Yep. But Steve's reversed opinions come because of some basic limitation in hardware or the marketplace going away. So it's not really changing his mind as much as basing an opinion on the art of the possible at any particular moment. And the harder he pans something publicly, the more likely he has a small tiger team working on the related issues deep inside the building.
I'm confused. Surely you can't keep all the tracks you've downloaded? Otherwise you could download and keep tens of thousands of tracks for only $100 or whatever this premium charge is going to be. That doesn't make sense.
People really miss the point when it comes to music downloads. You're thinking of music like other products, which is wrong. It doesn't matter how much music they give you - to them, a song is virtually free (just bandwidth/server costs). What matters is how much money they get out of you in the end. If they sell songs for $1, and you buy 10 in a year, they make $10. If they offer you songs for 1c, and they sell you 2000 songs, then they make $20 and have doubled their profits. How many songs they give you is completely irrelevant.
I currently spend $0 a year on music because I won't pay for anything with DRM. If they offered me unlimited music for $20, I may very well download every tune they have, but they've still won because they've made $20 where they would have made $0 before.
I have a hard time believing that Jobs and Co. would go down a path that would essentially discourage people from purchasing a new ipod. If the one-time fee is tied to a single device, wouldn't people be more inclined to hold onto old iPods for longer periods of time? What about reselling? Would the rights to the music be transferable?
People really miss the point when it comes to music downloads. You're thinking of music like other products, which is wrong. It doesn't matter how much music they give you - to them, a song is virtually free (just bandwidth/server costs). What matters is how much money they get out of you in the end. If they sell songs for $1, and you buy 10 in a year, they make $10. If they offer you songs for 1c, and they sell you 2000 songs, then they make $20 and have doubled their profits. How many songs they give you is completely irrelevant.
But if you're the sort of person that only buys 10 new songs a year, why would you suddenly want 1,000s of tracks? Surely you're not really that big a music fan and don't really care - in the second example you're just downloading songs for the sake of it rather than because you really want them.
Also you're missing the fact that as the article stands, it implies that you'll be able to download so many songs from the iTunes Music Store (if you've got enough HDDs) for $100 (or whatever) that it would take the entire rest of your lifetime to listen to everything you've downloaded (realistically, as opposed to if you listened 24/7 solid) so you'd never need to download anything ever again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutcho
I currently spend $0 a year on music because I won't pay for anything with DRM.
Obviously you haven't heard about iTunes+ or Amazon or Emusic or CDs or vinyl.
My version of the perfect iPhone would be it had a built in XM receiver I could listen to when I wanted and screw all the tedious browsing/buying/renting/downloading/owning/library managing busy-work of it, plus the endless cost of paying for music that after a while I don't care that much about hearing, let alone maintaining.
Surely I'm not the only person who likes to listen to music on the go but doesn't need to own it and hear it over and over again. If I wanted to hear the same songs continuously I could listen to Top 40 FM radio. I think a library of music is fine in a controlled environment like a home, but on the street, if I'm gonna shuffle and take what comes next, I'd just as soon let somebody else introduce me to new music as well as play favorites I like. Just MHO.
I don't care, as long as I can buy iTunes plus songs for $1 still I will be happy. I don't think I will use a service like this, but for those that would otherwise pirate I suppose it is a good option.
I much rather own my music, but I welcome more choices.
10,000/$100=$1, so I don't think they'd have too much problem with that. I suspect they won't let you download unlimited numbers to your computer, just to your phone and its limited capacity will limit these problems.
this is the funniest math i have ever seen. I hope you are not a engineering student or anyone whose job depend on math. 10,000/100 = 100 (ie, 100 songs for dollar).
100/100 = 1, how can 10,000/100 = 1?. Did you type really fast without realizing what you typed?
Why does the music industry think that these schemes are the answer to all their problems?
Surely most of the people who would gladly pay a surcharge of maybe $80 per unit ...... or pay $15 a month for the existing subscription services are people who figure that they are already spending at least that on music from other sources.
O.K., I think I got the concept. With the Nokia plan, "Comes With Music", you get unlimited downloads from their library that you can play either on your compatible cell phone or one registered computer. As long as you pay the subscription charge, you can listen to your music on your cell phone or your one registered computer. Once you quit, you can no longer listen to your downloaded library on your cell phone. But you can keep and listen to your downloads on your registered computer. However the music can not be transfered anywhere else unless you re-subscribe. Nor can they be burned to disk.
Now the Apple plan is a little different in that at the end of the subscription contract, whether you quit or not, you can keep up to 40 to 50 songs as though you bought them from the iTunes Store. These songs are yours and can be moved to other iPods, other MP3 devices or burned to disk. This plan will make sense to anyone that usually purchase 40 to 50 songs in a year. With this plan you can listen to the entire iTunes Store library for a year and still end up with the 40 songs you would have paid .99 cents for anyways. So if Apple charges $40.00 a year for the service, these subscribers will break even because he gets to keep 40 songs DRM free for every year he subscribes. Even if some one usually only purchases 20 songs a year, he'll be paying only an extra $20.00 (assuming a $40,00/years charge) to listen to the iTune Store entire library. And he'll still get the 40 songs to keep at the end. Apple plan is to not make a ton of money with the subscription but to entice music consumers to buy an iPhone or iTouch for this service. And once enough iTouch is in the hands of the consumers, it will have a "halo" effect on iTV with it's movie rental/buying plan. The Music labels will get most of the money from the subscription charge. It may work if Steve can "lowball" the music label. $20.00 sounds to cheap but $30 to $35 a year, with 30 free songs at the end, may just be the sweet spot.
Comments
Frankly, for all the bad-mouthing Steve has done about rentals, I can't picture him allowing this anytime soon.
Yes, because he's never reversed his opinion before.
... Apple ... the electronics giant ...
i'm not sure i'll ever get used to that kind of language.
i guess a decade of reading 'beleaguered computer maker' has left its scars.
What a bunch of BS.
You guys really bought this fud?
I agree. This article sound like a dream a music executive had.
I'm confused. Surely you can't keep all the tracks you've downloaded? Otherwise you could download and keep tens of thousands of tracks for only $100 or whatever this premium charge is going to be. That doesn't make sense.
People really miss the point when it comes to music downloads. You're thinking of music like other products, which is wrong. It doesn't matter how much music they give you - to them, a song is virtually free (just bandwidth/server costs). What matters is how much money they get out of you in the end. If they sell songs for $1, and you buy 10 in a year, they make $10. If they offer you songs for 1c, and they sell you 2000 songs, then they make $20 and have doubled their profits. How many songs they give you is completely irrelevant.
I currently spend $0 a year on music because I won't pay for anything with DRM. If they offered me unlimited music for $20, I may very well download every tune they have, but they've still won because they've made $20 where they would have made $0 before.
many would be willing to spend $100 for unlimited access throughout the device's entire useful lifespan.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I have a hard time believing that Jobs and Co. would go down a path that would essentially discourage people from purchasing a new ipod. If the one-time fee is tied to a single device, wouldn't people be more inclined to hold onto old iPods for longer periods of time? What about reselling? Would the rights to the music be transferable?
All in all, I don't buy this story.
People really miss the point when it comes to music downloads. You're thinking of music like other products, which is wrong. It doesn't matter how much music they give you - to them, a song is virtually free (just bandwidth/server costs). What matters is how much money they get out of you in the end. If they sell songs for $1, and you buy 10 in a year, they make $10. If they offer you songs for 1c, and they sell you 2000 songs, then they make $20 and have doubled their profits. How many songs they give you is completely irrelevant.
But if you're the sort of person that only buys 10 new songs a year, why would you suddenly want 1,000s of tracks? Surely you're not really that big a music fan and don't really care - in the second example you're just downloading songs for the sake of it rather than because you really want them.
Also you're missing the fact that as the article stands, it implies that you'll be able to download so many songs from the iTunes Music Store (if you've got enough HDDs) for $100 (or whatever) that it would take the entire rest of your lifetime to listen to everything you've downloaded (realistically, as opposed to if you listened 24/7 solid) so you'd never need to download anything ever again.
I currently spend $0 a year on music because I won't pay for anything with DRM.
Obviously you haven't heard about iTunes+ or Amazon or Emusic or CDs or vinyl.
Surely I'm not the only person who likes to listen to music on the go but doesn't need to own it and hear it over and over again. If I wanted to hear the same songs continuously I could listen to Top 40 FM radio. I think a library of music is fine in a controlled environment like a home, but on the street, if I'm gonna shuffle and take what comes next, I'd just as soon let somebody else introduce me to new music as well as play favorites I like. Just MHO.
My version of the perfect iPhone would be it had a built in XM receiver ......
Serious question: Does anyone (other than truckers) listen to XM anymore? Isn't it a dying -- if not already dead -- industry?
i'm not sure i'll ever get used to that kind of language.
i guess a decade of reading 'beleaguered computer maker' has left its scars.
I think it's better than "the Cupertino computer maker" or somesuch. But either way, I think it takes a special ed student to like it.
Serious question: Does anyone (other than truckers) listen to XM anymore? Isn't it a dying -- if not already dead -- industry?
Boaters.
And no, I don't mean the less than 5% who make multi-millions, I mean the other 95% who are struggling to get by trying to make a living.
Serious question: Does anyone (other than truckers) listen to XM anymore? Isn't it a dying -- if not already dead -- industry?
It's popular in the Caribbean, even if it's technically out of range. I think it's because there aren't a whole lot of radio stations available.
I much rather own my music, but I welcome more choices.
... and ran it through my patented reality-distorto-transmogro-meter.
Can you make an iPhone App for this? I would use it! Is it like a Magic 8-Ball???
It's popular in the Caribbean, even if it's technically out of range. I think it's because there aren't a whole lot of radio stations available.
Truckers + Boaters + Caribbean = Not a big enough market.
10,000/$100=$1, so I don't think they'd have too much problem with that. I suspect they won't let you download unlimited numbers to your computer, just to your phone and its limited capacity will limit these problems.
this is the funniest math i have ever seen. I hope you are not a engineering student or anyone whose job depend on math. 10,000/100 = 100 (ie, 100 songs for dollar).
100/100 = 1, how can 10,000/100 = 1?. Did you type really fast without realizing what you typed?
Surely most of the people who would gladly pay a surcharge of maybe $80 per unit ...... or pay $15 a month for the existing subscription services are people who figure that they are already spending at least that on music from other sources.
Now the Apple plan is a little different in that at the end of the subscription contract, whether you quit or not, you can keep up to 40 to 50 songs as though you bought them from the iTunes Store. These songs are yours and can be moved to other iPods, other MP3 devices or burned to disk. This plan will make sense to anyone that usually purchase 40 to 50 songs in a year. With this plan you can listen to the entire iTunes Store library for a year and still end up with the 40 songs you would have paid .99 cents for anyways. So if Apple charges $40.00 a year for the service, these subscribers will break even because he gets to keep 40 songs DRM free for every year he subscribes. Even if some one usually only purchases 20 songs a year, he'll be paying only an extra $20.00 (assuming a $40,00/years charge) to listen to the iTune Store entire library. And he'll still get the 40 songs to keep at the end. Apple plan is to not make a ton of money with the subscription but to entice music consumers to buy an iPhone or iTouch for this service. And once enough iTouch is in the hands of the consumers, it will have a "halo" effect on iTV with it's movie rental/buying plan. The Music labels will get most of the money from the subscription charge. It may work if Steve can "lowball" the music label. $20.00 sounds to cheap but $30 to $35 a year, with 30 free songs at the end, may just be the sweet spot.