1. Apple has (and continues to) created a great product and service combination
2. Most (80%) of the market has responded favorably to the product/service offering.
3. Apple is executing its strategy very well.
4. Apple still has options should the market choose (en masse) to go another way. For example, subscription music services. Apple could turn this on in an instant. Licensing FairPlay? Again...it could be done in an instant.
5. The music companies are the wildcard. Time will tell if their (abundant) greed will force them to kill music downloads by raising prices. This, however, will not kill iPod itself as iPod is just a music player that can be used to play music/audio from other sources (e.g., ripped CDs, podcasts, etc.)
Apple with iPod is actually in much the same position as MS was in the 80's with DOS domination. Chew on that awhile, it changes the outlook substantially.
So basically what i'm reading here by the last few posters is that you're PROUD that apple has taken the same route as Microsoft.... crush the competition via whatever means possible while pumping out a mediocre, overpriced product to the masses.
But, not being an audiophile and caring about the best sound possible, I can tell you that I find the ipod to be superior because they actually care what it looks like and how it functions.
And being an audiophile, all the iPods seem to win in many MP3 audio tests made by HiFi magazines - the Shuffle is supposed to be the best of them.
So basically what i'm reading here by the last few posters is that you're PROUD that apple has taken the same route as Microsoft.... crush the competition via whatever means possible while pumping out a mediocre, overpriced product to the masses.
Interesting.
I have a feeling that you call the iPod mediocre because it doesn't have all the gadgets and blinking lights that other players might have.
And how is Apple's route the same as Microsoft's route? Is Apple doing anything that isn't legal?
Btw. Microsoft is a software company. They earn money by licensing Windows, Office, WMA, WMV and so on to anyone.
Apple earn money by selling soft- and hardware - mostly hardware.
So basically what i'm reading here by the last few posters is that you're PROUD that apple has taken the same route as Microsoft.... crush the competition via whatever means possible while pumping out a mediocre, overpriced product to the masses.
Interesting.
That is not what you should be reading.
What has been stated is the fact that Apple has obtained a large % of the market for their product (contrary to the situation with the Mac in the 80's) and so your comparison to that is weak (at best).
Secondly, because Apple does have such a large share they aren't really ignoring (or pissing off) a "large chunk" of market (as you also stated).
Lastly, obviously 80% of the market disagrees (or doesn't care enough) with your characterization of "mediocre, overpriced product" to not buy it.
What has been stated is the fact that Apple has obtained a large % of the market for their product (contrary to the situation with the Mac in the 80's) and so your comparison to that is weak (at best).
Secondly, because Apple does have such a large share they aren't really ignoring (or pissing off) a "large chunk" of market (as you also stated).
Lastly, obviously 80% of the market disagrees (or doesn't care enough) with your characterization of "mediocre, overpriced product" to not buy it.
Personally, I think that by mediocre, he means that iPods have no radio, and no (easily available) recording options (that are not 8kHz, but 32 or 44.1, etc). Some other players have these functionalities.
Apple _could_ include both, but they are of the view that:
1. Radio on the MP3 player wont make it more enjoyable (more the other way around).
2. With 80% of the market, the music industry would complain LOUDLY if Apple introduces 48 kHz recording on the iPod.
Apple is NOT using monopolizing strategies to gain iPod's market share. The iPod has gained its own market share on merit, quality, function, and attractiveness.
I think we're beginning to see the second tier of the iPod. Everyone who bought an iPod initially for it's "coolness" factor and fad status are now past that. Now we're seeing those who are the second-level adopters (parents, friends, etc.) who have had the iPod recommended to them by the first adopters. You're also seeing the first adopters who are ready to upgrade to a newer, more functional device.
As far as gadgets go, the iPod is soooo 2004. This year it'll be the XBox 360 that dominates the holiday season. We will still see, however, lots of iPods get sold. The difference this year will be that the iPod is no longer a fad, but has become the next Kleenex, Velcro, Xerox, etc. If you want to play digital music portably, you buy an iPod. If you want to blow your nose, you get a Kleenex -- not a "facial tissue" or a "Puffs."
Personally, I think that by mediocre, he means that iPods have no radio, and no (easily available) recording options (that are not 8kHz, but 32 or 44.1, etc). Some other players have these functionalities.
Well, the instead of "mediocre" he ought to say "feature challenged" I suppose. I am really really quarreling with his assertion of mediocrity (though I don't personally agree)...I'm only saying that...well...most of the market doesn't appear to care.
Quote:
Originally posted by BoeManE
Apple _could_ include both, but they are of the view that:
1. Radio on the MP3 player wont make it more enjoyable (more the other way around).
2. With 80% of the market, the music industry would complain LOUDLY if Apple introduces 48 kHz recording on the iPod.
I don't know what Apple's reasons are...but I'll take my guesses too:
1. Who cares about radio. The only time I listen to radio is when I can't listen to my iPod. Perhaps others are the same. I don't know.
2. iPod is a music player (though it does have some rudimentary recording abilities...for voice quality...etc.) Plus, I'd guess, most people don't care about recording.
Personally, I think that by mediocre, he means that iPods have no radio, and no (easily available) recording options (that are not 8kHz, but 32 or 44.1, etc). Some other players have these functionalities.
IMHO, lack of decent stereo recording capability without having to install linux on your iPod was the biggest shortcoming of the iPod. However, that's been rectified in the latest iPod. Check out the specs near the bottom of the page.
Personally, I'm strongly against manufacturers adding extra widgets that most people don't want, but only when adding them detracts from the core function of the device. In the case of the iPod, allowing high-quality recording has not added to the size, weight, or cost, nor has it affected the usability of the iPod as a player. All it does is provide an attractive feature to a minority, so why not add it?
WRT radio, it doesn't make much sense in a high-capacity device such as the full-size iPod. Why would someone carrying around over 5,000 tracks of their own carefully built music library want to listen to the radio? However, it makes more sense in the smaller, cheaper players, especially the shuffle. If I were Apple, I'd add radio and a screen to the iPod shuffle.
Another major point is that with the iPod, apple has continued to do what makes them different and superior IMHO. That is to control the end user experience from front to back and top to bottom. By making both the hardware and software they ensure compatiblity, and when support is needed there is no passing of the buck. By licensing FairPlay that is lost, remember the clones, lesson learned. As stated earlier if you need higher quality audio then buy the CD. I'd bet if you polled iPod users or better yet Mp3 player users you would find that the great majority of their music librarys are culled from prior CD collections. Okay I think I'm done now.
I'd like to hear some specific details on how the iPod could be considered mediocre. feature vs. feature. The iPod is simply loaded with features all by itself, with no third party add ons. Mostly because of its perfectly seamless hardware/software integration.
And as far as the iPod being a fashion statement, it looks darn good! Is that a bad thing? I think maybe some people would rather have a player in a niche market. I honestly think if the iPod had a 15% market share, we wouldn't be hearing that argument. There's this idea that if its insanely popular, it's corrupt. Look at pop music for example (Backstreet Boys CAN harmonize, they are good at that).
Some people just can't admit that the iPod IS a better player. They want to find something better so they can be special
Bear in mind, I AM biased. I buy anything Apple. They are simply the best. Anyone who says differently is........ uh, well... wrong
Well, the instead of "mediocre" he ought to say "feature challenged" I suppose. I am really really quarreling with his assertion of mediocrity (though I don't personally agree)...I'm only saying that...well...most of the market doesn't appear to care.
And most of the market doesn't appear to care that Windows is mediocre. Are you now comparing Apple buyers to Windows buyers?
The fact is that just because the sheeple buy it doesn't make it the best. An 80% market share doesn't make it more than mediocre. Windows has a bigger market share and i don't hear any Apple fans here claiming that means Windows is the best. No, in fact you claim Apple is the best computer even though it has a measly 5% of the market. I also agree it's the best, because i don't base my judgments on silly things like "market share" when i know that most consumers are clueless. I find it amazingly ironic that Apple fans, of all people, are falling into that "market share" trap.
The fact is that the iPod is overpriced and mediocre. Half the people who have commented on it are buying it for the looks (fashion statement) and the other half are buying it because Jobs told them to (sheeple).
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how having five songs is somehow better than having a million of them for the same price.
The fact is that the iPod is overpriced and mediocre. Half the people who have commented on it are buying it for the looks (fashion statement) and the other half are buying it because Jobs told them to (sheeple).
Tidelwav GOSH! You're driving me nuts here. Could you please explain your arguments? Why do you say the iPod is mediocre? And insult those who genuinely believe it to be a better product (because it is)?
I'm not buying it for the looks OR because Jobs told me too. Give me a break. It's a better player!!! Tell me an example of a SPECIFIC player that you think is better than the iPod. Gosh.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tidelwav y
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how having five songs is somehow better than having a million of them for the same price.
The idea of renting music is THE worst idea of the century
The idea of renting music is THE worst idea of the century
Let's say i pay $4.99 a month till the day i die. Assume i live another 50 years. That's $3000. Does it matter if i rent it or not? No. I get to listen to it till the day i die. I get a million songs (and growing). You'll only get 3000 songs. I win.
Btw, this 80% market share you guys keep talking about.... that's for hard-drives only, right? I don't know the numbers as well as some of you may, but according to In-Stat, Apple only has 30% of the market share for all digital music players. Maybe someone can clarify on that.
Let's say i pay $4.99 a month till the day i die. Assume i live another 50 years. That's $3000. Does it matter if i rent it or not? No. I get to listen to it till the day i die. I get a million songs (and growing). You'll only get 3000 songs. I win.
Yah, if you appreciate the selection at those stores. Even iTunes (the largest online music store around) has songs I can't buy there. Not to mention the fact that I may not want to spend that much money on music. That's a completely hypothetical situation that's very unlikely, unless you have a very broad taste in music (downloading new music everyday and are content with the limited options available to you.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tidelwav
Btw, this 80% market share you guys keep talking about.... that's for hard-drives only, right? I don't know the numbers as well as some of you may, but according to In-Stat, Apple only has 30% of the market share for all digital music players. Maybe someone can clarify on that.
A google check revealed an 82% market share for Hard Drive mp3 player market.
Thanks for the data on the market share. As i said, i wasn't sure about it. I think that .mp3 players are not the only digital music players, so maybe that's what In-Stat is referring to. Anyway, it was a side note.
Quote:
Yah, if you appreciate the selection at those stores. Even iTunes (the largest online music store around) has songs I can't buy there. Not to mention the fact that I may not want to spend that much money on music. That's a completely hypothetical situation that's very unlikely, unless you have a very broad taste in music (downloading new music everyday and are content with the limited options available to you.
I run through 3000 songs in two weeks. I also don't like buying music that i'll be sick of after playing it 20 times. Besides, if i do decide to buy it, it's only 79 cents, which is much cheaper than iTunes for the same music. As for "limited options", i'd say that a million songs (and growing) is hardly limited. What's limited is having to pay $3000 for 3000 measly songs. Heck, i have over 6000 CDs in my collection, which is more than 60,000 songs.
I run through 3000 songs in two weeks. I also don't like buying music that i'll be sick of after playing it 20 times. Besides, if i do decide to buy it, it's only 79 cents, which is much cheaper than iTunes for the same music. As for "limited options", i'd say that a million songs (and growing) is hardly limited. What's limited is having to pay $3000 for 3000 measly songs. Heck, i have over 6000 CDs in my collection, which is more than 60,000 songs.
if you prefer to rent your music, that's fine with me. I don't want to, because I think its a dumb idea AND it comes in a lousy format. I truly can't stand WMA. That's the biggest reason of all IMO not to shop at the other stores.
BUT, if your only argument for dising the iPod is because it doesn't play rented music, that's not a good argument at all. Audiophiles to fashionable kids to geeks to professional reviewers have all given it high praise.
Let's say i pay $4.99 a month till the day i die. Assume i live another 50 years. That's $3000. Does it matter if i rent it or not? No. I get to listen to it till the day i die. I get a million songs (and growing). You'll only get 3000 songs. I win.
There are some problems with this argument.
1. "Let's say I pay $4.99 a month till the day I die". Do you really think that the service, if it's still around, will still be $4.99 a month in 50 years' time?
2. If the rental services go bust, you've lost all your money.
3. If the music companies decide that rental isn't for them, you've lost all your money.
Another thing I don't quite understand is this:
To be attracted to a rental service, you must appreciate the idea of having A LOT of music. This suggests that you like to listen to A LOT of music, but you don't yet have a lot of music. Why on earth would you want the majority of your music collection to be in some shitty 128 kbps compressed format? I'm not being specific to WMA here, ANY format at 128 kbps is rubbish compared to CD on a proper HiFi.
Anyway, we're still waiting for you to explain exactly why you think the iPod is "mediocre". Is it just because you can't use it easily with a music rental service? Which mp3 player do you actually have?
The iPod is a GREAT digital music player, whether or not you buy a single song from iTunes. If we're going to knock the iPod, let's knock it on its own merits or lack thereof.
If the subscription service works for you, fine. I can see the plusses of it but prefer buying my music instead of renting it.
Comments
1. Apple has (and continues to) created a great product and service combination
2. Most (80%) of the market has responded favorably to the product/service offering.
3. Apple is executing its strategy very well.
4. Apple still has options should the market choose (en masse) to go another way. For example, subscription music services. Apple could turn this on in an instant. Licensing FairPlay? Again...it could be done in an instant.
5. The music companies are the wildcard. Time will tell if their (abundant) greed will force them to kill music downloads by raising prices. This, however, will not kill iPod itself as iPod is just a music player that can be used to play music/audio from other sources (e.g., ripped CDs, podcasts, etc.)
Apple with iPod is actually in much the same position as MS was in the 80's with DOS domination. Chew on that awhile, it changes the outlook substantially.
So basically what i'm reading here by the last few posters is that you're PROUD that apple has taken the same route as Microsoft.... crush the competition via whatever means possible while pumping out a mediocre, overpriced product to the masses.
Interesting.
Originally posted by Rmh1572
But, not being an audiophile and caring about the best sound possible, I can tell you that I find the ipod to be superior because they actually care what it looks like and how it functions.
And being an audiophile, all the iPods seem to win in many MP3 audio tests made by HiFi magazines - the Shuffle is supposed to be the best of them.
Originally posted by Tidelwav
So basically what i'm reading here by the last few posters is that you're PROUD that apple has taken the same route as Microsoft.... crush the competition via whatever means possible while pumping out a mediocre, overpriced product to the masses.
Interesting.
I have a feeling that you call the iPod mediocre because it doesn't have all the gadgets and blinking lights that other players might have.
And how is Apple's route the same as Microsoft's route? Is Apple doing anything that isn't legal?
Btw. Microsoft is a software company. They earn money by licensing Windows, Office, WMA, WMV and so on to anyone.
Apple earn money by selling soft- and hardware - mostly hardware.
Originally posted by Tidelwav
So basically what i'm reading here by the last few posters is that you're PROUD that apple has taken the same route as Microsoft.... crush the competition via whatever means possible while pumping out a mediocre, overpriced product to the masses.
Interesting.
That is not what you should be reading.
What has been stated is the fact that Apple has obtained a large % of the market for their product (contrary to the situation with the Mac in the 80's) and so your comparison to that is weak (at best).
Secondly, because Apple does have such a large share they aren't really ignoring (or pissing off) a "large chunk" of market (as you also stated).
Lastly, obviously 80% of the market disagrees (or doesn't care enough) with your characterization of "mediocre, overpriced product" to not buy it.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That is not what you should be reading.
What has been stated is the fact that Apple has obtained a large % of the market for their product (contrary to the situation with the Mac in the 80's) and so your comparison to that is weak (at best).
Secondly, because Apple does have such a large share they aren't really ignoring (or pissing off) a "large chunk" of market (as you also stated).
Lastly, obviously 80% of the market disagrees (or doesn't care enough) with your characterization of "mediocre, overpriced product" to not buy it.
Personally, I think that by mediocre, he means that iPods have no radio, and no (easily available) recording options (that are not 8kHz, but 32 or 44.1, etc). Some other players have these functionalities.
Apple _could_ include both, but they are of the view that:
1. Radio on the MP3 player wont make it more enjoyable (more the other way around).
2. With 80% of the market, the music industry would complain LOUDLY if Apple introduces 48 kHz recording on the iPod.
I think we're beginning to see the second tier of the iPod. Everyone who bought an iPod initially for it's "coolness" factor and fad status are now past that. Now we're seeing those who are the second-level adopters (parents, friends, etc.) who have had the iPod recommended to them by the first adopters. You're also seeing the first adopters who are ready to upgrade to a newer, more functional device.
As far as gadgets go, the iPod is soooo 2004. This year it'll be the XBox 360 that dominates the holiday season. We will still see, however, lots of iPods get sold. The difference this year will be that the iPod is no longer a fad, but has become the next Kleenex, Velcro, Xerox, etc. If you want to play digital music portably, you buy an iPod. If you want to blow your nose, you get a Kleenex -- not a "facial tissue" or a "Puffs."
Originally posted by BoeManE
Personally, I think that by mediocre, he means that iPods have no radio, and no (easily available) recording options (that are not 8kHz, but 32 or 44.1, etc). Some other players have these functionalities.
Well, the instead of "mediocre" he ought to say "feature challenged" I suppose. I am really really quarreling with his assertion of mediocrity (though I don't personally agree)...I'm only saying that...well...most of the market doesn't appear to care.
Originally posted by BoeManE
Apple _could_ include both, but they are of the view that:
1. Radio on the MP3 player wont make it more enjoyable (more the other way around).
2. With 80% of the market, the music industry would complain LOUDLY if Apple introduces 48 kHz recording on the iPod.
I don't know what Apple's reasons are...but I'll take my guesses too:
1. Who cares about radio. The only time I listen to radio is when I can't listen to my iPod. Perhaps others are the same. I don't know.
2. iPod is a music player (though it does have some rudimentary recording abilities...for voice quality...etc.) Plus, I'd guess, most people don't care about recording.
Originally posted by BoeManE
Personally, I think that by mediocre, he means that iPods have no radio, and no (easily available) recording options (that are not 8kHz, but 32 or 44.1, etc). Some other players have these functionalities.
IMHO, lack of decent stereo recording capability without having to install linux on your iPod was the biggest shortcoming of the iPod. However, that's been rectified in the latest iPod. Check out the specs near the bottom of the page.
Personally, I'm strongly against manufacturers adding extra widgets that most people don't want, but only when adding them detracts from the core function of the device. In the case of the iPod, allowing high-quality recording has not added to the size, weight, or cost, nor has it affected the usability of the iPod as a player. All it does is provide an attractive feature to a minority, so why not add it?
WRT radio, it doesn't make much sense in a high-capacity device such as the full-size iPod. Why would someone carrying around over 5,000 tracks of their own carefully built music library want to listen to the radio? However, it makes more sense in the smaller, cheaper players, especially the shuffle. If I were Apple, I'd add radio and a screen to the iPod shuffle.
And as far as the iPod being a fashion statement, it looks darn good! Is that a bad thing? I think maybe some people would rather have a player in a niche market. I honestly think if the iPod had a 15% market share, we wouldn't be hearing that argument. There's this idea that if its insanely popular, it's corrupt. Look at pop music for example (Backstreet Boys CAN harmonize, they are good at that).
Some people just can't admit that the iPod IS a better player. They want to find something better so they can be special
Bear in mind, I AM biased. I buy anything Apple. They are simply the best. Anyone who says differently is........ uh, well... wrong
Well, the instead of "mediocre" he ought to say "feature challenged" I suppose. I am really really quarreling with his assertion of mediocrity (though I don't personally agree)...I'm only saying that...well...most of the market doesn't appear to care.
And most of the market doesn't appear to care that Windows is mediocre. Are you now comparing Apple buyers to Windows buyers?
The fact is that just because the sheeple buy it doesn't make it the best. An 80% market share doesn't make it more than mediocre. Windows has a bigger market share and i don't hear any Apple fans here claiming that means Windows is the best. No, in fact you claim Apple is the best computer even though it has a measly 5% of the market. I also agree it's the best, because i don't base my judgments on silly things like "market share" when i know that most consumers are clueless. I find it amazingly ironic that Apple fans, of all people, are falling into that "market share" trap.
The fact is that the iPod is overpriced and mediocre. Half the people who have commented on it are buying it for the looks (fashion statement) and the other half are buying it because Jobs told them to (sheeple).
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how having five songs is somehow better than having a million of them for the same price.
Originally posted by Tidelwav
The fact is that the iPod is overpriced and mediocre. Half the people who have commented on it are buying it for the looks (fashion statement) and the other half are buying it because Jobs told them to (sheeple).
Tidelwav GOSH! You're driving me nuts here. Could you please explain your arguments? Why do you say the iPod is mediocre? And insult those who genuinely believe it to be a better product (because it is)?
I'm not buying it for the looks OR because Jobs told me too. Give me a break. It's a better player!!! Tell me an example of a SPECIFIC player that you think is better than the iPod. Gosh.
Originally posted by Tidelwav y
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how having five songs is somehow better than having a million of them for the same price.
The idea of renting music is THE worst idea of the century
The idea of renting music is THE worst idea of the century
Let's say i pay $4.99 a month till the day i die. Assume i live another 50 years. That's $3000. Does it matter if i rent it or not? No. I get to listen to it till the day i die. I get a million songs (and growing). You'll only get 3000 songs. I win.
Btw, this 80% market share you guys keep talking about.... that's for hard-drives only, right? I don't know the numbers as well as some of you may, but according to In-Stat, Apple only has 30% of the market share for all digital music players. Maybe someone can clarify on that.
Originally posted by Tidelwav
Let's say i pay $4.99 a month till the day i die. Assume i live another 50 years. That's $3000. Does it matter if i rent it or not? No. I get to listen to it till the day i die. I get a million songs (and growing). You'll only get 3000 songs. I win.
Yah, if you appreciate the selection at those stores. Even iTunes (the largest online music store around) has songs I can't buy there. Not to mention the fact that I may not want to spend that much money on music. That's a completely hypothetical situation that's very unlikely, unless you have a very broad taste in music (downloading new music everyday and are content with the limited options available to you.
Originally posted by Tidelwav
Btw, this 80% market share you guys keep talking about.... that's for hard-drives only, right? I don't know the numbers as well as some of you may, but according to In-Stat, Apple only has 30% of the market share for all digital music players. Maybe someone can clarify on that.
A google check revealed an 82% market share for Hard Drive mp3 player market.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...d=a58iozj_2jXM
and Steve's latest keynote revealed 75% in the total mp3 player market.
Here's some images.
Yah, if you appreciate the selection at those stores. Even iTunes (the largest online music store around) has songs I can't buy there. Not to mention the fact that I may not want to spend that much money on music. That's a completely hypothetical situation that's very unlikely, unless you have a very broad taste in music (downloading new music everyday and are content with the limited options available to you.
I run through 3000 songs in two weeks. I also don't like buying music that i'll be sick of after playing it 20 times. Besides, if i do decide to buy it, it's only 79 cents, which is much cheaper than iTunes for the same music. As for "limited options", i'd say that a million songs (and growing) is hardly limited. What's limited is having to pay $3000 for 3000 measly songs. Heck, i have over 6000 CDs in my collection, which is more than 60,000 songs.
Originally posted by Tidelwav
I run through 3000 songs in two weeks. I also don't like buying music that i'll be sick of after playing it 20 times. Besides, if i do decide to buy it, it's only 79 cents, which is much cheaper than iTunes for the same music. As for "limited options", i'd say that a million songs (and growing) is hardly limited. What's limited is having to pay $3000 for 3000 measly songs. Heck, i have over 6000 CDs in my collection, which is more than 60,000 songs.
if you prefer to rent your music, that's fine with me. I don't want to, because I think its a dumb idea AND it comes in a lousy format. I truly can't stand WMA. That's the biggest reason of all IMO not to shop at the other stores.
BUT, if your only argument for dising the iPod is because it doesn't play rented music, that's not a good argument at all. Audiophiles to fashionable kids to geeks to professional reviewers have all given it high praise.
Originally posted by Tidelwav
Let's say i pay $4.99 a month till the day i die. Assume i live another 50 years. That's $3000. Does it matter if i rent it or not? No. I get to listen to it till the day i die. I get a million songs (and growing). You'll only get 3000 songs. I win.
There are some problems with this argument.
1. "Let's say I pay $4.99 a month till the day I die". Do you really think that the service, if it's still around, will still be $4.99 a month in 50 years' time?
2. If the rental services go bust, you've lost all your money.
3. If the music companies decide that rental isn't for them, you've lost all your money.
Another thing I don't quite understand is this:
To be attracted to a rental service, you must appreciate the idea of having A LOT of music. This suggests that you like to listen to A LOT of music, but you don't yet have a lot of music. Why on earth would you want the majority of your music collection to be in some shitty 128 kbps compressed format? I'm not being specific to WMA here, ANY format at 128 kbps is rubbish compared to CD on a proper HiFi.
Anyway, we're still waiting for you to explain exactly why you think the iPod is "mediocre". Is it just because you can't use it easily with a music rental service? Which mp3 player do you actually have?
If the subscription service works for you, fine. I can see the plusses of it but prefer buying my music instead of renting it.