Alternative to iTMS?
so why would anyone pay too much for music...much less a dollar a song...
(your ipod has 10,000songs...that's $10,000)
Napster's got unlimtied downloads for $15 a month....
Of course I remember Napster back in the day when downloading was free...ahh the 90s..gas prices were lower then too....
If another service came along, would you "Switch" ?
or are you so much elitest and like paying $1 a song...?
(your ipod has 10,000songs...that's $10,000)
Napster's got unlimtied downloads for $15 a month....
Of course I remember Napster back in the day when downloading was free...ahh the 90s..gas prices were lower then too....
If another service came along, would you "Switch" ?
or are you so much elitest and like paying $1 a song...?
Comments
I do think $1 is pricey for a song, but that Napster service has its catches too. I won't really argue one way or another right now, but you should read the fine print of each service before you praise or bash them.
I don't think it's "elitist" to want to own music that you like. Over the past 25 years, I have accumulated about 300 CDs (~4000 songs) that all contain music that I like and will listen to until I die. If subscription music services had been available back then, I would have had to pay $15/month * 12 month/year * 25 years = $4500 to maintain access to that music, which is greater than $1 per song. Assuming that I want to keep those songs for the next 45 years until I die, they would have cost me an additional $8100 assuming that the subscription rate never changes.
I'd like to see a metered subscription service that would allow me to get 100 songs for $2 per month, while still allowing me to purchase songs I want to own. Alternatively, the subscription services could include 1 CD per month that is converted to music you permanently own. Either way would allow the customer to build a library of the music they want to keep while maintaining the benefits of the subscription model.
One question I have about the current subscriptions services: if you let your subscription lapse for a month, how difficult is it to reload your player with the music you had on it before the lapse? Ideally, you don't want to have to manually reselect all 10,000 songs again.
\tso why would anyone pay too much for music...much less a dollar a song... (your ipod has 10,000songs...that's $10,000)
What if I buy an album with 20 songs for $9.99. Then my 10k songs is only $5000.
Napster's got unlimtied downloads for $15 a month..
Oh they are limited. You have roughly 2/3rd the catalog available for NtG. That's over 300k songs that Napster doesn't have the license to rent. That's significant.
or are you so much elitest and like paying $1 a song...?
I look towards iTunes first..if the artist isn't on iTunes I search P2P. I figure I made a concerted effort to give them credit.
Here's what Apple needs to do.
Microsoft and Napster got it all wrong. But hey they have idiots running the company.
What is the goal?
The GOAL is to profit from the music
Subscription services are a step in the right direction but it should never be either/or unless the consumer wants that. Here's how Apple needs to combat the situation
1. Offer a subscription service for $14.99 per month. That bring in recurring revenue/profits.
2. The DRM should handle instant purchasing from the subscribed files, ie you can instantly turn a subscriped song into a purchase with "one click"
3. Here's the kicker. Offer a credit on all purchased music off of the subscription price. It wouldn't be a 1:1 credit but rather a 4:1 credit which means for every 4 tracks that you purchase you get credited $.99 off of the subscription price. The maximum credit would be $5.
Here's what this accomplishes. You still have recurring revenue via subscription but you "entice" users to order music as well. Music lovers will know that if they buy $20 worth of music they save $5 meaning they've paid $10 for "all you can eat" and were able to recoup some money for their single song purchases.
Trust me after having access to thousands of files buying 20 a month would be hard to do for many people. They just need to be incentivized to do so.
I got over 300 CDs in the process of under an hour...my cousin brought his SATA drive down...over the course of some years,him and his friends transferred their bought CDs into mp3s...and they may or may not have gotten some of those songs by use of a "file-sharing" type application..
These days if I really want a song,I'll just buy the CD (yes it's outrageous that it's more than $15 a CD..but then again Halo2 soundtrack was worth the price) and more often then not I end up liking all the songs on the CDs...
Back in the day when "file-sharing" programs weren't taboo...I would download 1 or 2 songs,and if they turned out good,I would buy the whole album...
It only takes about $3 or so to make a CD (from the record companies) yet we (the end-users) end up paying usually more than $15 a CD...and some aren't worth justifiying the cost.
There's the option of recording from the radio..but audio quality...bleh
IMO having family members or friends to share and copy CDs from could benefit the music companies...usually family and friends want their CDs back...so if you really liked the CD you borrowed, you may end up going and buying it.
Originally posted by alaskanblacklab
so why would anyone pay too much for music...much less a dollar a song...
(your ipod has 10,000songs...that's $10,000)
Napster's got unlimtied downloads for $15 a month....
Of course I remember Napster back in the day when downloading was free...ahh the 90s..gas prices were lower then too....
If another service came along, would you "Switch" ?
or are you so much elitest and like paying $1 a song...?
gee do you work for napster?
LOL no I don't work for Napster,but I don't support Apple's itunes music service..
Wouldn't it be easier just to borrow CDs from friends or colleauges at work (I may have mis-spelled colleagues) take them,rip them to itunes or whatever you people use?
Originally posted by alaskanblacklab
shh,don't tell anyone...
LOL no I don't work for Napster,but I don't support Apple's itunes music service..
Wouldn't it be easier just to borrow CDs from friends or colleauges at work (I may have mis-spelled colleagues) take them,rip them to itunes or whatever you people use?
that is piracy..... convicted!!
go back to your lame ass napster/pc world and leave us L337's alone.
Originally posted by alaskanblacklab
Napster's got unlimtied downloads for $15 a month....
How are we supposed to use napsters's piece of shit software, when it doesn't work on a Mac or the iPod for that matter? Why not just wait for Apple to release a competing service, which they most likely will if it proves popular.
of course there is no Napster for the mac..why even bother,not enough people/market share...same applies to computer games.
Never had a problem before with Napster...
EDIT: tossed in a image..seems to fit here.
Mac User
Just what is your point man?
Napter also expects its consumers to be dumb. $10,000 to fill up your iPod ... yeah, only if you're a moron and don't actually OWN any music before you start synching stuff up. I would assume a vast number of people have music collections back from the "Pre-Digital" era that they have loaded into iTunes. Which would make it NOT cost $10K.
Your assertion of you "borrowing" family and friend's music to rip and burn is really strange. You're advocating piracy of copywrited material. I agree $15 is too damn much for a CD, but that why i have iTMS ... I pay for the songs I want ... nothing more.
You also claim Napster has unlimited downloads. While neither Napster or iTMS can have everything that everyone wants (fault the record companies or artists for not signing on), Apple has gone to great lengths to get these people on board for the ride. Also, if I remember correctly, subscription services are limiting what you burn to ... if at all. And once people don't pay their bill and all their music goes *poof* you'll have a lot of pissed off consumers.
You also say not enough market share to make a Napster for the Mac. Apple dominates the digital music market in a really amazing way. They have somewhere around 92% of the hard-drive mp3 player market. iTMS is selling around 9.2 million songs a week. No market??? Apple is making boatloads of money and vastly controls the digital music arena ... iPods are showing up everywhere from music videos to fashion accesories for celebrities ... it has become more or less a pop-culture "thing." So, I think Mac has a pretty good stake in the market, but Apple would NEVER let Napster infringe on it's own iTunes software.
Give an actual argument man. You're certainly not making any sense...
Originally posted by alaskanblacklab
[IMG]of course there is no Napster for the mac..why even bother,not enough people/market share...
Mac User
HAHAHA - he goes for the bait!
When the iTMS was first released it was ONLY available for the Mac, and had over 1 million downloads in the first week.
Napster has yet to reach 1 million paid downloads ever since they first released their shitty little service. So now they have no choice but to go with the lower revenue "rent your music" option.
You do realize that Napster is running on cash reserves and will probably not last long enough to make any meaningful impact.
Baahahaahaha! Keep setting them up, and I'll keep knocking them down!
BTW, if your calling me an elitist, as in I'm superior to you, then you would be correct.
______
Edit: I realize that I've already dealt you a shit kicking, but I thought you'd like to know what the world thinks of your little $10 000 to fill an ipod rational:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02...pster_ad_flop/ Did you really think everyone else is a dumb as you?
Personally I can't justify supporting Apple with a dollar a song.
There's other ways of spending hard-earned money.
Yes most people have CD collections before they purchased an ipod. My sister has over 200 CDs..but most people don't have 10,000 songs
She weighed the cost..and went with a RCA flash-based player over an ipod..and as far as I know,it's more reliable,and scrolling through playlists,songs takes less time.(the batteries last a long time..when the batteries die,she doesn't have to send it off to the company...)
The way it appears,Apple is trying to be like Sony...flood the market with their product..personally having dealt with Sony components that have died within 2 weeks of purchase..I and my family don't buy Sony products. After watching my cousin shell out $250 for a ipod(he's in the military,money is tight) and having it die on him..I don't see the reason for buying one. Apple introduced their own flash-based player..even though it costs less then what I paid for my RCA mp3 player...and my RCA uses standard alkaline batteries..so I can get them anywhere..Apple sells a battery pack...that lo and behold,takes standard batteries...but the shuffle is a rechargeable battery-based device...apple doesn't seem to have good luck in that department...even at apple.com they're recalling powerbook G4 batteries...
Thinking your an elitist...shows you have a ego problem
"1.\tThe belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources."
they "think" they're superior..
<scratching head>
Seems rather odd. I see no one here extolling elitist views whatsoever. I see people trying to engage you in this hopefully dull thread which is rapidly becoming a futile effort. No one here is going to tell you where to buy your music. You're a grown up..do what's best for you. However we seem to enjoy using the iTunes Music Store. You seem well aware of the alternatives to iTunes.
Originally posted by alaskanblacklab
the batteries last a long time..when the batteries die,she doesn't have to send it off to the company
By the time your sister spends a small fortune buying alkaline batteries she could have bought a replacement battery and had her genius brother put it in for her.
I do applaud SJ's idea of using translucent material and calling it i
isomething..what's next? Translucent storage shelf for your mac mini and ipods...what's it going to be called? the iRack? LOL
I've been using macs since before they were macs (Long live system 7.1!) I still like the sound of a Mac Classic/SE 30 starting up(I have 2 sitting in storage right now)
I just to happen to not agree with the ipod and iTMS.
However making the OS more stable is always a good thing.
Mac OS X seems to be more stable than any other apple os version.
What's weird is my mom is the Apple person in the family, she's using the laptop right now and I'm on the mac...(usually I'm on the laptop..since it's a dell with XP)