MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Feb 01, 08 - 02:40 pm Comment from: Ampar

" . . . Apple still wants to give this advantage to the Microsoft Zune."


I must have misunderstood the meaning of "advantage" for years now.

"... disappointingly, music-subscription options ... are still nowhere to be found,"
That IS very disappointing. Disappointing to the parasitic executives of the labels that is.

Feb 01, 08 - 02:48 pm Comment from: theloniousMac

iTunes is easy to use and has a very large selection. It needs more, much more to differentiate itself.

Instead of all the advertising, Apple should look at sites like thesixtyone.com and see how a social site builds interest in music. It's fun and you find out about lots of music you might never otherwise have heard of.

As it stands, iTunes is getting a bit long in the tooth in terms of usefulness. I look forward to seeing how well the video rentals work, but for music, I go to the NON DRM AMAZON first, before looking at iTunes.

In regards to the review, I must say, I expected much more.

Feb 01, 08 - 02:50 pm Comment from: ken1w

It's important to note that the Apple video rental service is still "a la carte." Customers pay for each movie rental individually. Therefore, it is more similar to the successful pay per song system that Apple uses for music than it is to the unpopular "music subscription" scheme used by the others (except for Amazon). So I don't understand why these fools feel that Apple should offer music subscriptions because it now offers video rental; they are very different and unrelated.

Apple seems to be against making creative content into "bulk sales," where the individual artists receive little, if any, recognition. By selling content individually, whether it's songs or movie rentals, good art is recognized and (hopefully) the artists are being compensated more fairly.

Somehow I do not feel disadvantaged.
I have my music and TV shows available to me 24-7, already paid for and ready to go.
Why should I continue to pay for them forever?

music subscriptions are like payola or communism. take your pick. they are a failed model because they are "programmed" unlike a la carte purchases where you can pay for exactly what you want and have more choice and know you are directly benefitting the self-publishing musicians. the whole thing is much more free market than having a subscription service tell you to which music you may listen.

A subscription model would be useful for a particular niche, such as shopping centres, call centres, waiting rooms, supermarkets, hotels, gyms - anywhere that plays music for the enjoyment of their customers, clients or guests where access to a wide selection of music is desirable and ownership of individual songs is not.

Feb 01, 08 - 02:59 pm Comment from: DRM sucks

"He admitted that Apple had bet wrong in offering only sales of downloaded movies."

Did he really? Or was it really an admission of capitulation to the desires of the studios?

It's amazing how reviewers take points off because the reviewed product only does what it is intended for. iTunes lacks music subscription because it is never intended for music subscription, duh! If I review PC Magazine, shall I take points off for a lack of food reviews?

Feb 01, 08 - 03:06 pm Comment from: Ampar

From Michael Muchmore, no less.

"As it stands, iTunes is getting a bit long in the tooth in terms of usefulness."

That's odd. I find it as useful today as I did the very first day I tried it over 4 years ago. As far as easy of use, it runs circles around Amazon's no-DRM store. I'm not against Amazon's offering, I just think it's visually cluttered and it's unclear at times as to what they are offering.

I wish these guys would stop calling it a "subscription". It's NOT a subscription. If I subscribe to a magazine or newspaper, I get to keep every issue I paid for. I don't have to give back my old issues when I decide to stop my subscription. If I rent a car, I know I have to return it. But if I "subscribe" to one of their "subscription" models and I decide to stop my subscription, I lose all my music. Poof! Gone. It's not a subscription at all and every time they use that word to describe that service, they're lying to consumers.

MW: "remember", as in remember the difference between a rental and a subscription.

I'd love to have a subscription option available through iTunes. I'd like to be able to listen to entire albums a few times and decide which (if any) of the cuts I'd really want to keep, and then have the option to buy them DRM-free. Exploring new music is a lot less risky with a subscription approach; the 30-second previews usually aren't enough for me to really know if I want to buy the track (although they are often enough for me to know that I *don't*).

I think they're missing out on a great marketing opportunity here. Imagine if I got a small discount on the subscription service each time I bought a track. Or if iTunes added smart playlists that made it easy to find and buy the subscription-only tracks I had listened to a lot and/or rated highly.

The main caveat here is that the service would have to work reliably. I tried the Yahoo Music Engine service a while back with a Creative Zen Micro, and it was constantly needing firmware upgrades or complaining that it needed to phone home to see if I still had a valid account. That was more trouble than it was worth.

Give the people what they don't want. Yep, sounds like a great idea to me. I never understood what is appealing about a music subscription service. This article doesn't surprise me coming from PC magazine.

The classic rent/own argument is BS. It's not either/or.

I'd still OWN and BUY the songs that I really like, however I'd be willing to pay a reasonable amount just to browse & download new songs or albums to try out that I may not want in my permanent collection. Get that through your heads.

Voice of Reason:
Exactly. I've been saying the same on every "subscription" (rental) post that appears here.

I would happily exchange it for my sirius satellite subscription ro an iTunes rental option, because I only use sirius now to explore new music I'm not familar with. I'm not going to buy the songs just to try them out.

i often wonder if these analyst who preach subscription actually subscribe to any of the online music services that offer it? i bet not.

Feb 01, 08 - 04:20 pm Comment from: iamdj

go to LASTFM listen to the album for free, if you like it, purchase it at iTMS.

Feb 01, 08 - 04:27 pm Comment from: Mac George

I reviewed PC Magazine and took points off for OFFERING a subscription.

Feb 01, 08 - 04:43 pm Comment from: Macintosh

What a moron. How many times can these people write the same crap?

"disappointingly, music-subscription options like those offered by Napster, Rhapsody, and other Windows Media-based services are still nowhere to be found"

Sure they are, retard. They are called Napster, Rhapsody, and there is some other Windows Based shit out there too...

I have a hangover. Can you tell?

Feb 01, 08 - 05:01 pm Comment from: Ampar

In related news:
"Although often considered the de facto choice for music sales, Apple's iTunes media player has just recently surpassed RealPlayer and is now second only to Microsoft's Windows Media Player for streaming media."

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/01/31/itunes_usage_overtakes_realplayer_for_the_first_time.html

The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.
The subscription model does NOT work.


Did I mention that the subscription model does NOT work.

@Mac George

I stole a copy of PC Magazine from a friend, then left copies of it laying around the office for others to "share".

LOL

For something that doesn't work, the recording industry, such as it is, sure wants it. I think for some situations and some individuals, access to music via a subscription makes some sense. I don't think the concept will go away. The low cost Sansa is very compelling for som.

For me the unlimited model is too expensive. I'd like to see Apple offer music discover packages where individual tracks had time or playcount limits. Say you could get 100 tracks for 10 bucks and you could play each track three times. Then build a system around this to prompt users to buy the track. I think this system would completely cut the legs off of the current subscription model and silence a bunch of their critics.

Funny, I'm not disappointed by there being no subscription at iTunes.

I am disappointed that they don't offer biscuits and tea service. Suppose I'll have to go elsewhere.

I'm sorry but I DON'T WANT MUSIC SUBSCRIPTIONS! Like Steve Jobs said again, nobody wants music subscriptions and the proof is how all of those subscription services are FAILING!

Feb 02, 08 - 12:44 am Comment from: Demon

Subscription service only appeal to the Music Labels that are looking at them as a way to save their asses and the 3 users out their would agree. I think their the same 3 users that bought Zunes.
Subscription services need to die like DRM needs to die.

With the Label's stars dumping them the labels are in serious trouble from all sides. They need to suck it up, stop tossing their hope behind the quick fixes. Quick fix are not what the customers want.

If the music industry want to survive I'll give them some pointers:
1) move all digital downloaded music to a lossless format and make standardized (i.e. FLAC or Applelossless (We don't care but, pick one and the industry worldwide stick to it and insist on it.)
2) we want DRM Free ONLY. Subscription Music is a waste of everyone's time it over get a clue. Start working on business model that works for today it's the 1960's any more.
3) we want really good artists, that make really good music. The Labels' producers and engineers need to stop dictating & manipulating what the artist does and just record what the artist is and is producing.
4) we want the artist to get fair and reasonable contracts from the labels, because fair and reasonable contracts attract better artists and better artist mean better music. (i.e. The label is getting ownership of the artists recorded work, therefore the label needs to pay for that recording, they need to pay for the promotion and they needed to pay all the costs, plus they need to pay the artist a fair royalty rate on 100% of all the recorded works that the labels sell.
5) Invest honest money in A&R;and stop just trying to crank out the same formula music with just different artists names. We're tired of the Britney, JayZ, .... formulas. It just doesn't work.
6) The Labels destroyed their physical retail channel and now they are doing it to their digital channel too. I have one word and a statement on the subject. STOP! Treat all the retailers fairly and equally, Let the customers pick the retailer they what to use, But, the product that all retailers sell must be the same and it must be of the highest quality. The customer in the end is going to make the choice so, make the call establish a solid online channel or Free P2P will replace the labels.
7) The labels have tremendous value in their back catalogs of Audio recordings and Music Videos. But, much of it will never see the light of day again. Open it up, the iPod kids discovered their parents music CD's ripped them and have gotten into the music. Don't fight it open the vault and let the old stuff. The Labels might be surprised on how much old music that didn't becomes hits when released, Most of it wasn't bad music it was just released in the wrong time or era.

Feb 02, 08 - 01:12 am Comment from: LorD1776

This subject reminds me of the Republicans view on healthcare.

Did I just set myself up?

Leopard Man:

By definition, yes it IS a subscription service. The term "subscription" can be misleading, and "rental" is more accurate. But subscription is technically correct.

The problem that I have is that I've talked to so many people that have no idea that your music stops working once you stop the subscription. Most people are under the impression that any music you get while subscribed is yours forever.

Isn't it funny how ignorance is an inferior product's best selling tool?

Exhibit A: Microsoft Windows.

"it's cheaper than paying for it every month for the rest of your life (depending on your life expectancy). "

Actually there's no way that's true.

Even based on modest numbers to get say a couple of thousand songs today will cost you $2000 from Amazon (because you're talking a lifetime you don't want AAC locked in song). Then add $10/month for the rest of your life to add some new songs each month.

Alternatively invest the $2000, as long as you can generate enough to pay the difference between the monthly additions to your music collection and the subscription, you're laughing.

Change to a person filling a new iPod classic with 40,000 songs, the economics in favor of renting for life become overwhelming.

Invest $40,000 instead of spending it today. Pay the subscription from your profits and use the thousands of extra dollars you have per year for something else.

That is without the other benefits of being able to add as much new music to your collection whenever you like, try music risk free to see if you like it and getting new higher quality versions of songs for free as the technology adapts over your lifetime.

But the average American and particularly the average MDN poster are financially ignorant so do emotionally what seems right, They feel more comfortable OWNING even if it costs them more over their lifetime.

But give two options, subsciption for the financially literate higher volume music user and purchase options for those who only plan to listen to a few hundred songs over their lifetime or can't do the math to see what owning costs them.

Think:

Well said my friend. I'm glad there's someone on this site who has actually used their brain to work out the economic benefits of subscribing to music over owning.

To anyone who's critical on subscribing; get your calculator out and simply work out the costs for listening to millions of different songs over your lifetime compared to paying to buy them.

If you plotted it as a graph, you'd see very quickly the purchasing model pull away in terms of total cost. It simply makes more economic sense to rent music - that's not a fanboy opinion, it's a mathematical fact. Open your eyes people - if you at least try it before making judgement then you'll see it was only a psychological barrier that was stopping you in the first place.

Cheers.

Feb 02, 08 - 10:03 am Comment from: The Rev.

"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."
Frank Zappa

Music subscription will fail for the same reason.

"Music subscription will fail for the same reason."

Probably not true. People are now quite used to video subscription, subscription models for the use of housing (renting), subscription models for car usage (leasing), subscription models for the use of phone and Internet services (rather than building and owning their own phone networks) and so on.

They chose to subscribe to all these things because the package makes financial sense for them at the time. What's really needed to kick off subscriptions is a subscription provider people believe will be around a year, two years, five years from now.

Feb 02, 08 - 10:22 am Comment from: LorD1776

"Music subscription will fail for the same reason."

I'd bet it wouldn't if Apple did it.

Frank Zappa. I never cared for his music, but I agreed with some of his viewpoints. But I could never take seriously a person who would saddle his children with names like Moon Unit, Dweezil, Ahmet Emuukha Rodan and Diva Thin Muffin Pigeen.

Think:

While your arguments are reasonable, I suspect that they only work in extreme cases. 40,000 songs is a lot of music for most people. There are a lot of factors that go into how and why people use and accumulate music. I find it very remote that anyone just goes out, purchases an iPod classic and then proceeds to "acquire" 40,000 songs. I suspect that most rip an existing collection or transfer an existing collection, then proceed to accumulate additional music.

I'm sure that there are some collectors that will spend $10 a month on music. I have from time to time, but rarely do I do it month in, month out. It's been months since I even purchased a single song. It is going to be the rare and unusual individual that is going to follow such a habit for an entire lifetime (and one with a considerable amount of money, or a considerable lack of self-control) and as such an accumulation grows, it is going to be increasingly less likely that that individual is going to listen to the music collected; in which case, it becomes a habit of collecting, not a habit of listening.

In examining my own music, I find some that I could very much do without now, but others I truly do enjoy, and prefer having it immediately available (which was the purpose of purchasing) rather than having to deal with whether my subscription was current. I have little time these days (and rather little interest) in spending time exploring new music. Not that I don't enjoy discovering someone new and talented, but I don't have hours and hours to devote to the sheer mass of music that is available. I probably have missed hundreds of artists that I would like, and missed thousands of songs that I would love, but I simply have other things in my life that I would rather devote that time to.

What it comes down to is this: I would prefer to purchase the few songs that I find I like rather than subscribe. There are those who's time can be filled with hours and hours of listening to music just to find those songs that they like, and the subscription model might well work for them. Apple, by offering purchases of single songs and albums, has chosen the low growing fruit, but the fruit that represents and satisfies the largest proportion of the buying and music listening public. The subscription model is the upper branch fruit (the hardest to reach and therefore the most expensive) and this is the fruit that the record labels want to sell since it guarantees an income stream, but represents a much smaller (though apparently a very vocal) segment. It is also going to be the last major feature to enter the iTunes structure. I don't doubt that one day, probably sooner than later, this feature will be added to iTunes, and for a very brief moment, the pundits and PC reviews will hail it as being "about time", and then they will move on to find some other nit to pick about Apple and iTunes, probably its lack of support for Windows Media.

I suppose, in the end, it depends on how much you need endless variety and how much you like to be comforted by old favorite, and how that relates to how you spend you time.

Thanks for the thought-provoking comments.

"I suspect that they only work in extreme cases."

Unfortunately no, they work for around a thousand songs you want today plus a relatively few number of extra songs per year. The extreme case just points out that without doubt there is a class of consumer for whom renting pays off.

"I have little time these days (and rather little interest) in spending time exploring new music."

So you fall into that group for whom buying is best. A guy who's going to pick his few hundred favorite songs and listen to them for life, never adding much to the list, never checking out new albums from artists you already listen to or that your friends recommend. Fine. Enjoy owning them.

However I think a lot of people's music consuming behaviors would change with an all you can eat model.

Imagine a thumbs up/thumbs down feature in a player. Each week you get a half dozen or more new tracks (you pick the number) that you might like delivered to you. They could be chosen based on your current music ownership. You listen and indicate approval/disapproval and the player keeps or discards the song.

Taking it to the logical conclusion, artists get paid an ongoing revenue stream based on the stickiness of their music in people's players.

You don't have to support one model only, Apple should add subscriptions. Heck, produce a Netflix style all you can eat movie subscription and go one step further by adding all you can eat music to it. Who wouldn't go for that at the right price?

And that, as demonstrated one thing it comes down to as to whether it makes sense for you is price. At $1/month, $12/year, $120/decade, everybody would see the benefit and rent music. (again an extreme point, but it does illustrate the point).

Offer a $500 "Lifetime" subscription, lots of people would buy it if they thought the company would still be in business and honouring it decades from now. At At $4.95 extra on a $14.95 all you can eat movie subscription many would also do it. Perhaps you could have levels. $12/year for light duty users gets you up to 100 initial songs plus 2 new songs a month. $9.95/month gives you completely unlimited access.

There is a business to be made here done right, and whoever gets it right first will be the new kings of digital music.

Feb 03, 08 - 01:37 am Comment from: Former Zune User

In November of 2006, I received an electric shock through the earbuds of my Microsoft Zune. Simultaneously, the Zune software reset and emitted a very loud noise through the earbuds.

Since the incident, I've suffered blood and fluid leakage from my ear canal, impaired hearing, and incessant ringing and discomfort.

I've been treated with vitamins, steroids, pain killers, sleep aids, anti-depressants, and other medications. All, to no avail.

I notified Microsoft of the problem and promptly received a phone call from Jaret Rettell of Microsoft Zune Escalations. Jaret stated that he was reviewing "a number of similar complaints." He asked me to return the device for replacement and authorize the release of my medical records to Microsoft. Please, would you?

After eleven months of unsuccessful medical treatment, I filed a personal injury/product liability lawsuit against Microsoft.

In initial disclosures, Microsoft denied receiving the "similar complaints" Jaret Rettell previously admitted to. Further, efforts to solicit responses in the Zune forums were thwarted by a "cease & desist" letter. My posts were deleted and membership revoked.

Since so many other similar incidents have been reported on the web, I intend to reconvene as a class against Microsoft. Have you had a similar experience with the Microsoft Zune? If so, please report a claim at http://www.microsoftzuneinjuries.com

Businesses love, love, love subscription models.

Consumers don't.

Look at OnStar for GM vehicles. GM has been pushing it for years, because they want continuing revenue after the purchase. However, most people take the year or 6 months free and then dump it. Yes, it offers a certain level of convenience in certain, limited situations (car accidents, lost, locked your keys in the car) but if you do the math, it doesn't make sense long term.

Same with music "subscrptions" -- which is really just a monthly shakedown. I wouldn't pay $10-$15-$20/month for music because it simply doesn't add up. .99/song does. When I buy the song, I can listen to it over and over. With a personal collection of over 400 CDs, I have a pretty varied and large collection, so my new music purchases have gone down considerably.

The real problem for music studios is they're reaping what they sowed. People don't feel compelled to pay for music because they know that little, if any, money makes it back to the artist. Why should they feel bad for stealing from a thief? Granted, it isn't legal or right, but it has a certain "Robin Hood" flair to it.

Feb 03, 08 - 08:55 pm Comment from: NCIceman

Yeah, I don't get the need for a music subscription service, except maybe for checking out new music right on the edge.

When are people going to get that music and video are different...that the sales model for one does not necessarily translate to another. Did we ever see album rental stores back in the day? Stop looking for business models that don't need to be there.

Feb 03, 08 - 09:02 pm Comment from: TheConfuzed1

I agree with MDN on the subject of music subscriptions, but honestly, what's the harm in offering it, if people are dumb enough to want it? Does Apple think that somehow it would be detrimental to music sales? If so, that would be a contradiction to the belief that people don't want to rent music, wouldn't it?

Subscription for music? Are you nuts? Who the heck rents music?
Whatever you do Apple, don't fall for this gimmick. Go talk to Rhapsody, Yahoo, Napster and see why they're failing! What stupidity. Renting music?

I have finally figured something out. If a company releases a product, the average consumer is wowed by the experience, the project, the item. The fringe gadgeteers, commentators, engadgeters are difficult to woo, but when and if they are wooed, they then ask "What's Next?
" It doesn't matter if it's only been 6-8 months old, it's still "What's Next?" And if you don't deliver in their time frame, they bash the company and the gadget. If the company complies and releases something that doesn't catch on with the average consumer, but pleases the gadgeteer, there is silence! Deafening silence!

Look at Palm, they couldn't keep up, couldn't make the changes in time first for the gadgeteers, then for the average person...They're dying. Dell, Yahoo, the list goes on.

Apple is one of the few companies that just ignores the gadgeteers and tries to develop a user experience that is second to none. The gadgeteers eventually understand and come around...until the 6 months have elapsed.

I think that this ridiculous rental thing is in line with this stupidity. If Apple were to rent music and it failed, Engadget and a host of other High-enders would be all over them saying, "I told you so..." Listen to the old Engadget podcasts to see Ryan have a go at the Apple closed system and how great the rental process was/is. Listen to Patrick Norton on many podcasts salivate about rentals for music x 3+ years. But if you look at the facts, it's obvious, Rentals for Music does not work. All of these systems are going bust. Look at Yahoo's last earnings report. Try and find financials on Rhapsody, we won't even mention Napster due to the Mercy rule.

I really hope that some of the Tech snobs wake up and see the light. DRM-free I understand, Renting music? Puhleazzze.

"I wouldn't pay $10-$15-$20/month for music because it simply doesn't add up. .99/song does. "

See you're arguing about the price, not the model. Just as an example, how does $.99/month sound, or $2.99 extra on your cable TV or movie rental subscription?

"But if you look at the facts, it's obvious, Rentals for Music does not work. All of these systems are going bust."

Or better put, none of the players you mention have got it right yet. Those that rented and sold were not particularly successful with the sales part of their businesses either. Does that mean both models are wrong?

Frankly despite being the most successful store of it's kind iTunes only sells a fraction of the content in iPods. Apple have said they're happy with iTunes provided it just doesn't lose money. You could argue that that whole paid digital download business is a bit of a failure today. Nobody, not even Apple has figured out how to make a good profitable business out of it.

In any case, Apple finally has the infrastructure to rent stuff. That means they can play with this model for music if they so desire.

Funny how RESPECTABLE Mac fans like the guys at MBW have said they would like to see a music subscription service.

Expect nothing less than bile from MDN.

Actually, I really don't care about their PC or Music now.....I am ONLY hoping they will bring iPhone to Canada SOON...Come on Apple, what are you doing with your iPhone.......

Trade show displays