Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

theory · Apr 22, 2003, 08:08 PM

Just wandering if you guys would pay for iTunes 3 if you had to.
I personaly would it is one of the best MP3 players for MacOSX.

dampeoples · Apr 22, 2003, 08:18 PM

Depends if my iPod still required it

xtal · Apr 22, 2003, 08:31 PM

What kind of price are you thinking? More details about this hypothetical situation please.

fitter · Apr 22, 2003, 08:31 PM

I already paid for Audion 3.

SupahCoolX · Apr 22, 2003, 08:33 PM

I would pay a nominal fee for iTunes. It's a darn good app (even before they add in that highly anticipated music service). It should always at least be free with an iPod, of course (or maybe for .Mac members, too).

theory · Apr 22, 2003, 08:44 PM

I was thinking in the order of $25-35. Kind of what you have to pay
for other mp3 players.

tikki · Apr 22, 2003, 08:46 PM

I'd pay if it didnt suck up my CPU so much.

Cipher13 · Apr 22, 2003, 09:57 PM

Yeah, right.

Krusty · Apr 22, 2003, 11:19 PM

For those of you who answered 'Yes'; Next question:

Would you pay me for iTunes 3 ? I accept Paypal, thank you.

Fallout · Apr 22, 2003, 11:48 PM

I'd consider it. Probably...after all, it is a very good app. The only feature it really needs is some kind of good backup solution, because burning 15 CD's of music sucks.

mdc · Apr 23, 2003, 12:19 AM

i would most definately pay for iTunes.

having come from a windows background and have always wanted a mp3 player that could do this this and this. none, that i was happy with could do it. enter iTunes, it does it all, and i am *so* impressed with it.

i am on an iBook, so no G4, so no superdrive, so no iDvd. if the iLife package did not have iDvd and was not downloadable i would buy it. iPhoto and iMovie are amazing pieces of software.

can you tell i am impressed with the iLife apps

MindFad · Apr 23, 2003, 12:27 AM

No.

When I have to, that's when I make aliases and use Quicktime, baby.

PerfectlyNormalBeast · Apr 23, 2003, 12:32 AM

I paid $50 for SoundJam MP, so... I think I already have.

cwasko · Apr 23, 2003, 01:03 AM

I wouldn't pay for iTunes - if for no other reason that Apple is hypothetically creating a music service. I'm sure if they are, it will be integrated into iTunes. You can bet your hindquarters that Apple will be making a commision off of any sales though this new music service. Therefore, they can go blow-a-dog if they want me to pay for something that they are already going to be making money from.

Apfhex · Apr 23, 2003, 01:08 AM

Only if it were an essential upgrade with enough new useful features.

gthyb · Apr 23, 2003, 01:17 AM

i have itunes 3.

assuming you mean 4, no. no i wouldn't. as long as apple keeps charging 130 dollars for OS upgrades, iapps should be included, and free.

DeathMan · Apr 23, 2003, 01:21 AM

Its difficult to pay for something you're used to getting for free. Thus the difficulty of weening people off p2p "services."

moonmonkey · Apr 23, 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by PerfectlyNormalBeast:
I paid $50 for SoundJam MP, so... I think I already have.

LOL.

RMXO · Apr 23, 2003, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by gthyb:
i have itunes 3.

assuming you mean 4, no. no i wouldn't. as long as apple keeps charging 130 dollars for OS upgrades, iapps should be included, and free.

i agree. if i have to dish out $ for an OS then i better get some free stuff with that OS.

techweenie1 · Apr 23, 2003, 02:44 AM

nope

ApeInTheShell · Apr 23, 2003, 03:35 AM

They could charge just for services

Maybe it'll be a new video feature via quicktime
(sure would beat that effects viewer)
A music service
or people will use audible.com more

I would pay for these if i needed those features, right now i don't.

If any of you own shareware you know you paid for those apps because they did what you wanted. Even commercial apps such as Adobe Photoshop people dish out the money for an upgrade.
Freeware is simple and can either satisfy or piss you off.

stew · Apr 23, 2003, 04:40 AM

No way.

SteevAK · Apr 23, 2003, 04:47 AM

Not at all. There are too many free players or players with more features.

I hope iTunes 4 has some much wanted features (e.g. skinnability and codec expansion).

Cipher13 · Apr 23, 2003, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by SteevAK:
Not at all. There are too many free players or players with more features.

I hope iTunes 4 has some much wanted features (e.g. skinnability and codec expansion).

iTunes has codec expansion via QT.

macmike42 · Apr 23, 2003, 06:25 AM

I would happily pay $30 (more I'd have to think about, but probably up to $50) for iTunes 3. If it came with some other sort of money-making aparatus built-in (ads or a pay-per-track music service) I would think twice about paying for the app itself, but only because I would use the service to purchase music.

Nonsuch · Apr 23, 2003, 10:43 AM

I would not pay for iTunes. Charging for it would be a disatrous decision on Apple's part; the "world's most advanced OS" wouldn't even come with a free music player. (QT doesn't count.)

jokell82 · Apr 23, 2003, 10:56 AM

Eh, I took the question as "If iTunes were a piece of shareware, would you pay for it." In that case, hell yes I would. I've paid for many applications that are not nearly as good as iTunes.

However, if Apple suddenly decided to start charging for it, I'd have to rethink that. It would be a very shady thing for Apple to do, and I doubt I would support it...

dfiler · Apr 23, 2003, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by jokell82:
It would be a very shady thing for Apple to do, and I doubt I would support it...

Shady?

Yeah, its real shady for a company to actually sell product for more than free.

Those *@$#@!holes, how dare they sell something.

KidRed · Apr 23, 2003, 12:00 PM

Ah, I downlaoded iTunes 3.0.1 a few weeks ago when iLife was released. So, no, I guess I wouldn't pay for it because it is free. You need to change the title.

As for the next version, no I wouldn't.

Anomalous · Apr 23, 2003, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by DeathMan:
Its difficult to pay for something you're used to getting for free. Thus the difficulty of weening people off p2p "services."

Not only difficult, but unfair. Software companies get people to depend on their software by releasing a free version, and then they jack up the price. I don't like the way ASM and Youpi Key did this.

Toyin · Apr 23, 2003, 06:22 PM

iTunes is nothing short of miraculous. I tried using Music Match on my PC at work and gave up after about an hour of fiddling with it. I think Apple should keep a basic iTunes (one that comes with the OS) free, and charge extra for an iTunes with more bells and whistles. iPods and maybe .mac members should get the 'pro' version free.

Guy Incognito 2 · Apr 23, 2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Anomalous:
Not only difficult, but unfair. Software companies get people to depend on their software by releasing a free version, and then they jack up the price. I don't like the way ASM and Youpi Key did this.

How is it unfair?

If you were easily able to steal TVs from a store that didn't lock its door at night, and all of a sudden one night they finally put a lock on the door and you're unable to steal the TVs at night and have to resort to buying them during the day...it would be unfair to you?

Toyin · Apr 23, 2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Guy Incognito 2:
How is it unfair?

If you were easily able to steal TVs from a store that didn't lock its door at night, and all of a sudden one night they finally put a lock on the door and you're unable to steal the TVs at night and have to resort to buying them during the day...it would be unfair to you?

ASM and Youpi Key were Freeware that turned into shareware. There's no stealing in that analogy. I have to agree with Anomalous on this one. They started charging without any significant new features. Again in this situation I would offer a free version with basic functionality and then charge for the improved update.

theory · Apr 23, 2003, 09:24 PM

I am suprised at the number of people who answered No.
I think that iTunes 3 is excellent and compared Audion,
MM JukeBox and SJ I think it is amazing that it is free.
And if apple did ask for a fee I would pay it.

Then again on the PC they window media player which isn't that
bad and is free (when I say it isn't bad I meen that the features
that it has are more or less what you would expect. On the other
hand the less said about usability the better)

Oh and just incase people are wondering. I don't think apple will
charge for iTunes if they wanted they could have done that a long
time ago like they did for iMovie and iDVD.

jokell82 · Apr 24, 2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by theory:
Oh and just incase people are wondering. I don't think apple will charge for iTunes if they wanted they could have done that a long time ago like they did for iMovie and iDVD.

They're charging for iMovie now? Since when?

Azzgunther · Apr 24, 2003, 01:02 AM

I'd be pissed off.

One of the reasons we all purchased our Macs was the assumption that there would be some basic apps that were supported and included with the OS.

If I'm paying a premium price for sub-par hardware (though maybe not for long) AND paying for the OS, I'd better get an OS that has some features worth bragging about. Thus far, Apple has been exemplorary in this regard. I hope they continue to support their customers as they currently are, their OS and the iApps are what sets them apart from the rest.

clebin · Apr 24, 2003, 09:24 AM

Would I pay for it? Yes.
Would I be happy about it? No.

Never mind that it's this great program called iTunes. The questions are really: Do you think in 2003 the MacOS should have a free music player? Should the MacOS' music player be better than Windows Media Player?

Chris

Arkham_c · Apr 24, 2003, 09:35 AM

If I'm going to keep paying Apple full price for their OS every year, then there damn well had better be something that comes with it to make it worthwhile.

I don't use iTunes much -- mostly to demo it to non-Apple users. I don't use iMovie much either (have used it for one real project), and I have never used iDVD. However, someday I plan on buying a new Mac with tons of disk space and a DVD burner, and when I do I will expect the machine/OS to come with what I need to use the hardware.

Windows comes with Movie creation software. It comes with a media player. It comes with all the stuff MacOS X comes with (some may not be as good, but it includes them), so Apple has to maintain parity if they want to compete.

Guy Incognito 2 · Apr 24, 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
If I'm going to keep paying Apple full price for their OS every year, then there damn well had better be something that comes with it to make it worthwhile.

You don't need to pay for an OS every year. Unless someone points a gun to your head ever September and tells you to buy the latest Mac OS X. Is this what's happening to you? Don't be shy to tell us. We can help you.

You might want to report this problem to the police too. I'd have the police wait for that guy that forces you to buy OSs every year.

dettociao · Apr 24, 2003, 10:41 AM

I would pay, maybe.

Mohammed Al-Sabah · Apr 24, 2003, 12:45 PM

nope no way ill pay 4 itunes.. i bet the price is included in the os upgrades anyways