MS prepares Music Store alternative
Although I'm not sure if MS' continued approach with subscription based fees will succeed. Then again, they've got so much clout, they may pull it off if the price is right.
Perhaps Apple should move a tad quicker and make it's Music Store available to PC users. This would entrench it as the standard and certainly bring in greater revenue from the other 97%.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-1009794.html?tag=fd_top
Perhaps Apple should move a tad quicker and make it's Music Store available to PC users. This would entrench it as the standard and certainly bring in greater revenue from the other 97%.
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-1009794.html?tag=fd_top
Comments
But Microsoft is betting that new security enhancements planned for later this year could make renting music, rather than owning it, more attractive to consumers.
cue the coffee out the nose.
Microsoft != security
rental fee paid to MS != more attractive to consumers
I don't see how this is more attractive... Apple's solution just seems to make sense... no more than 10 times on the same playlist? OK, I can do that. Only three computers? Sure, that's reasonable. (I'm fairly certain my numbers are right, but whatever they are, they aren't cramping the way I use music FOR MYSELF!)
Now, renting music? That's just rediculous!
"Of course it will expire once you stop paying the sub fee, but which do you think is the better deal: $7500 to fill a 30GB player (7500 songs at $1 each) with iTunes Music Store, or $120 a year with the ability to swap in new music whenever you want? How much is it worth to you to "own" the bits?" "
So it's probably not $7500 but you get the point. If microsoft does it right, it could pose quite a threat.
Originally posted by chych
"Of course it will expire once you stop paying the sub fee, but which do you think is the better deal: $7500 to fill a 30GB player (7500 songs at $1 each) with iTunes Music Store, or $120 a year with the ability to swap in new music whenever you want? How much is it worth to you to "own" the bits?" "
A fair amount for me, and surely many others, just as there are many others who only wnat top 40 flavor-of-the-week stuff. The biggest problem in this case is that it's not a simple either-or blanket decision for all consumers, just like online music in any form isn't for everyone either, and shouldn't try to be. MS, Apple, Amazon, the record companies and the artists all have to realize this. Problem is, knowing most of those mentioned, this flexibility will either be limited for consumers to appeal to the bottom line, or complicated enough to confuse consumers and alienate them even more. Everyone is looking for *the* answer, and that's a real problem.
PS: this is part of the age-old argument that computer geeks can't seem to grasp too well. Is a greater up-front cost worth more subsequent flexibility, i.e., does it pay for itself? Or is cheaper always cheaper at a given moment?
Originally posted by chych
Don't see how it is more attractive? Let me quote the slashdot article that posted Microsoft's music thing:
"Of course it will expire once you stop paying the sub fee, but which do you think is the better deal: $7500 to fill a 30GB player (7500 songs at $1 each) with iTunes Music Store, or $120 a year with the ability to swap in new music whenever you want? How much is it worth to you to "own" the bits?" "
So it's probably not $7500 but you get the point. If microsoft does it right, it could pose quite a threat.
I read that on Slashdot and I strongly disagree with it. It's easy to make a statement like that, and the math seems to work out. But it's a very nearsighted way of looking at things. Think of the longterm.
Sure, the rental model is fine for things like movies. You rent 30 movies a year from blockbuster, you give them back. It's fine. You don't watch the same movies every day. You watch them once and move on. Some movies you buy.
Music is different. The albums you buy today, you'll likely still want to listen to 5 years from now. 10 years from now. 20 years from now. Does this work? What if 5 years from now you want to unsubscribe from Microsoft's service? Do you keep yourself chained to it for life?
They reel you in by telling you it's $120/year. It's just like TV cable, they tell you. Problem is, 10 years from now, after you've paid $1000 in cable TV fees, you don't care about not owning episode #121 of Friends. But 10 years from now, after you've spent $1000 on a music service, you will probably want to keep dozens of your favourite albums. You'll still want to listen to them every day.
Music is made to be owned, not rented. People will catch on to this.
Satellite radio is the same - a subscription model would work there.
However, recorded music (making the distinction between records and radio) is different. It's more or less discrete. How would you like to buy a bed under a subscription model? Sure, you can switch it out and get a new one any time you want and thus get, in retail terms, thousands of dollars worth of bed usage, but if you tire of this and quit paying, you're without a bed all of a sudden.
And after 2 years you have been renting music, you have all your songs, playlists etc. If they decide to screw you then- too bad. You stop paying you loose your music. I bet Bill sprung one when he realised what this could mean for revenue.
Forgive my crude language- but they just get my goat.
Originally posted by frawgz
However, recorded music (making the distinction between records and radio) is different. It's more or less discrete. How would you like to buy a bed under a subscription model? Sure, you can switch it out and get a new one any time you want and thus get, in retail terms, thousands of dollars worth of bed usage, but if you tire of this and quit paying, you're without a bed all of a sudden.
This is not an uncommon model, at least outside the US. It's not even that rare here - you can rent and lease furniture from several places in town here.
It's attractive to business because the revenue stream is consistent. Its attraction to consumers would be based on rethinking the way people have traditionally listened to music (in other words, I don't think there is much of an appeal for consumers).
But make no mistake: The push toward this sort of model comes from the bean counters. The traditional idea of a purchase being a discrete and absolute transfer of ownership looks much less attractive than the idea of a purchase being a reliable and constant hook into someone's wallet. The fact that the payment is made over time makes some things more accessible to e.g. the poor, but it also chains them to a commercial provider.
More to the point, the only way a rental scheme will work is if Microsoft's omnipresent DRM scheme is active. The much-touted advantage of digital in the recording industry is that once you have the bits, you have them, and you can copy them freely and without source degredation. With digital distribution, this advantage comes to the consumer space. The only way to get around that is to construct a comprehensive subsystem designed to regulate your access to them. The advantage to Apple's scheme is that it more naturally fits with the simple fact that once you download a song, you have it. Rather than explicitly permit the burning of songs to a CD, Apple merely has to not prohibit it. A rental scheme would have to impose some illusion that the bits were a concrete thing that could be given and taken back, like a DVD or a couch. And that's exactly what MS' Next Generation Double Plus Good Security System will accomplish. This is something that the publishers have pushed hard for: The idea that IP must be treated as if it were a concrete product, and that purchases merely represent a highly restricted form of licensing that still leave the publisher in control. (I need hardly add that the consumer has not been considered here, except as a revenue source.)
There's nothing stopping a company from both selling and leasing once ms updates their DRM. Does apple's DRM offer protection/expiration on the ipod?
Originally posted by Amorph
This is not an uncommon model, at least outside the US. It's not even that rare here - you can rent and lease furniture from several places in town here.
Of course, consumer rent-to-own businesses are dirty outfits, they just take advantage of the poor and ignorant. So while I think there's room for a rental model, it could just be another sucker's market as MS probably hopes or assumes most people are in.
if you are buying whole albums at $10 a pop....and they might have more than 10 tracks on them, then it's a whole different story on how much money you are spending to fill a 30 gig.
The key points are to make it PC compatible, and to offer it worldwide (not just the U.S.) Yes, I know there are lots of logistics involved and I'm sure (I hope) Apple is working quickly on this matter.
And to further add a nail to MS' coffin, drop the price per song to 75 cents the day MS launches their service.
ps...i am now over 150 songs purchased..ouch...my brother didn't help yesterday as he first heard of the system and asked me to look for two albums he is always looking for and can never find...i found one of the two and downloaded it for him and burned him a cd...a rare, hard to find cd for 10 bucks...sweet
g
Perhaps their pricing scheme is getting a little more sophisticated? There are only 8 songs on the album, which might have something to do with it.
As for Apple's DRM, I don't think there's any provision for expiration built into it. I don't see why there should be, either. I could imagine paying for a user customizable streaming music service - like radio, only ad free, tweakable to individual taste, and not homogenized by Clear Channel and corrupted by the indies. Like radio, I could record the songs off the stream if I wanted to. Like radio, they'd be compressed enough it would sound like I had taped them off the radio, so there would still be an incentive to go and buy the recordings. Unlike radio, the player would keep track of what was being streamed, so that if I heard a song I really liked I wouldn't have to wait for the DJ to mention the names of the song and the artist (if they actually did!). This arrangement is both intuitive, in that it functions like a familiar service (radio) only better, and a natural use of available technology: Low-bandwidth AAC-plus would allow reliable streaming even over slow or clogged connections (and from swamped servers), and it would also naturally limit the appeal of simply recording the stream as a substitute for buying music without requiring some Draconian DRM scheme. "Allowing" the stream to be recorded simply means that Apple doesn't have to figure out how to prevent it from being recorded.
Heck, Apple could probably just tweak iTunes to stream at a lower bitrate over the 'net, and that would automatically reduce the appeal of those programs that "rip" streams.
g
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Of course, consumer rent-to-own businesses are dirty outfits, they just take advantage of the poor and ignorant. So while I think there's room for a rental model, it could just be another sucker's market as MS probably hopes or assumes most people are in.
Exactly.
I'm in favor of absolute ownership whenever possible. It's just that the absolute ownership model doesn't look as good to the bean counters.
Originally posted by thegelding
true....it will grow and change...i noticed many albums for less than 9.99 if they have fewer songs than 10...i also got a album with only 5 songs and it was 9.99...but that was cool since i couldn't find it anywhere and at amazon it was 25 bucks (when it comes in...if ever)...i still think iTMS will rule if it goes for older and out of print stuff...there is a huge market for this and it will cost the record companies next to nothing to "re-release" an out of print record for download only...the record company makes money on songs in its catalog without having to press cds and make labels etc and apple gets what amounts to exclusives...it is a great win win situation
And the consumer gets access to the 80%(!) of all recorded music that is currently out of print. So it's a win-win-win situation.
There are lots and lots of great albums out of print, especially in jazz. I'd love to see Lalo Schifrin's tribute to the Marquis de Sade back in print, or The Individualism of Gil Evans.