What is Digg?136 Comments
- Ransomowris, on 10/12/2007, -14/+63"Say it isn't so"
Well, what's wrong with it? It would just be an option, and I, personally, would love it. You can keep your $1 tracks and everything, I'd rather pay $15 a month for unlimited tracks. - joebooty, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39It is kind of sad how often I get buyers remorse on ITunes when I buy full albums. Even though albums are only 10$ (waaay less than CD's) it still seems like a raw deal.
Here is the system I would love. Monthly fee (15-20 is fine with me) for unlimited downloads but at the end of the month you get to mark 10-15 tracks as keepers that you then own as though you had bought them solo. You would have motivation to download a lot and hear new music and then keep the good stuff and (hopefully) get some of your money to specific artists at the end. - Neesh, on 10/12/2007, -11/+44It makes perfect sense. If they start doing DRM-Free music, they will need to find another way to keep users 'tied' to the iPod and DRM music. This could be done through a subscription, which would by its nature require DRM, and hence pleasing both sides - Those who want to 'own' DRM-Free music, and those who want to subscribe to (DRM) music (and stay tied to the iPod)
- lieutenantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30"Say it ain't so"
Why is this a bad idea? I would never sign up for a subscription music service, but it's not like iTunes is going to stop pay per song. The more choice the better.
Now if there was an all-iTunes monthly subscription, that I might be interested in... - leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33I've tried other music subscription services and the only problem I have with them is that I have an iPod.
- TheUngod, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37I'm assuming those who say they'd gladly pay for this service realize as soon as they stop your subscription, all your songs go bye-bye. I'm quite sure thats the contract, or at least thats how it was with the other ones.
- pevensen, on 10/12/2007, -7/+35Every one argues that the DRMed music from iTunes is locking people to the iPod. However, studies have shown that most of the stuff on people's iPods are NOT songs from iTunes, so how are they being tied to iPods?
The reason people buy iPods is they are great MP3 players. - Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -21/+45If it turned out is was a TV Show subscription service you'd be saying; "Say it IS so Steve". I think this will turn out to be an iTunes iPTV Subscription sercive, and Apple TV is just the first signs that Apple has bigger plans.
- aplardi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27I would love a subscription service for iTunes. Preferably for all content, but if they only give me music I'll be happy as will my wallet!
- technerdy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20Why do people digg down ransomowris and aplardi
Just because they a subscription option??
Why can Apple not offer both purchase and subscription options? All the other music services do.
And why can't people voice their opinion here that they would want subscription?
And its not like subscription will ruin the rest of the service. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Say it ain't so why? Because YOU don't like it? I happen to want a subscription service, especially for TV and Movies.
- Quix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Personally, I'm not interested in a music subscription, but why not offer it? It would only bring in more customers.
Choice is good.
But what I REALLY want to see is movie rentals. - ocellnuri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I've been jealous of the all-you-can-eat subscription services on Windows ever since I got my Mac. I'd subscribe to this in a heart-beat. So yeah, please say it IS so. Giving customers more options is a good thing.
- FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Musicians like me who also hope to sell it.
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Your argument is based on the fallacy that people are buying iPods because of the iTunes Store. People are buying iPods because they are iPods.
- G001, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Bull. People get an iPod first, and there are no subscription services for iPods, ergo they're not successful. People aren't looking at the music stores before the player, they're looking at the player first.
I have a Zune, and I really had my doubts about the subscription service, but I finally tried it and it is definitely worth it. The ability to try music (legally, conveniently) without risk is awesome. Plus it doesn't quite tie you to the player the way buying overcompressed DRMed tracks does. A track you buy in iTunes will only work on an iPod forever (barring burning it to a CD, breaking the encryption, etc.) A track you get from a subscription will only work for that player as well, but all the other players save the iPod offer similar subscriptions so you can get it back without paying extra. I've owned four MP3 players, all from different brands (Creative Nomad Jukebox -> iPod -> Rio Karma -> Zune) and one of the reasons I don't buy DRMed tracks is because I don't want to be tied to one forever.
If Apple offers a subscription you're going to all of a sudden think it's so wonderful. But right now since it's something other players offer that Apple does not, it obviously can't be worthwhile because Apple can do no wrong, right? - Chongo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It will probably just be an OPTION to subscribe to things. You pay a fee and are allowed to download a certain amount of content. I couldn't see them making it ONLY subscription based.
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@brstilson -- I think you're forgetting that the success of the iTunes music store is linked directly to the success of the iPod as a hardware product. If you own an iPod -- the best and most popular portable music player on the market -- then the only place to legally purchase music is on iTunes, which only offers discrete sales. Subscription services have failed so far because they're only compatible with unpopular hardware, not because consumers don't like the idea. Apple can have both simultaneously; I don't see any way this could harm the iTunes store.
- dagamer34, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The problem with this is that you need to keep paying $15 in order to keep your music. And because over an arbitrary period, it's doubtful that people will spend that much money on music, it really doesn't work. People may have upto 80GB iPods, but if you ask them on average how many unique tracks they feel are worth paying for in a year, there's no way it's going to be more than 180 (15x12). There aren't really that many decent songs worth buying each year.
Plus, add the fact that you can't keep the music once you stop, this is just an even STRONGER form of DRM, hiding behind the "all you can listen" label. No way Jobs would support this after his comment about DRM earlier this year. Moving from tying DRM to a player to tying a player to a service is backward. That would be hypocritical of himself. - ElectricSoup, on 10/12/2007, -14/+20But, from my reading of the article, this person is clearly talking about *music*:
"[Ottolenghi] argues that because Apple doesn’t offer a subscription product, that’s why *music* fans haven’t embraced the model."
... which is *****.
I can see people might want to rent video content - much as they do on DVDs now. Music is different.
Ottolenghi:
"I think Apple is seriously considering a subscription offering right now even though they will probably tell you otherwise".
I think their judgment is probably faulty if this man is right and they, indeed, are. The record labels want subscription services. (And Microsoft, of course, likes that model, because it _necessitates_ DRM, and Microsoft are all for selling their DRM to the labels, whereas, Jobs (correctly) sees DRM as both unworkable and an annoyance to customers). Yeah, the labels want subscription services for music: but, as far as I can see, there's no evidence that many customers do.
You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Steve Jobs knows that. - Garaphin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8About time... ala carte is a silly model. My iPod and iTunes has been pretty dormant since I picked up a Zune Pass. Hopefully the iTunes subscription model will work with the old iPods as well.
- catfive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"I think you could make available the second coming in a subscription model and it might not be successful."
--Steve Jobs - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I doubt that they're going to abandon their current model, so what's the big deal about having a choice between $1 per song or a monthly fee for a (presumably) larger number of songs, that, in the end, may actually be giving you a discount?
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10subscription services don't tie you to an mp3 player. If you get sick of your iPod, and want an iRiver product, you cancel your subscription, buy the iRiver, and sign up for Rhapsody or Napster, or Yahoo, etc.
- timfitz99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If it's anything like eMusic's subscription (flat monthly rate allows x amount of song downloads that you KEEP), and it includes the 256 kbps songs, it would be OK. I'm really enjoying eMusic. $9.99 for 40 songs per month, 192kbps, no DRM mp3. Browse the selection before you commit, though... I enjoy the large selection of indie and 80s-90s alternative rock. Some people will find nothing they like.
- ALCx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I would totally pay for a subscription for videos, and buy an AppleTV if they did that. Probably cheaper than cable, and all of the shows I watch are offered on itunes. But, at the moment, why would I pay $2 an episode when I can watch it on TV or bittorrent it for free?
I hope they at least consider it for TV shows. - pogfreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Subscription services aren't all that bad. You have to understand its supplemental to having a (hopefully DRM free) music collection, not a replacement. I use Rhapsody, and for about the price of a CD per month, I have *instant* access to thousands upon thousands of songs. Yes, I don't own them, yes sometimes songs disappear (they used to have Zappa's entire collection now its all but gone) but the point is its a flat rate for all you can listen to, instant access to a huge catalogue of songs. You think of a song you want and just type it up and its there, no searching p2p networks, no downloading an entire album of bittorrent, no deciding "is this really worth 99 cents", you just do it without thinking. Its a great option to have open - which is why I fully support subscription music services.
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"This could be a death blow to itunes"
This could be the best thing to happen to itms. I've used a number of pay per track stores, and tried napster and yahoo subscription services, as well as eMusic. I enjoyed using the napster service and subscribed for a number of months.
But honestly, when I look at the collections I accumulated, eMusic gave me the most enjoyable collection. $.25 per track is the where it should be. - bwilly79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3what a joke. Just because some dude (who has NOTHING to do with Apple) pipes up about what he "thinks" there is all this commotion? Give me a break. All this freaking out is pointless until someone from Apple actually says something.
- zachlutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Say it aint so?? I've been waiting for this for a long time. For a little over the cost of an album a month, I get all the music I could ever want. The only reason subscription services haven't taken off is that Apple hasn't done it.
- mywhitenoise, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I don't buy iTunes music because it's 1. 128 AAC (192 AAC is my preference), 2. 99 cents a DRM song is too much.
But with the announcement of DRM 256 AAC music, and the possibility of a subscription service, iTunes is starting to sound pretty bad ass. - MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3""I think you could make available the second coming in a subscription model and it would fail.""
Well, yeah, but that's because they go too long between episodes. Come on, 2000 years and counting... - mtbikemj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I really like the idea of canceling my cable TV service, throwing out the DVR, and watching anything from the iTunes store at any time. How much would you pay for unlimited access to the iTunes Store?
- StellarlyAstral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If this is true, why is this a bad thing?
- clesch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Can we get a flatrate for that, please? pretty please?
- technerdy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Agree, and I'd give you two diggs if I could
- biggrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3MS got em' on this one ;)
- AJH16, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I also am a huge fan of $15 a month for unlimited tracks, it is like being able to make your own custom radio station. I am the kind of person who likes to listen to a variety of music and doesn't stay on any one thing for too long. Paying $1 a track is far too cost prohibitive and I actually have a Zune specifically to have access to a subscription service. I still like my iPod better and something like this would make me stop using my Zune or other subscription services all together. (Provided the selection is decent.)
- kineticarl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I love subscriptions because I download and listen to a lot of stuff and it's definitely worth my money.
- tituspullo71, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3sounds like the zune marketplace.
- nbanman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I love emusic too. It has a clunky interface, but it's cheap, legal, and has tons of good music. But it's no longer 40 songs for $10. For new users, it's 30 songs.
One thing I will say about the interface is that it gives you good access to recommendations based on your tastes. I've found many random bands that I now love.
I know the limited selection is a big turnoff for many people, but I like it just fine. It puts a little work into being a music fan; makes it more of a hobby. Unlimited selection can actually make you less adventurous, because you can always go deeper into the artists or styles you're already into, rather than try new things. Since subscribing to emusic, I've started listening to great bands that I doubt I ever would have tried if I had access to mainstream labels. - MrEddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yea I really don't see anything to talk about here at all. The only reason I would care about subscription service is if they made it mandatory. Which I seriously doubt they will do. I have zero interest in subscription but, there are plenty of people who do want it. If they want it, more power to em. I'll keep my DRM free music that I own.
- FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Since subscribing to emusic, I've started listening to great bands that I doubt I ever would have tried if I had access to mainstream labels."
No kidding.
My last few downloads have been:
Manu Dibango
Dave Holland
Ozomatli
Deerhoof
Stuff outta nowhere I would never have thought of - Maxeh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What harm can it do? The lack of a subscription model is the only reason I use a playsforsure device and Napster2Go instead of iTMS. If iTMS were to give the option of a subscription model they'd convert, potentially, thousands of people!
- FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Same here. I love it and find all sorts of off beat indie/jazz/prog/fusion stuff, but don't bother if you want the "Top 40" hits or anything
- Balanced, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4gerz1219: Actually, you can legally buy music for iPods from other vendors, like those that sell unencumbered MP3s... Admittedly, they tend to be less major brands, but there is nothing I am aware od in the iPod EULA that says you have to buy from the iTunes Music Store.
- astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I used to be morally against subscription services, and I certainly would never use one myself. But on the other hand, if someone doesn't have a large music collection and isn't interested in collecting music, why not use a subscription service? It takes the risk out of trying out new music. And how is it any different from, say, satellite radio, which also charges a monthly fee.
The truth is, aside from a handful of 'classic' albums, most of the music people listen to only has a shelf life of a few years before the music becomes stale, dated, and worthless, and ends up in a box in a garage sale. - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3In my opinion, rented music in inherently a ripoff. Generally you'll want to keep music you've bought forever because you listen to good music over and over again (though granted the subscription model is very useful for trying out albums - but once you've found one you like, you want to keep it). But you have to keep on paying for it to keep it. There comes a point when you've paid more than you would have to just buy it. Then when you cancel your subscription, you have to buy the stuff you liked anyway. Who thinks that's a good idea?
TV shows and movies - now that's a good idea. Unlike music, most people watch a TV show or movie once, and don't need to see it again. Rental is a perfect business model for those formats. I just don't see the point in renting music, it's a completely false economy.
That said, this is just my opinion, so if people want to pay a recurring fee for their music forever, I'm all for consumer choice. - kineticarl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Astrosmash, that's a good point.
I use a subscription service because it allows me to listen to a lot of music. With a few exceptions, the music I've discovered lately gets much more rotation than the music I discovered a long time ago. So I don't need to own a lot of that music because I've moved on to other stuff. If I need to own it, I can buy it (most albums on Yahoo are $9 or less, songs are $.79 at 192kbps), without having had to buy all those other albums that I would have stopped listening to eventually.
One way or another, the $12 I pay for a month of the service is practically nothing, it's not a stretch to pay for it indefinitely, and I can listen to a lot more music than I could if that same $12 were spent elsewhere. That's how I look at it.
I find the DRM to be a minimal problem because I understand how it works and how to keep the music playing. I've had no PlaysForSure problems. - Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The whole question is, do you have a choice? The fact is, some people like to subscribe and get temporary access to the whole store, which would end when they end the sub. I can understand the appeal. But if, at any time, you can still go in and buy a song, what's the problem? I've always heard that Apple could switch on a subscription service at any time.
Maybe that's why Steve wants to keep the old 128k encrypted versions around. That's what you'd get if you subscribe. If you want to buy, it's unencrypted 256k. That computer "authorization" has to have some function left. -
Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is