Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.
The Invented Demand for Rental Media DRMhttp://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Hom...AC702CF19.html
"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 Mythhttp://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Hom...800E6D44D.html
"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.