Streaming Zune Market Place

[iPhone]

One only needs to know one word "Microsoft". If they are involved one just knows to stay away. The player itself is not a bad MP3 player in general terms. But the way Microsoft forces everybody to use it if one wants to get the most out of it is what sucks. So if one is looking for an expensive MP3 player that should only be used for ones own ripped WMA files its OK. IMO one would be better off with about anything else. Microsoft saw all the money Apple was making and wanted in on the greed. If they had been smart they would have looked at what Apple could not do or not allow and opened up their player, then offer 75 cent downloads. Microsoft will never in our lifetime understand the term “open architecture” or the advantage it could give them. They are to smart for their own good and can not bring themselves to find a way to make money off of an open system.

If somebody were really smart they would open an online music store that offers lossless downloads for 85 cents and 128Kbps downloads for 45 cents. They would probably corner the market on both audiophile and MP3 online music sales.

[Mark Lanctot]

If somebody were really smart they would open an online music store that offers lossless downloads for 85 cents and 128Kbps downloads for 45 cents. They would probably corner the market on both audiophile and MP3 online music sales.

Do you think the RIAA would let anyone do that? The RIAA already thinks Apple is charging too little.

[radish]

As much as I would like to separate the player from the MarketPlace that doesn't seem possible. I am spending $15 a month already on Rhapsody to Go which I really like and use to stock my two sons MP3 players. I need my player to be compatible also.

Makes sense. I actually just started playing with Rhapsody on the SB and I quite like it, not for actual music collection but for sampling things I might end up buying on CD.

[bklaas]

One only needs to know one word "Microsoft". If they are involved one just knows to stay away. The player itself is not a bad MP3 player in general terms. But the way Microsoft forces everybody to use it if one wants to get the most out of it is what sucks. So if one is looking for an expensive MP3 player that should only be used for ones own ripped WMA files its OK. IMO one would be better off with about anything else. Microsoft saw all the money Apple was making and wanted in on the greed. If they had been smart they would have looked at what Apple could not do or not allow and opened up their player, then offer 75 cent downloads. Microsoft will never in our lifetime understand the term “open architecture” or the advantage it could give them. They are to smart for their own good and can not bring themselves to find a way to make money off of an open system.

I find this an odd argument coming from a user called iPhone. I don't disagree with the anti-Microsoft sentiment, but the same can be said for Apple, in some ways more so. They force users to use their hardware if you want to run their OS. To my knowledge you can't mount and browse the contents of an iPod reasonably without hackware. For years they sold only tracks on iTunes store that wouldn't play on anything but iTunes or iPods.

Personally, when it comes to music players, I stay away from both.

#!/ben

[bklaas]

I find this an odd argument coming from a user called iPhone.

iPhone--- reading this over it comes across like a flame, which was not my intention. Apologies if it came out that way. Merely wanted to make a point about Apple and their proprietary model.

cheers,
#!/ben

[iPhone]

Hey Bklaas,

No biggie and I did not take it as flaming but more of wondering. And after reading your post and mine, I can see your point. Nobody else knows what I have or what I use or more importantly what I was thinking when I posted.

It’s all just e-mail. I never read anything into it because you can’t see the other person’s face, body language, or hear the tone of their voice. If diplomats used e-mail to communicate we would be having a new war weekly due to all the misunderstanding and to much reading into!

Yes I am an iPhone user. I do not own a Mac or iPod. I have only bought one iTune in my whole life and only then to make my custom ring tone out of it which Apple requires you to do. As I said, I only even use iTunes because I have to with the iPhone. I am a Professional Options Trader and the iPhone works well (being able to landscape) for what I need to do so I am not chained to a laptop or desktop. It replaced my BlackJack, which replaced my CrackBerry. As for PCs, I have been running Red Hat for so long I can’t remember when I first used it. And it was UNIX before that. A personal PC with DOS on it was sort of OK. Windows ruined everything. The Amiga and BE were both great personal PCs but because they were not for business and people could not bring their work home, Windows crushed them. If only Open Office had been around.

[iPhone]

You at both correct on all counts. The RIAA is the big problem. A friend of mine owns a bar in Little Five Points. He is a musician and used to be in a major label band. He hires bands to play in his club and when they go on break he used to get up on the stage and play his old tunes. Not anymore, the RIAA got wind of it and had a court order to shut down the Club if he did not stop or start paying royalties. Some nerve to ask somebody to pay royalties on their own songs!

Other then Congress allowing the illegal monopoly of the RIAA to exist, can anybody tell me why we are still paying $18 dollars for a new CD that costs less then a penny to make with a production cost under $200K for the album? Now compare that to a $5.50 DVD at Wal-Mart that costs 25 cents to make and multiple millions to produce the movie. I can tell you they would not be selling them for $5.50 if they were not making money. The RIAA is so greedy is what the problem is. They just do not understand that if CDs were $3 or $4 each that we would be buying the hell out of them and trying new music because hey its only four bucks. But instead they keep the prices up so people copy them illegally.

I also use the Internet Radio, Rhapsody, and Pandora to find new music so I can hear it before I pay my hard earned dollars for a $12 to $20 CD. If things continue and the RIAA does not wake up, there will be no more CDs. All the bands should all start selling digital direct and cut the RIAA out. The RIAA is even trying to crush Internet Radio with fees per listener that are 65 times higher then they are for Broadcast Radio who has all the bucks!

[radish]

Some nerve to ask somebody to pay royalties on their own songs!

But they aren't his - he sold them to the label. If I sold you my car, and then six months later turned up and drove off with it you'd be rightly annoyed. Did they overreact in this case? Probably - that's certainly something the RIAA do with great frequency. But here's a tip - if you want to retain control of something, don't sell it.

Other then Congress allowing the illegal monopoly of the RIAA to exist

Illegal monopoly? What? I own well over 1000 CDs and the majority are from non-RIAA member labels. Some monopoly.

can anybody tell me why we are still paying $18 dollars for a new CD that costs less then a penny to make with a production cost under $200K for the album?

I don't know - why are you? My guess is that it's because you think the music is worth the cost. So what's the problem? You'd like it to be cheaper? I'd like a lot of things to be cheaper but I buy them anyway.

Now compare that to a $5.50 DVD at Wal-Mart that costs 25 cents to make and multiple millions to produce the movie.

You're not comparing like with like. There are plenty of cheap discounted CDs out there, and just like the cheap discounted movies they're the ones nobody wants. The new/good movies cost $20+.

I can tell you they would not be selling them for $5.50 if they were not making money.

Of course they're making money. They'd make more if they could charge $20 and get the same sell rate, but obviously that wouldn't happen, so they charge less. Again, if the $18 CDs weren't selling, they'd lower the price (and to be honest, very few mainstream CDs cost anything like $18 in my experience).

The RIAA is so greedy is what the problem is. They just do not understand that if CDs were $3 or $4 each that we would be buying the hell out of them and trying new music because hey its only four bucks.

Well first off, the RIAA don't sell anything, their member companies do. But that aside, do you really think they haven't thought about selling CDs for $4? Of course they have. And their pricing gurus have obviously decided that it wouldn't be as profitable as what they're doing now. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. If you think it's such an obvious thing, why not start your own record label and make a killing? Otherwise, play your part as a smart consumer and vote with your wallet.

If things continue and the RIAA does not wake up, there will be no more CDs.

A lot of people would think that was great (labels included - it costs a lot less to sell a copy of a file than a CD). Personally I'd hate it, at least until lossless downloads are common.

[mearsfan5]

i just wanted to point out, that you can use Windows Media player to share your zune marketplace files.
I have a Roku Soundbridge Radio, and play the subscription files on it all the time.
Windows Media Player 11 will play the zune files too if you wish to do that.
I'm not sure how the slim device thing works, but can you connect to the windows media server with it?

I don't use the actual device, but the server software, because its the only way i can get the roku to play XM Radio's online stations....