell the end of the Rhapsody that we all know and love. Message to Real and MSN: keep the spirit of the service intact. The population is just now understanding that their broadband connections are capable of music streaming.

[clpdan]

Again. Windows Only.

Their problem is that both Rhapsody and MSN are Windows Only
services. Granted, Windows has the largest install base, but neither
service is winning points with users who run Linux and/or Mac OS
X and in many cases those users run Windows as well and therefore
seek applications and services that are cross platform. Corporate
America needs to get with the program - to get with what the
Internet is. They still do NOT get it.

Works only for subscription, not purchase to own

The reason iTunes is required, instead of just a web browser, is
because the music companies have insisted that purchased
DRM'd music not travel from one MP3 player to another. MP3
players are not sophisticated enough to respect DRM. Only the
host software (iTunes, for example) is.

iTunes wipes your iPod clean and installs its own music library
onto it. Plug your iPod into a friend's computer, and your old
music library is gone. If it wasn't, then a rapid accumulation of
DRM'd music from various owners could occur. Bad for the
music companies.

So yes, subscription based stores can offer this through a web
browser alone. But purchase to own stores (like iTMS) require
separate software to comply with the music company's
demands.

Typical CNET reporting. A new music technology...blah blah
blah...not Apple...blah blah blah...Bill Gates.

[Ilgaz]

Totally stupid way of using web

It is XP, Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player 10! only.

If they plan to sell legit downloads, they should respect the Mecca
of multimedia, OS X!

[clpdan]

Agreed

Whatever is used should at least work on Windows *AND* Mac OS
X, especially since a lot of the music being produced was probably
done on a Mac to begin with!

[georgegliddy]

iTunes is for morons

Anybody paying for more than few songs of lossy-compressed + copy-protected music is a fool.

And yes, the large number of iTunes users does indicate that we are largely a nation of fools.

It would only be worth it if the songs were in a lossless compression format such as FLAC and not copy-protected.

[Earl Benser]

Lossless Compression...

is very little compression at all. Copy protection is a legitimate
item for the copyright owner. MP3 is a very nice format for most
people who listen to music casually, like in a car. Most people
can't hear the difference between MP3 and AIFF or whatever. So
most people choose to go with what works very well, and is
easily found and used. Flac may be nice but it's just another
equivalent of ZIP and most people don't want to bother with the
arcane.

So chill out, wake up, and save the rant until you can find
someone who cares.

[clpdan]

Not Morons

That would only work if 1) everyone had screaming broadband
connections (and I'm not talking cruddy DSL) and 2) everyone was
honest and would not give copies of the downloaded songs away to
everyone and their pet.

I don't think item #2 will happen anytime soon. It's a shame, but it
is true.

[System Tyrant]

Who's...

the bigger moron. Those who choose to buy their music one song at a time through legitimate sources, those who steal music because 'the record companies make to much money', or those who pay $20 for one song in lossless format CD's?

For me, I prefer to buy my music one song at a time. Unfortunatly I can't afford any stereo equipment that would allow me to tell the difference.

[markdoiron]

Of Fools and Morons

"Anybody paying for more than few songs of lossy-compressed + copy-protected music is a fool."

i must completely disagree. i'm sorry, but i set that line (the fool line) at the level of anyone who'd pay even a dime to listen to music for their phone's ringing. it's a ring, folks, not a song! ;-)

mark d.