I believe that people who like subscription services don't understand why most people don't care for them.
...
I feel sorry if the only way some people hear music is on a service.
There are many other, more friendly ways.
I know NO one who only listens to music via subscription service. Almost everyone who has one also enjoys Pandora or Slacker or sharing with friends or, yes, even BUYING ;-) music in addition to their subscription service.
In essence Microsoft has given us this expanded and accessible sea of music for $5 a month. Yes, you're right, if someone has a very narrow scope of music interest, then the $5 may not be worth it, but it's a downright trivial amount of money for most people (at least those who can afford iPhones and iPods and Zunes and so on), so I still think a subscription service that is implemented well still has a chance to succeed.
Groan. There's that canard again. Please provide a cite? (Hint: You can't).
Save your troll comment for someone that really cares. I don't even remotely take anything you say in this forum as truth or fact just a Steve Jobs Jammie boy that is staying up to late.
You were gushing all over OLED in numerous AI forums. Face the facts. Apple let you down and now you are apologizing. I can pull all of them up 1 by 1 if you'd like.
And by the way if my comments were purely Canard then why do you bother commenting to my postings. Do the simple thing and put me on your ignore list and put your Steve Jamies on and go to bed with the rest of the kids.
I think there are other problems that can lead to people leaving, such as:
Poor interface (Yahoo Music Engine...blech)
Poor selection of music (not a large enough library)
Difficulty syncing due to poorly functioning DRM, very slow transfer times etc. (Plagued Yahoo and Rhapsody in the past)
These very serious issues led many people to leave these services for very valid reasons. BUT, they are not flaws in subscription services as a concept, they are just flaws in early attempts at implementation.
I participate in alot of these forums, and the people leaving aren't complaining that subscription services disappointed them in what they offer in theory, rather that they were very frustrated with the crappy UI, malfunctioning DRM, slow response times, etc. etc. If the software had functioned as intended, and worked with the myriad of MP3 players it was supposed to, many of these people would have stayed.
All of those problems are still with the services. They are now old enough so that they can't use teething problems as an excuse.
But you are also just talking about people on the service. Can I assume that those are people who, for the most part are choosing to remain with the service?
What about all those who are leaving? Most no doubt, have not taken part in the forums, so why are they leaving?
And what about the 90+% of music buyers who have not been interested in the services? They don't even know about the problems you've mentioned. They just don't like the concept.
I know how subscription services work, but have never been tempted in trying one. Like most people, I just like buying what I want, and can hear it in plenty of venues before doing so, if I need to.
What do you mean "locked in"? I'm saying for $5 a month you have unlimited access to millions of songs. You can still buy all the songs you want to your heart's content.
You really wouldn't spend in one month what many people spend on coffee each day to ADD that access to your existing music library?
(At this point, you are being a bit dense (perhaps on purpose), so I plan to stop after this.)
I really wouldn't. Not when the model is 'from here to forever.' (I made a more basic point about CDs too, which I notice you conveniently chose to ignore).
Because - I'll bet - if the renting model works, more iTunes consumers would rent from Apple than Rhapsody. (And Apple would rather keep that part of the cash flow too).
But then Apple would have to set up a service, and spend many tens of millions, if not more, to keep it running.
I don't see the gain.
This way, it not only costs them nothing, but they get some of Rhapsody's take, and sell songs too, all at no cost to themselves.
Don't confuse the Zune with the XBox. We don't know what, if anything, will come of this. If it does, then you can tell us how great it all is. Right now there is nothing.
The XBox is only a success because MS had been willing to lose over a billion dollars a year selling it. No other company would have done that.
Melgross, thank you for responding. I have an Xbox, had two Zunes, and will have the new one tomorrow. As I said above, I also have an iPhone. To be sure, I am capable of distinguishing between them. In my post I was very clear where I was stating fact and where I was speculating. What do we have?
Microsoft the game company
XNA (implemented for Zune and Xbox)
Announced Xbox Live integration with respect to media
Box Art that clearly reads: "Games"
A video clearly announcing games and displaying a 3D racing game, purportedly a port of Forza Motorsport 3
Actions speak louder than words, to borrow an old cliche. I'll leave it to you to connect the dots.
Your argument about the Xbox being a success only because of Microsoft's willingness to lose money really has nothing to do with my discussion. So what? It is as if I should argue that Apple would not be as successful as it is now had MS not invest $150 Million in what appeared to be a dying company. After all, what company would do that?
I know NO one who only listens to music via subscription service. Almost everyone who has one also enjoys Pandora or Slacker or sharing with friends or, yes, even BUYING ;-) music in addition to their subscription service.
In essence Microsoft has given us this expanded and accessible sea of music for $5 a month. Yes, you're right, if someone has a very narrow scope of music interest, then the $5 may not be worth it, but it's a downright trivial amount of money for most people (at least those who can afford iPhones and iPods and Zunes and so on), so I still think a subscription service that is implemented well still has a chance to succeed.
So you're saying that of the more than two dozen subscription services, most of which are now gone, none were properly done?
Then what's the chance that one will ever be properly done?
All sorts of things have been tried. So far, none of them have.
And most people have a somewhat narrow interest in music, not just some.
But then Apple would have to set up a service, and spend many tens of millions, if not more, to keep it running.
I don't see the gain.
This way, it not only costs them nothing, but they get some of Rhapsody's take, and sell songs too, all at no cost to themselves.
That's the ideal business model.
Yes, they learn from Rhapsody's success (or lack of it). If Rhapsody turns out to be hugely successful (by which I mean that revenues will exceed the 'many tens of millions') it's a no-brainer for Apple. If it's a bust, nothing changes. Either way, Apple has nothing to lose.
So is lifetime [a problem]. While 17,000 hours looks good on paper, it doesn't mean that it's real. Sony's OLED Tv has seen its OLED screens fail much sooner than expected.
the 17,000 hour half life was a revision by a third party on a Sony claim of 30,000 hours.
Quote:
And brightness is a problem. The problem is that LEDs of all kinds lose lifetime based on heat. LED bulbs have massive aluminum heatsinks to cool them, and their use is proscribed as to angle lamp type etc. The old models with dozens of small LEDs don't have quite as much of a problem, but then, they don't put out much light either.
I did note that the OLED display on an older device of mine seemed plenty bright to me. A sample of one doesn't conclude an argument, but I do wonder in practical terms whether the brightness factor is actually an issue when all is said an done. Neither the article writer, nor myself have seen the Zune HD in action. It is likely I may never have the opportunity.
Quote:
While you've had some fun talking about "poor" Apple displays, this is different.
I didn't say "poor" so you shouldn't put it in quotes like I did. I said "inferior", which is different. Just a minor point. I wasn't really having fun either. What I was trying to demonstrate was that you could not conclude that as a whole LCDs were poor based on looking at a MacBook LCD in exactly the same way you can't conclude that OLEDs are poor simply by evaluating that type of display on the Sony Cellphone. This appears to be the conclusion the author is making.
If something is failing, then it's easy to say it's because of poor marketing rather than the fact that the idea itself is a failure. There has been plenty of marketing from many sources, and all of it has failed. That's pretty amazing, isn't it?
Don't forget that the iTunes store wasn't always so dominant. For much of its life, it was much smaller. And subscription services first came about when iTunes was small, so that's not a factor, though it may seem that way now.
The truth is that while the iTunes store took off, subscription services did not. And you may remember that almost everyone was predicting that they were the wave of the future.
And even Amazon is doing ok with about 8.5% of the music business sales. That came much later. No subscription service is doing nearly as well as Amazon's. So it's not just itunes, though that's the 600 pound gorilla.
Amazon was a well established online retailer prior to introducing music downloads and itunes was required to sync the most popular mp3 player on the market. These services had other things going for them than pay per download songs. Napster on the other hand went legit, and hoped some of its users would follow (they didn't). Anyway, we won't agree on this, so I'll leave it be from here on in.
All of those problems are still with the services. They are now old enough so that they can't use teething problems as an excuse.
But you are also just talking about people on the service. Can I assume that those are people who, for the most part are choosing to remain with the service?
What about all those who are leaving? Most no doubt, have not taken part in the forums, so why are they leaving?
And what about the 90+% of music buyers who have not been interested in the services? They don't even know about the problems you've mentioned. They just don't like the concept.
I know how subscription services work, but have never been tempted in trying one. Like most people, I just like buying what I want, and can hear it in plenty of venues before doing so, if I need to.
No, you can't assume that. I'm talking about people posting that they were leaving the service, and WHY, and the reason was never "I've had an epiphany and realize that owning is better than renting", it's because "I can't sync the music to my MP3 player" or "The software is slow and crappy", and so on. Almost everyone announcing they were leaving the service was because of implementation issues.
Don't forget these other services didn't have the luxury of supporting their own narrow set of MP3 players like Apple does (which is one reason for their astounding success: a VERY smart move on Apple's part.) They were struggling to be compatible with literally dozens and dozens of players, and they had immense difficulty as a result.
MS borrowed a page from Apple's book, and has limited to supporting their own family of players. But by the time they came along the Apple juggernaut was in full swing, and they've had a hard time getting mindshare, and i think THAT is primarily a failure of marketing.
I'd love to see the exact stats, but I think you'd find Zune users are far more faithful than the users of Napster, Yahoo Music Engine, and Rhapsody (before they got their major implementation issues under control). Everyone I know who've purchased Zunes are still using them and happy with them. Yes I've seen posts occasionally on forums of disgruntled users, but once again the complaint is not "subscription service isn't worth it after all", it's that they're complaining about technical issues that prevent them successfully using it.
I'm a Rhapsody subscriber - I was a Yahoo! Music subscriber, but then they went kaput my lower Unlimited price did migrate to Rhapsody.
As many others have stated, subscription services are not for everyone. Probably the biggest concern I have is whether or nor Rhapsody will go the way of MSN and Yahoo! Music, in a few years. But, my reason for sticking it out is that the service allows me to sample more tracks / albums than I will ever have time to listen to. For a relatively low cost, I have found music that I would have probably never heard, and eventually purchased the music that I felt had long-term staying power.
Pandora / Last.fm have their place, but I find Rhapsody much easier to sample. I'm also happy to see that Rhapsody now has an App Store app, which hopefully mean that they are not going anywhere.
As for the Zune Pass, it's a similar setup but with the $10 MP3 monthly credit - which I feel is a great deal (assuming you have a Zune, of course). Again, it really depends on the individual and what they want out of their music service.
Save your troll comment for someone that really cares. I don't even remotely take anything you say in this forum as truth or fact just a Steve Jobs Jammie boy that is staying up to late.
You were gushing all over OLED in numerous AI forums. Face the facts. Apple let you down and now you are apologizing. I can pull all of them up 1 by 1 if you'd like.
And by the way if my comments were purely Canard then why do you bother commenting to my postings. Do the simple thing and put me on your ignore list and put your Steve Jamies on and go to bed with the rest of the kids.
I'll tell you something, and I'm not trolling. I would really like to see an OLED device from Apple. I really would. That's the truth.
But, often Apple is right about these things. I've seen the Sony Tv, and it has one of the best images I've ever seen, but it's quite true that in a bright room the blacks go bluish, and the contrast drops. It's also true that the screens are failing at an alarming rate.
Despite this, I was interested in buying one, for, you know, historical reasons. But my wife thought I was nuts, and "discouraged" me from doing so.\
So if Apple thinks it's not ready for them yet, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt based on what I know about this technology. but next year, watch out!
Where the touch's screen comes in at the bottom, however, is screen quality: brightness, colors, viewing angles, and so on.
...
The reason the Cowon S9's display (which looks better in person than in photos, by the way) is the most vibrant and has the best viewing angles is simple: it has a 16M-color AMOLED screen. The advantages of an AMOLED, which iriver has been using on some of their players for several years (e.g., clix 2), over a traditional LCD are unlimited viewing angles, higher contrast ratio, energy efficiency, and quick response.
Video showing viewing angles between OLED tech against old LCD tech:
Microsoft knows this, which is why it only demonstrates the Zune HD in dark rooms. Engadget filmed a full demonstration, including the device's incapacity to pull up a web page, in a suspiciously dark room without even noting this. There are actually candles visibly flickering in the video behind the device.
Microsoft sets up its demos in the dark because the Zune HD looks terrible outside, where its contrast ratio advantage observed in ideal conditions completely falls apart. Engadget's other pictures of an OLED-using Sony Walkman show that without the candle-lit smoke and mirrors, OLED blacks are not black at all.
So bright and shinny display at Best Buy (look the huge metal hallide lamps on the background):
This is particularly the case if you want to browse the web, which involves a lot of white space. Showing a white background,
Show us a 100% white webpage, ifanbot.
Quote:
If you're wondering why Apple, which sells tens of millions of mobile devices per year and has a component appetite that literally sways RAM markets, didn't beat Microsoft, a company that barely sold a couple million Zunes in two years, to the OLED trough, it's not because Microsoft is on the cutting edge, but because Microsoft is desperately looking for a marketable feature, whether or not that feature makes any sense for consumers.
Apple didnt go for OLED because they dont want to pay Samsung / LG to cut a 3.5inch 320*480 display when nobody uses that resolution/screen size for OLED making this process expensive to Cupertino and damage their profits. in short, Apple dont want to pony up the money from their pockets.
Quote:
Has Apple's expertise in developing ARM CPUs and in running its own CPU fab plant been outmatched by Microsoft's first foray into mobile devices with a functional web browser?
Windows Mobile and WinCE (zune OS run atop it) have been running under ARM CPU well before Apple came with that stupid mp3 named iPod.
Quote:
So, while NVIDIA's Tegra grew from the humble origins of the chip powering the video 5G iPod, the iPhone 3GS and the latest iPod touch models feature a mobile-optimized GPU core descending from the Sega DreamCast. While Imagination's PowerVR GPU never made it into the desktop GPU market to rival the technology from ATI and NVIDIA, it has become the gold standard in mobile GPUs.
From an owner of Radeon graphics cards, I still remember back in 2000-2002 when Nvidia GPU's were trashing the PowerVR GPUs. Mainly the Kyro graphics cards...hahaha.
Anyway....read this old article about the Tegra APX 2500
NVIDIA's own demonstrations of Tegra's ARM11/integrated graphics show it achieving 35 fps in Quake III. The same software running on Pandora's Coretex-A8 with SGX GPU core achieves 40-60 fps.
uh? The Nvidia demo (done back in 2008) is running at:
- WVGA (800x480). higher than iphone. or you gonna lie to us and tell crap that the iphone resolution is better than that ?
- AA and AF. Where is that on the iphone, ifanbot ?
Quote:
rather simply due to the fact that Apple has its own resources for designing and building advanced, state of the art mobile processors, and didn't need to buy into the desperate hype NVIDIA is using to promote the runner up technology of Apple's former SoC vendor.
Like how all the ifanbots related websites promoted and overhyped the mythical camera on the iPod Touch, right ?
I'll tell you something, and I'm not trolling. I would really like to see an OLED device from Apple. I really would. That's the truth.
But, often Apple is right about these things. I've seen the Sony Tv, and it has one of the best images I've ever seen, but it's quite true that in a bright room the blacks go bluish, and the contrast drops. It's also true that the screens are failing at an alarming rate.
Despite this, I was interested in buying one, for, you know, historical reasons. But my wife thought I was nuts, and "discouraged" me from doing so.\
So if Apple thinks it's not ready for them yet, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt based on what I know about this technology. but next year, watch out!
One interesting thing I looked at: The Sony Walkman X is a touch screen OLED player, and the user reviews on Amazon (albeit not many) were very complimentary on the screen quality. 1 of the 15 said it was "ok", and all the rest who commented on it seemed to really like it.
Bottom line is that I'll get to see tomorrow! Keeping my fingers crossed....
On a side note, it's bedtime for me, so thanks very much Mel for a fun distraction to pass some of the night while we discussed subscription services! I hope you get great enjoyment out of whatever music devices and/or sites/services you use in the future!
Actually, no, I imagine most Zune-Defenders posting here have no illusions they will change anyone's mind on such an Apple-biased forum where people have very partisan views.
I'm just bored and making time pass on this night before my Zune HD arrives. I'm posting on Zune fan sites as well, but a little good-natured back-and-forth with skeptics can be fun too!
what a bunch of bs. i dont think its a coincidence that most of these strange microsoft "fans" are recent members with not too many posts.
Melgross, thank you for responding. I have an Xbox, had two Zunes, and will have the new one tomorrow. As I said above, I also have an iPhone. To be sure, I am capable of distinguishing between them. In my post I was very clear where I was stating fact and where I was speculating. What do we have?
Microsoft the game company
XNA (implemented for Zune and Xbox)
Announced Xbox Live integration with respect to media
Box Art that clearly reads: "Games"
A video clearly announcing games and displaying a 3D racing game, purportedly a port of Forza Motorsport 3
Actions speak louder than words, to borrow an old cliche. I'll leave it to you to connect the dots.
Your argument about the Xbox being a success only because of Microsoft's willingness to lose money really has nothing to do with my discussion. So what? It is as if I should argue that Apple would not be as successful as it is now had MS not invest $150 Million in what appeared to be a dying company. After all, what company would do that?
agion1
The problem is that so far, MS has not really shown much of anything here. We have to take it on faith right now.
When you bring in the $150million argument, you have to know the history behind it. A great part of that investment was because Apple found that MS had their Quicktime code in WMP. This was part of the settlement. Otherwise, Apple was going to sue MS, and MS would have had to strip that code out. As that code was the only thing allowing video to be played properly in Windows, they didn't want that, so that gave more than a few things to Apple in exchange. Other concessions were the promise to continue writing Office for the Mac, patent exchanges, etc.
Apple had a lot of money in the bank at that time, and it's not clear how much that investment really mattered, other than for publicity, and the embarrassment of Bill Gates when he had to appear in Macworld by video explaining why they made the investment.
what a bunch of bs. i dont think its a coincidence that most of these strange microsoft "fans" are recent members with not too many posts.
Believe whatever tinfoil corporate conspiracy you want, I don't work for Microsoft. Someone posted the link to this discussion on a bunch of Zune forums, which attracted a few of us over here.
what a bunch of bs. i dont think its a coincidence that most of these strange microsoft "fans" are recent members with not too many posts.
Exactly! I was googling the Zune HD and this article appeared. I read it and duly noted the BS. I thought it would be interesting to dispel some of the misinformation (not all was misinformation). Hence, my registration and posting.
the 17,000 hour half life was a revision by a third party on a Sony claim of 30,000 hours.
They're dropping after 2,000.
Quote:
I did note that the OLED display on an older device of mine seemed plenty bright to me. A sample of one doesn't conclude an argument, but I do wonder in practical terms whether the brightness factor is actually an issue when all is said an done. Neither the article writer, nor myself have seen the Zune HD in action. It is likely I may never have the opportunity.
I've not seen the Zune HD either, but other small displays I've seen looked good, but not up to the quality of an LCD.
Quote:
I didn't say "poor" so you shouldn't put it in quotes like I did. I said "inferior", which is different. Just a minor point. I wasn't really having fun either. What I was trying to demonstrate was that you could not conclude that as a whole LCDs were poor based on looking at a MacBook LCD in exactly the same way you can't conclude that OLEDs are poor simply by evaluating that type of display on the Sony Cellphone. This appears to be the conclusion the author is making.
Not one of Apple's displays has ever been truly bad, other than for quality of manufacturing issues, which is something else. Not all have been truly great either. But that's not the issue, is it? This is a different issue. It's whether an entirely new type of display is ready for prime time.
Is an OLED display good enough for a music player or phone, but not good enough for a video player? See what I'm saying? If it washes out in bright light, but not sunlight, then that's a problem. Maybe the Zune Hd's display is better than the other small OLEDs I've seen, but maybe not.
The problem with OLED displays is that they've been hyped so much that it's difficult for the average person to know what's true, and what isn't.
For some time, I've been reading that they will be so bright that they will be easily seen outdoors. Well, everyone in the business that I've spoken to thinks that's a crock. Maybe, eventually, they will get to the point of being decent outdoors, but that will take years of efficiency gains. It won't happen next year. OLEDS are MUCH dimmer than LEDs.
Comments
I believe that people who like subscription services don't understand why most people don't care for them.
...
I feel sorry if the only way some people hear music is on a service.
There are many other, more friendly ways.
I know NO one who only listens to music via subscription service. Almost everyone who has one also enjoys Pandora or Slacker or sharing with friends or, yes, even BUYING ;-) music in addition to their subscription service.
In essence Microsoft has given us this expanded and accessible sea of music for $5 a month. Yes, you're right, if someone has a very narrow scope of music interest, then the $5 may not be worth it, but it's a downright trivial amount of money for most people (at least those who can afford iPhones and iPods and Zunes and so on), so I still think a subscription service that is implemented well still has a chance to succeed.
Groan. There's that canard again. Please provide a cite? (Hint: You can't).
Save your troll comment for someone that really cares. I don't even remotely take anything you say in this forum as truth or fact just a Steve Jobs Jammie boy that is staying up to late.
You were gushing all over OLED in numerous AI forums. Face the facts. Apple let you down and now you are apologizing. I can pull all of them up 1 by 1 if you'd like.
And by the way if my comments were purely Canard then why do you bother commenting to my postings. Do the simple thing and put me on your ignore list and put your Steve Jamies on and go to bed with the rest of the kids.
I think there are other problems that can lead to people leaving, such as:
Poor interface (Yahoo Music Engine...blech)
Poor selection of music (not a large enough library)
Difficulty syncing due to poorly functioning DRM, very slow transfer times etc. (Plagued Yahoo and Rhapsody in the past)
These very serious issues led many people to leave these services for very valid reasons. BUT, they are not flaws in subscription services as a concept, they are just flaws in early attempts at implementation.
I participate in alot of these forums, and the people leaving aren't complaining that subscription services disappointed them in what they offer in theory, rather that they were very frustrated with the crappy UI, malfunctioning DRM, slow response times, etc. etc. If the software had functioned as intended, and worked with the myriad of MP3 players it was supposed to, many of these people would have stayed.
All of those problems are still with the services. They are now old enough so that they can't use teething problems as an excuse.
But you are also just talking about people on the service. Can I assume that those are people who, for the most part are choosing to remain with the service?
What about all those who are leaving? Most no doubt, have not taken part in the forums, so why are they leaving?
And what about the 90+% of music buyers who have not been interested in the services? They don't even know about the problems you've mentioned. They just don't like the concept.
I know how subscription services work, but have never been tempted in trying one. Like most people, I just like buying what I want, and can hear it in plenty of venues before doing so, if I need to.
What do you mean "locked in"? I'm saying for $5 a month you have unlimited access to millions of songs. You can still buy all the songs you want to your heart's content.
You really wouldn't spend in one month what many people spend on coffee each day to ADD that access to your existing music library?
(At this point, you are being a bit dense (perhaps on purpose), so I plan to stop after this.)
I really wouldn't. Not when the model is 'from here to forever.' (I made a more basic point about CDs too, which I notice you conveniently chose to ignore).
Because - I'll bet - if the renting model works, more iTunes consumers would rent from Apple than Rhapsody. (And Apple would rather keep that part of the cash flow too).
But then Apple would have to set up a service, and spend many tens of millions, if not more, to keep it running.
I don't see the gain.
This way, it not only costs them nothing, but they get some of Rhapsody's take, and sell songs too, all at no cost to themselves.
That's the ideal business model.
Don't confuse the Zune with the XBox. We don't know what, if anything, will come of this. If it does, then you can tell us how great it all is. Right now there is nothing.
The XBox is only a success because MS had been willing to lose over a billion dollars a year selling it. No other company would have done that.
Melgross, thank you for responding. I have an Xbox, had two Zunes, and will have the new one tomorrow. As I said above, I also have an iPhone. To be sure, I am capable of distinguishing between them. In my post I was very clear where I was stating fact and where I was speculating. What do we have?
- Microsoft the game company
- XNA (implemented for Zune and Xbox)
- Announced Xbox Live integration with respect to media
- Box Art that clearly reads: "Games"
- A video clearly announcing games and displaying a 3D racing game, purportedly a port of Forza Motorsport 3
Actions speak louder than words, to borrow an old cliche. I'll leave it to you to connect the dots.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok612YNA_Sc
Your argument about the Xbox being a success only because of Microsoft's willingness to lose money really has nothing to do with my discussion. So what? It is as if I should argue that Apple would not be as successful as it is now had MS not invest $150 Million in what appeared to be a dying company. After all, what company would do that?
agion1
I know NO one who only listens to music via subscription service. Almost everyone who has one also enjoys Pandora or Slacker or sharing with friends or, yes, even BUYING ;-) music in addition to their subscription service.
In essence Microsoft has given us this expanded and accessible sea of music for $5 a month. Yes, you're right, if someone has a very narrow scope of music interest, then the $5 may not be worth it, but it's a downright trivial amount of money for most people (at least those who can afford iPhones and iPods and Zunes and so on), so I still think a subscription service that is implemented well still has a chance to succeed.
So you're saying that of the more than two dozen subscription services, most of which are now gone, none were properly done?
Then what's the chance that one will ever be properly done?
All sorts of things have been tried. So far, none of them have.
And most people have a somewhat narrow interest in music, not just some.
But then Apple would have to set up a service, and spend many tens of millions, if not more, to keep it running.
I don't see the gain.
This way, it not only costs them nothing, but they get some of Rhapsody's take, and sell songs too, all at no cost to themselves.
That's the ideal business model.
Yes, they learn from Rhapsody's success (or lack of it). If Rhapsody turns out to be hugely successful (by which I mean that revenues will exceed the 'many tens of millions') it's a no-brainer for Apple. If it's a bust, nothing changes. Either way, Apple has nothing to lose.
So is lifetime [a problem]. While 17,000 hours looks good on paper, it doesn't mean that it's real. Sony's OLED Tv has seen its OLED screens fail much sooner than expected.
the 17,000 hour half life was a revision by a third party on a Sony claim of 30,000 hours.
And brightness is a problem. The problem is that LEDs of all kinds lose lifetime based on heat. LED bulbs have massive aluminum heatsinks to cool them, and their use is proscribed as to angle lamp type etc. The old models with dozens of small LEDs don't have quite as much of a problem, but then, they don't put out much light either.
I did note that the OLED display on an older device of mine seemed plenty bright to me. A sample of one doesn't conclude an argument, but I do wonder in practical terms whether the brightness factor is actually an issue when all is said an done. Neither the article writer, nor myself have seen the Zune HD in action. It is likely I may never have the opportunity.
While you've had some fun talking about "poor" Apple displays, this is different.
I didn't say "poor" so you shouldn't put it in quotes like I did. I said "inferior", which is different. Just a minor point. I wasn't really having fun either. What I was trying to demonstrate was that you could not conclude that as a whole LCDs were poor based on looking at a MacBook LCD in exactly the same way you can't conclude that OLEDs are poor simply by evaluating that type of display on the Sony Cellphone. This appears to be the conclusion the author is making.
If something is failing, then it's easy to say it's because of poor marketing rather than the fact that the idea itself is a failure. There has been plenty of marketing from many sources, and all of it has failed. That's pretty amazing, isn't it?
Don't forget that the iTunes store wasn't always so dominant. For much of its life, it was much smaller. And subscription services first came about when iTunes was small, so that's not a factor, though it may seem that way now.
The truth is that while the iTunes store took off, subscription services did not. And you may remember that almost everyone was predicting that they were the wave of the future.
And even Amazon is doing ok with about 8.5% of the music business sales. That came much later. No subscription service is doing nearly as well as Amazon's. So it's not just itunes, though that's the 600 pound gorilla.
Amazon was a well established online retailer prior to introducing music downloads and itunes was required to sync the most popular mp3 player on the market. These services had other things going for them than pay per download songs. Napster on the other hand went legit, and hoped some of its users would follow (they didn't). Anyway, we won't agree on this, so I'll leave it be from here on in.
All of those problems are still with the services. They are now old enough so that they can't use teething problems as an excuse.
But you are also just talking about people on the service. Can I assume that those are people who, for the most part are choosing to remain with the service?
What about all those who are leaving? Most no doubt, have not taken part in the forums, so why are they leaving?
And what about the 90+% of music buyers who have not been interested in the services? They don't even know about the problems you've mentioned. They just don't like the concept.
I know how subscription services work, but have never been tempted in trying one. Like most people, I just like buying what I want, and can hear it in plenty of venues before doing so, if I need to.
No, you can't assume that. I'm talking about people posting that they were leaving the service, and WHY, and the reason was never "I've had an epiphany and realize that owning is better than renting", it's because "I can't sync the music to my MP3 player" or "The software is slow and crappy", and so on. Almost everyone announcing they were leaving the service was because of implementation issues.
Don't forget these other services didn't have the luxury of supporting their own narrow set of MP3 players like Apple does (which is one reason for their astounding success: a VERY smart move on Apple's part.) They were struggling to be compatible with literally dozens and dozens of players, and they had immense difficulty as a result.
MS borrowed a page from Apple's book, and has limited to supporting their own family of players. But by the time they came along the Apple juggernaut was in full swing, and they've had a hard time getting mindshare, and i think THAT is primarily a failure of marketing.
I'd love to see the exact stats, but I think you'd find Zune users are far more faithful than the users of Napster, Yahoo Music Engine, and Rhapsody (before they got their major implementation issues under control). Everyone I know who've purchased Zunes are still using them and happy with them. Yes I've seen posts occasionally on forums of disgruntled users, but once again the complaint is not "subscription service isn't worth it after all", it's that they're complaining about technical issues that prevent them successfully using it.
As many others have stated, subscription services are not for everyone. Probably the biggest concern I have is whether or nor Rhapsody will go the way of MSN and Yahoo! Music, in a few years. But, my reason for sticking it out is that the service allows me to sample more tracks / albums than I will ever have time to listen to. For a relatively low cost, I have found music that I would have probably never heard, and eventually purchased the music that I felt had long-term staying power.
Pandora / Last.fm have their place, but I find Rhapsody much easier to sample. I'm also happy to see that Rhapsody now has an App Store app, which hopefully mean that they are not going anywhere.
As for the Zune Pass, it's a similar setup but with the $10 MP3 monthly credit - which I feel is a great deal (assuming you have a Zune, of course). Again, it really depends on the individual and what they want out of their music service.
Save your troll comment for someone that really cares. I don't even remotely take anything you say in this forum as truth or fact just a Steve Jobs Jammie boy that is staying up to late.
You were gushing all over OLED in numerous AI forums. Face the facts. Apple let you down and now you are apologizing. I can pull all of them up 1 by 1 if you'd like.
And by the way if my comments were purely Canard then why do you bother commenting to my postings. Do the simple thing and put me on your ignore list and put your Steve Jamies on and go to bed with the rest of the kids.
I'll tell you something, and I'm not trolling. I would really like to see an OLED device from Apple. I really would. That's the truth.
But, often Apple is right about these things. I've seen the Sony Tv, and it has one of the best images I've ever seen, but it's quite true that in a bright room the blacks go bluish, and the contrast drops. It's also true that the screens are failing at an alarming rate.
Despite this, I was interested in buying one, for, you know, historical reasons. But my wife thought I was nuts, and "discouraged" me from doing so.
So if Apple thinks it's not ready for them yet, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt based on what I know about this technology. but next year, watch out!
http://www.pocketables.net/2009/03/a...amsung-p3.html
Where the touch's screen comes in at the bottom, however, is screen quality: brightness, colors, viewing angles, and so on.
...
The reason the Cowon S9's display (which looks better in person than in photos, by the way) is the most vibrant and has the best viewing angles is simple: it has a 16M-color AMOLED screen. The advantages of an AMOLED, which iriver has been using on some of their players for several years (e.g., clix 2), over a traditional LCD are unlimited viewing angles, higher contrast ratio, energy efficiency, and quick response.
Video showing viewing angles between OLED tech against old LCD tech:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/designf...7614734510594/
Photos of the ZuneHD under light here:
Microsoft knows this, which is why it only demonstrates the Zune HD in dark rooms. Engadget filmed a full demonstration, including the device's incapacity to pull up a web page, in a suspiciously dark room without even noting this. There are actually candles visibly flickering in the video behind the device.
Microsoft sets up its demos in the dark because the Zune HD looks terrible outside, where its contrast ratio advantage observed in ideal conditions completely falls apart. Engadget's other pictures of an OLED-using Sony Walkman show that without the candle-lit smoke and mirrors, OLED blacks are not black at all.
So bright and shinny display at Best Buy (look the huge metal hallide lamps on the background):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9lLl2B0uAE
This is particularly the case if you want to browse the web, which involves a lot of white space. Showing a white background,
Show us a 100% white webpage, ifanbot.
If you're wondering why Apple, which sells tens of millions of mobile devices per year and has a component appetite that literally sways RAM markets, didn't beat Microsoft, a company that barely sold a couple million Zunes in two years, to the OLED trough, it's not because Microsoft is on the cutting edge, but because Microsoft is desperately looking for a marketable feature, whether or not that feature makes any sense for consumers.
Apple didnt go for OLED because they dont want to pay Samsung / LG to cut a 3.5inch 320*480 display when nobody uses that resolution/screen size for OLED making this process expensive to Cupertino and damage their profits. in short, Apple dont want to pony up the money from their pockets.
Has Apple's expertise in developing ARM CPUs and in running its own CPU fab plant been outmatched by Microsoft's first foray into mobile devices with a functional web browser?
Windows Mobile and WinCE (zune OS run atop it) have been running under ARM CPU well before Apple came with that stupid mp3 named iPod.
So, while NVIDIA's Tegra grew from the humble origins of the chip powering the video 5G iPod, the iPhone 3GS and the latest iPod touch models feature a mobile-optimized GPU core descending from the Sega DreamCast. While Imagination's PowerVR GPU never made it into the desktop GPU market to rival the technology from ATI and NVIDIA, it has become the gold standard in mobile GPUs.
From an owner of Radeon graphics cards, I still remember back in 2000-2002 when Nvidia GPU's were trashing the PowerVR GPUs. Mainly the Kyro graphics cards...hahaha.
Anyway....read this old article about the Tegra APX 2500
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/101/1
NVIDIA's own demonstrations of Tegra's ARM11/integrated graphics show it achieving 35 fps in Quake III. The same software running on Pandora's Coretex-A8 with SGX GPU core achieves 40-60 fps.
uh? The Nvidia demo (done back in 2008) is running at:
- WVGA (800x480). higher than iphone. or you gonna lie to us and tell crap that the iphone resolution is better than that ?
- AA and AF. Where is that on the iphone, ifanbot ?
rather simply due to the fact that Apple has its own resources for designing and building advanced, state of the art mobile processors, and didn't need to buy into the desperate hype NVIDIA is using to promote the runner up technology of Apple's former SoC vendor.
Like how all the ifanbots related websites promoted and overhyped the mythical camera on the iPod Touch, right ?
I'll tell you something, and I'm not trolling. I would really like to see an OLED device from Apple. I really would. That's the truth.
But, often Apple is right about these things. I've seen the Sony Tv, and it has one of the best images I've ever seen, but it's quite true that in a bright room the blacks go bluish, and the contrast drops. It's also true that the screens are failing at an alarming rate.
Despite this, I was interested in buying one, for, you know, historical reasons. But my wife thought I was nuts, and "discouraged" me from doing so.
So if Apple thinks it's not ready for them yet, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt based on what I know about this technology. but next year, watch out!
One interesting thing I looked at: The Sony Walkman X is a touch screen OLED player, and the user reviews on Amazon (albeit not many) were very complimentary on the screen quality. 1 of the 15 said it was "ok", and all the rest who commented on it seemed to really like it.
Bottom line is that I'll get to see tomorrow! Keeping my fingers crossed....
On a side note, it's bedtime for me, so thanks very much Mel for a fun distraction to pass some of the night while we discussed subscription services! I hope you get great enjoyment out of whatever music devices and/or sites/services you use in the future!
Best wishes,
Eddie
Actually, no, I imagine most Zune-Defenders posting here have no illusions they will change anyone's mind on such an Apple-biased forum where people have very partisan views.
I'm just bored and making time pass on this night before my Zune HD arrives. I'm posting on Zune fan sites as well, but a little good-natured back-and-forth with skeptics can be fun too!
what a bunch of bs. i dont think its a coincidence that most of these strange microsoft "fans" are recent members with not too many posts.
Melgross, thank you for responding. I have an Xbox, had two Zunes, and will have the new one tomorrow. As I said above, I also have an iPhone. To be sure, I am capable of distinguishing between them. In my post I was very clear where I was stating fact and where I was speculating. What do we have?
- Microsoft the game company
- XNA (implemented for Zune and Xbox)
- Announced Xbox Live integration with respect to media
- Box Art that clearly reads: "Games"
- A video clearly announcing games and displaying a 3D racing game, purportedly a port of Forza Motorsport 3
Actions speak louder than words, to borrow an old cliche. I'll leave it to you to connect the dots.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok612YNA_Sc
Your argument about the Xbox being a success only because of Microsoft's willingness to lose money really has nothing to do with my discussion. So what? It is as if I should argue that Apple would not be as successful as it is now had MS not invest $150 Million in what appeared to be a dying company. After all, what company would do that?
agion1
The problem is that so far, MS has not really shown much of anything here. We have to take it on faith right now.
When you bring in the $150million argument, you have to know the history behind it. A great part of that investment was because Apple found that MS had their Quicktime code in WMP. This was part of the settlement. Otherwise, Apple was going to sue MS, and MS would have had to strip that code out. As that code was the only thing allowing video to be played properly in Windows, they didn't want that, so that gave more than a few things to Apple in exchange. Other concessions were the promise to continue writing Office for the Mac, patent exchanges, etc.
Apple had a lot of money in the bank at that time, and it's not clear how much that investment really mattered, other than for publicity, and the embarrassment of Bill Gates when he had to appear in Macworld by video explaining why they made the investment.
what a bunch of bs. i dont think its a coincidence that most of these strange microsoft "fans" are recent members with not too many posts.
Believe whatever tinfoil corporate conspiracy you want, I don't work for Microsoft. Someone posted the link to this discussion on a bunch of Zune forums, which attracted a few of us over here.
what a bunch of bs. i dont think its a coincidence that most of these strange microsoft "fans" are recent members with not too many posts.
Exactly! I was googling the Zune HD and this article appeared. I read it and duly noted the BS. I thought it would be interesting to dispel some of the misinformation (not all was misinformation). Hence, my registration and posting.
agion1
the 17,000 hour half life was a revision by a third party on a Sony claim of 30,000 hours.
They're dropping after 2,000.
I did note that the OLED display on an older device of mine seemed plenty bright to me. A sample of one doesn't conclude an argument, but I do wonder in practical terms whether the brightness factor is actually an issue when all is said an done. Neither the article writer, nor myself have seen the Zune HD in action. It is likely I may never have the opportunity.
I've not seen the Zune HD either, but other small displays I've seen looked good, but not up to the quality of an LCD.
I didn't say "poor" so you shouldn't put it in quotes like I did. I said "inferior", which is different. Just a minor point. I wasn't really having fun either. What I was trying to demonstrate was that you could not conclude that as a whole LCDs were poor based on looking at a MacBook LCD in exactly the same way you can't conclude that OLEDs are poor simply by evaluating that type of display on the Sony Cellphone. This appears to be the conclusion the author is making.
Not one of Apple's displays has ever been truly bad, other than for quality of manufacturing issues, which is something else. Not all have been truly great either. But that's not the issue, is it? This is a different issue. It's whether an entirely new type of display is ready for prime time.
Is an OLED display good enough for a music player or phone, but not good enough for a video player? See what I'm saying? If it washes out in bright light, but not sunlight, then that's a problem. Maybe the Zune Hd's display is better than the other small OLEDs I've seen, but maybe not.
The problem with OLED displays is that they've been hyped so much that it's difficult for the average person to know what's true, and what isn't.
For some time, I've been reading that they will be so bright that they will be easily seen outdoors. Well, everyone in the business that I've spoken to thinks that's a crock. Maybe, eventually, they will get to the point of being decent outdoors, but that will take years of efficiency gains. It won't happen next year. OLEDS are MUCH dimmer than LEDs.