Music services

The iTunes Store is the digital equivalent of a music shop. You buy individual songs or albums and own them thereafter, with some restrictions on their use. But several other services, such as RealNetworks’ Rhapsody, Napster and Yahoo Music Unlimited, take a different approach. They charge a monthly fee that entitles you to stream or download an unlimited number of songs. In effect, you’re renting these songs, typically for $10 or $15 a month. Some music lovers prefer this system, since it makes it easier to experiment with new artists and genres, and cheaper to fill a portable player, even though the songs can’t be used on an iPod.

Now Microsoft has joined the battle against iTunes with Zune Marketplace, its own online music service that offers both subscription plans and iTunes-style individual song purchases. Music from the Zune Marketplace will work only on Microsoft’s new iPod competitor, the Zune player.

There is another notable online music service: eMusic. It’s a sort of hybrid. You get to download and own tracks, as with iTunes, but you’re charged a monthly fee instead of paying by the song. The upside of eMusic is that its music is in the plain, unprotected MP3 format, meaning it will play on any portable music player including the iPod, and on every music-playing software program on Windows and Macintosh computers. The downside: eMusic offers songs only from independent record labels. It has none of the catalogs of the majors and tends to be nichey, not mainstream.

Music players

Companies like Creative, Samsung and iRiver offer many models that match up well in price and features against the various versions of the iPod. At one time their hardware and software designs were much clumsier than Apple’s, but they have improved a lot. They still trail the iPod in overall elegance. But many have features Apple gadgets lack, such as built-in FM radio, microphones, longer battery life and even transmitters for beaming music through car radios.

These non-iPod players have suffered because they use a Microsoft-developed system called “PlaysForSure” that supposedly allows smooth, iPod-like synchronization between players and Windows PCs. Unfortunately, PlaysForSure often behaves more like “PlaysMaybe,” with sync problems being common.

SanDisk, a company best known for its flash-memory chips, has roared into a distant second behind Apple, with a series of handsome flash-based players under the Sansa brand. These devices, roughly comparable to iPod’s Nano and Shuffle models, mostly use the PlaysForSure system. But recently, SanDisk debuted the Sansa Rhapsody, which uses RealNetworks technology and is tied closely to Real’s Rhapsody subscription service.

Certainly, the biggest news for iPod haters is the introduction of Microsoft’s Zune music player, an iPod competitor with plenty of marketing muscle behind it. The Zune holds 30 gigabytes of music, the same as the smallest full-size iPod, and costs the same $250.

But the Zune abandons PlaysForSure in favor of an Apple-style, tightly controlled, integrated approach. It works exclusively with Zune software, and the only encrypted songs it will play are those bought at Microsoft’s Zune Marketplace.

As for design, the Zune is bigger and somewhat clunkier than the iPod. But it has three things the iPod lacks: a bigger screen, an FM radio and built-in wireless capability. The latter can be used to send songs to nearby Zune players, where they can be played three times before expiring.

Over the past few years, however, those extremes have begun to merge. Because of the spread of broadband Internet connections and improvements in cameras, software and computer processors, consumer videoconferencing has begun to look much better. It’s still not as good as expensive corporate linkups, but it’s finally usable.

As this affordable video technology has spread, online services offering video chatting have proliferated. Yahoo, AOL, MSN and Apple all offer videoconferencing. So do a host of less-well-known services, such as Paltalk, IVE and Skype. All are free or have free entry-level plans, but they still cost money to use. For one thing, you’ll need a broadband connection — on both sides of the conversation — to get the most out of them. And, of course, you’ll need a decent camera, with either a built-in or separate microphone.

I expect built-in cameras to become common in all but budget PCs in the next few years, but for now, they’re relatively rare — Sony has been building them into a few models for years, Apple included built-in cameras in its new iMac desktop and MacBook Pro laptop models, and some Hewlett-Packard laptops feature them as well. But most users will have to buy a camera. The biggest brand in add-ons is Logitech, and the best Logitech model I’ve seen is the Quickam Fusion, which sells for around $85 and works only on Windows PCs. The best bet for Mac users is an even better but costlier camera, the $150 iSight from Apple.

Both cameras attach to the top edge of your screen and deliver up to 30 frames of video a second, which is full motion to the human eye. Both include decent built-in mikes. And both also function as still cameras for snapshots. The Logitech has a higher resolution, 1.3 megapixels, while the Apple takes still pictures of under 1 megapixel.

One advantage of the Apple iSight, not surprisingly, is that it’s better integrated into the computer. No software need be installed; you just mount it atop the screen with an included clip or magnetic base, plug it into a FireWire port, and voil?†. In fact, it automatically launches Apple’s built-in videoconferencing program, iChat AV.

Like most Windows peripherals, the Logitech camera is a little trickier to hook up, but not by much. It does require a software installation. The camera plugs into any open USB port, though it needs a newer USB 2.0 connection for full frame rate.

Both cameras have a lens-blocking privacy mode, which allows you to avoid being seen during a video call or conference. Only your voice will be heard. But Logitech goes further — it includes an amusing software feature called Video Effects that permits you to disguise your appearance. You can add animated glasses, mustache, nose, hat and other features to your face. Or you can replace your image entirely with animated avatars of cartoon people and animals, including a dinosaur, a space alien, a cat, a dog or a unicorn. And while these visual effects aren’t exactly Hollywood quality, they do move with you as you speak, mimicking some of your visual expressions, like winking or raised eyebrows, and no special software or video service is needed at the other end of the conversation for your friends to see the special effects.

Once you have your camera/mike combination in place, you’re ready to roll. All you need do is pick your service, find some friends with a camera and mike, and you can start videoconferencing.

There are three main reasons for the success of iTunes. First, it is tightly tied to the iPod, Apple’s wildly popular portable music player. The only legal downloads of major record label songs that the iPod can play are those sold by iTunes. Second, it is well-designed, works identically on the Macintosh and Windows PCs, and is easy to use. Third, its restrictions on the use of downloads are comparatively liberal: You can copy each purchased song to up to five computers and to an unlimited number of iPods and burned CDs.

For these reasons, nobody else has been able to gain any traction in the legal market by copying Apple’s model, and that includes companies as formidable as Microsoft, Sony and Wal-Mart.

So Apple’s music competitors are trying something else: a whole different model for distributing music legally. Led by the reincarnated (legal) version of Napster, by RealNetwork’s Rhapsody service and by Yahoo’s new music service, these companies are hoping to win by renting music to consumers rather than selling it to them.

In the download model championed by Apple, the music service functions like a physical record store. You choose a track, pay 99 cents, and you own it. As long as you abide by the restrictions, which are designed to thwart mass copying by pirates, the song will play anywhere you want to hear it forever, with no further payments required.

However, those 99-cent downloads can mount up fast. If you tried to fill up even the lowest-capacity full-size iPod-which holds 5,000 songs-with tracks purchased from iTunes, it would cost you nearly $5,000. (Granted, most people start with music they already own when loading a new iPod.)

By contrast, the rental services work on a subscription model. You pay, in most cases, $180 a year, or $15 a month, for the right to download as many songs as you want for use on computers and portable players. And the newest rental contender, Yahoo, has slashed those fees to $60 a year, the equivalent of just $5 a month. That means you could fill up a 5,000-song portable player for just $60 a year.

This rental model has attracted a solid audience, but it is nowhere near as popular as iTunes — not even close. That may be because the rental model is far more complicated and restrictive than iTunes, and has several big downsides.

The biggest problem with renting is that if you stop paying your subscription, even for one month, all the songs you’ve ever downloaded — going back years — will become inert and unplayable. Rental song files are rigged with computer code that requires a monthly digital confirmation the renter is continuing to pay. Without that, the song files die.

An iTunes user could pay $500 to acquire 500 individual songs (buying whole albums is somewhat cheaper) over two years, and those songs are always hers and will always play. By contrast, a Yahoo user might download 500 rental songs over two years for just $120 in subscription fees, but the songs will become unplayable unless she pays hundreds or thousands more in subscription fees over many years, even if the fees rise.

Also, the rules for rental songs are more restrictive than for owned downloads such as Apple offers. At Yahoo, for example, you can store each song on only three computers, versus Apple’s five. And you can install each song on only two portable devices, versus an unlimited number at Apple.

Oh, and you can’t burn rental songs to a CD. To get a nonexpiring, CD-burnable, iTunes-type song from a rental service, you have to pony up 79 cents a track over and above your monthly or annual subscription fee.

Furthermore, rental services are far more complicated than iTunes to operate. At the Apple service, every song is a 99-cent download you can own, but at rental services, there are different kinds of songs. Some can be both rented and purchased (for that extra 79 cents each); others can be either rented or bought outright, but not both. Some songs can only be “streamed” — that is, they can be played directly from the Internet, but not downloaded, even on a rental basis. And some can be rented, but not streamed. You get the picture.

Not only do the rental services feature different kinds of songs, but they feature different kinds of customers, with different privileges depending on how much they pay per month or per year. Some rental plans allow you only to stream songs. Others let you download, but only to store the songs on computers, not portable players. The costliest plans — $15 a month at most services, $5 at Yahoo — allow you to stream, download and store the music on both computers and portable players.

Another huge downside of the rental services is that the songs they rent — and even the ones they sell outright for the extra 79 cents — cannot be played on the world’s best and most popular portable player: Apple’s iPod. That’s because the rental-service songs are encoded in a format owned by Microsoft, Apple’s rival, and Microsoft software is required to play them on a portable player. Apple won’t build the necessary Microsoft compatibility into the iPod.

So rental users are stuck with inferior portable players that don’t sell well and thus don’t attract the huge number of accessories available for the iPod. Apple estimates the iPod has about a 75 percent share of the total U.S. portable player market, with the next-highest brand at just 5 percent. There are over 500 accessories sold for the iPod, such as customized car mounts and leather cases, and just a few for other players.

Given all that, why would anyone use a rental service? Well, the rental model is better for people interested in sampling a wide range of music without a large out-of-pocket expense. That might make it attractive to curious but cash-poor students, for example. The rental services also have many more “community” features than iTunes does, features that allow friends and families to share music recommendations, see what others are listening to and discuss music. So they may be better for people who view music as a social activity.

But for most people, it’s no contest: Right now iTunes and the iPod are the better choice in digital music.

Its visual display of files stored in a nested hierarchy of folders has worked pretty well — until recently.

In the past few years, computer hard disks have become huge, and average consumers have begun to accumulate thousands and thousands of files each year — far more than in the past. And that is making it much harder to find any particular bit of information buried in the old folder hierarchy.

Every time you plug a digital camera into a PC to transfer images, dozens or even hundreds of files can be added to your PC in one fell swoop. The same thing happens when you rip CDs or go on a photo downloading binge. Email is accumulating in staggering amounts, and just surfing the Web can add hundreds of files — silently cached copies of Web pages and images.

So the familiar file and folder system is buckling. Unless you’re the rare person who is meticulously organized, who creates a perfect system of orderly folders and recognizable file names, locating information on your own computer can be harder than finding it on the Web. There have always been search tools built into the Apple and Microsoft operating systems, but they were terrible — slow and inaccurate, covering only some kinds of data, not all. So you had to rely on separate search systems built into individual programs, such as email software.

But now a wave of new desktop search tools is becoming available, some built right into new operating systems and others available as add-ons. Big names are getting in the game — Apple, Microsoft, Google and Yahoo. I’ve been testing the leading candidates and previewing some future contenders. So here’s a rundown of the latest methods for finding all that lost or hidden information lurking on your hard disk.

Spotlight: This is the new universal, speedy search system built into Apple’s latest operating system for the Macintosh, called Tiger. Because it is an integral part of the operating system, which handles all files, Spotlight knows about all the key kinds of information stored on the computer. It can rapidly find words or phrases deep inside emails, Microsoft Office files, address books and calendars, Adobe PDF files and more. It can even probe the “metadata” — descriptive information — attached to song and picture files.

Spotlight is always available on the Mac, no matter what program you are in. You just click on a blue magnifying-glass icon at the top right corner of the screen, and a search field appears. As you type each letter of your search term, Spotlight begins generating results in a list of files that drops down almost instantly, organized by type of file. If you click on “Show All,” the list expands into a larger window where you can see more results, organized in almost any way you choose — by date, by person mentioned, by name or location on the computer.

On my Mac, I typed “Hawaii” into Spotlight and instantly got hundreds of hits. Every email mentioning the state came up, as did Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, the address entries of contacts who live there, calendar entries for my vacation in Honolulu and pictures of my trip. Spotlight even showed thumbnails of those pictures and, with one click, presented a slide show of the images. It also found the theme song from the old Hawaii Five-O television show in my music collection.

Because Spotlight is part of the operating system, it avoids one of the big flaws of add-on search systems — the need to periodically “index” new files in batches, a process that spins the hard drive continuously, sometimes for hours. Spotlight needs to do this only once, when you first install Tiger.

Longhorn: Microsoft plans to emulate Spotlight in the next version of Windows, code-named Longhorn. But it’s way behind Apple. Longhorn won’t reach consumers until the fall of 2006 at the earliest.

Based on previews of Longhorn I’ve seen, its planned built-in search system will also be fast and universal, and will avoid long indexing sessions. Microsoft also plans to allow more customization of searches, and many more instant previews of files, than Apple now provides. But these apparent advantages may evaporate.

By the time Longhorn arrives, Apple will likely have a second, even better, version of Spotlight.

Google: Until Longhorn arrives, Windows users must rely on add-on search software, and the best known is Google Desktop Search. It does the annoying indexing, but only when your machine is idle. Plus, it’s fast and fairly comprehensive, including even the contents of cached Web sites.

But the familiar Google search results page, which works so well for the Web, is very limiting for a desktop search. And the software offers only a crude way to sort the results and no way to preview content.

Yahoo: The big online service bought a desktop search engine from a company called X1 and re-branded it. This is a robust product, which indexes and searches many kinds of files and previews most of them in a built-in window. You can also take direct action on e-mails that turn up in your search — for instance, you can launch a reply right from within the search results.

The main problem with Yahoo’s offering, in addition to the fact that it isn’t buried deep in the operating system, is that it betrays its techie heritage. X1 was originally built for techies and hard-core search fanatics. Although Yahoo has cleaned it up a bit, the many choices and settings in the user interface may be daunting to mainstream users. Also, it has much more of the feel of a separate, heavy-duty program than the Apple or Google products.

MSN: The desktop search add-on from MSN prefigures what Longhorn will do, and it’s very good. Like Yahoo, it offers previews of most files right in its search results screen. And like Apple’s Spotlight, it is fast and presents a clean, simple interface that begins generating results as you type your search terms.

The main downside to MSN’s search is that in order to get it, you have to download and install a “toolbar suite” that lives in the Internet Explorer Web browser and adds a bunch of functionality that’s unrelated to search, which you might neither want nor need. Also, by default, MSN’s search product searches only your e-mail (which must be run by Microsoft products) and the My Documents folder. You have to tinker with settings to get it to search your whole computer, something all its competitors do by default. The limited search horizon cuts down on MSN’s indexing time and makes it look faster than it really is, but it will likely cause you to get only partial search results.

There are some other good search products out there from smaller companies, notably one called Copernic, by Copernic Technologies, which has a loyal following of users. Whichever you choose, once you trust desktop search, you may never again find yourself creating a subfolder.

The big advantage of Web mail is that any computer, anywhere, with a browser and an Internet connection can access it. The PC you’re using needn’t have an e-mail program like Outlook installed on it, and it doesn’t have to be configured for your e-mail account. The disadvantages: Since the type of e-mail software the Web providers use is essentially just a Web page, their services typically lack the power and speed of installed programs; they also place limits on how much e-mail you can save.

That’s why, for many years, Web-mail services have most often been the preference of light users attracted to the free email they offer. They’ve also been popular with people who use Outlook or another heavy-duty program at work, but who want an account on the side for personal e-mail. Lately, however, the major Web-mail offerings have gotten much better, to the point where they’re plausible candidates even for serious users. Here’s a quick rundown of how they compare. (A note on methodology: Although you can receive Web-based e-mail via a local program like Outlook Express, I tested the services in their most common mode — Web-based e-mail delivered through Web-based programs.)

All three of the major Web-mail providers now offer much more free storage than was common a couple years ago. Gmail leads with more than 2 gigabytes. Yahoo offers 1 gigabyte for free, and Hotmail provides 250 megabytes. All three also now have decent antispam and antivirus features, and they are a bit less susceptible than Outlook to being exploited by e-mail containing harmful computer code, particularly if you access them via a browser other than Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. That’s because malicious software writers have targeted Outlook (and IE) for years. But the three still lack some key features. For instance, none offers a full preview of e-mail content, though Gmail does show you a few words of each message. None allows you to set up multiple signatures you can attach to different outgoing messages. And the Web-based e-mail filters these services provide are fairly crude compared with those in local programs.

As for how they rank, Yahoo Mail takes the lead. It’s fast, and its gigabyte of free storage is more than enough to free most users from deleting old mail. I also like Yahoo’s autocompletion of addresses, as well as its folder and filter systems. Plus, its overall user interface is clean and clear.

Google’s Gmail is also pretty good, though its quirky design could put off some users — it’s clearly still a work in progress. Gmail has the most free storage of the Web-based providers, which is a big plus, and searching all that mail is fast and accurate. But a simple operation such as deleting an e-mail takes more steps than in Yahoo. Gmail’s biggest, most beguiling quirk is its insistence on displaying e-mail in “conversations,” groups that include all back-and-forth responses. This view can be useful, and most local e-mail programs offer it as an option. But inexplicably, Gmail refuses to let you view e-mail one message at a time. It also runs ads alongside every e-mail, based on a scan of the message’s contents.

Hotmail comes in last. It offers only a fraction of the free storage of Yahoo and Gmail, which, for my money, flatly disqualifies it as a serious contender.

Whichever program you choose, Web mail has finally arrived as a viable option. Let’s hope a good thing keeps getting better.