[Macworld]

Post your comments for Rhapsody opens fire against iTunes with DRM-free MP3s here

[Ventzi_Zhechev]

I am getting really annoyed with these ‘iTunes competitor’ stories. How can anyone be a serious competitor to iTunes, if they don’t sell internationally? Granted, the USA is a major market, but there people living out there abroad too…

[ibeetle]

Agreed Ventzi_Zhechev.

And with the headlines as well. Not just Macworld, but everybody. Here are some why over used buzz words from around the net used in conjunction with this story "...iTunes killer", "...Opens fire...", ...threatens Apple", "...war against Apple" "Apple in crosshairs"

And still year after year iTunes and the iPod are number one in their markets.

What is wrong with the way the BBC reports things? "Rhapsody adopts DRM free music" No killing, no war, no take down. Have we become so blood thirty that our headlines only gain attention if they propose violence?

[Steve_S]

Even more frustrating is watching all of the major record labels allow everyone but Apple sell DRM free music. Only EMI and the Indie labels are on board with DRM free iTunes. The labels are trying to artificially create competition for Apple, but as far as I can tell, this strategy has been unsuccessful. It's time for all of the labels to allow DRM free music through iTunes.

[ndelc]

Steve_S said:

Even more frustrating is watching all of the major record labels allow everyone but Apple sell DRM free music. Only EMI and the Indie labels are on board with DRM free iTunes. The labels are trying to artificially create competition for Apple, but as far as I can tell, this strategy has been unsuccessful. It's time for all of the labels to allow DRM free music through iTunes.

My sentiments exactly. Seems like Apple ought to be able to take some legal action here.

[robertRoss]

How can anyone be a serious competitor to iTunes, if they don’t sell internationally?

iTunes, when it started, wasn't international. A lot of services that are just beginning debut in one market, and Apple was no exception. I suppose you were annoyed with iTunes until it was offered outside of the States.

[zarmanto]

Seriously... The article title is one of my pet peeves too... if a child "opens fire" on a tank with their B.B. gun, does anyone in the tank actually notice or care?

[Schneb]

There is one company that is drawing my money over iTunes--Amazon. Why? $.89 vs. $.99 per song, and $8.99 vs. $9.99 per album (in most cases). Oh, and let's not forget NO DRM. These are MP3 files, not M4Ps.

[Ventzi_Zhechev]

Well, if you gave me your U.S.-bank-issued credit card details, I would be exactly as happy.

Not having that, however, I can only look at my Germany-issued credit card and sigh?
I?ve even put a webclip on my dashboard showing Amazon?s terms and conditions ? particularly the section talking about the requirement of having a U.S. credit card.

To my opinion the most important thing in this market is usability. And I will very much prefer a track with DRM that I can buy to a track without DRM, which I can only talk about.

[natmusak]

Schneb said:

There is one company that is drawing my money over iTunes--Amazon. Why? $.89 vs. $.99 per song, and $8.99 vs. $9.99 per album (in most cases). Oh, and let's not forget NO DRM. These are MP3 files, not M4Ps.

Amazon sells some of its music at $0.89, some of it at $0.99. Why? So the big music labels could charge more for the big name sellers and sideline the less popular artists. I don't even want to think what percentage the artists actually get from Amazon after their label takes their share. Also, M4Ps (which are more commonly referred to as AACs) are just as "open" as MP3s are. AACs also provide higher quality audio files that take up less space. The problem is not AACs, but the labels who won't allow Apple to sell the tracks without FairPlay DRM (which is still the most consumer-friendly DRM out there).

I agree with everyone else's sentiments. This is yet another sensationalist story from IDG that completely ignores the fact that Rhapsody won't be competing so much with iTunes as it will with all the other music services like Amazon, eMusic, etc. I like AppleInsider's headline, which I bet they're using to counteract IDG's and other similar headlines:

Real embraces Apple's iPod with new Rhapsody MP3 service

Haha, take that Windows-apologist websites. :D

[nmpike]

Quote:
Even more frustrating is watching all of the major record labels allow everyone but Apple sell DRM free music. Only EMI and the Indie labels are on board with DRM free iTunes. The labels are trying to artificially create competition for Apple, but as far as I can tell, this strategy has been unsuccessful. It's time for all of the labels to allow DRM free music through iTunes.
--- End Quote


Not true... since Amazon MP3 went online, I have not bought a single iTunes track... Amazon is often cheaper (.89 per song), without DRM. I know about 15 other people the same way, and I do not know that many people.

I will not buy from Rhapsody because they are still more expensive than Amazon...

The only complaint I have about Amazon is that they DO NOT HAVE AAC encoded formats. MP3 is inferior to AAC... I wish someone other than apple would allow is to get it in AAC format!

But to respond to the comment, Amazon is well worth checking out.... matched or better pricing than iTunes, and NO DRM.

mike

[Chris Breen]

natmusak said:

Amazon sells some of its music at $0.89, some of it at $0.99. Why? So the big music labels could charge more for the big name sellers and sideline the less popular artists. I don't even want to think what percentage the artists actually get from Amazon after their label takes their share. Also, M4Ps (which are more commonly referred to as AACs) are just as "open" as MP3s are. AACs also provide higher quality audio files that take up less space. The problem is not AACs, but the labels who won't allow Apple to sell the tracks without FairPlay DRM (which is still the most consumer-friendly DRM out there).

Except:

1. There's this competition thing. iTunes exists and it's not going anywhere. If the big music labels demanded that Amazon or Rhapsody charge more for the "big name sellers" (which are often the albums that are more steeply discounted) and iTunes didn't relent, people would simply shop iTunes rather than elsewhere. So where's the incentive?

2. Do you want to think about the percentage artists get from iTunes? Do you have any notion of what artists get from either retail outlet? Or are you just assuming iTunes is more fair to artists because you like your iPod?

3. While AACs may be as "open" as MP3s they are certainly not as commonly implemented. Try shoving a CD with AAC files on it into today's common car stereo. Now compare that experience to an MP3 disc. Or a run-of-the-mill cell phone. Or non-Apple music player. AAC has not reached the same level of ubiquity as MP3.

[natmusak]

Chris Breen said:

1. There's this competition thing. iTunes exists and it's not going anywhere. If the big music labels demanded that Amazon or Rhapsody charge more for the "big name sellers" (which are often the albums that are more steeply discounted) and iTunes didn't relent, people would simply shop iTunes rather than elsewhere. So where's the incentive?

Er, what? Sorry, are you saying that variable music pricing is a positive? :)

Quote

2. Do you want to think about the percentage artists get from iTunes? Do you have any notion of what artists get from either retail outlet? Or are you just assuming iTunes is more fair to artists because you like your iPod?

I've heard from a few places it's around 65% on iTunes. I am assuming iTunes is one of the fairest music distributors based on Apple's history of siding with the artists and customers over the major labels. They required that all songs be equal in value, that individual songs be purchase-able, that DRMed songs can be copied to multiple computers and even made it so FairPlay could be stripped by burning the songs to CD. Why would I assume iTunes is better because I "like my iPod?" Give me a break. :D

Quote

3. While AACs may be as "open" as MP3s they are certainly not as commonly implemented. Try shoving a CD with AAC files on it into today's common car stereo. Now compare that experience to an MP3 disc. Or a run-of-the-mill cell phone. Or non-Apple music player. AAC has not reached the same level of ubiquity as MP3.

I have no argument with those statements. There are tons of cars that can't even play MP3 CDs, let alone data discs filled with AACs. That doesn't bother me as I burn maybe one or two CDs a year, mainly for road-trips in cars that lack a cassette deck or line-in system. Fortunately, line-in systems, and even more robust iPod systems that allow things like music library navigation, are more and more common in modern cars.

[Chris Breen]

natmusak said:

Er, what? Sorry, are you saying that variable music pricing is a positive? :)

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. No, competition is a positive. You suggested that the music labels would force Amazon and Rhapsody to jump up their prices. iTunes is a check on that.

Quote

> 2. Do you want to think about the percentage artists get from iTunes? Do you have any notion of what artists get from either retail outlet? Or are you just assuming iTunes is more fair to artists because you like your iPod?

I've heard from a few places it's around 65% on iTunes. I am assuming iTunes is one of the fairest music distributors based on Apple's history of siding with the artists and customers over the major labels. They required that all songs be equal in value, that individual songs be purchase-able, that DRMed songs can be copied to multiple computers and even made it so FairPlay could be stripped by burning the songs to CD. Why would I assume iTunes is better because I "like my iPod?" Give me a break.

You know what they say about assumptions. So, do you suppose that Apple cuts a separate deal with artists that skirts those artists' contracts with the labels? Or isn't it far more likely that the label ? regardless of whether music is sold through iTunes or Amazon ? ultimately determines how much the artist gets?