Nobody was suggesting a DRM rental service like all the failed PlaysForSure WMA stores - Napster 2.0, Rhapsody, and recently, Yahoo - which Jobs was referring to. Have you heard of eMusic? Do you understand how they do subscriptions? You pay like $10/month for 30 downloads, as in DRM-free MP3 files. If you kill your subscription, the MP3s you downloaded obviously don't disappear off your computer. eMusic even keeps a record of what you've downloaded online and allows you to re-download things as many times as you want. eMusic's the only really successful subscription-based music service and only offers around 2 million tracks from indie artists, not to mention it's browser-based store is nowhere near as user friendly as iTunes.
I discussed this before quite a while ago in a different thread. The issue here is the use of the word "subscription" without qualification. eMusic has a purchase subscription model, where those other services you mentioned are more accurately described as rental subscription services. It irks me that those services are nearly always described as "subscription" without the "rental" qualification; it means that many people think "subscription" always means rental when it comes to music services. Then, when you want to refer to a purchase subscription service like eMusic's, you have to explain how music purchase subscription works despite the fact you would have thought people should understand it given that magazine subscriptions don't seem to confuse people. When your magazine subscription ends, you don't have to give the magazines back, likewise with eMusic when your subscription ends you don't have to give the music back / you don't lose access to the music.
All that having been said, I don't envision Apple introducing either type of subscription model for music. It would be nice if they introduced a rental subscription model on the movie side of things though.
Going back to the Ipod debate. I do believe that apple will introduce a 64gb ipod touch, get rid of the 8gb and have 16gb, 32gb and 64gb.
I don't see any reason to why they couldn't put the touch interface onto a 80gb or 160gb classic, but i suppose that would be getting rid of the classic altogether.
This is most probably not the key product transaction, but instead the Mac Tablet that has been rumoured for so many years.
Making OS X a much more mainstream product and making it a usable product on a PC, in my opinion, could be a big mistake for apple. People, and i mean not the apple fan-boys or tech geeks like ourselves, much prefer something that they recognise and have been brought up with. I believe Windows is in a too good of a position for Apple to even compete.
One of the commenters on the Macworld site suggested that Macs will incorporate a TV tuner to allow every Mac to become a DVR. The same cable that supplies the Internet could supply the TV. (Curiously, none of the subsequent commenters on that Macworld thread took note of what he'd said.)
This would fit Dawg's description of being something that will seem obvious after it's announced. And it would fit Motorola (I'm assuming they make TV tuners).
Well, even if this isn't what Apple is going to do, it's something they should consider doing--along with several other speculations made here.
One of the commenters on the Macworld site suggested that Macs will incorporate a TV tuner to allow every Mac to become a DVR. The same cable that supplies the Internet could supply the TV. (Curiously, none of the subsequent commenters on that Macworld thread took note of what he'd said.)
This would fit Dawg's description of being something that will seem obvious after it's announced. And it would fit Motorola (I'm assuming they make TV tuners).
Well, even if this isn't what Apple is going to do, it's something they should consider doing--along with several other speculations made here.
Apple's trying to compete and/or kill cable TV with iTunes TV shows, not give it a helping hand. There are already third party devices and software that allow this. For the minority of people who want such a thing, they can likely figure out how to use those things. Don't expect Apple to back a dying business.
I discussed this before quite a while ago in a different thread. The issue here is the use of the word "subscription" without qualification. eMusic has a purchase subscription model, where those other services you mentioned are more accurately described as rental subscription services. It irks me that those services are nearly always described as "subscription" without the "rental" qualification; it means that many people think "subscription" always means rental when it comes to music services. Then, when you want to refer to a purchase subscription service like eMusic's, you have to explain how music purchase subscription works despite the fact you would have thought people should understand it given that magazine subscriptions don't seem to confuse people. When your magazine subscription ends, you don't have to give the magazines back, likewise with eMusic when your subscription ends you don't have to give the music back / you don't lose access to the music.
Yeah, it's irritating, though I guess the most current subscription model people are familiar with is Netflix and very few music stores offer what eMusic does.
EDIT
eMusic today hit 4 million tracks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
All that having been said, I don't envision Apple introducing either type of subscription model for music.
I sure would appreciate it, but even though Jobs probably has no beef with eMusic's model, he might recognize it's a strange concept for some. As long as it was optional though, it would be a nice addition. What's annoying about eMusic and caused me to kill my free trial is what happens when you reach your download limit for the month: no more music. Want more music, you've gotta increase your plan to $20/month or something. While avid music fans might not mind, people with less time on their hands can easily go a month without downloading more than a few songs.
What I thought Apple could do is make it a strictly prepaid affair, meaning you pay $10 for 30 downloads and you're done. No monthly fee to worry about, or time limit. But isn't that impossible? The reason eMusic can offer what it does is because it's a subscription, right? That's why it seems like Apple would do it on a yearly basis at a higher price, say $100-$200 for one year of complete, unlimited access to the music store. Regardless of which model they went for, if your subscription time ran out or you used up all your pre-paid downloads, you'd still have access to iTunes in normal a la carte mode. It'd be one of the only stores to offer both models.
I sure would appreciate it, but even though Jobs probably has no beef with eMusic's model, he might recognize it's a strange concept for some. As long as it was optional though, it would be a nice addition. What's annoying about eMusic and caused me to kill my free trial is what happens when you reach your download limit for the month: no more music. Want more music, you've gotta increase your plan to $20/month or something. While avid music fans might not mind, people with less time on their hands can easily go a month without downloading more than a few songs.
I was a member during an extended period of time off from university, so I never had a problem using my allocation. However, I'm sure when I was a member, if you went over your allowance you could buy an "extension pack" for that month only. i.e., if your subscription was $15 and you hit your limit in a given month, you could buy a further 20 tracks for $10 or something like that. Then the next month, you'd be charged your normal $15. Don't they have extension packs any more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
What I thought Apple could do is make it a strictly prepaid affair, meaning you pay $10 for 30 downloads and you're done. No monthly fee to worry about, or time limit. But isn't that impossible? The reason eMusic can offer what it does is because it's a subscription, right?
As you mentioned earlier, a lot of people won't have time to use up all of their monthly download allowance and that's what eMusic relies upon to make money. I'm sure the prices and allowances have been carefully fine-tuned to get this just right.
It would be nice if they introduced a rental subscription model on the movie side of things though.
That'd be nice, but I actually see Netflix coming to Apple TV before Apple would create their own iTunes subscription movie service. As you're probably aware, Netflix has a digital movie streaming service in addition to their DVD rentals, the latter costing them dearly. While they released a set-top-box for streaming their catalog of 10,000 movies (largely made up of older and obscure titles, with few new releases), their Instant Watch service seems a better fit for more advanced devices like the Apple TV, Vudu, Microsoft's Xbox 360 (it was recently announced the Netflix service was coming to the Xbox 360 through a software update), and even Blu-ray players (LG's BD-300, a BD player, will include the service).
In its current state, Instant Watch isn't as great as it sounds. While 10,000 movies and tv shows are available, they aren't browse-able through either that $100 Roku box, that Blu-ray player, nor the 360. You have to search through Netflix in a web browser on a computer and set up a small Instant Queue, which then syncs with the set-top-box. The movies are not downloaded to internal hard storage, so they have to buffer right off the internet, which makes rewinding and fast forwarding time consuming and more importantly, drops the visual quality based on your connection speed, making the already less-than-DVD-quality video worse. Also, when the service debuts on the 360, not only will you be paying the $10/month to Netflix, but it's locked into Xbox Live Gold memberships, which cost $50/year.
Apple is in a position to make such a service better with the Apple TV. First, they could work with Netflix to make all titles browse-able from the couch, rather than requiring set up on a computer (which Apple has tried to eliminate with the Apple TV's 2.0 software update at Macworld). They could potentially get Netflix to make the videos downloadable to the hard drive, rather than streaming straight off the internet. It would be yet another content channel on the Apple TV like the YouTube viewer, flickr and MobileMe photo album portals. You'd simply pay Netflix the $10 per month (with no annual charge like the Xbox). The best thing they could do for the Apple TV, though, would be DVD viewing. While they are certainly pushing digital distribution, they could enable those sleek $100 external SuperDrives (the ones that are optional for MacBook Air buyers) to connect and play DVDs through the Apple TV's user friendly UI by simply porting Mac OS X's existing DVD Player application. This would offer people a more gradual transition and allow Netflix subscribers to watch digital movies free in addition to DVDs sent through the mail.
I was a member during an extended period of time off from university, so I never had a problem using my allocation. However, I'm sure when I was a member, if you went over your allowance you could buy an "extension pack" for that month only. i.e., if your subscription was $15 and you hit your limit in a given month, you could buy a further 20 tracks for $10 or something like that. Then the next month, you'd be charged your normal $15. Don't they have extension packs any more?
Yeah, that's right. Or at least, I believe they still have those.
Even so, what if I just want a few songs here, an album there. That's why an a la carte "base" to fall back on would be ideal, at least with iTunes.
Well considering their most popular line of computers has the screen built right into it, I'm sure it would have a fairly significant effect!
Oops, good point. Sorry. I was thinking he was referring to the recent rumours about the cinema displays and not thinking about the iMacs and MacBooks, doh!
Oops, good point. Sorry. I was thinking he was referring to the recent rumours about the cinema displays and not thinking about the iMacs and MacBooks, doh!
So yes, it could be LED backlights.
The MBA & 15" MBP already have LED backlighting. While bringing it to the other notebooks Apple makes would be nice, I don't think its a product transition.
The MBA & 15" MBP already have LED backlighting. While bringing it to the other notebooks Apple makes would be nice, I don't think its a product transition.
So, are you saying you don't think MacBooks will be getting LED backlit displays, or are you saying you don't consider doing such a thing qualifies as a "product transition?"
I mean, Apple wouldn't simply switch out the MacBook's old cathode displays for new LED backlit displays and call it a day. But moving to LED is part of Apple's environmental promise and considering their entire laptop line either features LED backlit displays standard (MacBook Air and 15" MacBook Pro) or as an option (17" MacBook Pro), it makes logical sense they'd give the MacBook one as well to essentially finish the transition on the laptop side of things. With the MacBook and MacBook Air using basically the exact same 13" screen, it's only a matter of time.
So, are you saying you don't think MacBooks will be getting LED backlit displays, or are you saying you don't consider doing such a thing qualifies as a "product transition?"
I should have been more precise. I have no doubt that the next line of MB/MBPs will have LED backlights. On the other hand, I don't believe such a transition qualifies as a product transition.
You say this on an Apple forum. Believe me, there will be bitching.
Perhaps Apple could avoid that by launching the new MacBooks a month or so later than the new Pros. Most students probably bought the cheaper MacBooks while the Pro line is also marketed towards professional photographers, music mixers, and business execs. New iPods, on the other hand, are more likely to launch along with the redesigned Pros as they were essentially free with the back-to-school deal.
I believe the spy shots that show new MacBook Pros getting tapered edges like the Air and a long removable battery that, when removed, gives access to the hard drive bay, like the MacBook. Then of course they'll replace the current flush keyboard with the Air's indented keyboard of black, backlit, more clicky keys and the Pro's mechanical screen latch (which still irritates me to this day) will be replaced with magnets, like the Air and MacBook.
As for the MacBook, I don't buy the unfounded notion of moving to an aluminum case. Yes, Apple has been transitioning to aluminum for a while now, but they also use these different materials to differentiate their premium and high-end computers (MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac Pro), from their budget/consumer-oriented computers (Mac mini, MacBook).
The Mac mini and MacBook's use of plastic polycarbonate keeps costs low and weight low, in addition to making their higher-end, all aluminum Macs more desirable. So, in continuing their move towards tapered edges and avoiding buyer confusion that could lead to product cannibalization, they'll launch a tapered-edged, polycarbonate MacBook in the same black and white color options, with a LED backlit display, perhaps an oversized Multi-Touch trackpad (which is likely to come to the Pros as well), and of course, the usual under-the-hood CPU, GPU and storage enhancements. If they could get the price down to $1000, that'd be even better.
Comments
Nobody was suggesting a DRM rental service like all the failed PlaysForSure WMA stores - Napster 2.0, Rhapsody, and recently, Yahoo - which Jobs was referring to. Have you heard of eMusic? Do you understand how they do subscriptions? You pay like $10/month for 30 downloads, as in DRM-free MP3 files. If you kill your subscription, the MP3s you downloaded obviously don't disappear off your computer. eMusic even keeps a record of what you've downloaded online and allows you to re-download things as many times as you want. eMusic's the only really successful subscription-based music service and only offers around 2 million tracks from indie artists, not to mention it's browser-based store is nowhere near as user friendly as iTunes.
I discussed this before quite a while ago in a different thread. The issue here is the use of the word "subscription" without qualification. eMusic has a purchase subscription model, where those other services you mentioned are more accurately described as rental subscription services. It irks me that those services are nearly always described as "subscription" without the "rental" qualification; it means that many people think "subscription" always means rental when it comes to music services. Then, when you want to refer to a purchase subscription service like eMusic's, you have to explain how music purchase subscription works despite the fact you would have thought people should understand it given that magazine subscriptions don't seem to confuse people. When your magazine subscription ends, you don't have to give the magazines back, likewise with eMusic when your subscription ends you don't have to give the music back / you don't lose access to the music.
All that having been said, I don't envision Apple introducing either type of subscription model for music. It would be nice if they introduced a rental subscription model on the movie side of things though.
I don't see any reason to why they couldn't put the touch interface onto a 80gb or 160gb classic, but i suppose that would be getting rid of the classic altogether.
This is most probably not the key product transaction, but instead the Mac Tablet that has been rumoured for so many years.
Making OS X a much more mainstream product and making it a usable product on a PC, in my opinion, could be a big mistake for apple. People, and i mean not the apple fan-boys or tech geeks like ourselves, much prefer something that they recognise and have been brought up with. I believe Windows is in a too good of a position for Apple to even compete.
I vote new 64gb Touch and Mac Tablet.
This would fit Dawg's description of being something that will seem obvious after it's announced. And it would fit Motorola (I'm assuming they make TV tuners).
Well, even if this isn't what Apple is going to do, it's something they should consider doing--along with several other speculations made here.
One of the commenters on the Macworld site suggested that Macs will incorporate a TV tuner to allow every Mac to become a DVR. The same cable that supplies the Internet could supply the TV. (Curiously, none of the subsequent commenters on that Macworld thread took note of what he'd said.)
This would fit Dawg's description of being something that will seem obvious after it's announced. And it would fit Motorola (I'm assuming they make TV tuners).
Well, even if this isn't what Apple is going to do, it's something they should consider doing--along with several other speculations made here.
Apple's trying to compete and/or kill cable TV with iTunes TV shows, not give it a helping hand. There are already third party devices and software that allow this. For the minority of people who want such a thing, they can likely figure out how to use those things. Don't expect Apple to back a dying business.
I discussed this before quite a while ago in a different thread. The issue here is the use of the word "subscription" without qualification. eMusic has a purchase subscription model, where those other services you mentioned are more accurately described as rental subscription services. It irks me that those services are nearly always described as "subscription" without the "rental" qualification; it means that many people think "subscription" always means rental when it comes to music services. Then, when you want to refer to a purchase subscription service like eMusic's, you have to explain how music purchase subscription works despite the fact you would have thought people should understand it given that magazine subscriptions don't seem to confuse people. When your magazine subscription ends, you don't have to give the magazines back, likewise with eMusic when your subscription ends you don't have to give the music back / you don't lose access to the music.
Yeah, it's irritating, though I guess the most current subscription model people are familiar with is Netflix and very few music stores offer what eMusic does.
EDIT
eMusic today hit 4 million tracks.
All that having been said, I don't envision Apple introducing either type of subscription model for music.
I sure would appreciate it, but even though Jobs probably has no beef with eMusic's model, he might recognize it's a strange concept for some. As long as it was optional though, it would be a nice addition. What's annoying about eMusic and caused me to kill my free trial is what happens when you reach your download limit for the month: no more music. Want more music, you've gotta increase your plan to $20/month or something. While avid music fans might not mind, people with less time on their hands can easily go a month without downloading more than a few songs.
What I thought Apple could do is make it a strictly prepaid affair, meaning you pay $10 for 30 downloads and you're done. No monthly fee to worry about, or time limit. But isn't that impossible? The reason eMusic can offer what it does is because it's a subscription, right? That's why it seems like Apple would do it on a yearly basis at a higher price, say $100-$200 for one year of complete, unlimited access to the music store. Regardless of which model they went for, if your subscription time ran out or you used up all your pre-paid downloads, you'd still have access to iTunes in normal a la carte mode. It'd be one of the only stores to offer both models.
I sure would appreciate it, but even though Jobs probably has no beef with eMusic's model, he might recognize it's a strange concept for some. As long as it was optional though, it would be a nice addition. What's annoying about eMusic and caused me to kill my free trial is what happens when you reach your download limit for the month: no more music. Want more music, you've gotta increase your plan to $20/month or something. While avid music fans might not mind, people with less time on their hands can easily go a month without downloading more than a few songs.
I was a member during an extended period of time off from university, so I never had a problem using my allocation. However, I'm sure when I was a member, if you went over your allowance you could buy an "extension pack" for that month only. i.e., if your subscription was $15 and you hit your limit in a given month, you could buy a further 20 tracks for $10 or something like that. Then the next month, you'd be charged your normal $15. Don't they have extension packs any more?
What I thought Apple could do is make it a strictly prepaid affair, meaning you pay $10 for 30 downloads and you're done. No monthly fee to worry about, or time limit. But isn't that impossible? The reason eMusic can offer what it does is because it's a subscription, right?
As you mentioned earlier, a lot of people won't have time to use up all of their monthly download allowance and that's what eMusic relies upon to make money. I'm sure the prices and allowances have been carefully fine-tuned to get this just right.
It would be nice if they introduced a rental subscription model on the movie side of things though.
That'd be nice, but I actually see Netflix coming to Apple TV before Apple would create their own iTunes subscription movie service. As you're probably aware, Netflix has a digital movie streaming service in addition to their DVD rentals, the latter costing them dearly. While they released a set-top-box for streaming their catalog of 10,000 movies (largely made up of older and obscure titles, with few new releases), their Instant Watch service seems a better fit for more advanced devices like the Apple TV, Vudu, Microsoft's Xbox 360 (it was recently announced the Netflix service was coming to the Xbox 360 through a software update), and even Blu-ray players (LG's BD-300, a BD player, will include the service).
In its current state, Instant Watch isn't as great as it sounds. While 10,000 movies and tv shows are available, they aren't browse-able through either that $100 Roku box, that Blu-ray player, nor the 360. You have to search through Netflix in a web browser on a computer and set up a small Instant Queue, which then syncs with the set-top-box. The movies are not downloaded to internal hard storage, so they have to buffer right off the internet, which makes rewinding and fast forwarding time consuming and more importantly, drops the visual quality based on your connection speed, making the already less-than-DVD-quality video worse. Also, when the service debuts on the 360, not only will you be paying the $10/month to Netflix, but it's locked into Xbox Live Gold memberships, which cost $50/year.
Apple is in a position to make such a service better with the Apple TV. First, they could work with Netflix to make all titles browse-able from the couch, rather than requiring set up on a computer (which Apple has tried to eliminate with the Apple TV's 2.0 software update at Macworld). They could potentially get Netflix to make the videos downloadable to the hard drive, rather than streaming straight off the internet. It would be yet another content channel on the Apple TV like the YouTube viewer, flickr and MobileMe photo album portals. You'd simply pay Netflix the $10 per month (with no annual charge like the Xbox). The best thing they could do for the Apple TV, though, would be DVD viewing. While they are certainly pushing digital distribution, they could enable those sleek $100 external SuperDrives (the ones that are optional for MacBook Air buyers) to connect and play DVDs through the Apple TV's user friendly UI by simply porting Mac OS X's existing DVD Player application. This would offer people a more gradual transition and allow Netflix subscribers to watch digital movies free in addition to DVDs sent through the mail.
I was a member during an extended period of time off from university, so I never had a problem using my allocation. However, I'm sure when I was a member, if you went over your allowance you could buy an "extension pack" for that month only. i.e., if your subscription was $15 and you hit your limit in a given month, you could buy a further 20 tracks for $10 or something like that. Then the next month, you'd be charged your normal $15. Don't they have extension packs any more?
Yeah, that's right. Or at least, I believe they still have those.
Even so, what if I just want a few songs here, an album there. That's why an a la carte "base" to fall back on would be ideal, at least with iTunes.
Leopard-but-with-your-fingers sounds terrible to use.
Could the 'transition' refer to LED backlit displays?
I doubt Apple sell anywhere near the volume of screens necessary to affect their margins as they're predicting.
I doubt Apple sell anywhere near the volume of screens necessary to affect their margins as they're predicting.
Well considering their most popular line of computers has the screen built right into it, I'm sure it would have a fairly significant effect!
Well considering their most popular line of computers has the screen built right into it, I'm sure it would have a fairly significant effect!
Oops, good point. Sorry. I was thinking he was referring to the recent rumours about the cinema displays and not thinking about the iMacs and MacBooks, doh!
So yes, it could be LED backlights.
Oops, good point. Sorry. I was thinking he was referring to the recent rumours about the cinema displays and not thinking about the iMacs and MacBooks, doh!
So yes, it could be LED backlights.
The MBA & 15" MBP already have LED backlighting. While bringing it to the other notebooks Apple makes would be nice, I don't think its a product transition.
The MBA & 15" MBP already have LED backlighting. While bringing it to the other notebooks Apple makes would be nice, I don't think its a product transition.
So, are you saying you don't think MacBooks will be getting LED backlit displays, or are you saying you don't consider doing such a thing qualifies as a "product transition?"
I mean, Apple wouldn't simply switch out the MacBook's old cathode displays for new LED backlit displays and call it a day. But moving to LED is part of Apple's environmental promise and considering their entire laptop line either features LED backlit displays standard (MacBook Air and 15" MacBook Pro) or as an option (17" MacBook Pro), it makes logical sense they'd give the MacBook one as well to essentially finish the transition on the laptop side of things. With the MacBook and MacBook Air using basically the exact same 13" screen, it's only a matter of time.
So, are you saying you don't think MacBooks will be getting LED backlit displays, or are you saying you don't consider doing such a thing qualifies as a "product transition?"
I should have been more precise. I have no doubt that the next line of MB/MBPs will have LED backlights. On the other hand, I don't believe such a transition qualifies as a product transition.
No new Macbooks in time for those going to college to get a new model and a free iPod.
September 15 free iPod promotion ends, new Macbooks introduced immediately after, no free iPod's.
New Macbooks, iPods, better, cheaper, but no one is unhappy because they got a free iPod.
Impossible to introduce new better, cheaper models any other way.
New Macbooks, iPods, better, cheaper, but no one is unhappy because they got a free iPod.
You say this on an Apple forum. Believe me, there will be bitching.
You say this on an Apple forum. Believe me, there will be bitching.
Perhaps Apple could avoid that by launching the new MacBooks a month or so later than the new Pros. Most students probably bought the cheaper MacBooks while the Pro line is also marketed towards professional photographers, music mixers, and business execs. New iPods, on the other hand, are more likely to launch along with the redesigned Pros as they were essentially free with the back-to-school deal.
I believe the spy shots that show new MacBook Pros getting tapered edges like the Air and a long removable battery that, when removed, gives access to the hard drive bay, like the MacBook. Then of course they'll replace the current flush keyboard with the Air's indented keyboard of black, backlit, more clicky keys and the Pro's mechanical screen latch (which still irritates me to this day) will be replaced with magnets, like the Air and MacBook.
As for the MacBook, I don't buy the unfounded notion of moving to an aluminum case. Yes, Apple has been transitioning to aluminum for a while now, but they also use these different materials to differentiate their premium and high-end computers (MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac Pro), from their budget/consumer-oriented computers (Mac mini, MacBook).
The Mac mini and MacBook's use of plastic polycarbonate keeps costs low and weight low, in addition to making their higher-end, all aluminum Macs more desirable. So, in continuing their move towards tapered edges and avoiding buyer confusion that could lead to product cannibalization, they'll launch a tapered-edged, polycarbonate MacBook in the same black and white color options, with a LED backlit display, perhaps an oversized Multi-Touch trackpad (which is likely to come to the Pros as well), and of course, the usual under-the-hood CPU, GPU and storage enhancements. If they could get the price down to $1000, that'd be even better.