"finally bring digital music to the masses..."

Hmmm... there is only one flaw that I see here. The 'masses' would include everyone and if this online music service only covers Windows users, then that would only cover about 85% - 90% of the 'masses'. Really the only store covering the 'masses' is AudioLunchbox and then Apple since they cover Mac, Windows and Linux (via CodeWeavers).

I know Microsoft likes to ignore the whole of the computer world, but don't flat out dismiss our presence, it will only comeback to haunt you later on!

Woohoo! Wow! M$ sure can innovate! Out of nowhere, they offer digital downloads for $.99...wait.....didn't somebody already do this?

Once again, Microsuck is just playing copycat. There isn't one original concept in their "music for the masses" campaign. I get so sick of these Redmond clowns pretending they actually thought of a good idea all by themselves. It's a joke.

I usually don't go off on M$ like that, but they're really tickin' me off. Let me guess, Mr. Gates....your OS will soon mysteriously be incompatible with iTunes in the future, right? It would be the ONLY way to beat iTMS in the download business.

Sorry iLemmins, but all that money your poured into your iTunes music collection was for low quality music. Try playing your music on a decent audio system and you'll see you've been had.

Funny that none of the download links work for this as of 9:35AM on the windowsmedia website. Nice start M$...

History just keeps repeating itself, huh? Apple innovates, shows how to do something, then Microsoft comes in and exploits.

I've always said that this is the real reason MS bailed Apple out when jobs took over. If Apple ceased to be, Microsoft wouldn't have a clue what to do next. Apple is basically Microsoft's (and the entire industry's) R&D division.

Not the first thing I wanted to see this morning.

That said, Apple needs to move to at least 160Kbps AACs. I really wish they'd get this.

RC, none of this audio is CD quality. Playing music from online stores from MS, Real, or Apple would be an insult on a decent audio system, anyone with a half a brain knows that. iTMS however, is great for playing music on your iPod or through computer speakers, where the audio components are not of the highest quality to begin with.

I'm glad the article above notes that for a time, mp3s were not supported by WMP. Isn't that unbelievable? But it's true, one used to have to pay extra if they wanted to play mp3s through the media player that came with Windows. 'nuff said.

Service Pack 2 will probably break it or someone will quickly figure out how to infect users with a virus. Not mention spyware that MicroSoft may install on your "PC".

All seriousness aside, I will have to see it before I take a stance.

allofmp3.com is a great site for quality bitrate downloads. And it's legal too, in Russia anyway.

Yeah I think Apple should offer 192. Which of course is because that's what I encode everything at. With 128 you can hear a difference. But anyhow, I'll keep on buying CDs.

What's new? Apple innovates, Microsoft rakes in the cash with a ham-fisted, cheap, ugly knock off.

Quote

Billy K wrote:
History just keeps repeating itself, huh? Apple innovates, shows how to do something, then Microsoft comes in and exploits.

I've always said that this is the real reason MS bailed Apple out when jobs took over. If Apple ceased to be, Microsoft wouldn't have a clue what to do next. Apple is basically Microsoft's (and the entire industry's) R&D division.

Not the first thing I wanted to see this morning.

That said, Apple needs to move to at least 160Kbps AACs. I really wish they'd get this.

Miscrosoft made an investment in Apple, and made a bundle on that investment. They did NOT bail out Apple, who had a considerable bank account at the time. What Apple lacked was direction, which Jobs provided.

M$ says that they decided to make their music store only a year ago. That is four months after iTunes came out on the market. Read the fourth Q/A in this article:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002023208_microqa02.html

Varying bitrates, varying prices.... I bet the only reason why they have multiple stores is because the only have a a mere 500,000 songs to start with, and they have been touting choice with their software well before it was released.. how would that look with less then half the choice then the industry leader. I personally think its laughable that some songs cost $4. I personally have some songs in my library that are worth that, but paying that much is out of control. If CDs used the $4 dollar per song pricing, think how much a typical CD would cost... em upwards of about $40 + or minus a few tracks. Not to mention you can't put these $4 dollar tracks on your iPod. Heh a $4 DRM track... MSFT has got to be kidding. I was expecting them to throw around the huge stores of cash, and undercut apple by half pricing... selling at a loss, like they did the X-Box.

Quote

Brutno wrote:
Miscrosoft made an investment in Apple, and made a bundle on that investment. They did NOT bail out Apple, who had a considerable bank account at the time. What Apple lacked was direction, which Jobs provided.

From what I understand, Apple had three months' operating cash at the time of MS's investment. At least that's what I've read on various Apple history sites. Seems everybody's got a different view. Mine is, MS couldn't afford to let Apple die. And the one thing everybody agrees on, was in 1997, Apple was about to go under.

(There was also the matter of the lawsuit, but that's another story.)

I was expecting free downloads for a month or something...

You would think Microshoft would have thier digital dump trucks backed up to cliffs poised to dump cash into the ocean until the masses(read: mindless) have no choice but to conform.

sad really...

Reality Check wrote <Sorry iLemmins, but all that money your poured into your iTunes music collection was for low quality music. Try playing your music on a decent audio system and you'll see you've been had.>

Lets see if we all chipin a dollar we should be able to buy RC a 1G iPod on flea bay then maybe he would discover the facts and cease this blather. RC if you have the HD space iTMS will happy to slipyou all the Apple Lossless downloads you want at far higher bit rates than anything on the SatanSoft site.

Tera Patrick's said it best: M$ site looks like Fischer Price designed it.

[Edited URL to make it a shorter link for page width reasons - Bryan]

Quote

usvwro wrote:
if you have the HD space iTMS will happy to slipyou all the Apple Lossless downloads you want at far higher bit rates than anything on the SatanSoft site.

Tera Patrick's said it best: M$ site looks like Fischer Price designed it.

What? Since When? Details, please.

And...Tera Patrick? I'm getting more and more cornfused.

Quote

Billy K wrote:

Quote

Brutno wrote:
Miscrosoft made an investment in Apple, and made a bundle on that investment. They did NOT bail out Apple, who had a considerable bank account at the time. What Apple lacked was direction, which Jobs provided.

From what I understand, Apple had three months' operating cash at the time of MS's investment. At least that's what I've read on various Apple history sites. Seems everybody's got a different view. Mine is, MS couldn't afford to let Apple die. And the one thing everybody agrees on, was in 1997, Apple was about to go under.

(There was also the matter of the lawsuit, but that's another story.)

(At the risk of being seriously off-topic) And so it's true. According to "Apple Confidential" they HAD run down much of the profits from the previous 6 years at that point. What I don't understand from a cursory re-reading is how they afforded the $300M+ for NeXT if they were so cash-poor. End of '97 they had returned to profitable quarters, though.
Ostensibly, MSFT paid $100M to Apple for patent infringements, and invested $150M in stock they could not move for three years, as well as agreeing to produce Office for the Mac for five years. The last point is mute, as Office for Mac is quite profitable for MSFT. And I agree with MSFT needing to have Apple around.

Quote

Billy K wrote:

Quote

Brutno wrote:
Miscrosoft made an investment in Apple, and made a bundle on that investment. They did NOT bail out Apple, who had a considerable bank account at the time. What Apple lacked was direction, which Jobs provided.

From what I understand, Apple had three months' operating cash at the time of MS's investment. At least that's what I've read on various Apple history sites. Seems everybody's got a different view. Mine is, MS couldn't afford to let Apple die. And the one thing everybody agrees on, was in 1997, Apple was about to go under.

(There was also the matter of the lawsuit, but that's another story.)

Business strategy/focus and backorders were. Apple had no problems selling computers, they had a problem of delivering them (hence backlog of 1996). Apple's product line was too hefty and too blurred, so Steve Jobs changed all that and started from scratch.

Microsoft's investment into Apple was Bill Gates' idea, not Steve Jobs (Time Magazine wrote an article that stated this very fact when they interviewed Steve Jobs after the famous Macworld announcement in Boston revealing the Apple/MS alliance).

For Microsoft's strategy, Apple is as important as anything and vice versa. Imagine Ford without Chevy, Redskins without the Cowboys and etc... All these markets thrive on competition and rivalries and the rivalry between Microsoft and Apple is what fuels competitive innovation (or imitation in regards to Microsoft) in the computer industry.