Ownership works no matter what though - I like the idea of playing my content no matter if I can't afford to pay the rates a company charges or if they suddenly decide not to keep their servers active. Subscription services require DRM - something that I do not like.
So you don't like the fact a movie you buy on iTunes can only play on an Apple device?
Don't want to steer to far off course here, but the more i read into this event the less chance i think we'll see an update to Apple TV. I hope i'm wrong but Apple have a knack for timing and i think the timings all wrong.
That will be very disappointing if iTunes won't stream my collection. Windows Media Player on Windows 7 will do this over the Internet.... One more reason to switch to WMP and Android.
You might as well ask if Microsoft ever plans to change the name "Outlook" to "Microsoft Mail" (which they also own I believe)
The effect you were going for is lost on the fact that they already changed "Outlook Express" to "Windows Mail" at the release of VIsta. No, the full version of Outlook isn't likely to follow, but at least the question isn't that ridiculous.
Shit, I'm starting to get really sick of social. With facebook now being able to check me into places without me permission and twitter coming to TVs. I dunno but I don't think I need itunes to share to the world what music I'm listening to every time I fire it up.
Zune store still wins with its streaming/subscription pricing model. I've used it as a free trial when on my work machine and was just blown away.
I'm not trying to compare with Zune store as I really haven't tried it out, but as for having streamed music on iTunes, I think the "radio" part of iTunes is quite fantastic.
There are 25 different categories with as many as 150 different stations per category giving me a potential choice of over 3000 stations .... all free. If I'm listening to a song that I like I can check out the name in the toolbar (in most cases) and buy it from iTunes store. I've never had so much choice in my life. I have "discovered" more music that I like in this way than I have in any other part of my life to date ... Now if I only had enough money to buy each and every song that I like .... well, that would be Nirvana.
Actually, it's technically incorrect to call iTunes web-based. Just because an application communicates with a server thru the internet does not make it web-based. The web is not synonymous with the internet. In fact, the term "web-based" is more synonymous with "browser-based". But there's a bit of line-blurring there.
Well, iTunes the app does depend on WebKit for much of it's display functionality, at least when accessing the store, and, although I've never investigated this, I wouldn't be surprised to find that it uses https for most or all of it's network requests. So, perhaps it might be somewhat correct to refer to it as a sort of special purpose "web browser".
Then again, the current store is not really part of the "web" since you can't just access it from any browser.
I suspect they were looking for 4 main features of lala.com
1. the one time full play (something folks have been screaming for since day one)
2. the genius like 'similiar artists' and 'mix it up' playlists
3. The facebook 'follow' features
4. the actual streaming
I suspect that anything with #4 will be purchases only, no more of this uploading stuff. That way folks can't torrent etc and have the added benefits. Probably at the demand of the labels. They loathe all things that might profit a 'thief'
On the video front, I don't see Apple doing any kind of streaming simply because it would demand a continuous online connection. And with ATTs lack of an unlimited plan any more that gets dicey. Downloaded vapor files (a la the current movie rentals) does make more sense. it's getting the studios and networks in the game that is a problem because tv is based on the Nielsens. There's no 'credit' for anything else in the budget make goods. Shows live and die by ratings. And contrary to the numbers reported, Nielsen is only counting 25k folks on a regular basis. So lose one and the impact is huge.
Actually, my memory plus a quick google search, tells me you're wrong .... it's vest. It probably comes from the time when all the old mississippi gambler types used to wear vests, where they could presumably hide the odd ace.
I'm confused...so what's the gain of a web version of iTunes when I can use the software version of iTunes that actually plays songs? So I have to login to the website to see what my "friends" are sharing? Then log in to the software to actually buy the music? Why not just integrate the two....?
The idea is the same as what made Lala.com work.
I have a 20 GB music library (not all media, just music). Can't carry that around on my 16 GB ipad now can I.
With Lala/itunes I wouldn't have to. I could log into the website and stream my music.
On the "social" front, I could/can follow folks I know to see what music they like and find new artists I don't know. Or the system could recommend that I follow daving313 because we both like X, Y and Z artists. It's all about encouraging sales.
They might do the discounted streaming only 'buys' as well. Or if I select a full buy, the next time I open up itunes at home, the song is in my 'available downloads' queue for downloading.
They might even have it set up so that if I"m in itunes on my computer, the 'friends' stuff shows up. Perhaps a sidebar option to display recent plays by those I follow, or even their whole playlist. Not unlike the sharing we have now.
Why replace an known brand name (iTunes) with one that is unknown and has no presence in the Apple consciousness? iTunes is well known and practically ubiquitous and one of the most valuable name that Apple owns. You might as well ask if Microsoft ever plans to change the name "Outlook" to "Microsoft Mail" (which they also own I believe)
While I agree with you, when I think of iTunes, I think of SoundJam and an application for playing and collecting music. Not an application to purchase iPhone apps, or purchase/rent movies and TV shows (and purchase music).
Sadly I do not think iTunes will ever get any further updates, only the store front will. I use iTunes as a jukebox on an aging iMac G5 and have no intentions to ever access the store.
While I agree with you, when I think of iTunes, I think of SoundJam and an application for playing and collecting music. Not an application to purchase iPhone apps, or purchase/rent movies and TV shows (and purchase music).
Well, that's sort of like thinking of only the 13 original colonies when you think of the United States.
I'm not a lawyer so I could be completely wrong about this, but...
Wouldn't Lala have already had contracts with the labels to stream content?
Isn't it possible (and even very likely) that those contracts are still in effect (contracts don't normally get voided just because a company gets sold/bought).
If that's the case, then Apple already has streaming rights... and they found a brilliant way to obtain them from the labels because they didn't have to negotiate. Maybe buying Lala was less about obtaining their code and more about finding a backdoor way to get streaming for iTunes without having to deal with record label execs that may have played hardball because of Apple's growing size and power.
I'm not a lawyer so I could be completely wrong about this, but...
Wouldn't Lala have already had contracts with the labels to stream content?
Isn't it possible (and even very likely) that those contracts are still in effect (contracts don't normally get voided just because a company gets sold/bought).
If that's the case, then Apple already has streaming rights... and they found a brilliant way to obtain them from the labels because they didn't have to negotiate. Maybe buying Lala was less about obtaining their code and more about finding a backdoor way to get streaming for iTunes without having to deal with record label execs that may have played hardball because of Apple's growing size and power.
It?s possible and likely that the content owners wrote in clauses to restrict large companies, like Apple, from coming in and buying a company on the cheap to get ahold of relatively inexpensive contracts.
From what I recall when this deal was going through LaLa?s contract were not transferable if they were bought out, so it does look like they bought them for some IP.
Actually, my memory plus a quick google search, tells me you're wrong .... it's vest. It probably comes from the time when all the old mississippi gambler types used to wear vests, where they could presumably hide the odd ace.
Moving to a website is a good move. So many times I've sent iTunes links to someone only having to resend them an Amazon link because they didn't have iTunes installed and didn't want to install it.
Comments
Ownership works no matter what though - I like the idea of playing my content no matter if I can't afford to pay the rates a company charges or if they suddenly decide not to keep their servers active. Subscription services require DRM - something that I do not like.
So you don't like the fact a movie you buy on iTunes can only play on an Apple device?
Apple plays its cards close to the vest
Its chest dear boy...its chest!
Don't want to steer to far off course here, but the more i read into this event the less chance i think we'll see an update to Apple TV. I hope i'm wrong but Apple have a knack for timing and i think the timings all wrong.
So you don't like the fact a movie you buy on iTunes can only play on an Apple device?
If you actually believe that, you are too incompetent to participate in a meaningful discussion -even on a technology deficient site like AI.
If you actually believe that, you are too incompetent to participate in a meaningful discussion -even on a technology deficient site like AI.
So you're saying (without using any third party hacking to remove DRM) I can put a movie I own on a thumb-drive, and play it in any mediahub?
You might as well ask if Microsoft ever plans to change the name "Outlook" to "Microsoft Mail" (which they also own I believe)
The effect you were going for is lost on the fact that they already changed "Outlook Express" to "Windows Mail" at the release of VIsta. No, the full version of Outlook isn't likely to follow, but at least the question isn't that ridiculous.
Zune store still wins with its streaming/subscription pricing model. I've used it as a free trial when on my work machine and was just blown away.
I'm not trying to compare with Zune store as I really haven't tried it out, but as for having streamed music on iTunes, I think the "radio" part of iTunes is quite fantastic.
There are 25 different categories with as many as 150 different stations per category giving me a potential choice of over 3000 stations .... all free. If I'm listening to a song that I like I can check out the name in the toolbar (in most cases) and buy it from iTunes store. I've never had so much choice in my life. I have "discovered" more music that I like in this way than I have in any other part of my life to date ... Now if I only had enough money to buy each and every song that I like .... well, that would be Nirvana.
Actually, it's technically incorrect to call iTunes web-based. Just because an application communicates with a server thru the internet does not make it web-based. The web is not synonymous with the internet. In fact, the term "web-based" is more synonymous with "browser-based". But there's a bit of line-blurring there.
Well, iTunes the app does depend on WebKit for much of it's display functionality, at least when accessing the store, and, although I've never investigated this, I wouldn't be surprised to find that it uses https for most or all of it's network requests. So, perhaps it might be somewhat correct to refer to it as a sort of special purpose "web browser".
Then again, the current store is not really part of the "web" since you can't just access it from any browser.
Think LaLa?!
Well yeah. that's why they bought Lala.
I suspect they were looking for 4 main features of lala.com
1. the one time full play (something folks have been screaming for since day one)
2. the genius like 'similiar artists' and 'mix it up' playlists
3. The facebook 'follow' features
4. the actual streaming
I suspect that anything with #4 will be purchases only, no more of this uploading stuff. That way folks can't torrent etc and have the added benefits. Probably at the demand of the labels. They loathe all things that might profit a 'thief'
On the video front, I don't see Apple doing any kind of streaming simply because it would demand a continuous online connection. And with ATTs lack of an unlimited plan any more that gets dicey. Downloaded vapor files (a la the current movie rentals) does make more sense. it's getting the studios and networks in the game that is a problem because tv is based on the Nielsens. There's no 'credit' for anything else in the budget make goods. Shows live and die by ratings. And contrary to the numbers reported, Nielsen is only counting 25k folks on a regular basis. So lose one and the impact is huge.
Its chest dear boy...its chest!
Actually, my memory plus a quick google search, tells me you're wrong .... it's vest. It probably comes from the time when all the old mississippi gambler types used to wear vests, where they could presumably hide the odd ace.
I'm confused...so what's the gain of a web version of iTunes when I can use the software version of iTunes that actually plays songs? So I have to login to the website to see what my "friends" are sharing? Then log in to the software to actually buy the music? Why not just integrate the two....?
The idea is the same as what made Lala.com work.
I have a 20 GB music library (not all media, just music). Can't carry that around on my 16 GB ipad now can I.
With Lala/itunes I wouldn't have to. I could log into the website and stream my music.
On the "social" front, I could/can follow folks I know to see what music they like and find new artists I don't know. Or the system could recommend that I follow daving313 because we both like X, Y and Z artists. It's all about encouraging sales.
They might do the discounted streaming only 'buys' as well. Or if I select a full buy, the next time I open up itunes at home, the song is in my 'available downloads' queue for downloading.
They might even have it set up so that if I"m in itunes on my computer, the 'friends' stuff shows up. Perhaps a sidebar option to display recent plays by those I follow, or even their whole playlist. Not unlike the sharing we have now.
Why replace an known brand name (iTunes) with one that is unknown and has no presence in the Apple consciousness? iTunes is well known and practically ubiquitous and one of the most valuable name that Apple owns. You might as well ask if Microsoft ever plans to change the name "Outlook" to "Microsoft Mail" (which they also own I believe)
While I agree with you, when I think of iTunes, I think of SoundJam and an application for playing and collecting music. Not an application to purchase iPhone apps, or purchase/rent movies and TV shows (and purchase music).
Sadly I do not think iTunes will ever get any further updates, only the store front will. I use iTunes as a jukebox on an aging iMac G5 and have no intentions to ever access the store.
While I agree with you, when I think of iTunes, I think of SoundJam and an application for playing and collecting music. Not an application to purchase iPhone apps, or purchase/rent movies and TV shows (and purchase music).
Well, that's sort of like thinking of only the 13 original colonies when you think of the United States.
Wouldn't Lala have already had contracts with the labels to stream content?
Isn't it possible (and even very likely) that those contracts are still in effect (contracts don't normally get voided just because a company gets sold/bought).
If that's the case, then Apple already has streaming rights... and they found a brilliant way to obtain them from the labels because they didn't have to negotiate. Maybe buying Lala was less about obtaining their code and more about finding a backdoor way to get streaming for iTunes without having to deal with record label execs that may have played hardball because of Apple's growing size and power.
I'm not a lawyer so I could be completely wrong about this, but...
Wouldn't Lala have already had contracts with the labels to stream content?
Isn't it possible (and even very likely) that those contracts are still in effect (contracts don't normally get voided just because a company gets sold/bought).
If that's the case, then Apple already has streaming rights... and they found a brilliant way to obtain them from the labels because they didn't have to negotiate. Maybe buying Lala was less about obtaining their code and more about finding a backdoor way to get streaming for iTunes without having to deal with record label execs that may have played hardball because of Apple's growing size and power.
It?s possible and likely that the content owners wrote in clauses to restrict large companies, like Apple, from coming in and buying a company on the cheap to get ahold of relatively inexpensive contracts.
From what I recall when this deal was going through LaLa?s contract were not transferable if they were bought out, so it does look like they bought them for some IP.
Actually, my memory plus a quick google search, tells me you're wrong .... it's vest. It probably comes from the time when all the old mississippi gambler types used to wear vests, where they could presumably hide the odd ace.
It's chest in the UK and Google is evil
It's chest in the UK and Google is evil
Do you mean in that country where they say "knock you up" instead of "wake you up" ? Bloody hell .... that explains everything.
Do you mean in that country where they say "knock you up" instead of "wake you up" ? Bloody hell .... that explains everything.
Tut tut!
If you 'knock somebody up' in the UK, you have made them pregnant. 'Wake you up' means just that.