AOL has finally upgraded its MusicNet service, which started as a black eye for the company and has failed to distinguish itself since. By purchasing MusicNow, AOL jumps headfirst into meaningful competition with Rhapsody, Napster, and iTMS. The catalog is over 1,000,000 tracks, and the interface is Web-based—that latter point perhaps being the differentiating feature. It might not be enough, but at least AOL is in the game now. Of great interest to me is the fact that Winamp will be made compatible with the MusicNow downloads, offering an alternative to Windows Media Player and finally bringing my favorite desktop player into a major service.
AOL Buys MusicNow
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. Ya, MusicNow is web-based but doesn't work with Mac (or any other platform besides Window$). What a farce. And that advertising campaign with Tommy Lee "Hepatitis C Poster Boy" Jones smashing the guitar used in Apple's advertising campaign for iTunes ... was pathetic, mean-spirited and more than a little jealous.
Why and how will web-based music stores EVER compete with the likes of iTunes or even Allofmp3.com? In my opinion, dedicated music "platforms" like iTunes will always deliver a superior experience than web-based ones. In fact, the major factor behind the success of iTunes is the very fact that it is a closed environment -- browse, preview, purchase, download, transfer, and play on your iPod all in one seamlessly integrated software / hardware package.
AND -- don't forget that as long as MusicNow sells it's songs with DRM, they will never be playable on an iPod. I'm not saying the iPod is the only game in town, just that it's becoming the standard for portable digital music. Thus MusicNow will be doomed, like the others, to be a very weak competitor to iTunes. And in the long run, if Apple doesn't lose its footing, it will only be harder and harder to compete in any meaningful way against iPod/iTunes ...
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Bruce M.
3. I'm a loyal Mac and iPod user, and I agree that a web based store can never compete with the "experience" that a jukebox based service can offer but there's more to it than that. The fact that eMusic is the number two service behind iTunes selling more than Napster, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Real says something about the ability for a web based store to compete.
To quote DigitalMusicNews.com "The key advantage of a web-based solution is accessibility — not only from multiple computers and browsers, but increasingly from mobile devices"
In the coming years I think this will be important allowing smaller stores such as mine to compete on the mobile platform without having to do as much work to make my site viewable on cell phone's browser.
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Music360.com
4. Poster #3:
You proved my point exactly: eMusic is the #2 service mostly because the music it sells is NOT shackled with DRM -- in other words, you actually own the music eMusic sells you, and you can do anything with it you want -- burn it to CD, put it on your Creative Zen -- or GET THIS -- copy it onto your iPod ... imagine that. Also allofmp3.com sells music which is not DRM's ... I think in the long term DRM'd music is destined to fail, consumers percieve it as damaged goods, and they'll always route around it. All DRM does is annoy, frustrate and hobble consumers while doing nothing to stop the true large scale commercial music piraters.
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by bruce m.
1. I find it interesting the AOL is going with a web based approach and that Rhapsody is supposed to be following suite as well. Is the age of web based music services finally beginning to take shape after the miserable failure of BuyMusic.com?
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Music360.com