Canonical betas Ubuntu music store Canonical is privately beta testing a DRM-free Ubuntu music store, slated to debut with the Lucid Lynx distro in late April. According to an Ubuntu wiki FAQ, the Ubuntu One Music Store will offer DRM-free and watermark-free MP3s provided by the London-based online music outfit 7digital. The store will integrate with the …
I suppose its a pragmatic choice. All MP3 players will play MP3's (hence the name), but how many of them will play OGG.s? None of ours will. Its kind of like the Ubuntu/Windows thing - program for Linux only and only a few can use it; program for windows and potentially there are gadzillions of users. They'll make more money if they sell MP3's.
Offer FLAC please.
I won't use a digital music store until I have a format I can freely and easily move to other formats without degradation.
OGG is nice, and preferable to MP3, but as stated won't run on many players, such as those from the fruit brigade and converting to other formats will cause a loss in quality. Whilst FLAC won't play on inferior players, it will at least convert without that lossy -> WAV -> lossy quality hurdle.
Of course, having a media player that plays FLAC helps my choice as well. ;o)
But Ubuntu doesn't come with mp3 codecs, because mp3 is a "restricted format", it comes with software that will play OGG (and, yes, Flac). Just seems odd that they'll distribute files that aren't compatible with their own base system. But hey, it's an odd place is Linux-world.
Worse bang per bitrate, and dodgy-ass decoder libraries, even if you like the idea. Also, I can't play those on most of my hardware devices (including my expensive CDJs) without transcoding and screwing the metadata.
Ogg vorbis is a yesterday's fad, poorly supported, and did relatively badly in our controlled conditions subjective listening tests.
Has anyone here tried the beta? What's their selection like? What about the pricing?
As for the mp3 vs ogg debate, a lot of recent mp3 players do support the format (that's the beauty of open formats). I think they should support ogg instead of mp3, because Amazon and others already offer mp3s, but not ogg.
> Has anyone here tried the beta? What's their selection like? What about the pricing?
Check out www.7digital.com since the article mentions them as the provider. Prices might be a little lower (subsidized by Canonical), although I would not count on that; i.e. still way too high.
Looking up a random CD (Eels, Beautiful Freak) gives me € 7,49 for the whole or € 0,99 per track. Numbskulls!
Checking ebay and local shops I get prices ranging from € 3 (2nd hand including sh&h) up to € 6 brand spanking new.
High time to sign the euthanasia waver for the recording industry ... it's suffering from too many ailments to count and it is not getting any better. Keeping it alive is too much of a burden for society (three strikes, ACTA, et al).
Record industry is a dinosaur we are just waiting for the meteorite to strike. Maybe it already has and they just don't know they're dead yet.
I treat music buying as a two tier system. Downloads = singles I quite like but wouldn't be too fussed about loosing. If I really like it and want to keep it I buy the CD and rip it: Permanently backed up, rippable to any format, playable anywhere, portable and permanent. And it's often cheaper.
I wonder what will happen in a few years when the iTunes brigade move to their umpteenth computer/iPod configuration and all their old music DRM kicks in and won't play any more.
I'm the beta tester linked in the article.
The store is provided by 7digital, so you can check them out for their music selection and pricing. Unfortunately the file format is out of the control of Canonical/Ubuntu for now. The format is determined by the record companies and the partner.
We (Ubuntu UK Podcast) also interviewed the developer of the store in our latest episode, which answers more questions..
http://podcast.ubuntu-uk.org/2010/03/03/s03e02-their-purple-moment/
... truly, excellent. Well thought out, great criticism backed up by solid evidence...
... not.
If it was an OS nobody wanted, they wouldn't have built a company (Canonical) that depends solely on it.
If it was an OS nobody wanted, there would be so few users that it wouldn't be worth putting together the Ubuntu music store, or even putting together another version of Ubuntu.
Nobody really knows the artists available because it's not a public beta yet - as somebody suggested, have a look at 7digital's website before passing judgement.
As for passing judgement on the OS, I bet you've never even tried it. If that's the case that's fine, just don't assume everybody else has the same opinion.
The article even states, point-blank, that the store will mainly include the usual indie* and major labels. Linux's *existing* stores already cater for the rest.
While I have no time for Linux's politics, there's nothing inherently wrong with the OS itself, and it's good to see Canonical trying to make the user experience a little better.
Canonical are one of the few groups in the GNU / FOSS milieu who understand the value of a consistent design approach, and they're a little less prone to adhering slavishly to the political diktats of the GNU / FOSS hardliners.
Shuttleworth clearly appreciates that you can't develop a consistent user experience without *someone* holding the reins and giving the project a single voice. (There are some parallels with Steve Jobs here.) This is in stark contrast to the usual design-by-committee approach most people in the Land of Linux endorse.
* (for very large values of "indie".)
Thanks for your constructive criticism. Please take a cookie on the way out.
Just because *you* have not heard of them, and *you* don't want Ubuntu doesn't mean that there aren't others who do. I've switched my home PC over to Ubuntu with Karmic, the same with my workstation. I'm looking at GCompriz to see if it will offer the same educational resources as many 3rd party apps on Windows, and testing those apps which I can't replace on Wine. Between that, EducationCity, and a couple of other education sites there's no reason to have Windows (and the associated licensing costs, tie ins etc) at all. I can even put Office 2007 on with a little tinkering, if the staff REALLY need it (they don't, but they don't know that yet).
TL;DR: Thanks for sharing your opinion. It is, however, *your* opinion. I'll be looking at this with great interest (especially now I've seen Jamendo integration mentioned. Didn't know that...)
Is Google too hard for you?
Parallels, VMWare and Virtualbox do virtualization for OS X just fine. And, yes, you can run Linux, BSD or any other fecking OS in their VMs, just like on Windows.
Yes, OS X is easy to use. And, yes, it's a full-fat UNIX-based OS. Contrary to the continuing efforts of the GNU / FOSS crowd, it *is* possible to be both at the same time.
"I wonder what will happen in a few years when the iTunes brigade move to their umpteenth computer/iPod configuration and all their old music DRM kicks in and won't play any more."
Been there, done that, been bitten, thrice shy. Never again, "ripperble" and decent quality or nothing.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
