[Messiahtosh]

Napster, Yahoo say iTunes is doomed
January 3 - 18:24 EST** Apple rivals say the iTunes Music Store's 99-cent pricing is the wrong formula for digital music, and that subscription-based models are the future. With the top-of-the-line iPod, "You can fit 10,000 songs on it," Napster CEO Chris Gorog says. But "to do that would cost you $10,000 if you bought the songs from Apple. With our plan, customers can get 10,000 songs on their device for $180 a year. It's an enormous value." A Yahoo executive also said subscription is the way to go. "Selling 99-cent singles isn't working as a business model for us or for consumers," says Dave Goldberg, who runs Yahoo's music division, which includes Musicmatch. "We sell hundreds of downloads," Goldberg says. "But we don't make money on them. Subscriptions is a much better business for us."

From www.macminute.com
-----------

****cough****iTunes has sold 150+ million songs (purchased and downloaded)****cough****

[SonOfSylvanus]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh "Selling 99-cent singles isn't working as a business model for us [snip]"

I think this is pretty much all he meant.

I don't quite understand how online music stores can make money via subscription services, when they can't via per-song purchases.

I suppose it builds on the premise that people will think "Wow, that's such a great deal! 10,000 songs for $180. Sweet!" when previously they may have only bought one or two songs/albums online.

Subscription still seems a bit silly to me though. After I had paid my $180 and downloaded my 10,000 songs—new and old, all the songs I'd ever heard and liked, and more—surely I wouldn't subscribe for another year?

Eh. I don't understand.

Of course, iTunes can easily change or add to its pricing strategy, as any other online reseller can.

[HOM]

Ignoring the fact that Apple fanboy #1 can't remember that Apple has sold 200 million songs, here was what the press release really says:

Napster, Yahoo say iTunes is doomed January 3 - 18:24 EST** Apple rivals say the iTunes Music Store's 99-cent pricing is the wrong formula for digital music, and that subscription-based models are the future.[Nobody is buying songs from us] With the top-of-the-line iPod, "You can fit 10,000 songs on it," Napster CEO Chris Gorog says. But "to do that would cost you $10,000 if you bought the songs from Apple. [Not only are we spreading FUD that you can only fill up an iPod with songs from the store, but we are tying our poor performing product with the industry leader in an attempt to confuse users.] With our plan, customers can get 10,000 songs on their device for $180 a year. It's an enormous value."[Until the consumer realizes that they want an iPod and now all those songs they rented stop working.] A Yahoo executive also said subscription is the way to go. "Selling 99-cent singles isn't working as a business model for us or for consumers," [Apple fucked us without lube. How dare they sell music at a near loss to peddle their iPod?] says Dave Goldberg, who runs Yahoo's music division, which includes Musicmatch. "We sell hundreds of downloads," [Wait for it..... HOLY FUCKING SHIT! They sell hundreds while Apple is selling millions? HAHAHAHAHAH!!! ] Goldberg says. "But we don't make money on them. Subscriptions is a much better business for us."[And when we say us we mean us. We don't even try and hide the fact that we could care less about the consumer]

[onlyafterdark]

You dont even own the songs in the Napster way of thinking. And dont you have to pay extra to put them on to an mp3 player if you went the Napster route anyway? Just plain dumb.

[SonOfSylvanus]

Oh, its not one of those fucking jobbies were your subscription only entitles to listen to an unlimited amount of music, rather than actually do with it what you will. Godssake! I swear in a couple of decades, companies will own everything and will rule the world... no, wait...

Mr 2005 already doesn't own his own house (mortgage) or flat (rent) or car (company) or bus/tube/tram (govt) let alone things like music (Napster), modem (cable company) even my own fucking essays are owned by my Uni. Fuck.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by HOM Ignoring the fact that Apple fanboy #1 can't remember that Apple has sold 200 million songs, here was what the press release really says:

Where did you get that number? I've only heard 150 million, and that was just last week while I was chatting with a Mac Genius at the Apple Store.

Granted, they are just retail employees.

[HOM]

Originally Posted by CubeDude Where'd you get that number? I've only heard 150 million, and that was just last week while I was chatting with a Mac Genius at the Apple Store. Granted, they are just retail employees.

Here.

[pscates2.0]

I believe they hit 200 million not too long ago (or did I dream that). Look at macminute for the previous month. I could've sworn I saw that, because I e-mailed an Apple/iTMS-bashing friend to gloat a bit.

But maybe I was gloating about any number of things Apple-related. These days, it's hard to keep them all straight: stock, glowing mainstream press articles, music sales, new stores, Jobs being praised left and right, etc.

[torifile]

I'm 100% sure they just recently crossed the 200 million mark.

[Messiahtosh]

In any case, Apple has sold a lot more than anyone else. That's the point, ok?

[The Return of the 'nut]

I must admit, the subscription services appeal to me. The ability to download ANYTHING and ALL that I want for a couple bucks a month sounds pretty cool. a buck a song is nice and all, and i guess you own it. but i find that I limit my selection a lot more because of it.

question.....do these subscription services let you add the songs to your mobile player for the set subscription fee or do you have to pay more? that would be the deal breaker

[Moogs]

Apparently Napster and Yahoo still can't get over how badly they [and other subscription services] got caught with their head up their collective ass, and as HOM said, are working the FUD angle as best they can to stir up doubt. Dickheads....

[Messiahtosh]

Subscription models just don't feel comfortable to me, especially being an iPod user, I can't use those services anyway....so who cares? 92% of people with hard drive based music players dont care, that much is obvious.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh Subscription models just don't feel comfortable to me, especially being an iPod user, I can't use those services anyway....so who cares? 92% of people with hard drive based music players dont care, that much is obvious.

stop quoting fucking PR releases and try to have a conversation


Why don't they feel comfortable to you?

As far as I can tell the only downside to them is they charge you a buck to burn the song to CD. Well, I have yet to burn a song I have bought from the iTMS to CD so I don't see that as a big deal. and since the subscription is so cheap, and apple would charge a buck anyway, I don't see that as much of a problem really.

This is assuming i can transfer them to a portable device without an additional charge.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut This is assuming i can transfer them to a portable device without an additional charge.

from: http://www.napster.com/compatible_devices/

Note: Napster tracks must be purchased before they can be transferred to a portable device.

Also, from the article that started this thread:

The hitch is that to move songs onto a portable digital device or to a CD costs extra: $1 a song. That's one of the reasons digital music fans have not taken to the subscription model — also offered by Real Networks' Rhapsody — in a big way.

Emphasis mine.

[HOM]

My understanding, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but the new Janus DRM from MS will allow monthly subscription songs to be transferred to a portable device.

Yup, from the article that MacMinute quotes:

Microsoft has developed a new copyright protection plan that allows for the transfer of subscription songs to portable players. For $5 more a month, consumers can transfer Napster's entire catalog to their device — and listen as often as they'd like — as long as they subscribe.

For an extra $5 a month all the songs you download can be transfered to a portable device.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. Sure you don't own the music, but for as much Apple talks about owning the songs from iTMS you don't really own it either. They can and have changed the ToS to songs that you already 'bought'.

I'm also with Nut about burning CD's. The only time I burn a CD from songs I bought from iTMS is to give it to a friend. With an iPod CD's are obsolete.

I don't know. If this was coming out of Apple and not MS/Napster I think most people would have a different reaction to it.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Quote: Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut This is assuming i can transfer them to a portable device without an additional charge. from: http://www.napster.com/compatible_devices/ Quote: Note: Napster tracks must be purchased before they can be transferred to a portable device. Also, from the article that started this thread: Quote: The hitch is that to move songs onto a portable digital device or to a CD costs extra: $1 a song. That's one of the reasons digital music fans have not taken to the subscription model — also offered by Real Networks' Rhapsody — in a big way. Emphasis mine.

My understanding was based on what HOM posted. So, can you not transfer freely to a device yet?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut My understanding was based on what HOM posted. So, can you not transfer freely to a device yet?

Whoops! I admit I just very briefly skimmed the article and totally missed that important nugget. I'm currently a bit confused as to this state of affairs regarding transfer and whatnot.

[alcimedes]

dunno about you guys, but at some point i found that a lot of new music out there just wasn't doing that much for me any more. i have a few dozen bands that i listen to, 3 or 4 thousand songs, and the vast majority of the new stuff coming out just doesn't click with me.

so assuming i started really collecting worthwhile music around 14 or so, and lived to be 74, i'd end up paying $14,400.

now, i would have the option of burning some to a CD, or "purchasing them" so i'd own them after i discontinued my service, but at that point i've still gained nothing. i end up buying all the songs anyway.

maybe if you listen to music by picking whatever is in the weekly top 40, and that's what you like, a subscription would be fine. for the people who just want their Floyd collection (or Rads) or Dylan, subscriptions suck.

it's similar to HBO or Cinemax etc., assuming you could watch what you wanted on demand. i still wouldn't want to have it so that my only access to my favorite movies was through some subscription service. once i own it i can do what i want to it. if it's something i have to keep logging in to access, you never know when they're going to pull the rug out from under you. who's to say that a year from now, Napster et. al. won't decide "hey, $20 just isn't cutting it, now it's going to be $30".

i don't like the idea of my music collection at the mercy of some dude in a suit who's trying to figure out how to squeeze out another few bucks.

(a perfect example of the above is the Star Wars Trilogy. i like the originals. i hate the remastered and reedited ones. i think the new ones suck. lucky for me, i own the originals, and i can still watch them.)

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by alcimedes dunno about you guys, but at some point i found that a lot of new music out there just wasn't doing that much for me any more. i have a few dozen bands that i listen to, 3 or 4 thousand songs, and the vast majority of the new stuff coming out just doesn't click with me. so assuming i started really collecting worthwhile music around 14 or so, and lived to be 74, i'd end up paying $14,400. now, i would have the option of burning some to a CD, or "purchasing them" so i'd own them after i discontinued my service, but at that point i've still gained nothing. i end up buying all the songs anyway. maybe if you listen to music by picking whatever is in the weekly top 40, and that's what you like, a subscription would be fine. for the people who just want their Floyd collection (or Rads) or Dylan, subscriptions suck.

I don't think that's a very good way to look at it.

I mean, I love classic rock. My family has thousands of vinyl records. to replace these on the iTMS would cost thousands of dollars. I also like a lot of modern rock, blues, folk, bluegrass, jazz, etc..... with a subscription service I could afford to have a digital copy of my entire back catalog as well as listen to whatever i wanted to from today. With the iTMS I have to be very selective because I simply cant afford to spend several thousand dollars upfront to get all that music.

[SonOfSylvanus]

I'm very much with alcimedes. I hate the idea of spending all that money, owning squat and being insanely restricted in my usage.

Originally Posted by Me Subscription still seems a bit silly to me though. After I had paid my $180 and downloaded my 10,000 songs—new and old, all the songs I'd ever heard and liked, and more—surely I wouldn't subscribe for another year?

With the above I was a bit mistaken then. As I understand it now, once your subscription ends, you don't have any music? You never get to "download" anything? Permanently, I mean? You just "access" it. That is SO shit!

[Luca]

Subscription services are great if you don't have a portable player. Basically you pay $10/month to get a huge extension to your music library. Think of a song that you'd like to listen to while at home, but don't own it? Look for it on Napster or Rhapsody or something, they're likely to have it and you can play the whole thing. I think it works as a supplemental service to a music store like iTunes. I'd like it if iTunes had the option of basically turning all those 30-second previews into full-quality, full length songs for $X a month.

Now, through a deal with my university, Real Rhapsody is actually selling subscriptions to U of MN students for $3 a month instead of $10. That's a pretty good deal. I haven't gone for it yet, but one of my roommates has. Whenever I'm hanging out with him in his room, he always has Rhapsody open, listening to jazz. Of course, he also has a little program that actually speeds up the audio stream so he can record songs from it quickly and send them to his MP3 player without paying extra... but hey, at least he's paying the subscription fee!

[The Return of the 'nut]

yea, berkeley has the same. only problem is no one uses it. why? because every single damn student has an iPod. it's pretty amazing. and the university was quite retarded in signing that deal.

[alcimedes]

well, at least in our case (unofficially) we had to sign it to keep from getting prosecuted by the RIAA. what a great system.

[SonOfSylvanus]

Originally Posted by Luca Of course, he also has a little program that actually speeds up the audio stream so he can record songs from it quickly and send them to his MP3 player without paying extra... but hey, at least he's paying the subscription fee!

Heh heh. That's another thing—I would have thought that music companies would have been more against this type of price model. Surely it's very easy to stream, record and compress music (eg Wiretap) and then pirate it?

[Messiahtosh]

Try to have a conversation? How about, I have an iPod, I use what iTunes provides me with. Do I want a subscription service? No. Why? If I could preview every song, in full length, I would have no use for mass downloading through a subscription service. I'd be able to hear what I want, then pay for it if I really like it.

[Luca]

I think it requires enough effort and knowledge in that area that most people don't do it. Even my roommate doesn't really bother, because there's always new stuff being added to the library of songs, and it does take a while to record songs. You can use something like WireTap of course... he uses something that actually makes the streaming music play faster so he can record an entire song in a few seconds rather than a few minutes. Even then, he has to make sure he stops the recording at the right time, convert it to MP3, and tag it properly. He really only does that with songs he wants to take with him on his MP3 player.

Actually he has also bought songs from the iTunes music store, if they're not available on Rhapsody. But again, he has to remove the DRM from the songs he buys from iTunes because his MP3 player doesn't support AAC.

The RIAA of course wouldn't like this kind of thing. But even the companies that make DRM realize that it's not fool-proof and the best they can really hope to do is deter potential copyright violators. As long as all they're doing is transferring their music between their own devices for personal use, it's really not harming anyone.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh Try to have a conversation? How about, I have an iPod, I use what iTunes provides me with. Do I want a subscription service? No. Why? If I could preview every song, in full length, I would have no use for mass downloading through a subscription service. I'd be able to hear what I want, then pay for it if I really like it.

You're changing what you said before. At first you tried arguing that subscription services are useless, but now all you're saying is that it wouldn't make sense for you personally.

I think an optional iTunes subscription service would be great. For people like me who don't own an iPod, it would be more useful than buying individual songs. Of course, when I can get Rhapsody for $3/month, there really wouldn't be much point in subscribing to iTunes. If the cost were the same then I'd go with iTunes.

What do you mean by "if I could preview every song, in full length, I would have no use for mass downloading through a subscription service"? If you're hearing every song in full length, then it IS a subscription service, not a "preview." And why do you say you'd have no use for mass downloading? I thought you said you have an iPod. You do want the ability to access the music anywhere, right?

I think what you're saying is you have no reason to subscribe to anything since it's just extra cost for a service you don't need. After all, you still have to pay $1/song if you want to bring it with you. And no one is saying you have to subscribe to anything.

What about a subscription service where you can download X number of songs per month for free? Or perhaps where the first X number of songs you download are cheaper, like 50-80 cents instead of a dollar? That way you'd be able to bring music with you but also have full access to a large library of songs while you're at home.

[Messiahtosh]

All I'm saying is that if I could preview every song, in full length, or at least get the verse and the chorus, then I'd like that a lot more than wasting time downloading stuff I'd probably never get to anyway.

[ohara]

iTunes is hot - Napster is not – anyway, who cares if the the Windows bourgeois use iTunes or not.