[dpaslay]

Why are all the music subscription companies (ex. Rhapsody, Yahoos Musicmatch) only creating this service for the PC? Is it because of the "download a song for 99 cents" in iTunes dominating the market for a Mac audiences? I don't understand why Apple does not offer the same type of service in iTunes or something. With Rhapsody and Musicmatch you pay something like $10 a month for streaming albums, NOW I have to buy a PC for that!!!?

[Randman]

Why rent music when you can own it?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by dpaslay

Why are all the music subscription companies (ex. Rhapsody, Yahoos Musicmatch) only creating this service for the PC? Is it because of the "download a song for 99 cents" in iTunes dominating the market for a Mac audiences? I don't understand why Apple does not offer the same type of service in iTunes or something. With Rhapsody and Musicmatch you pay something like $10 a month for streaming albums, NOW I have to buy a PC for that!!!?

They all use Windows Media. Talk to Microsoft.

I don't really care. I don't pay more than $15 a month for music anyway. And to burn music on Napster (or sometimes to transfer to an MP3 player), you have to pay another $1 per song. Some songs they make you buy and you can't even rent.

No thanks Napster. I'll go with iTunes where I'm not nickeled and dimed to death.

[phantomdragonz]

Troll

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by phantomdragonz

Troll

Ya think?

We sure have been getting a lot of them lately.

[Nivag]

the trolls must be having a sad life elsewhere for them to come here for kicks and giggles.. spare a thought for them..

[analogika]

It's been talked about that Apple may be considering offering a subsription-based model, as well.

But the argument goes that music subscription is eminently stupid, because you have to keep paying for AS LONG AS YOU LIVE, or ALL your music is GONE OVERNIGHT.

What are the odds of your music service of choice lasting that long?

Unless, of course, you see the subscription-based model more as a radio-on-demand thing, and have no problem with paying $10 a month for that. Nothing wrong with that attitude, and perhaps Apple will accomodate those customers at some point in the future.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by dpaslay

I don't understand why Apple does not offer the same type of service in iTunes or something. With Rhapsody and Musicmatch you pay something like $10 a month for streaming albums, NOW I have to buy a PC for that!!!?

Apple doesn't do this because it knows that people prefer to own what they buy. Subscription services are a scam: once you stop paying, all the music you listened to is gone.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Apple doesn't do this because it knows that people prefer to own what they buy. Subscription services are a scam: once you stop paying, all the music you listened to is gone.

I think the market for this may eventually increase. As people become used to the idea of paying a monthly fee for radio via satellite, they may want the same for a station they can program themselves.

People don't say "cable is a scam: once you stop paying, all the TV you've watched is gone," because they are used to it.

I don't think I would do it, but I might. Honestly, I think the main thing holding back subscription services is that they don't work with the iPod. And I assume Apple will come out with one if they can figure out how to a) make the experience not suck for users and b) make it as profitable as a al carte. I'm guessing it's more a than b at this point.

Apple has to know that this is the biggest possible threat to the iPod/iTunes dominance. No one does what Apple does better, but if, and the statistics show it's a pretty big if. the tide turns, I hope Apple is ready to get in to that market quickly.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Paco500

People don't say "cable is a scam: once you stop paying, all the TV you've watched is gone," because they are used to it.

Actually, they don't say it because it's not the case there. You have the right to record TV shows for later viewing, under a nice little doctrine called 'fair use'. Music-subscription services explicitly disallow this, and spend a great deal of money and effort trying to prevent people from doing so.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Actually, they don't say it because it's not the case there. You have the right to record TV shows for later viewing, under a nice little doctrine called 'fair use'. Music-subscription services explicitly disallow this, and spend a great deal of money and effort trying to prevent people from doing so.

Yes, of course it's not a one-to-one match, but, you CAN do the same with the subscription services, in exactly the same way can with television. You can capture the music and record it as it's being played. Not convenient. But that's what we a used to doing in TV.

My point is, when pay TV first emerged, I'm sure lots of people refused to pay for something you can get for free, but eventually people got used to the idea. I'm not saying I'd do it, or that it eventually will happen, but it might.

[JMan09]

I won't get a subscription because of some reasons above. Also because you will have to keep your subsribed music seperate from the music you own if you want to make any cds.

[scottiB]

Originally Posted by Paco500

My point is, when pay TV first emerged, I'm sure lots of people refused to pay for something you can get for free, but eventually people got used to the idea. I'm not saying I'd do it, or that it eventually will happen, but it might.

But you could never get HBO for free, nor MTV, ESPN etc. As well, one never had to pay for ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, local UHF stations (and now Fox, UPN, and WB). These are still available free over the air. The choice in cable in the early 80s was to get the channels that were unavailable over air--and pay extra for the ability. Anyone could cancel cable and still watch TV--just with less selection.

With subscription-based music services, if one stops paying, all is gone. If I stop paying for cable, I still can watch Lost with an antenna.

I do agree that the public can become accustomed to paying for music monthly, but it won't become the norm unless there are far less choices to procure music (no CDs or physical media or iTMS).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by dpaslay

Why are all the music subscription companies (ex. Rhapsody, Yahoos Musicmatch) only creating this service for the PC?

Because Mac users are not idiots like PC users

-t

[iMOTOR]

The whole subscription thing is a scam, unless you plan to die soon.

When I'm 80, I'll still be listening to U2 and coldplay so why would I pay subscription fees for the next 60 years?

Maybe someone who has a "flavor of the month" taste in music (for example, someone who gets sick of the music they listen to real fast) would like the subscription thing.

[Big Mac]

Right now, unless your listening habits are much more extensive than most, buying tracks for 99 cents a piece makes infinitely more sense than paying a monthly fee.

[dpaslay]

I think it's a great deal, $10 is nothing, I'd do both, buy music and listen to it streaming. I love the idea of listening to any album a couple times I want BEFORE I buy it, and I still think it's better than listening to the album in a store before buying it, it's more convenient. Also, their is so much new music that comes out every week, I can never keep up, and it just makes sense to listen the stream first before buying.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by dpaslay

Also, their is so much new music that comes out every week, I can never keep up, and it just makes sense to listen the stream first before buying.

That's why I listen to the free 30 second preview on iTunes before I buy.

[loren s]

geeeezzzzy does everyone in mac land like listening to the same songs every day ??
There is a reason music subscription is a good idea for some on macs.. Creatives definitely, cause we cant sit around hear the same old thing.. sure buying music is cool to keep forever, but some times you just want too store away that collection for a fw months and get some new crap..
.. Radio is just replaying the same crap....

music subscription has a place and a use.. Like for one finding songs that would be great to keep after you have heard it a few times fully instead of small 30 second blips..



hurry up stupid napster... Wish itunes would try it out..

[BRussell]

I wish iTunes would do it. I can't see any loss - if you don't want to do it, you don't have to.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by loren s

geeeezzzzy does everyone in mac land like listening to the same songs every day ??
There is a reason music subscription is a good idea for some on macs.. Creatives definitely, cause we cant sit around hear the same old thing.. sure buying music is cool to keep forever, but some times you just want too store away that collection for a fw months and get some new crap..
.. Radio is just replaying the same crap....

music subscription has a place and a use.. Like for one finding songs that would be great to keep after you have heard it a few times fully instead of small 30 second blips..



hurry up stupid napster... Wish itunes would try it out..

That's why the iPod has a shuflle feature. So you don't have to sit around listening to the same thing. Besides much of the new stuff IMO garbage. Why would I want to pay for it in the first place.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by typoon

That's why the iPod has a shuflle feature. So you don't have to sit around listening to the same thing. Besides much of the new stuff IMO garbage. Why would I want to pay for it in the first place.

Bad logic.

Much of the old stuff was garbage, too.

The 5% of the old stuff that people are still listening to amounts to a couple of tens of thousands of albums.

I'm pretty sure there will be stuff from today that people will still be listening to in thirty years. It won't be much, for sure, but it wasn't much then, either.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by loren s

geeeezzzzy does everyone in mac land like listening to the same songs every day ??
There is a reason music subscription is a good idea for some on macs.. Creatives definitely, cause we cant sit around hear the same old thing.. sure buying music is cool to keep forever, but some times you just want too store away that collection for a fw months and get some new crap..

Gee, how could I get new crap on a service with thousands of songs available for purchase? Eh, better go with Napster.

Between my downloaded music and my CD collection, I've got enough music that I could listen for days straight and never hear the same thing twice. Creatives need to get creative if they can't figure out how not to listen to the same thing every day.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by loren s

hurry up stupid napster... Wish itunes would try it out..

Rhapsody subscription service is available for the Mac now if you don't mind listening to music that's less than CD quality.

[rozwado1]

Why not a subscription iTunes system where you pay $X a month and get a discount on purchases for being a member?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by rozwado1

Why not a subscription iTunes system where you pay $X a month and get a discount on purchases for being a member?

Because the record companies wouldn't agree to that? The whole idea behind subscription services is that you have to keep paying in to get your music. A subscription service where you get to own music is simply not restrictive enough.

Anyway, purchases only cost freakin' 99 cents.