or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › CNN dusts off iTunes subscription service rumor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CNN dusts off iTunes subscription service rumor - Page 2

post #41 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm under the impression that it de-authorizes your iTunes certificate. Nothing specifically invalidates the FairPlay tracks.

You what?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #42 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

You what?

What part of that is confusing?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #43 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

What part of that is confusing?

I don't get what exactly you are saying or how it relates to what I said.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #44 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

As FairPlay stands at the moment, iTunes does validate content every so often. That's how Apple can provide the "de-authorise all" button in iTunes Store accounts. The button is there in case people forget to de-authorise machines before selling them, formatting them etc. etc. If you press the button, previously authorised copies of iTunes will continue to play protected content, but will at some point stop playing said content.

Let me try this again.

The iTunes servers don't routinely validate content. They never validate content and never have validated content. What they do is validate a certificate between your iTunes program and your iTunes account on Apple's servers. This way, Apple needs to only store your 5 certificates and not info for the DRM of every song.

Once your certificate has been authenticated, the iTunes program on your computer will then allow you to play the protected-AAC songs that match the account in question.

I'd love to get a real answer on this, but I really don't see FairPlay as have an implemented time limiter.

PS: Perhaps I'm tired and reading too much into your post... or not enough.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #45 of 89
I agree with all this stuff
buy music
buy or rent movies
subscribe to your TV shows
etc.

but isn't interesting that p2p may be playing a role in this?
check out bob cringely (cringely.com a few weeks ago). There, he makes the following point:

servers are expensive and when it comes to something resembling "broadcast" or even the overnight rush of demand for, say, a newly released DVD, the bandwidth costs are insurmountable. he says something like the amount of bits sold in 1st-day sales of the DVD of "Cars" was like more data than, I dunno, the entire library of congress or something ridiculous. Anyway....
Cringely suggests that the hard drive in the apple TV will basically be a p2p node so that when "Ratatouille" or whatever next Pixar thing comes out, people can get it via the much much more economical p2p distribution. Fast, cheap, viral. Bam.
post #46 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by benny-boy View Post

check out bob cringely (cringely.com a few weeks ago). There, he makes the following point:

servers are expensive and when it comes to something resembling "broadcast" or even the overnight rush of demand for, say, a newly released DVD, the bandwidth costs are insurmountable. he says something like the amount of bits sold in 1st-day sales of "Cars" was like more data than, I dunno, the entire library of congress or something ridiculous. Anyway....
Cringely suggests that the hard drive in the apple TV will basically be a p2p node so that when "Ratatouille" or whatever next Pixar thing comes out, people can get it via the much much more economical p2p distribution. Fast, cheap, viral. Bam.

Cringely also started the article commenting about we don't know what that mysterious HDD in the AppleTV is for, despite Jobs adequately demonstrating its purpose during the MacWorld keynote. I've been a fan of Cringely's articles for many a year but I think he's losing it. Possibly from using a Dvorakian keyboard made from Dvorak.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #47 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Let me try this again.

The iTunes servers don't routinely validate content. They never validate content and never have validated content. What they do is validate a certificate between your iTunes program and your iTunes account on Apple's servers. This way, Apple needs to only store your 5 certificates and not info for the DRM of every song.

Once your certificate has been authenticated, the iTunes program on your computer will then allow you to play the protected-AAC songs that match the account in question.

I'd love to get a real answer on this, but I really don't see FairPlay as have an implemented time limiter.

PS: Perhaps I'm tired and reading too much into your post... or not enough.

Ah yes that is clearer now, thanks. It seems things stemmed from my use of the word "content".

Just to expand on what you said:

The tracks on Apple's iTunes servers are stored un-encrypted. When you create an account at the iTunes Music Store, a set of keys is created and stored on Apple's servers. These keys are transferred (using an obfuscated encryption algorithm) to your iTunes client, which stores them in an encrypted key store file. When you purchase a track from iTunes, the client downloads the track and uses a key from the key store to encrypt the file. Every so often the store creates new keys for use with future files (the key for files you've already got never changes, but not all files use the same key and the number of different keys can grow). When you want to play a file on iTunes, iTunes must have the necessary key. If it doesn't have the necessary key, it logs on to the iTunes store. If the iTunes Store sees that the number of authorised iTunes clients is less than 5, it then transfers all the keys associated with that account to the requesting client, so that it can decrypt and play all files files associated with that account.

What I was saying is that in my experience, iTunes client does from time to time check to see if it is still authorised. If it is not, it will delete the keys in its key store and no longer be able to play protected content.

You are right that the current structure of FairPlay would not seem suitable for a rental service. But I really don't see why that should matter, it's not like Apple can't possibly come up with "FairPlayRental" or whatever.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #48 of 89
Just look at these industries before iTunes/Napster/Netflix/etc.

You went to your local record store and bought a CD/Tape/Record; you never rented it.

For movies, at least for me, I buy the movies that I really like, but there are many movies that I consider "movie's I would only rent". So I usually went to Blockbuster and picked up the recently released movie watched it once and returned for a cheap price. Basically, I don't buy my movies, I rent them. TV shows have moved into this category as well, since you can pick up season 1 of Lost or Seinfeld at Blockbusters as well.

While there are some software issues to deal with on the iPod, imagine what this would do for one who owns an Apple TV (this could also work for your computer as well).

You can sit on your couch, go to the movies menu on the Apple TV and select "Search iTunes Store" (as an example). There you can search for a movie on iTunes and when you select one, it can ask " Do you want to "Buy this Movie" or "Rent this Movie"?" You can select "Rent this Movie" and then the Apple TV would take the money ($4.99 maybe?) out of the iTunes Store account that is current synced up and you can begin watching the movie/TV show immediately.

My idea doesn't really use Subscription, but rather Rentals.
post #49 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I did say "subscription to digital online music" so an analogy about magazines isn't really congruous.
I like that idea, but it's not for me. Any info on how successful this eMusic subscription service is?

It's perfectly congruous. And, if you haven't heard, eMusic is right behind iTunes as the most successful online music service. Their only problem/challenge, is that they don't deal in mainstream but independent music.

Here, read this article from USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/product...0-emusic_x.htm

I found it by Googling "emusic 2nd place". For your subscription, last time I heard (they recently altered their arrangement, but I don't have the details) you got like 40 song downloads a month for your monthly subscription.

Re-read my original post. It's very logical if you've been watching this space for a while. --And, yes... yes, I think its "high" to assume Apple is going to radically alter its philosophy and DRM structure to begin "expiring" content. From what I read elsewhere, this is the most logical progression of what they're trying to achieve. I'm pretty sure their are a lot of folks who subscribe to the Daily Show on iTunes. Usually folks like me who don't have cable, and the economics of a subscription (similar to how magazines give a discount if you SUBSCRIBE) are much more palatable than buying each episode individiually.

I'm surprised you're not familiar with "music clubs". Columbia House doesn't ring a bell? If you search for music on Amazon, you'll see that they have a music club two, and offer different price structures for members who are subscribed, versus those who don't. A LOT of companies offer these type of subscription services for ardent music fans. WIN-WIN-WIN type stuff. e-Myth indeed.

Just my two cents, aye.
post #50 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm not saying you are incorrect, but the issue could lie somewhere besides FairPlay. For instance, what if the iPod's OS will auto-deny any Protected-AAC audio if the iPod has not been synced within 30 days.

Also, I know for certain this doesn't occur when an iTunes account on a computer hasn't had access to the internet in over 30 days.

I suppose it could be that way. Why it eventually stop on iPod but not on iTunes is a bit of a mystery.

At any rate, whether or not the current version of Fairplay doesn't feature a timebomb, I really don't see how one couldn't be added in Fairplay 3 for the purposes of subscribed media.
post #51 of 89
Okay, here's some more details on eMusic, and their recent subscription plan changes:
http://www.laptopmag.com/News/Portab...tion-Plans.htm
Quote:
Three new monthly plans are being offered to existing eMusic subscribers: the Basic Connoisseur Plan (100 downloads per month for $24.99), The Plus Connoisseur Plan (200 downloads per month for $49.99), and the Premium Connoisseur Plan (300 downloads per month for $74.99).
Existing members can sign up for the new plan at eMusic's Web site.

We're happy to see eMusic expand its download cap from 99 tracks per month to 300 tracks per month, as its DRM-free music, available in the universal MP3 format, beats all the competition when it comes to transferring tunes to a digital audio player.

NOW, here's why it makes sense for iTunes. Apple has ALREADY implemented "subscription" services, but ONLY in limited ways. Apple lets you get "season passes" to television shows you pick. These subscriptions promise to automatically deliver the latest show the MOMENT its available and your iTunes sees it. You pay for the season, and when the show is released, iit downloads. This is the same way podcasts work, except that this is for PAID content. The reason this is so vital, is because these automatic downloads NEGATE the need for people to repeatedly return to their computers, if they are using something like Apple TV to view their content. It downloads, then syncs to Apple TV. DONE DEAL.

People who have a television in their bedrooms with Apple TV, only need to click the remote, to see the content that downloaded last evening, or last night, or early that morning. They can then watch their Internet-delivered content without ever needing to take action. This is similar to how the service MovieBEAM works, except that it is much more economic. For instance, Apple currently takes pre-orders on movies, and these pre-orders automatically download. You can set your syncing options to have the movie sync to your iPod as soon as its done, so someone could concievably grab their iPod on the way to work in the morning, and watch/listen to the latest podcasts and catch "The Prestige" while having dinner out after work.

A "subscription" service that works more universally, might allow Apple to offer enhanced pricing for their active users who wish to buy in bulk. How this might play out is anyone's guess, but it really sounds like a no-brainer offering. The only question being, HOW much of a deal is it, and will studios be interested... and even if it works without the studios, due to Apple being able to subsidize its costs more effectively with those from whom they can expect regular business, and as such, increased traffic through their sales channel.

More cents from me. (Sorry for the pun.)
post #52 of 89
The reference to the volume of P2P volumes vs. iTunes is a pretty good point. A lot more music is obtained from P2P than iTunes and IF Apple wants to reach these users, iTunes current model of song purchases may not be the answer. Since Apple, however, claims that the point of iTunes is to drive iPod sales, Apple may not really care where people get their content. But, if Apple sees iTunes as being a revenue stream all its own, it would make sense for Apple to look at other options for providing users with music.

With regards to my own opinions on music rentals and subscriptions, I could see myself using both in addition to song purchases (I now only buy music from iTunes). I could see myself renting one of the iTunes Essentials, such as Paris Dinner Party or Halloween music. I could also see myself subscribing to a service that might let me sample music on my iPod prior to making a purchase - I'm thinking something like $10 for 20 songs that I can then either purchase or swap for another one to sample.

Lastly, if Apple is really looking into P2P services, would this necessarily mean for the purpose of rentals/subscriptions? Couldn't it just be that Apple is looking for technology that might make it unnecessary for Apple to actually house the content that they make available? Is it really necessary for Apple to house content on their own servers when they might just be able to turn iTunes into a store front that just links us to content stored on the rights holders servers?
post #53 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleverboy View Post

It's perfectly congruous.

In the sense the term was being used, it's not. When you stop your subscription to Playboy your magazines don't become unreadable. Sticky pages may make them unreadable, but not canceling a subscription. As we discussed earlier, digital music rentals are often referred to as a subscription, hence the miscommunication.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #54 of 89
there are two reasons i won't touch movies on itunes no matter how they market them.

one is video quality. if it isn't as good as me renting a movie on blue ray and watching it on a 1080p HD tv, i'm not interest.

two, and i know i'm in the minority here, but...special features. i've been known to rent or even buy movies solely for the special features, commentaries inparticular. at least with netflix, i know i'm getting the movie i otherwise would've rented at blockbuster and it has all of the features besides the movie. yes, i'm a videophile, i love special features and if the movies on itunes are just the movies, i'm not interested...period. i'm surprised i haven't heard this concern on the forums i read.

anyway, video quality and special features. until those meet my standards i'm not even going to bother looking into how the movies are distributed.
post #55 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

This paragraph is probably completely wrong.

Automatic rights revocation already exists in iPods for "Fairplay" media. Use an iPod for a month without docking it to a computer and you'll find that you won't be able to play your protected tracks. My sister went a long time between docks, using a wall charger instead of letting the computer charge the iPod, and this has happened to her several times.

I call that flat out lying bullshit.

I haven't synched my 2nd gen for almost 2 years now and it still plays just fine, amazingly enough the battery is still good for a few hours at a shot too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm under the impression that it de-authorizes your iTunes certificate. Nothing specifically invalidates the FairPlay tracks.

If there is a timeout period, I'm very interested to know what it is.

If a machine is de-authorized, the iTMS tracks on it are de-authorized and will not play or sync to an iPod until the machine is re-authorized. Tracks on an iPod will play for years without synching.

If you sync an iPod to a de-authorized machine, the tracks on the iPod that require authorization (from that particular machine) will no longer work. It's so long since I had that problem I forget if they are deleted from the iPod or just disabled.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #56 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

In the sense the term was being used, it's not. When you stop your subscription to Playboy your magazines don't become unreadable. Sticky pages may make them unreadable, but not canceling a subscription. As we discussed earlier, digital music rentals are often referred to as a subscription, hence the miscommunication.

You're mixing everything up. YOU and OTHERS are alternately calling services like Napster and Yahoo Unlimited "subscriptions" (or at least arguing this point), I have and continue to call them RENTALS. Don't mix it up, re-read all my posts if you need to, but you do me a disservice if you dismiss my arguments because of misunderstandings you yourself are introducing into the conversation. Mr. H agrees with this view I subscribe to as well.

To Review:

AGREED: Napster, Yahoo Unlimited, Rhapsody are RENTAL services, NOT subscription services (as I previously said). You can even throw Netflix and Blockbuster's online services in as other types of RENTAL services.
DISAGREED: You keep confusing this. Watch the train of the conversation:
  • CLEVERBOY: "I don't know why people insist on being WEIRD about this. The subscription service will likely HAPPEN, and it will likely be similar to [eMusic] and not similar to [Napster & Other piddly 'RENTAL' services]." (I thought I laid this out clearly)
  • MR. H: "I wish people would stop referring to the service that Napster and the like offer as 'subscription'. It is not. It is rental, and the two are very different. For a true subscription service, see eMusic." (Here, I'm high-fiving Mr.H and agreeing silently.)
  • SOLIPSISM: "I'm not familiar with eMusic subscriptions or music clubs. THe only music subs I know of are rentals only. I reallly don't see how you can have a subscription to digital online music and at the same time own it." (You see what you said here? First you admit to not knowing of other types of subscriptions other than "rentals", which is fine... but after you're told they exist, you can't keep cupping your ears. That's not fair. I'll give you some more examples of "how it works" below.)
  • MR. H: "Subscription ? rental. If you subsribe to a magazine for 12 months, then end the subscription, do you have to give those magazines back? No - you just don't get any more." (Mr.H repeats his point. Again, I'm looking at the screen in disbelief why we're arguing over basic English, instead of getting on with real discussion.)
  • SOLIPSISM: "I did say "subscription to digital online music" so an analogy about magazines isn't really congruous." (Here, you're willfully disregarding everything being said, and acting as if Mr.H and myself don't know what we're talking about because somehow the phrase "digital online music" isn't, in your opinion, a viable avenue for a subscription ...which I think is odd. You're going back to calling rental services "subscriptions" and that this isn't really subscribing to anything... which EVERYONE already agrees to.) \
  • CLEVERBOY: "It's perfectly congruous. And, if you haven't heard, eMusic is right behind iTunes as the most successful online music service. [--snip--]I found it by Googling "emusic 2nd place". For your subscription, last time I heard (they recently altered their arrangement, but I don't have the details) you got like 40 song downloads a month for your monthly subscription." (Here, I try to explain again, giving details of how the eMusic digital online music subscription plan works.)
  • SOLIPSISM: "In the sense the term was being used, it's not. When you stop your subscription to Playboy your magazines don't become unreadable. Sticky pages may make them unreadable, but not canceling a subscription. As we discussed earlier, digital music rentals are often referred to as a subscription, hence the miscommunication." (In the sense that YOU use it, yes... NOT in the sense that I CORRECTLY use it. See my point? You can't have it both ways, bud. And, you're using my own examples against me. That's messed up.)

Now, all that said. What is the VERB that you use when you get your PODCAST on a regular basis? It's called... a SUBSCRIPTION. "Subscribe to this podcast." Many podcasters regularly check their numbers to see how many people have subscribed to them, and whether subscribers have dropped off. The problem might be that you're so busy correcting people on the what you mean, you're missing the fact that someone actually not only AGREES that some of these services are RENTALS and not SUBSCRIPTIONS, but that they're thinking to the NEXT step... which is, if you have a REAL subscription... what possibilities there might be for Apple to have a subscription service (that doesn't involve RENTING music, and therefore "expiring" it if the subscription is cancelled)? I understand FairPlay too. RoughlyDrafted has a great article on why "expiring" content, doesn't really match the FairPlay DRM scheme. This is why I think people are HIGH to suggest Apple would do that.

Roughly Drafted:
The Invented Demand for Rental Media DRM
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Hom...AC702CF19.html
Quote:
"Despite that, there is a general perception among industry analysts that Apple, by showing up late to the subscription rental party, faces the threat of losing their majority ownership of online media sales. We'll have to wait a few weeks to find out if Think Secret invented their rumor, or if it is based on any real information, but the underlying myth of the holy grail of media subscription rentals can be taken apart right now."

I think this current story is being BENT very similarly to match previous speculation, when its more than likely evidence of something closer to what Apple is already doing in the "subscription" arena.

Congruous with "magazine" subscriptions, because what you GET, you KEEP. Right? Don't lose me... I'm still talking "digital online music" that DOES NOT EXPIRE and I'm calling it a "subscription" (which you seem to agree with). So, if you "subscribe" to a particular artist or group or what-have-you, you get discounted content on a regular basis for your "subscription" fee. That's why I think its bound to happen... matches the report, and why I think its positively HIGH for people to assume that if Apple offered a "subscription" service, that they are "reconsidering" the notion of "RENTING" music... when it seems plainly obvious that a TRUE subscription service has nothing to do with "renting" anything.

Does that make sense now?

The Microsoft iPod-Killer Myth
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Hom...800E6D44D.html
Quote:
"Microsoft ignored market research that showed that users were not at all interested in renting music, or that consumers had already grown accustomed to the fair use rights that WMA intended to destroy. WMA was designed from the ground up by Microsoft to please media moguls ideas about how to take advantage of consumers.

Two years ago, the company was excited about Janus, yet another take on rented music that Microsoft thought would drive new customers to the WMA platform. After all, Apple's iPod has no capacity to kill music after the user stops paying; even if their account was revoked, iTunes users could strip the encryption off protected AAC tracks without much trouble."

If you turn that model on its head, and have "subscriptions" that are NOT "rentals", but surrounded the commitment to purchase mechanism that subscriptions have traditionally encompassed... you have a winner. Anything else, is all about SMOKING THE GANGA.
post #57 of 89
Since subscriptions are time-limited, this might allow Apple to fix the one big thing Mac/iTunes/iPods can't do right now--checkout audio books from public libraries. Where I live in Seattle, the public library's online audio book checkout only works with Windows and only with players that work with Microsoft's ill-fated DRM. Since some 70% of mp3 players are iPods, that means most people can only listen to audio books on a Windows computer sitting at a desk or the like.

Unless they go jogging with a running Windows laptop bouncing around in a backpack.http://forums.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/lol.gif

--Mike Perry
post #58 of 89
i definitely think that this only has to do w/ video content. They wouldnt do this with music... it would suck for your subscription to end and your music library is POOF gone
post #59 of 89
As long as fairplay keeps a count of the number of computers that a song can be transferred to, how is a iTunes "purchase" not a rental?

Also, how is this "ownership?"
post #60 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrThunderer View Post

As long as fairplay keeps a count of the number of computers that a song can be transferred to, how is a iTunes "purchase" not a rental?

Also, how is this "ownership?"

it is a purchase because it can be on those 5 computers forever. a subscription would mean that the songs are removed from your computer after your subscription ends. It is like if you buy a computer game with only one serial number. Just because you cant use it on every computer in the world, it is still yours
post #61 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato988 View Post

it is a purchase because it can be on those 5 computers forever. a subscription would mean that the songs are removed from your computer after your subscription ends. It is like if you buy a computer game with only one serial number. Just because you cant use it on every computer in the world, it is still yours

OK, So I buy a CD at my local retailer. As long as i don't let it get scratched I own it. I can even make a backup if I wish. I own it.

I "buy" a recording from iTunes. I live in a household with two adults, and two children. We all have happy fun Macs (two macbooks for the grown-ups, two iMacs for the kiddies.) We all use iTunes. after replacing two machines due to age, the sixth machine cannot play the songs we "bought."

iTunes (pre EMI changes) does not let you BUY songs. iTunes never did. They are rentals. Stop the semantic debate. The DRM in iTunes is lame. Just like the DRM associated with the zune. Until all the DRM is gone, "buying" iTunes media is a rental.

In 20 years tell me how those files you grabbed from iTunes are doing. My 20 year old records and CDs are doing just fine, and i ACTUALLY OWN THEM.
post #62 of 89
AppleTV is about to rock the world.
post #63 of 89
TBaggins said,

.....So what can MS do, now that it's all turning to sheeite for them? Basically give away Zunes, that's about it........


T-Bagg, I don't think giving Zunes away will work for MS. Read trailmaster308's epic post "My 2 Months with the Zune" on this forum. Also, check out the pictures of said Zune at the end of 2 months.





P.S. trailmaster--I hope you don't mind me reproducing your stomped to bits Zune to make my point.
post #64 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfe2211 View Post

TBaggins said,

.....So what can MS do, now that it's all turning to sheeite for them? Basically give away Zunes, that's about it........


T-Bagg, I don't think giving Zunes away will work for MS. Read trailmaster308's epic post "My 2 Months with the Zune" on this forum. Also, check out the pictures of said Zune at the end of 2 months.





P.S. trailmaster--I hope you don't mind me reproducing your stomped to bits Zune to make my point.

Good Lord.

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #65 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjoec123 View Post

There's no way Apple can do this on the music side without altering the way Fairplay fundamentally works. Right now, iPod and Apple TV don't handle DRM at allonly iTunes does. A rental model would force Apple to move DRM functionality onto the iPod and Apple TV. Thus, I don't see it happening.

Not to mention that every attempt to do this in the history of digital music has been a complete flop. It makes no business sense.

Video is another story, but even that would introduce unneeded complexity that would confuse and frustrate users whenever it malfunctioned. Who wants files that are timebombs, ready to self-destruct from the moment you start watching them? This is the major flaw of pay-per-view and onDemand services. I often start a movie on one day, and then not get back to finish it until a few days later.

The only way to make it work would be to set it up like Netflix, where there was no timelimit on a file, but rather a maximum number of files you could "rent" at a time. "Turn in" one file, and you'd be granted access to another. All for a monthly fee. But again, you'd have to have some way for the iPod and Apple TV to be aware immediately whenever you turned in a file. Otherwise, it would continue to be available until you synched again.

There's no reason why Netflix and iTunes can't co-exist. When I want to buy a movie that I know I'll watch many times, I buy it on iTunes. When I want to rent a movie for a single viewing, I use Netflix. It's no different from what I've always done.

It's a slippery DRM slope, moving into the rental space. I think digital files are best left for purchase only.

I agree that the apple system is totally unequipped at this point to offer music "for rent", as it would require totally changing their hardware and content encoding (correct me if i'm wrong). However, it's necessary for their movie category. I think 90% of their movie sales are to first-time iPod Video buyers, who want some content to play on their new toys... Netflix is just a much better option in terms of quality, price and usability (no ATv required...), that I think the only way Apple can really break that market open is to offer a 48 hour rental for 4 or 5 bucks at a better quality.

There's a big reason why all of the studios release DVDs with tons of extra features and behind the scenes crap, and that's because most people won't watch a movie 4 or 5 times to justify buying over renting without some extra fluff. Apple doesn't offer this. Also, 80% of the movies available at iTunes can be found for the same price or cheaper, at better quality and with bonus features in the bargain and used bins at video stores and rental places... The only drawback is that they can't immediately be watched on an iPod, but who really cares about that...
post #66 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato988 View Post

a subscription would mean that the songs are removed from your computer after your subscription ends.

No no no no no no no. Have you not been reading this thread? A rental would mean that the songs are removed when your subscription ends. With a subscription, e.g. eMusic, you get to keep downloads even when your subscription ends.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #67 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrThunderer View Post

iTunes (pre EMI changes) does not let you BUY songs. iTunes never did. They are rentals. Stop the semantic debate. The DRM in iTunes is lame. Just like the DRM associated with the zune. Until all the DRM is gone, "buying" iTunes media is a rental.

You can always burn to CD and re-rip. And that's not cheating or anything, because Steve mentioned in his talk that people often did that.

DRM isn't rental, because you don't have to keep paying to keep using the product. DRM is annoying as hell, yes, but it is not rental.

Amorya
post #68 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrThunderer View Post

OK, So I buy a CD at my local retailer. As long as i don't let it get scratched I own it. I can even make a backup if I wish. I own it.

I "buy" a recording from iTunes. I live in a household with two adults, and two children. We all have happy fun Macs (two macbooks for the grown-ups, two iMacs for the kiddies.) We all use iTunes. after replacing two machines due to age, the sixth machine cannot play the songs we "bought."

iTunes (pre EMI changes) does not let you BUY songs. iTunes never did. They are rentals. Stop the semantic debate. The DRM in iTunes is lame. Just like the DRM associated with the zune. Until all the DRM is gone, "buying" iTunes media is a rental.

In 20 years tell me how those files you grabbed from iTunes are doing. My 20 year old records and CDs are doing just fine, and i ACTUALLY OWN THEM.

You have a pretty warped idea of what renting means. Looks like I was wrong when I said a few posts ago that "everyone knows what rentals are". How many times do you hand over money to Apple for a song? Once. You buy it. If you were renting it, you'd pay a much lower fee to download it, but if you wanted to keep the download, you'd have to pay that fee on an ongoing basis. As soon as you stop paying the fee, the track stops working.

You also have a misunderstanding about how iTunes authorisations work. You can de-authorise machines, which you seem to be unaware of. Those two machines that you replaced due to age, you should have first launched iTunes, and selected "Deauthorize iTunes Account" from the advanced menu. This would then have enabled two more computers to be authorised.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is a facility to deauthorise machines from your iTunes Store account instead of from the clients. This facility can be used a maximum of once a year and is provided for those situations where people have forgotten to de-authorise the "correct" way. Log into your iTunes Store account and press the "deauthorize all" button (this button is only available if you have 5 authorised machines).
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #69 of 89
There is a problem for iTunes outside the US (and maybe inside, I don't know) in that public broadcasters, particularly the BBC, have reached agreements with the talent and production agencies to provide current programmes for free for seven days after broadcast; then they must time out. At present iTunes can't deliver this and its causing some frustration. Its clear that iTunes needs wide flexibility in content handling scenarios and I've no doubt they are pursuing this.
post #70 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinney57 View Post

There is a problem for iTunes outside the US (and maybe inside, I don't know) in that public broadcasters, particularly the BBC, have reached agreements with the talent and production agencies to provide current programmes for free for seven days after broadcast; then they must time out. At present iTunes can't deliver this and its causing some frustration. Its clear that iTunes needs wide flexibility in content handling scenarios and I've no doubt they are pursuing this.

No. Content needs to be compatible with fair-use, not the otherway around. Even for those who THINK they're only giving people content for a short period of time, aren't REALLY. If people want to keep that content, they'll simply remove the DRM using a number of unblockable methods. I believe Apple knows this, and is NOT so motivated to acquire content that they would subvert their entire model. Apple waited 18 months trying to convince studios that the "rental" model doesn't work and that DRM in general was a bad idea. Since then, they've implemented DRM and only budged slightly on usage rights (number of machines).

So, if you truly believe they will miraculously back-pedal and begin expiring content, its sad to say... you are WRONG. Realize this, Apple has implemented DRM but has done their best to "simulate" as FREE an environment as they can for their iTunes users. As CLOSE to DRM-free as possible... so much so, most people don't even know that their content HAS rights protection until they try to play it elsewhere.

Expiring content would be a radical and ill-advised step that would countermand advances, such as with EMI, that Apple is only now realizing. If you want "rentable" content, you'll just have to look elsewhere. It's as simple as that. The ONLY possible difference to this, would be if iTunes were to allow "streaming" content. In this way, and ONLY this way, might "rentable" content make its way into iTunes (allowing streaming connections to play on computers, WiFi iPod models, iPhones, and Apple TVs through iTunes), although this too is HIGHLY unlikely.
post #71 of 89
See, the thing I don't like about subscription services is the fact that you don't actually own your music, you just "rent" it, in a sense.

However, what about this new DRM-less EMI offering? If you sign up for a subscription service through iTunes and you download EMI songs (or possibly other DRM-less content if/when it becomes available), then you own the songs. EMI is HUGE, a subscription service through iTunes would be massive. That's a lot of music to download and KEEP. Potentially.
post #72 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

I call that flat out lying bullshit.

I haven't synched my 2nd gen for almost 2 years now and it still plays just fine, amazingly enough the battery is still good for a few hours at a shot too.

I don't know what to say. My sister's iPod is a 5G. It really does start skipping protected tracks after a month, playing only unprotected tracks. I don't know why. It works fine otherwise.
post #73 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padilla79 View Post

See, the thing I don't like about subscription services is the fact that you don't actually own your music, you just "rent" it, in a sense.

However, what about this new DRM-less EMI offering? If you sign up for a subscription service through iTunes and you download EMI songs (or possibly other DRM-less content if/when it becomes available), then you own the songs. EMI is HUGE, a subscription service through iTunes would be massive. That's a lot of music to download and KEEP. Potentially.

You see. Here is the perfect example of why the use of the word "subscription" in relation to online music rental causes confusion.

Padilla, with a true subscription service (e.g. eMusic) the number of downloads you may make in a month is limited. With a rental service, it is unlimited. With the subscription service, when you stop paying, the music you've downloaded remains playable - it is yours to keep. With a rental service, when you stop paying, the music is no longer playable. If Apple offered a subscription service, you wouldn't be able to then go and download EMI's entire catalogue. The number of downloads you could have in a given period would be limited in order to prevent it. The point of a subscription from the consumer's perspective is to reduce the unit cost of downloads by buying in bulk. They are only worth it if you purchase songs often.

A rental service requires DRM, or unfeasibly honest customers. A subscription service does not require DRM (e.g. eMusic tracks are "normal" VBR mp3s with no DRM).
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #74 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

I call that flat out lying bullshit.

I haven't synched my 2nd gen for almost 2 years now and it still plays just fine, amazingly enough the battery is still good for a few hours at a shot too.

Do you think that maybe your iPod has an older firmware version than the one JeffDM is talking about?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #75 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyTJ View Post

The reference to the volume of P2P volumes vs. iTunes is a pretty good point. A lot more music is obtained from P2P than iTunes and IF Apple wants to reach these users, iTunes current model of song purchases may not be the answer. Since Apple, however, claims that the point of iTunes is to drive iPod sales, Apple may not really care where people get their content. But, if Apple sees iTunes as being a revenue stream all its own, it would make sense for Apple to look at other options for providing users with music.

You are exactly right. Most of the people here who are opposed to a music rental model seems to assume it would be the only option. If Apple brings out a subscription model for music, I assume it would be in addition to the current song/album model.

I would probably do the rental model if it looked something like this: Unlimited (or very generous) number of downloads, the ability to transfer any content to iPods, and very limited CD burning for $15 a month. The CD burning is not a huge deal, but it would be nice to be able to burn a few CDs each month.
post #76 of 89
Lord these people who can't wrap their heads around the word 'subscription' are funny. I wonder, do they return their newspapers when those subscriptions end?
post #77 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland View Post

I would probably do the rental model if it looked something like this: Unlimited (or very generous) number of downloads, the ability to transfer any content to iPods, and very limited CD burning for $15 a month. The CD burning is not a huge deal, but it would be nice to be able to burn a few CDs each month.

The fact is that once you've burnt a track to an audio CD, it's yours. So, with the rental services, any tracks you want to burn to audio CD you have to pay the standard $0.99 for that track, over and above any monthly fee you are paying for the rentals.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #78 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Lord these people who can't wrap their heads around the word 'subscription' are funny. I wonder, do they return their newspapers when those subscriptions end?

This has already been covered in this thread. Your example is just one usage of the word that fits the definition of subscription, there are other valid uses. I really don't see how "music subscription" would not fit the definition.
post #79 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleverboy View Post

No. Content needs to be compatible with fair-use, not the otherway around. Even for those who THINK they're only giving people content for a short period of time, aren't REALLY. If people want to keep that content, they'll simply remove the DRM using a number of unblockable methods. I believe Apple knows this, and is NOT so motivated to acquire content that they would subvert their entire model. Apple waited 18 months trying to convince studios that the "rental" model doesn't work and that DRM in general was a bad idea. Since then, they've implemented DRM and only budged slightly on usage rights (number of machines).

So, if you truly believe they will miraculously back-pedal and begin expiring content, its sad to say... you are WRONG. Realize this, Apple has implemented DRM but has done their best to "simulate" as FREE an environment as they can for their iTunes users. As CLOSE to DRM-free as possible... so much so, most people don't even know that their content HAS rights protection until they try to play it elsewhere.

Expiring content would be a radical and ill-advised step that would countermand advances, such as with EMI, that Apple is only now realizing. If you want "rentable" content, you'll just have to look elsewhere. It's as simple as that. The ONLY possible difference to this, would be if iTunes were to allow "streaming" content. In this way, and ONLY this way, might "rentable" content make its way into iTunes (allowing streaming connections to play on computers, WiFi iPod models, iPhones, and Apple TVs through iTunes), although this too is HIGHLY unlikely.

Get off your high horse you idiot. In the specific circumstances I am talking about ie. free to air public broadcasting, the expiration model is the only one that will fly. Apple aren't on a crusade for God's sake. They will use a variety of business models, that best balance the needs of customer, supplier and Apple Inc. The BBC is the largest media organisation in the world. What the BBC is able to supply for free it is already starting to; for what it clearly cannot then most users would prefer iTunes to be the conduit. The BBC Governors have even made Apple compatibility a pre-requisite of future funding.
post #80 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland View Post

You are exactly right. Most of the people here who are opposed to a music rental model seems to assume it would be the only option. If Apple brings out a subscription model for music, I assume it would be in addition to the current song/album model.

I would probably do the rental model if it looked something like this: Unlimited (or very generous) number of downloads, the ability to transfer any content to iPods, and very limited CD burning for $15 a month. The CD burning is not a huge deal, but it would be nice to be able to burn a few CDs each month.

I doubt CD burning would be allowed. I don't think it is allowed on current services that offer rental/subscription unless you pay outright for the song.

I really like the idea. I think people get hung up about one aspect of the idea and just refuse to look past it to see where the value is. For the cost of a subscription, a person can buy one to one and a half albums a month instead. Over 20 years, that's 240-360 albums. Sure, you own it outright, but by the time you hit the 20 year mark, how much of the older music do you still really like? In the mean time, one can sample from several hundred thousand albums for the same cost.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › CNN dusts off iTunes subscription service rumor