.....So what can MS do, now that it's all turning to sheeite for them? Basically give away Zunes, that's about it........
T-Bagg, I don't think giving Zunes away will work for MS. Read trailmaster308's epic post "My 2 Months with the Zune" on this forum. Also, check out the pictures of said Zune at the end of 2 months.
P.S. trailmaster--I hope you don't mind me reproducing your stomped to bits Zune to make my point.
.....So what can MS do, now that it's all turning to sheeite for them? Basically give away Zunes, that's about it........
T-Bagg, I don't think giving Zunes away will work for MS. Read trailmaster308's epic post "My 2 Months with the Zune" on this forum. Also, check out the pictures of said Zune at the end of 2 months.
P.S. trailmaster--I hope you don't mind me reproducing your stomped to bits Zune to make my point.
There's no way Apple can do this on the music side without altering the way Fairplay fundamentally works. Right now, iPod and Apple TV don't handle DRM at all?only iTunes does. A rental model would force Apple to move DRM functionality onto the iPod and Apple TV. Thus, I don't see it happening.
Not to mention that every attempt to do this in the history of digital music has been a complete flop. It makes no business sense.
Video is another story, but even that would introduce unneeded complexity that would confuse and frustrate users whenever it malfunctioned. Who wants files that are timebombs, ready to self-destruct from the moment you start watching them? This is the major flaw of pay-per-view and onDemand services. I often start a movie on one day, and then not get back to finish it until a few days later.
The only way to make it work would be to set it up like Netflix, where there was no timelimit on a file, but rather a maximum number of files you could "rent" at a time. "Turn in" one file, and you'd be granted access to another. All for a monthly fee. But again, you'd have to have some way for the iPod and Apple TV to be aware immediately whenever you turned in a file. Otherwise, it would continue to be available until you synched again.
There's no reason why Netflix and iTunes can't co-exist. When I want to buy a movie that I know I'll watch many times, I buy it on iTunes. When I want to rent a movie for a single viewing, I use Netflix. It's no different from what I've always done.
It's a slippery DRM slope, moving into the rental space. I think digital files are best left for purchase only.
I agree that the apple system is totally unequipped at this point to offer music "for rent", as it would require totally changing their hardware and content encoding (correct me if i'm wrong). However, it's necessary for their movie category. I think 90% of their movie sales are to first-time iPod Video buyers, who want some content to play on their new toys... Netflix is just a much better option in terms of quality, price and usability (no ATv required...), that I think the only way Apple can really break that market open is to offer a 48 hour rental for 4 or 5 bucks at a better quality.
There's a big reason why all of the studios release DVDs with tons of extra features and behind the scenes crap, and that's because most people won't watch a movie 4 or 5 times to justify buying over renting without some extra fluff. Apple doesn't offer this. Also, 80% of the movies available at iTunes can be found for the same price or cheaper, at better quality and with bonus features in the bargain and used bins at video stores and rental places... The only drawback is that they can't immediately be watched on an iPod, but who really cares about that...
a subscription would mean that the songs are removed from your computer after your subscription ends.
No no no no no no no. Have you not been reading this thread? A rental would mean that the songs are removed when your subscription ends. With a subscription, e.g. eMusic, you get to keep downloads even when your subscription ends.
iTunes (pre EMI changes) does not let you BUY songs. iTunes never did. They are rentals. Stop the semantic debate. The DRM in iTunes is lame. Just like the DRM associated with the zune. Until all the DRM is gone, "buying" iTunes media is a rental.
You can always burn to CD and re-rip. And that's not cheating or anything, because Steve mentioned in his talk that people often did that.
DRM isn't rental, because you don't have to keep paying to keep using the product. DRM is annoying as hell, yes, but it is not rental.
OK, So I buy a CD at my local retailer. As long as i don't let it get scratched I own it. I can even make a backup if I wish. I own it.
I "buy" a recording from iTunes. I live in a household with two adults, and two children. We all have happy fun Macs (two macbooks for the grown-ups, two iMacs for the kiddies.) We all use iTunes. after replacing two machines due to age, the sixth machine cannot play the songs we "bought."
iTunes (pre EMI changes) does not let you BUY songs. iTunes never did. They are rentals. Stop the semantic debate. The DRM in iTunes is lame. Just like the DRM associated with the zune. Until all the DRM is gone, "buying" iTunes media is a rental.
In 20 years tell me how those files you grabbed from iTunes are doing. My 20 year old records and CDs are doing just fine, and i ACTUALLY OWN THEM.
You have a pretty warped idea of what renting means. Looks like I was wrong when I said a few posts ago that "everyone knows what rentals are". How many times do you hand over money to Apple for a song? Once. You buy it. If you were renting it, you'd pay a much lower fee to download it, but if you wanted to keep the download, you'd have to pay that fee on an ongoing basis. As soon as you stop paying the fee, the track stops working.
You also have a misunderstanding about how iTunes authorisations work. You can de-authorise machines, which you seem to be unaware of. Those two machines that you replaced due to age, you should have first launched iTunes, and selected "Deauthorize iTunes Account" from the advanced menu. This would then have enabled two more computers to be authorised.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is a facility to deauthorise machines from your iTunes Store account instead of from the clients. This facility can be used a maximum of once a year and is provided for those situations where people have forgotten to de-authorise the "correct" way. Log into your iTunes Store account and press the "deauthorize all" button (this button is only available if you have 5 authorised machines).
There is a problem for iTunes outside the US (and maybe inside, I don't know) in that public broadcasters, particularly the BBC, have reached agreements with the talent and production agencies to provide current programmes for free for seven days after broadcast; then they must time out. At present iTunes can't deliver this and its causing some frustration. Its clear that iTunes needs wide flexibility in content handling scenarios and I've no doubt they are pursuing this.
There is a problem for iTunes outside the US (and maybe inside, I don't know) in that public broadcasters, particularly the BBC, have reached agreements with the talent and production agencies to provide current programmes for free for seven days after broadcast; then they must time out. At present iTunes can't deliver this and its causing some frustration. Its clear that iTunes needs wide flexibility in content handling scenarios and I've no doubt they are pursuing this.
No. Content needs to be compatible with fair-use, not the otherway around. Even for those who THINK they're only giving people content for a short period of time, aren't REALLY. If people want to keep that content, they'll simply remove the DRM using a number of unblockable methods. I believe Apple knows this, and is NOT so motivated to acquire content that they would subvert their entire model. Apple waited 18 months trying to convince studios that the "rental" model doesn't work and that DRM in general was a bad idea. Since then, they've implemented DRM and only budged slightly on usage rights (number of machines).
So, if you truly believe they will miraculously back-pedal and begin expiring content, its sad to say... you are WRONG. Realize this, Apple has implemented DRM but has done their best to "simulate" as FREE an environment as they can for their iTunes users. As CLOSE to DRM-free as possible... so much so, most people don't even know that their content HAS rights protection until they try to play it elsewhere.
Expiring content would be a radical and ill-advised step that would countermand advances, such as with EMI, that Apple is only now realizing. If you want "rentable" content, you'll just have to look elsewhere. It's as simple as that. The ONLY possible difference to this, would be if iTunes were to allow "streaming" content. In this way, and ONLY this way, might "rentable" content make its way into iTunes (allowing streaming connections to play on computers, WiFi iPod models, iPhones, and Apple TVs through iTunes), although this too is HIGHLY unlikely.
See, the thing I don't like about subscription services is the fact that you don't actually own your music, you just "rent" it, in a sense.
However, what about this new DRM-less EMI offering? If you sign up for a subscription service through iTunes and you download EMI songs (or possibly other DRM-less content if/when it becomes available), then you own the songs. EMI is HUGE, a subscription service through iTunes would be massive. That's a lot of music to download and KEEP. Potentially.
I haven't synched my 2nd gen for almost 2 years now and it still plays just fine, amazingly enough the battery is still good for a few hours at a shot too.
I don't know what to say. My sister's iPod is a 5G. It really does start skipping protected tracks after a month, playing only unprotected tracks. I don't know why. It works fine otherwise.
See, the thing I don't like about subscription services is the fact that you don't actually own your music, you just "rent" it, in a sense.
However, what about this new DRM-less EMI offering? If you sign up for a subscription service through iTunes and you download EMI songs (or possibly other DRM-less content if/when it becomes available), then you own the songs. EMI is HUGE, a subscription service through iTunes would be massive. That's a lot of music to download and KEEP. Potentially.
You see. Here is the perfect example of why the use of the word "subscription" in relation to online music rental causes confusion.
Padilla, with a true subscription service (e.g. eMusic) the number of downloads you may make in a month is limited. With a rental service, it is unlimited. With the subscription service, when you stop paying, the music you've downloaded remains playable - it is yours to keep. With a rental service, when you stop paying, the music is no longer playable. If Apple offered a subscription service, you wouldn't be able to then go and download EMI's entire catalogue. The number of downloads you could have in a given period would be limited in order to prevent it. The point of a subscription from the consumer's perspective is to reduce the unit cost of downloads by buying in bulk. They are only worth it if you purchase songs often.
A rental service requires DRM, or unfeasibly honest customers. A subscription service does not require DRM (e.g. eMusic tracks are "normal" VBR mp3s with no DRM).
I haven't synched my 2nd gen for almost 2 years now and it still plays just fine, amazingly enough the battery is still good for a few hours at a shot too.
Do you think that maybe your iPod has an older firmware version than the one JeffDM is talking about?
The reference to the volume of P2P volumes vs. iTunes is a pretty good point. A lot more music is obtained from P2P than iTunes and IF Apple wants to reach these users, iTunes current model of song purchases may not be the answer. Since Apple, however, claims that the point of iTunes is to drive iPod sales, Apple may not really care where people get their content. But, if Apple sees iTunes as being a revenue stream all its own, it would make sense for Apple to look at other options for providing users with music.
You are exactly right. Most of the people here who are opposed to a music rental model seems to assume it would be the only option. If Apple brings out a subscription model for music, I assume it would be in addition to the current song/album model.
I would probably do the rental model if it looked something like this: Unlimited (or very generous) number of downloads, the ability to transfer any content to iPods, and very limited CD burning for $15 a month. The CD burning is not a huge deal, but it would be nice to be able to burn a few CDs each month.
Lord these people who can't wrap their heads around the word 'subscription' are funny. I wonder, do they return their newspapers when those subscriptions end?
I would probably do the rental model if it looked something like this: Unlimited (or very generous) number of downloads, the ability to transfer any content to iPods, and very limited CD burning for $15 a month. The CD burning is not a huge deal, but it would be nice to be able to burn a few CDs each month.
The fact is that once you've burnt a track to an audio CD, it's yours. So, with the rental services, any tracks you want to burn to audio CD you have to pay the standard $0.99 for that track, over and above any monthly fee you are paying for the rentals.
Lord these people who can't wrap their heads around the word 'subscription' are funny. I wonder, do they return their newspapers when those subscriptions end?
This has already been covered in this thread. Your example is just one usage of the word that fits the definition of subscription, there are other valid uses. I really don't see how "music subscription" would not fit the definition.
No. Content needs to be compatible with fair-use, not the otherway around. Even for those who THINK they're only giving people content for a short period of time, aren't REALLY. If people want to keep that content, they'll simply remove the DRM using a number of unblockable methods. I believe Apple knows this, and is NOT so motivated to acquire content that they would subvert their entire model. Apple waited 18 months trying to convince studios that the "rental" model doesn't work and that DRM in general was a bad idea. Since then, they've implemented DRM and only budged slightly on usage rights (number of machines).
So, if you truly believe they will miraculously back-pedal and begin expiring content, its sad to say... you are WRONG. Realize this, Apple has implemented DRM but has done their best to "simulate" as FREE an environment as they can for their iTunes users. As CLOSE to DRM-free as possible... so much so, most people don't even know that their content HAS rights protection until they try to play it elsewhere.
Expiring content would be a radical and ill-advised step that would countermand advances, such as with EMI, that Apple is only now realizing. If you want "rentable" content, you'll just have to look elsewhere. It's as simple as that. The ONLY possible difference to this, would be if iTunes were to allow "streaming" content. In this way, and ONLY this way, might "rentable" content make its way into iTunes (allowing streaming connections to play on computers, WiFi iPod models, iPhones, and Apple TVs through iTunes), although this too is HIGHLY unlikely.
Get off your high horse you idiot. In the specific circumstances I am talking about ie. free to air public broadcasting, the expiration model is the only one that will fly. Apple aren't on a crusade for God's sake. They will use a variety of business models, that best balance the needs of customer, supplier and Apple Inc. The BBC is the largest media organisation in the world. What the BBC is able to supply for free it is already starting to; for what it clearly cannot then most users would prefer iTunes to be the conduit. The BBC Governors have even made Apple compatibility a pre-requisite of future funding.
You are exactly right. Most of the people here who are opposed to a music rental model seems to assume it would be the only option. If Apple brings out a subscription model for music, I assume it would be in addition to the current song/album model.
I would probably do the rental model if it looked something like this: Unlimited (or very generous) number of downloads, the ability to transfer any content to iPods, and very limited CD burning for $15 a month. The CD burning is not a huge deal, but it would be nice to be able to burn a few CDs each month.
I doubt CD burning would be allowed. I don't think it is allowed on current services that offer rental/subscription unless you pay outright for the song.
I really like the idea. I think people get hung up about one aspect of the idea and just refuse to look past it to see where the value is. For the cost of a subscription, a person can buy one to one and a half albums a month instead. Over 20 years, that's 240-360 albums. Sure, you own it outright, but by the time you hit the 20 year mark, how much of the older music do you still really like? In the mean time, one can sample from several hundred thousand albums for the same cost.
Comments
.....So what can MS do, now that it's all turning to sheeite for them? Basically give away Zunes, that's about it........
T-Bagg, I don't think giving Zunes away will work for MS. Read trailmaster308's epic post "My 2 Months with the Zune" on this forum. Also, check out the pictures of said Zune at the end of 2 months.
P.S. trailmaster--I hope you don't mind me reproducing your stomped to bits Zune to make my point.
TBaggins said,
.....So what can MS do, now that it's all turning to sheeite for them? Basically give away Zunes, that's about it........
T-Bagg, I don't think giving Zunes away will work for MS. Read trailmaster308's epic post "My 2 Months with the Zune" on this forum. Also, check out the pictures of said Zune at the end of 2 months.
P.S. trailmaster--I hope you don't mind me reproducing your stomped to bits Zune to make my point.
Good Lord.
.
There's no way Apple can do this on the music side without altering the way Fairplay fundamentally works. Right now, iPod and Apple TV don't handle DRM at all?only iTunes does. A rental model would force Apple to move DRM functionality onto the iPod and Apple TV. Thus, I don't see it happening.
Not to mention that every attempt to do this in the history of digital music has been a complete flop. It makes no business sense.
Video is another story, but even that would introduce unneeded complexity that would confuse and frustrate users whenever it malfunctioned. Who wants files that are timebombs, ready to self-destruct from the moment you start watching them? This is the major flaw of pay-per-view and onDemand services. I often start a movie on one day, and then not get back to finish it until a few days later.
The only way to make it work would be to set it up like Netflix, where there was no timelimit on a file, but rather a maximum number of files you could "rent" at a time. "Turn in" one file, and you'd be granted access to another. All for a monthly fee. But again, you'd have to have some way for the iPod and Apple TV to be aware immediately whenever you turned in a file. Otherwise, it would continue to be available until you synched again.
There's no reason why Netflix and iTunes can't co-exist. When I want to buy a movie that I know I'll watch many times, I buy it on iTunes. When I want to rent a movie for a single viewing, I use Netflix. It's no different from what I've always done.
It's a slippery DRM slope, moving into the rental space. I think digital files are best left for purchase only.
I agree that the apple system is totally unequipped at this point to offer music "for rent", as it would require totally changing their hardware and content encoding (correct me if i'm wrong). However, it's necessary for their movie category. I think 90% of their movie sales are to first-time iPod Video buyers, who want some content to play on their new toys... Netflix is just a much better option in terms of quality, price and usability (no ATv required...), that I think the only way Apple can really break that market open is to offer a 48 hour rental for 4 or 5 bucks at a better quality.
There's a big reason why all of the studios release DVDs with tons of extra features and behind the scenes crap, and that's because most people won't watch a movie 4 or 5 times to justify buying over renting without some extra fluff. Apple doesn't offer this. Also, 80% of the movies available at iTunes can be found for the same price or cheaper, at better quality and with bonus features in the bargain and used bins at video stores and rental places... The only drawback is that they can't immediately be watched on an iPod, but who really cares about that...
a subscription would mean that the songs are removed from your computer after your subscription ends.
No no no no no no no. Have you not been reading this thread? A rental would mean that the songs are removed when your subscription ends. With a subscription, e.g. eMusic, you get to keep downloads even when your subscription ends.
iTunes (pre EMI changes) does not let you BUY songs. iTunes never did. They are rentals. Stop the semantic debate. The DRM in iTunes is lame. Just like the DRM associated with the zune. Until all the DRM is gone, "buying" iTunes media is a rental.
You can always burn to CD and re-rip. And that's not cheating or anything, because Steve mentioned in his talk that people often did that.
DRM isn't rental, because you don't have to keep paying to keep using the product. DRM is annoying as hell, yes, but it is not rental.
Amorya
OK, So I buy a CD at my local retailer. As long as i don't let it get scratched I own it. I can even make a backup if I wish. I own it.
I "buy" a recording from iTunes. I live in a household with two adults, and two children. We all have happy fun Macs (two macbooks for the grown-ups, two iMacs for the kiddies.) We all use iTunes. after replacing two machines due to age, the sixth machine cannot play the songs we "bought."
iTunes (pre EMI changes) does not let you BUY songs. iTunes never did. They are rentals. Stop the semantic debate. The DRM in iTunes is lame. Just like the DRM associated with the zune. Until all the DRM is gone, "buying" iTunes media is a rental.
In 20 years tell me how those files you grabbed from iTunes are doing. My 20 year old records and CDs are doing just fine, and i ACTUALLY OWN THEM.
You have a pretty warped idea of what renting means. Looks like I was wrong when I said a few posts ago that "everyone knows what rentals are". How many times do you hand over money to Apple for a song? Once. You buy it. If you were renting it, you'd pay a much lower fee to download it, but if you wanted to keep the download, you'd have to pay that fee on an ongoing basis. As soon as you stop paying the fee, the track stops working.
You also have a misunderstanding about how iTunes authorisations work. You can de-authorise machines, which you seem to be unaware of. Those two machines that you replaced due to age, you should have first launched iTunes, and selected "Deauthorize iTunes Account" from the advanced menu. This would then have enabled two more computers to be authorised.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is a facility to deauthorise machines from your iTunes Store account instead of from the clients. This facility can be used a maximum of once a year and is provided for those situations where people have forgotten to de-authorise the "correct" way. Log into your iTunes Store account and press the "deauthorize all" button (this button is only available if you have 5 authorised machines).
There is a problem for iTunes outside the US (and maybe inside, I don't know) in that public broadcasters, particularly the BBC, have reached agreements with the talent and production agencies to provide current programmes for free for seven days after broadcast; then they must time out. At present iTunes can't deliver this and its causing some frustration. Its clear that iTunes needs wide flexibility in content handling scenarios and I've no doubt they are pursuing this.
No. Content needs to be compatible with fair-use, not the otherway around. Even for those who THINK they're only giving people content for a short period of time, aren't REALLY. If people want to keep that content, they'll simply remove the DRM using a number of unblockable methods. I believe Apple knows this, and is NOT so motivated to acquire content that they would subvert their entire model. Apple waited 18 months trying to convince studios that the "rental" model doesn't work and that DRM in general was a bad idea. Since then, they've implemented DRM and only budged slightly on usage rights (number of machines).
So, if you truly believe they will miraculously back-pedal and begin expiring content, its sad to say... you are WRONG. Realize this, Apple has implemented DRM but has done their best to "simulate" as FREE an environment as they can for their iTunes users. As CLOSE to DRM-free as possible... so much so, most people don't even know that their content HAS rights protection until they try to play it elsewhere.
Expiring content would be a radical and ill-advised step that would countermand advances, such as with EMI, that Apple is only now realizing. If you want "rentable" content, you'll just have to look elsewhere. It's as simple as that. The ONLY possible difference to this, would be if iTunes were to allow "streaming" content. In this way, and ONLY this way, might "rentable" content make its way into iTunes (allowing streaming connections to play on computers, WiFi iPod models, iPhones, and Apple TVs through iTunes), although this too is HIGHLY unlikely.
However, what about this new DRM-less EMI offering? If you sign up for a subscription service through iTunes and you download EMI songs (or possibly other DRM-less content if/when it becomes available), then you own the songs. EMI is HUGE, a subscription service through iTunes would be massive. That's a lot of music to download and KEEP. Potentially.
I call that flat out lying bullshit.
I haven't synched my 2nd gen for almost 2 years now and it still plays just fine, amazingly enough the battery is still good for a few hours at a shot too.
I don't know what to say. My sister's iPod is a 5G. It really does start skipping protected tracks after a month, playing only unprotected tracks. I don't know why. It works fine otherwise.
See, the thing I don't like about subscription services is the fact that you don't actually own your music, you just "rent" it, in a sense.
However, what about this new DRM-less EMI offering? If you sign up for a subscription service through iTunes and you download EMI songs (or possibly other DRM-less content if/when it becomes available), then you own the songs. EMI is HUGE, a subscription service through iTunes would be massive. That's a lot of music to download and KEEP. Potentially.
You see. Here is the perfect example of why the use of the word "subscription" in relation to online music rental causes confusion.
Padilla, with a true subscription service (e.g. eMusic) the number of downloads you may make in a month is limited. With a rental service, it is unlimited. With the subscription service, when you stop paying, the music you've downloaded remains playable - it is yours to keep. With a rental service, when you stop paying, the music is no longer playable. If Apple offered a subscription service, you wouldn't be able to then go and download EMI's entire catalogue. The number of downloads you could have in a given period would be limited in order to prevent it. The point of a subscription from the consumer's perspective is to reduce the unit cost of downloads by buying in bulk. They are only worth it if you purchase songs often.
A rental service requires DRM, or unfeasibly honest customers. A subscription service does not require DRM (e.g. eMusic tracks are "normal" VBR mp3s with no DRM).
I call that flat out lying bullshit.
I haven't synched my 2nd gen for almost 2 years now and it still plays just fine, amazingly enough the battery is still good for a few hours at a shot too.
Do you think that maybe your iPod has an older firmware version than the one JeffDM is talking about?
The reference to the volume of P2P volumes vs. iTunes is a pretty good point. A lot more music is obtained from P2P than iTunes and IF Apple wants to reach these users, iTunes current model of song purchases may not be the answer. Since Apple, however, claims that the point of iTunes is to drive iPod sales, Apple may not really care where people get their content. But, if Apple sees iTunes as being a revenue stream all its own, it would make sense for Apple to look at other options for providing users with music.
You are exactly right. Most of the people here who are opposed to a music rental model seems to assume it would be the only option. If Apple brings out a subscription model for music, I assume it would be in addition to the current song/album model.
I would probably do the rental model if it looked something like this: Unlimited (or very generous) number of downloads, the ability to transfer any content to iPods, and very limited CD burning for $15 a month. The CD burning is not a huge deal, but it would be nice to be able to burn a few CDs each month.
I would probably do the rental model if it looked something like this: Unlimited (or very generous) number of downloads, the ability to transfer any content to iPods, and very limited CD burning for $15 a month. The CD burning is not a huge deal, but it would be nice to be able to burn a few CDs each month.
The fact is that once you've burnt a track to an audio CD, it's yours. So, with the rental services, any tracks you want to burn to audio CD you have to pay the standard $0.99 for that track, over and above any monthly fee you are paying for the rentals.
Lord these people who can't wrap their heads around the word 'subscription' are funny. I wonder, do they return their newspapers when those subscriptions end?
This has already been covered in this thread. Your example is just one usage of the word that fits the definition of subscription, there are other valid uses. I really don't see how "music subscription" would not fit the definition.
No. Content needs to be compatible with fair-use, not the otherway around. Even for those who THINK they're only giving people content for a short period of time, aren't REALLY. If people want to keep that content, they'll simply remove the DRM using a number of unblockable methods. I believe Apple knows this, and is NOT so motivated to acquire content that they would subvert their entire model. Apple waited 18 months trying to convince studios that the "rental" model doesn't work and that DRM in general was a bad idea. Since then, they've implemented DRM and only budged slightly on usage rights (number of machines).
So, if you truly believe they will miraculously back-pedal and begin expiring content, its sad to say... you are WRONG. Realize this, Apple has implemented DRM but has done their best to "simulate" as FREE an environment as they can for their iTunes users. As CLOSE to DRM-free as possible... so much so, most people don't even know that their content HAS rights protection until they try to play it elsewhere.
Expiring content would be a radical and ill-advised step that would countermand advances, such as with EMI, that Apple is only now realizing. If you want "rentable" content, you'll just have to look elsewhere. It's as simple as that. The ONLY possible difference to this, would be if iTunes were to allow "streaming" content. In this way, and ONLY this way, might "rentable" content make its way into iTunes (allowing streaming connections to play on computers, WiFi iPod models, iPhones, and Apple TVs through iTunes), although this too is HIGHLY unlikely.
Get off your high horse you idiot. In the specific circumstances I am talking about ie. free to air public broadcasting, the expiration model is the only one that will fly. Apple aren't on a crusade for God's sake. They will use a variety of business models, that best balance the needs of customer, supplier and Apple Inc. The BBC is the largest media organisation in the world. What the BBC is able to supply for free it is already starting to; for what it clearly cannot then most users would prefer iTunes to be the conduit. The BBC Governors have even made Apple compatibility a pre-requisite of future funding.
You are exactly right. Most of the people here who are opposed to a music rental model seems to assume it would be the only option. If Apple brings out a subscription model for music, I assume it would be in addition to the current song/album model.
I would probably do the rental model if it looked something like this: Unlimited (or very generous) number of downloads, the ability to transfer any content to iPods, and very limited CD burning for $15 a month. The CD burning is not a huge deal, but it would be nice to be able to burn a few CDs each month.
I doubt CD burning would be allowed. I don't think it is allowed on current services that offer rental/subscription unless you pay outright for the song.
I really like the idea. I think people get hung up about one aspect of the idea and just refuse to look past it to see where the value is. For the cost of a subscription, a person can buy one to one and a half albums a month instead. Over 20 years, that's 240-360 albums. Sure, you own it outright, but by the time you hit the 20 year mark, how much of the older music do you still really like? In the mean time, one can sample from several hundred thousand albums for the same cost.
http://themacjedi.com/blog/files/200...-services.html