Talk:Comparison of online music stores

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Apple Inc. (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should Spotify be included in the list?[edit]

Spotify is a music service built around a business model that focuses on advertising to support providing music to customers at no cost. Besides this they also offer a premium service that is advertisement free but costs about $15/month. The Spotfy service is mainly available in Europe where it's big in UK and Sweden.

Now I wonder, should Spotify be included in this list? Does is qualify as an online music store? Even if it doesn't might it still be of value to viewer of this list looking a suitable way to consume music? --John Ericson (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Zune marketplace[edit]

My recent mp3 purchase through zune marketplace was 256kbps, not 320kbps. It was a major artist, and a recent release. Maybe MS has changed their standard? Can it be noted that not all mp3 purchases are 320kbps? (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

Is this original research? Looks like it to me. Elysium 73 08:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really curious why you think so. I made sure almost everything was properly sourced and it's particularly hard to build a case for a particular idea when I'll I'm doing is organizing the information given by the stores themselves. I'm meeting WP:V so it's really difficult to have WP:OR.Chevinki 17:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not for a moment doubt the verifiability. It is a well researched article, and well sourced. But it goes beyond a "List of online music stores" by introducing the concept of comparison. You, as the author, chose the elements of comparison, you chose the stores to compare (thugh you did arbitrarily quantity the later. (see here)). You do not cite any other studies which have been carried out to compare online music stores, therefore, IMHO, this constitutes original research. Just my opinion. Elysium 73 20:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Be bold, Elysium. If you think other choices are to be made, make them - or at least state them. If Chevinki had RANKED stores rather than just displaying attributes, or done something else that was contrary to neutrality, then maybe you would have a drum to beat here.
For example, add whether they allow re-downloading of your content in the case of HD failure (etc), or whether they allow you to share with your friends or on other computers. Napster sort of does both, for example. Amazon doesn't really support re-downloading according to official docs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
For quantifying them, I had to. There are too many small, niche stores that seemed out of place. I should probably quantify the guidelines a bit better at some point (or someone else can, whichever). As for including other articles of music store comparisons, those can go under "External Links" but I don't see a point in citing them when I can go straight to the source. As for choosing stores to compare, I put in what I find or like. But hey,it's a encyclopedia that can be edited by anybody. If you want to include new criteria or find articles that compare stores feel free to include them. I still don't think I've fulfilled WP:OR criteria since I haven't referred to unpublished facts or used them advanced a position. Arguably, there is some inherent systemic bias, since I'm the main one working on it, but that's simply because no one else is and is hardly my fault. Chevinki 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this could be original research because it's a compilation of facts. It would be difficult for a list to be original research because there's no room for editorializing, weasel words, analysis, or position to be advanced. Unless there were a subjective ranking, but there's not. Also note that WP:OR expressly allows calculations (were someone to want to add them to this article). Any comparisons made would be by the reader, not the author, unless the author wrote something like "Amazon has more songs, so is better," or "such and such has DRM so is better" or had some indication of preference. The incompleteness of the article (by not having enough stores or enough attributes) is not an indication of POV, just as it would not be for an article on aquarium fish varieties and the temperatures and pH levels they live in. -kslays (talkcontribs) 01:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[edit]

Beatport is missing from this list. They're DRM free with MP3 (320bkps) and WAV formats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For me, i use beatport everyday, it should be in the list..

Thanks Charles —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So add them. -G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, I just added them. They're great. (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of colors in DRM[edit]

Why is No on DRM=Red and Yes=Green? I would argue it should be the other way around. Ruibalp 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I originally had it that way, but an editor changed it pointing out that switching colors like that was being phased out from tables. It makes sense. Tables and colors should be consistent. Chevinki 19:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand the necessity of standard colors, but still, the current colors imply that DRM is actually a good thing. If we want to stick to the convention that Yes=Green and No=Red, perhaps it would be wise to change the column name from "DRM" to "DRM Free". That way we replace the "Yes" and "No" answers and the colors would match. NegativeIQ 17:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think it makes it look like DRM is a good "feature" of music stores, which is misleading. I like the idea of using a "DRM Free" heading instead. swaq 02:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
POV, POV, POV. Why not call the heading "free from fascist artist residual income generating restrictions"? Yes = green, No = red. DRM = an attribute. Be neutral.
By 'an attribute' do you mean remove the color? That seems logical as well, certainly better than it is now. swaq 03:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree too. Having DRM is a good element so it must be green. You don't need to neutralize all charts with the same color of yes or no in wikipedia; what do you care for those other charts? They're not part of this topic anyways! Well, please update this artice. i found it somewhat out-of-date. (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

External links[edit]

PennyMP3 is interesting, but it's affiliate-based so effectively a commercial link, no? How about replacing it with TuneTuzer, which is similar but non-commercial and covers a wider range... We could include both but I don't really see much need for PennyMP3 to be there at all. Ozaru 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Should AllTunes be listed? Or is there some reason it doesn't belong? – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

MusicDownloadReview should be removed from the External links section[edit]

Sure they review the music stores, but they only reviewed 3 of the currently 13 online stores posted. In addition the links they provide on their website they are getting paid for you to click on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazon not totally platform independet[edit]

Amazon (MP3 music store) is only platform independent if you buy one track/song at a time. To buy a whole album, you need Windows or Max OSX —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Is owned by another of the companies already listed here, or it is yet to be added? (a5y (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

continuation of subscription fee required should be added[edit]

I am trying to find a non ipod for a friend, and it seems that one of hte big things distinguishing itunes from the others is that the others are subscription based, that is, if you stop paying a monthly or annual fee, all your downloaded music stops working, which seems like a huge bad thing. Can we add this to the table (I don't know enough). Another usefull feature would be a pointer to a similar table of mp3 players Cinnamon colbert (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is a comparison-review of some services, and does include whether the services offer a la carte purchases or subscription service. It also contains links to other reviews.Udoboy (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Walmart provides mp3 format[edit]

I would edit this in myself, but I will refrain in fear of messing up the table. However, the Wal-Mart music download service does provide mp3 format. Tabor (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)




A41202813@GMAIL.COM (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruckus Network[edit]

I was just wondering why not include free services like Ruckus Network as other subscription services like Rhapsody are on the list. Ruckus meets the qualification of 1 million songs so perhaps someone should add? --otduff t/c 09:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[edit]

How come this store isn't included? First major/non-independent store in the UK to offer legal DRM-free digital downloads from major record labels. IceflamePhoenix (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Napster does not offer DRM-free MP3 yet[edit]

Right now, its "light" (non-subscription) service still offers DRM-WMA.

As I see here Napster is planning to go non-DRM MP3 (for "light" service) in Q2 2008. Therefore, the information about DRM free MP3 in article is not accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Napster began selling DRM-free MP3s on May 20, 2008

Napster does not offer DRM-free mp3s to Canadian customers - music is available in WMA format only. Killick (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Numerous Updates to Napster[edit]

The Napster specifications have been updated per information easily viewable on their home page and publicized in recent releases. Napster now has over 6 million downloads (it hasn't had three million since 2006) in DRM-free MP3 format (as of release 4.5 on June 20, 2007).

Please be sure to check for updated references and updating said references rather than reverting changes as this is counter productive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countxerowiki (talkcontribs) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[edit]

The site seems to be defunct. -- (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

iTunes Store[edit]

iTunes Store is not available worldwide. If you check the reference link ([15]), you will see that most countries do have the app store, ibookstore and game center services, but not the iTunes Store service, which is the one providing music. iTunes Store is not even close to 'Worldwide' - should be changed to 'Some'. --C4andrei (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The list of countries where the iTunes Store is available, based on the iTunes Store Terms and Conditions: USA, UK, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland. I have changed the geographic restriction from 'Worldwide' to 'Some'. C4andrei (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

How about Grooveshark, Pandora, Slacker, Spotify and[edit]

Should they be included in the list? Should we limit the article to stores that allow music to be saved? What about cached music? What about subscriptions like Rhapsody and Napster? -kslays (talkcontribs) 23:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Those you mention are actually music streaming services, and they have a separate list page. C4andrei (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

rowspan="2" broken[edit]

Entries with rowspan="2" (used to show multiple sections) break when sorting certain ways. Tested on Firefox 3.6.15. This is used in the iTunes store entry and the HMV Group entry. (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

pricing model[edit]

It would be useful to have a column for pricing model (i.e. what % of the money goes to the artist). Kingturtle = (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Google Music[edit]

Anyone want to take a stab at adding Google Music? It seems like it meets the requirements. Atomsf (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone has added Google Play. --Pmsyyz (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


Shouldn't Rdio be added in this page? They boast a huge collection, and is often compared to Spotify among others (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC).

No, Rdio is a Category:Streaming music services not a store where you can purchase tracks to keep. --Pmsyyz (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Online storage[edit]

How about a column noting which allow you to store your music online and stream it? I know Amazon Cloud Player and Google Play have this. --Pmsyyz (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)