ie8 fix
madison

6 music services compared: Who can bust the iTunes monopoly?

By | April 23, 2009, 11:24pm PDT

Summary: Over the past few months, I’ve been sampling all of the major U.S.-based competitors to the iTunes Music Store, as well as a few fascinating minor-league competitors. In this post, I’ll show you how each one stacks up against iTMS in terms of pricing and available features. After my testing was complete, I had a new favorite music service, and after you read my report you might decide it’s right for you too.

Update: At least one of the services I discuss here has significantly changed its policies since this post was published. For a look at what’s changed with eMusic and a tally of how much I saved by forgoing iTunes, see Friday follow-up: six online music services revisited.]

What does a monopoly look like? In 2009, you can get a pretty good idea by looking at Apple’s iTunes Music Store (iTMS). It has overwhelming market share with a hockey-stick growth trajectory, is designed to work exclusively with the enormously profitable iPod/iPhone family of hardware devices (another near-monopoly), and appears to be immune from pricing pressure. Having a monopoly isn’t illegal, unless a court or governmental agency rules that you’re trying to abuse the monopoly position (just ask Microsoft). In fact, if you can stay on the right side of the antitrust regulators, having a monopoly is like a license to print profits.

Apple’s success in digital music is not for lack of competition, however. Over the past few months, I’ve been sampling all of the major U.S.-based competitors to the iTunes Music Store, as well as a few fascinating minor-league competitors. In this post, I’ll show you how each one stacks up against iTMS in terms of pricing and available features. After my testing was complete, I had a new favorite music service, and after you read my report you might decide it’s right for you too.

In all, I compared iTunes to six competitors, all of which sell music downloads sanctioned by the labels that own the digital rights to those tunes: Amazon MP3, Zune Marketplace (Microsoft), and Rhapsody (RealNetworks) are all divisions of much larger companies; eMusic, Lala, and Amie Street are smaller independent services trying to carve out niches.

Here are the criteria I used:

Price: I assembled a shopping list of seven albums I was considering buying. All but one of the albums had been released in the past year. Three were on RIAA-affiliated labels, with the other four on independent (non-RIAA) labels. I did not evaluate any service based on the price of individual tracks. All six services were less expensive overall than the iTunes Music Store. The exact amount of those savings varied greatly, however.

Selection: Apple’s dominance is due in no small part to its ability to negotiate deals with record labels big and small. Only one iTunes competitor could match the iTMS selection on my shopping list, with the indie services at a particular disadvantage. All of the tunes I found were available in non-DRM format. Apple insists on using the AAC format; every other service sold tracks in the more widely supported industry-standard MP3 format, usually at bit rates of 256K or greater. [Update: I edited this sentence to address criticism in comments below. Although AAC and MP3 are both supported by standards-setting bodies, my point was about playback support in consumer devices. MP3 is much more widely supported than AAC. In my two-year-old car and in my one-year-old consumer DVD player, for example, I can directly play back tracks burned to CD in their native format. Neither device supports AAC format.]

I’ve compared the price and selection data in an info graphic. Click the image below to see the full comparison (and then click through to see the rest of the screen-shot gallery.)

User experience: The three biggest services (including iTMS) have their own full featured music playback programs, which also offer access to the associated music stores. The other services offer web-based interfaces, with small utilities to make the download experience easier. In no case was this a make-or-break feature, but the comparisons are interesting.

Sampling new tunes: None of the services I looked at include a guarantee of satisfaction. If you buy a track or an album, that transaction is complete. Most of the services I looked at follow the iTunes model, offering 30-second samples that might or might not help you decide whether an album is worth buying. Three of the services go much further, though, allowing you to listen to full tracks and albums on demand. What’s the catch?

Recovering previous purchases: If you buy an unprotected album from the iTunes Music Store, you’re expected to make a backup copy. If you lose it, the terms of service are brutally clear: “Products may only be downloaded once; after being downloaded, they cannot be replaced if lost for any reason.” But two iTMS alternatives are more kind-hearted and allow you to download purchases onto different PCs if necessary.

With that as preamble, head to the next page to learn how to save up to 26% on music downloads.

Page 2: Amazon and Lala are the low-price alternatives If you want to cut your iTunes bill by at least 10%, one of these services is for you. But the upstart Lala has a lot more to offer than any of its big rivals.

Page 3: Zune and Rhapsody subscriptions let you play anything With either of these subscription-based services you can download any track in their catalog and play it on a PC or sync to a supported device, as long as you’re willing to pay a monthly fee. The Zune Pass has a huge edge over Rhapsody’s offerings.

Page 4: eMusic and Amie Street are interesting indie alternatives If you prefer the obscure, one of these services might feel right. You won’t find chart-topping hits here, but there’s a deep selection of independent artists and some creative pricing models.

Page 5: The wrap-up How do these six services stack up when compared with the iTunes juggernaut? Here are my personal opinions and some recommendations.

Page 2: Amazon and Lala –>

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

239
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

buy CD's!
Rudy6897 21st Apr 2010
100% Agree!!!
Although, the idea of paying a small fee to be able to build a "virtual" music collection is appealing. I liked the idea that Lala has of building an online collection that I could listen to anytime/anywhere online.
0 Votes
+ -
Download music
Dennis.Keeling@... 24th Apr 2009
I can't see why anyone would want to download poor quality mp3 files. I purchase all my music on CD. I import into iTunes using Apple lossless format and at the moment my average price per track is about 50p.
0 Votes
+ -
Effort vs Reward
James Quinn 24th Apr 2009
Something I base my life on.

I'm not that picky about the quality of my music in the first place.
Don't even know if I listened to one of my standard iTunes downloads
and one of yours if I'd even notice anything different.

Second even if I did I'd still have to measure the effect that difference
has vs the effort it takes too achieve it.

Take purchasing a CD. Most of the songs on the CD were probably
not to my liking. Then there is the storage of the CD after purchase.
Then there is the whole routine you use to get your music. Cost of the
CD etc. Time is money after all...:P

Already I see myself bothered. Now unless that difference in music
quality is so large that when I hear a song that you recorded and the
clouds part, angels sing type thing its just not worth it....

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
I really don't like DRM...
gypkap@... 24th Apr 2009
So I buy new or used CDs. They are more or less permanent archives of the music, are very high fidelity, and are easy to store. If I want to use an MP3 player of some kind (including iPods) I can do so. Much more flexible.
0 Votes
+ -
To me not so much. Still I think DRM is becoming less and less an issue
on iTunes.

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
DRM
jaypeg 24th Apr 2009
Most of the record companies have now released Apple of the obligation
to employ DRM via the iTunes store. Most tracks there are now Plus
tracks meaning that they have no DRM at all and are encoded in a very
high quality 256kbs aac (mp4) format.

Still at only .99/track, it's the best download music deal going.
0 Votes
+ -
Cal me
Mectron 25th Apr 2009
When the song(s) reach their real market value: 25 cents/Track
From looking at your posting history, it is clear you have no idea. If the
real market value was only $0.25/track there would be no one buying
any music. Since that is far from the truth, the real market value must be substantially higher than $0.25/track.
0 Votes
+ -
Real market value - and the knowledge of it
nielskrarupjessen@... 27th Apr 2009
The price of anything is what someone wn?nts to pay for it at any given time. There is no such thing as real market value. Eg. What do you pay for todays paper? What do you pay for yesterdays? For your own convenience please feel free to add products to the above statement - and try if it works for - boats, concert tickets, cars, bread, can of beans, wine, houses.
;-))
0 Votes
+ -
Real market value is whatever the price that is reached when a purchase is made of course. 0.25 per song would sell a lot more music, but that can't be a real market value at this point since no music companies are willing to sell for that price.
0 Votes
+ -
Depends
Mikael_z 24th Apr 2009
on how important culture is to you.
For me it's very important and I have enough sensitive ears and mind to
tell which is crap and which I want to keep.

To me most of today's music is destroyed by exaggerated amplification,
but I'm irregularly rewarded by my relentless searching.

I think that Apple's competitors still don't get it, i.e. they simply don't
understand consumers.
0 Votes
+ -
Digitally Remastered
don@... 24th Apr 2009
A lot of the New Zealand 'Dunedin sound' music I listened to in the 80's is now available 'Digitally Remastered'. Pity it was originally recorded on ordinary cassette tapes in someones living room. But the traffic passing on the street outside is clearer happy
0 Votes
+ -
Jim, I was going to reply to you in another blog...
xuniL_z Updated - 26th Apr 2009
but first just let me say that the Zune subscription is quite nice. It's only 10 bucks a month for all the music you can listen to. The service is 15.00 but you get to keep TEN tracks every month, so it's a great deal for many music lovers. 5.00 bucks for unlimited listening pleasure to any song plus 10 selections.

Ownership is great and everything but you use OS X on a license basis and don't seem to mind.


Point is most music people buy is a passing fad, or grows old quickly. There is not enough music in the world to say you will continue to listen to every track you buy, that each one is so timeless and classic, and continue to keep buying music that you'll listen to in addition continually, or at all after some time. Most people have Gigabytes full of songs they'll never listen to again, in fact many people I know anyway listen to new purchases for a month and then move on.
Of course there are tracks you are going to go back and listen to occasionally, all i'm saying is there are probably twice as many you won't, life doesn't offer most of us that much time.
With the subscription you get the best of both worlds. You can listen to your fave old track anytime you want even if you didn't buy it, yet you get to pick 10 of your most favorite tracks (many of which come from that ability to listen to any new song or old you want with your subscription to determine, hey I want this one if I decide to stop my subscription.
So you actually own 120 songs a year and all of the listening to new stuff and every genre imaginable in between. Only the most wealthy of people could enjoy that luxury buying every track.

I subscribe to XM/sirius as well cause I love to listen to stuff spontaneously, not having to buy something which i can only listen to a snippett of and have to decide if I might like it. I love to laugh and listen to the 24 hour comedy stations a lot while driving. In the morning on the way to work, a good laugh is priceless. I love MLB as well, so every summer evening there are games from coast to coast.
I love taking a trip on a Saturday, there are games on from around 1:35 to around 1:00am or later when the west coast games wrap up here in EDT.

Anyway, you showed up in some blog and started in on how the iPod made it on it's own, word of mouth you said and Windows rode the coattails of IBM for the most part and somehow "wiped out" everyone but Apple.

Your analogy when like this: "If you went to a movie that had a huge budget and the most popular stars, but it was a bomb, it will sell huge the first weekend, but then "word of mouth" would create slumping ticket sales.

I agree with you on that one.

But you forgot to apply your logic to Windows.


http://e-articles.info/e/a/title/MS-DOS-Versus-PC-DOS/

If as you said IBM ruled the business world, and since MS didn't really start taking off until the split with IBM, not because "of" IBM in 91, why didn't OS/2, PC-DOS and IBM hardware naturally continue to rule the business world as you claimed they did??

And if windows was not a great product, then why did everyone keep coming back after the "premiere"?
IBM, the king, was still there with it's full compliment of hardware and OSes for them continue using, and there was Apple to turn to, had the premiere been a bomb for those who switched from IBM. Must have been a blockbuster because they left IBM in hoardes at that point. Who create that, IBM? Nope, MS was smart and created a more open system with partners that didn't lock people into heavily proprietary protocols like Apple and IBM were doing. Appletalk and Microchannel come to mind.

MS made it on their own, read the history. They made MS DOS and OEM hardware more popular than IBM PCs and it's own PC-DOS and OS/2.

You are saying IBM made that happen? And somehow your analogy doesn't apply to MS?


If you have any appreciation for history, and the truth, you'll see that MS literally beat out the King, not ushered in by the king proclaiming to the world to switch from IBM and use MS and the OEM products instead.


So you were completely wrong in your assertion about getting a boost from IBM, but rather MS beat the king at it's own game and created it's own success with it's own OS and it's own partners on it's own terms. IBM did nothing to create that, in fact they've been trying to get back at MS for being the David to their Goliath, ever since.
Thanks for your patience.
0 Votes
+ -
Pagan Jim has the right idea.
WookieFan Updated - 24th Apr 2009
I would also add that CDs include a huge amount of unnecessary packaging, and I rarely have time to sift through the local music store's collection. With the high bitrates of today's downloads, there's really no audible difference between "lossless" and Amazon or eMusic downloads. And they're convenient, cheap and leave me with no garbage tracks or garbage to throw away.
0 Votes
+ -
Hardware is important.
Al_nyc 24th Apr 2009
Most of the headphones people use to
listen to music are pretty crappy. So you limit what you hear
when you use them. So so called 'lossless' formats wil sound
the same as CDs. Use decent playback equipment and the difference
will be very obvious.
0 Votes
+ -
Understood, but...
WookieFan 24th Apr 2009
Yes, I do appreciate the difference, but think about what's involved.

I listen on my commute (an hour and a half to NYC, each way), so music is not just a background thing for me at my desk.

There's no way I will spend crazy money on bulky headphones, but I do use the Zune premium ones, which are great at noise canceling, and have decent response (but virtually no low-end). So, without the battery-powered monster headsets, I don't think there is really enough difference between FLAC, AAC and 320kbps mp3s (or even 256 kbps) to present a noticeable difference to my ear.

So, returning to the subject at hand, Amazon mp3 and eMusic are excellent choices for me - cheap, high-quality, low-maintenance, universal format music. I just can't spend time ripping piles fo CDs to FLAC. But I appreciate that audiophiles feel this need.
0 Votes
+ -
Try Skullcandy or NuForce
glocks out 24th Apr 2009
The NuForce NE-7M or Skullcandy Titan are high-quality headphones at $50 and don't require additional amplification. However, NuForce also has an inexpensive portable headphone amplifier that will make any headphones sound much better.
0 Votes
+ -
thanks for the suggestions! (NT)
midenginedrift 24th Apr 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
BS
frgough 24th Apr 2009
This is more audiophile self-delusion.

If you have the courage, test it. Have someone mix 256 AAC and lossless
CD rips and burn them randomly to a CD. Have him give it to a second
friend, without telling him what he did (double-blind), then have that
friend give it to you. Put it in your high-end audio equipment and mark
which tracks on the CD are from a lossless source and which are from a
256k AAC source.

You won't be able to.
0 Votes
+ -
The thing I find fascinating
mikefarinha 24th Apr 2009
The thing I find most fascinating is that CDs were introduced in the early 80s... nearly 30 years ago. And no other popular format has been released that can match the quality of a CD. Even the new SD music cards with GBs of capacity don't even try to match the quality of a nearly 30 year old format.

My personal method of keeping music is to purchase the CD and then rip it using dbPowerAmp into a lossless format (I was using WavPack but switched to WMAL recently). My philosophy is that if you have a master lossless copy you'll never lose quality if you ever have to re encode into the new format de jure.
0 Votes
+ -
When you can convert from analogue to digital, there is a limit to what the human ear can discern. CDs use a sampling rate that is high enough to surpass the ability of people to notice the conversion to digital and back to analogue. There has been no change in nearly 30 years because no one could notice the difference.

Of course, I'm just talking about the theory behind it. You can have improvements in hardware that perform the conversion, but the digital recordings are as good as they need to be. What they need to work on is better surround sound implementation to create a greater sense of "being there". While surround information is currently encoded into most CDs, that's one area that could use some real innovation.
0 Votes
+ -
Precisely.
frgough 24th Apr 2009
And it's the same reason 256 AAC is indistinguishable from lossless CD
rips. The algorithms used are deliberately intended to throw away
information below the threshold of human detection.
0 Votes
+ -
That isn't the point.
mikefarinha 24th Apr 2009
The point is that in a day and age where I can put a 32GB flash drive, the size of my thumbnail, on my key chain; we have absolutely no need to discard anything from the audio file.

Remember a CD is only 650MB-700MB and with current lossless compression (FLAC, WavPack, WMAL, etc.) we can compress those files down to at least have their original size.

The technology has been here for years, it baffles my mind that it hasn't picked up steam.
0 Votes
+ -
In a way I agree but according to a study done a few years back people operate at more than one level and the emotional response to CDs is muted compared to the real thing or better recordings assuming you have a real sound system that can take advantage of the difference though I doubt if that includes anything you can stick in your ear.
0 Votes
+ -
Vinyl, DSD, SACD, DAT, DVD-A, DVD
mswift@... 24th Apr 2009
You can't argue that DVD is not a popular format.

All of these are higher resolution formats shown in the order of resolution. All new digital music should be done at least in DVD resolution which is double that of a CD.

The SACD resolution is roughly 8 times a CD, DVD-A is 4 times, DVD is double. Whether your equipment is resolving enough and your ears trained well enough to hear any of this is a separate question.
0 Votes
+ -
Read my post a little bit closer.
mikefarinha 24th Apr 2009
And no other popular format has been released that can match the quality of a CD.

No doubt there are other formats that squash the quality of CDs, it is just that none of them have ever caught on in the mainstream.

The contention of my argument is that as technology progresses the quality of popular formats has regressed.
0 Votes
+ -
Instant Gratification
yobtaf 24th Apr 2009
A lot of people don't care about quality.

They don't care about badly compressed video or wide screen TVs set to
display at the wrong pixel aspect ratio either.

And why is everybody so big on breaking Apples lead in a business they
virtually created.

I think Microsoft's operating system monopoly is a real problem. Also a
quality issue.
AHHH, Lala is only available to US residents.
You really sold me on it as well Ed. sad
Only services I can access are iTunes(I presume, I wouldn't touch it) eMusic, and Amie street(can't even buy half the songs here.)
Also an EU only service called http://www.7digital.com/
Doesn't seem very good though...
But if you are in the UK as I am then my favourites are Spotify to listen to music (and determine whether I want to keep it) and 7digital to buy it (has but it link on spotify). Great things about 7digital:-
* often an album is ?5 on release
* all trackes 320kbps MP3 non-DRM
* mostly cheaper than Amazon et al and better quality
* Download locker so you can re-download songs a set number of times - occasiona lifesaver
0 Votes
+ -
iPod not required.
mrlinux Updated - 24th Apr 2009
In fact you do not even need an iPod to use the iTunes music store. I know of plenty of people who just use iTunes on their desktops and do not own an iPod.

0 Votes
+ -
And many of us would rather not have iTunes on their systems even if we could because it's complete crap. But then again considering I'm getting along just fine without it, I would not consider iTunes store a monopoly anyway.
0 Votes
+ -
however I myself have never had a problem with the program. Is this
because I'm using a Mac and you are talking about the Windows version?
If you had a bad experience with an early version of iTunes on Windows
was that it and you've not tried it of late? Is it a programming issue ie
the program has given you problems or is it a "I don't like how the
program works issue?"

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
I compare it to what I use
Michael Kelly 24th Apr 2009
which is Amarok. And yes I'll admit it's been a while (a year maybe?) since I've tried iTunes first hand, so do correct me if I am off base. But with Amarok I can:

-Easily download lyrics using a lyrics engine.
-Look up Wiki entries on the artist/album/song.
-Sync to whatever player I have, not just an iPod.
-Not have to worry about it installing programs I do not want/need just because I wasn't paying attention to all the click through screens for an update.
-Use on Linux, which is my OS of choice.

I know that last point doesn't help you personally because you use OS X, but I do know it is available via Fink, but of course I cannot attest to how well it works on OS X.
0 Votes
+ -
Fair nuff.....:P
James Quinn 24th Apr 2009
You know I never thought all that much (frankly any) about lyrics but
now that you mention it I'm curious so I'll look into that one and find
out.

Again not a wiki user but while I'm looking into lyrics I'll see what I can
find out about that as well.

Sync to any player is probably a winner for you I'll give you that. Still
I've yet too find another player quite like my iTouch:)

That update thing must be due to that issue that Apple once had with
iTunes and Quicktime was it? I think they corrected that and bad on
Apple by the way for trying it in the first place. Never had that
problem on my Mac.

What distro of Linux?

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
amarok lyrics
john.lemme@... 24th Apr 2009
FYI, the lyrc.ar server that amarok uses by default has lyrics that are uploaded by ordinary people--they're not the official lyrics. So the quality ranges from excellent, to spelling-challenged, to mondegreen city.

But you can also fix the lyrics and save them locally as part of the track info, or change the default lyrics server.
0 Votes
+ -
The update thing is more than just QT
Michael Kelly Updated - 24th Apr 2009
Once you install any Apple application, the update program likes to include other Apple programs by default, such as Safari. The most annoying thing that I've seen installed on computers that has no business getting installed unless you want it is Bonjour. It is not a necessary component of iTunes, and there is no need to install a network protocol on any computer unless it is specifically needed. To do so is just asking for trouble.

And to be fair, you can opt out of installing these things. However they are installed by default and you have to deselect them to prevent them from installing. And many people seem to think that if you deselect something from an installation that you take away from the programs capabilities, and in this case that is not true. I have no problem with these programs being offered, but it is not made clear that they are unnecessary.

Of course these are all standard components of OS X so on that platform it makes no difference. And to answer your question, I use Gentoo, however any KDE based distro will carry Amarok.
0 Votes
+ -
You make some interesting points...
vulpine@... 24th Apr 2009
I'll admit I haven't heard of Amarok and it might be
worth looking into for some of those features.

* Download lyrics: I will say that iTunes has at least
started this process, though I have to add that the
library of lyrics is somewhat limited. This probably has
to do with the fact that most of what I listen to was
recorded before the Digital Age.

* Look up Wiki entries: About the only reason I would
want to waste my time on this would be if I wanted to
learn their discography. After all, there aren't all that
many places that carry ALL of an artist's albums; mostly
because many of them are out of print now.

* Sync to whatever player: This is a non-issue for me. I
like my iPods because they're easy to use and connect
seamlessly to iTunes every time I hook it up. No setup
needed on purchase or subsequent connection. This
may be possible with others and their associated
software, but I'm not going to change unless the new
product is significantly better from the outset.

*No worries: Since I don't use Windows regularly, it's
not a problem for me. Interestingly enough, you
complain about the Apple Updater doing that to you
and completely ignore how regularly Windows Updater
does it to you. At least the Apple Updater gives you the
choice... and not a labyrinthine route to access it the
way Windows Update requires.

*Linux: To the best of my knowledge, almost none of
the apps mentioned here run on Linux. Granted, the
Linux installed base is small, making the desire to
enter that market small as well, but this also means
that only independent apps like Amarok are likely to
even consider it until Linux grows significantly more.
That's not likely to happen until the Linux developers
can build a much more user-friendly GUI to compete
with Windows and OS X.

I'm not saying your choice is wrong; I'm only saying
that many of your points are either being addressed or
not worth considering for most people (and we, sir, are
not most people.)
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Linux
Ed Bott 24th Apr 2009
You write: "To the best of my knowledge, almost none of the apps mentioned here run on Linux..."

Not true. I specifically called out the Linux support where it exists. Not from Apple or Microsoft, obviously, but the others are all pretty good at supporting alternatiev platforms. Amazon, Lala, and Rhapsody are all Linux-friendly.
0 Votes
+ -
Thank you.
vulpine@... 24th Apr 2009
I obviously overlooked those statements. It does raise the
question as to why iTunes and Zune don't support them
as well, especially since iTunes does run in Windows; why
not Linux, too?
0 Votes
+ -
To go?
felixmk 24th Apr 2009
Does the "to go" functionality work on Linux with any of these services? Probably not since the DRM schemes are microsoft or apple based. Services like Napster will allow you to play songs on your computer using a browser window but you cannot download to a mobile device.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
DRM is Windows-only
Ed Bott 24th Apr 2009
The subscription services (Rhapsody, Zune, Napster) are all based on Microsoft-developed DRM, so they won't work on Linux or a Mac (unless dual-booting Windows or running virtualized with USB support).
0 Votes
+ -
AMAZON for Linux
jdieter@... 24th Apr 2009
the only one that works well with Linux is AMAZON downloader, and it works freaking GREAT!. all tunes are DRM free.
0 Votes
+ -
You definitely don't use Windows regularly
tikigawd Updated - 24th Apr 2009
Only someone who doesn't would spew this type of misinformation:

Interestingly enough, you complain about the Apple Updater doing that to you and completely ignore how regularly Windows Updater does it to you. At least the Apple Updater gives you the choice... and not a labyrinthine route to access it the way Windows Update requires.

I use Windows regularly, and the last time Windows Updater installed something w/o my consent was when it updated the Update Software itself, about a year and a half ago when I was still using WinXP. It was slightly annoying, but seeing that without the update Windows couldn't get any other updates I didn't mind it too much.

Do you have several specific recent examples of Windows Updater installing things without the user's consent, to support your claim that it regularly tries to trick you into installing software?

Also, I am wondering what labyrinthine Windows Updater route you're talking about. I go to Control Panel, I click on updates and in a second I have a list of all available updates, conveniently categorized as security, hardware drivers, optional, etc. And only the critical/security ones are pre-clicked and labeled as recommended.

Apple on the other hand tried to sneakily get me to install Safari, because apparently they can't get anyone other than Apple fans to install that thing willingly. On top of that when you download iTunes it installs Quicktime, the Apple Mobile Device support software (which is only necessary if you have an iPhone), and a couple other pieces of software that might be completely unnecessary to a particular person. You want iTunes, you get a bunch of extra stuff you didn't ask for.

0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
I covered this topic as well
Ed Bott 24th Apr 2009
0 Votes
+ -
@Ed Bott
tikigawd 24th Apr 2009
Yep, I remembered reading that post.

Unfortunately, MS being everyone's favorite scapegoat, many people are hell-bent on perpetuating misinformation regarding Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
Linux.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 Updated - 24th Apr 2009
Amarok does all that. Lyrics, Wiki, etc. iPods are well supported, but still using 1.4.20 here. Amazon downloader works through Wine fine, but I usually just set up FF to automatically save *.mp3 to the user's music directory. Makes purchase a 2 click process. Click to select, click to confirm and it is just done.

Amarok uses the album art fine. Once stable, I will move to 2.0 version of Amarok because it looks pretty snazzy, just missing a few features 1.4.20 has.

A few more features of Amarok,
right click transcode to any format known to man (sans DRM) of any bitrate.
powerful dynamic playlists
last.fm (never used, some folks seem to live it thought)
DJ like queing (right click add to queue, edit the queue, move up/down, repeat a single track therein)
No need for iTunes account to get album art, it will search Amazon the world over, then offer custom search options if you can't find that 1970's classic hit song album art.
Cover manager, bring it up, select "get missing covers" and poof, your entire collection has album art (and yes, you may have to fix some, it isn't that smart, lol).
Integrated and constantly re-scanned Shoutcast)
Smart Playlists such as "50 Random", Favorites (tracked by your ranking and/or your music listening habits, "Most Played", etc)
Ability to treat an SD card as a "MP3 player", great for phones, TVs that support them, etc.

Honestly, it is one app that once the users use it, they really really love it as a teaser to try Linux. Not sure if it is available on Windows yet (KDE is, not sure what version of Amarok is there yet).

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
Amarok not really available on Windows yet
Michael Kelly 24th Apr 2009
unless you compile it yourself, but even then I'd bet you'll run into trouble. I've started farting around with Amarok on Portable Ubuntu, but that's stuck on 1.4 as well. Though I haven't tried connecting my iPod or G1 just yet, it works well enough as a music player so far.
0 Votes
+ -
Just my 2?
reagan0 24th Apr 2009
I don't have any problem syncing iTunes/OS X to my Nokia N75, but that's probably because Nokia has gone to the trouble of making sure that it works. One the other hand, Creative Zen Stone support is spotty, at best. iTunes/OS X recognizes it and syncs to it, but the Zen doesn't play all the songs without a hitch, even though all my music is DRM-free MP3s ripped from my huge collection of CD and vinyl albums. Some of the songs actually disappear from the Zen over time -- have never figured out why. I can, however, access my iTunes/OS X library over the network, from my XP box, and sync to the Zen using Creative's proprietary software, so I get the job done anyway.

I think it all boils down to whether the MP3 player manufacturer makes the effort to actually support iTunes. DRM'd tracks are another issue, of course, but since I don't own any Apple-DRM'd music, I've never encountered that problem.

On my Linux boxen, I haven't settled on a preferred music player, yet. I'm still looking. I'll certainly give Amarok a try. I notice from its package info that it mentions KDE integration -- how well does it play with GNOME?
0 Votes
+ -
Plays fine with GNOME
Michael Kelly 24th Apr 2009
It will pull in some KDE dependencies, primarily kdelib, but other than the extra disk space that would require it works just splendidly in GNOME. Of course you may have to manually edit how Nautilus opens audio files, but that should not be too difficult a task.

You may want to compare it to Rhythmbox and Banshee, which are GNOME native.
0 Votes
+ -
Let me up that - I don't *like* iTunes.
TheWerewolf 25th Apr 2009
I find it clumsy and irritating to use. Not to say that I like the others much better, but I like minimal interference and managing my music right in the desktop as much as possible.

With MP3s, I can choose which media player I want to use - or which PMP I want to use.
0 Votes
+ -
iTunes isn't a monopoly... here is why...

Obviously there is lots of competition. That competition is in no danger of going anywhere. Even though you skipped the biggest competitor of all.. WAL-MART, there are still lots of them.

Amazon, Microsoft and Wal-Mart will sell MP3 music forever, because it is a low overhead high profit margin side business and will remain so forever.

The ONLY reason Apple is the largest is because they have provided a music player that is brainless to use with large enough storage on the devices to hold most people's entire collection of music. The plug it in and it copies all the songs on the devices automatically feature is also huge.

Another reason iTunes isn't a monopoly, it relies heavily on the Windows user base. iTunes requires Windows to be competitive...Until Apple made a Windows version of iTunes, the iPod was just another Apple gadget nobody owned. Ironic? Yes.

This segment could change in an instant...Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Amazon...anyone really.. could create a little better iPod and tie it to Amazon MP3, Wal-Mart, Lala... and make an easier experience which would easily compete with iTunes.
0 Votes
+ -
buy CD's!
Rudy6897 21st Apr 2010
100% Agree!!!
Although, the idea of paying a small fee to be able to build a "virtual" music collection is appealing. I liked the idea that Lala has of building an online collection that I could listen to anytime/anywhere online.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix