Talk:Comparison of online music stores
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 You do not cite any other studies which have been carried out to compare online music stores, therefore, IMHO, this constitutes original research.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 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 I still don't think I've fulfilled WP:OR criteria since I haven't referred to unpublished facts or used them advanced a position.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 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)
[edit] Beatport.com
Beatport is missing from this list. They're DRM free with MP3 (320bkps) and WAV formats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.106.30 (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Use of colors in DRM
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.
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] External links
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)
[edit] Alltunes
Should AllTunes be listed? Or is there some reason it doesn't belong? – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MusicDownloadReview should be removed from the External links section
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 66.214.220.182 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Amazon not totally platform independet
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 83.108.132.102 (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Magnatunes.com?
Is Magnatunes.com owned by another of the companies already listed here, or it is yet to be added? (a5y (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC))
[edit] continuation of subscription fee required should be added
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)
[edit] Walmart provides mp3 format
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)
[edit] RUSSIAN ONLINE MUSIC STORES.
THE ONLY RUSSIAN ONLINE MUSIC STORES, ALLOWED TO BE REFERENCED IN WIKIPEDIA, ARE THOSE ALREADY DEFUNCT, LIKE ALLOFMP3 AND MP3SPARKS ?
THANK YOU
A41202813@GMAIL.COM (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ruckus Network
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] play.com
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)
