PDA

View Full Version : Yahoo Online Music Service


MacRumors
May 11, 2005, 06:59 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Yahoo has announced (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050511/ap_on_hi_te/yahoo_music) that they will also be entering the online music download market with a new subscription-based service.

Yahoo's new service will offer unlimited access to a library of 1 million songs for $6.99 a month. The new service is akin to Napster's current "To Go" service which also offers unlimited access to songs for a monthly fee. Napster's service, however, costs $14.95/month.

With both services, users have access to any of the available songs while paying the monthly access fee, but loses playback ability if the service is discontinued. Use of songs is limited to supported MP3 players and can not be burned to CD without an extra fee.

This business model differs from Apple's iTunes Music Store which "sells" individual songs for $.99 US. While there has been some speculation (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/03/20050314211344.shtml) about Apple adopting a subscription service, publicly Steve Jobs has rejected this business model.

Poff
May 11, 2005, 07:02 AM
This is great! More competition = better for customers! :D

Now bring on iTMS Subscription! :D

virividox
May 11, 2005, 07:03 AM
yup the fact yahoo are in on it, means apple will have to up the ante and this is good for us :)

Veldek
May 11, 2005, 07:07 AM
Wow, only half the price of Napster. I think they'll have to do the math again. I wonder whether this new subscription service has a DRM which can be as easily hacked as Napster's.

crap freakboy
May 11, 2005, 07:07 AM
its got to be good for music lovers.

Rocket Rion
May 11, 2005, 07:08 AM
If you buy a year subscription it comes out to 4.99 a month. :eek:

But I hate WMA.

iJaz
May 11, 2005, 07:08 AM
This is bad news.....


for Napster :D

AliensAreFuzzy
May 11, 2005, 07:08 AM
I wonder if that same exploit is there that there is in Napster.

kiwi-in-uk
May 11, 2005, 07:09 AM
More competition = better for customers = lower margins -> less profitable. It will be interesting to see the shake-out when it happens a little way down the track.

buryyourbrideau
May 11, 2005, 07:10 AM
why would you want to rent songs and then just have to end up paying extra in the end to burn them to a cd-r. im going to stick with the itunes :)

plasticparadox
May 11, 2005, 07:19 AM
God, they're going to be selling individual songs for 0.79? Can't believe someone would undercut Walmart. If this new Yahoo store is a success, I'm sure 0.79 will be the new standard price for individual songs. Sounds good to me :)

tamtam
May 11, 2005, 07:28 AM
Own vs. rent songs. Rent just does not work for me.

homerjward
May 11, 2005, 07:30 AM
hmm...if one has sbc yahoo! internet does one get a discount on this? sounds really awesome and for 7 bucks a month...i almost wouldnt mind my mom's pc...
edit: of course, launch and their lack of support for mac os x, or anything other than netscape 4.x in OS 8/9 still has me really pissed off.

Porchland
May 11, 2005, 07:35 AM
I'm all for competition keeping Apple on its toes, but the window is closing on the downloadable music market. One of Apple's competitors is going to have to get some traction with the buffet model before Apple is forced into a decision; if Apple added a monthly plan today, it would simply be to squash everyone else out.

By the time Yahoo or Napster or whoever is able to make any kind of move in the music market, Apple will be selling episodes of "Nip/Tuck" in HD for 99 cents a pop through its iWatch service that you can stream to your HDTV through Airport Express 2 or download to your iTablet.

Yahoo is swimming in the kiddie pool.

amberashby
May 11, 2005, 07:35 AM
The subscription services are a Pirate's dream. $60 for a year of music. Any song you want can be downloaded and cracked.

Not for me, but I think that is the primary reason for anyone wanting a subscription service.

munkle
May 11, 2005, 07:37 AM
A music library of 1million songs doesn't sound like an awful lot. How many songs does Napster have? And with such a low margin, I wonder how much makes it back to the artist?

About renting vs owning, just because you prefer one doesn't mean the other alternative isn't viable. The market is big enough for both. In fact I think in the long term a subscription model will prove to be more popular, as long as the monthly subscription cost is low and the price per song is competitive.

DeepDish
May 11, 2005, 07:40 AM
I don't want to "rent" my music. I don't buy much music from iTunes. Most of my 20 some gig of Apple Lossless music is from my CD collection.

But Apple should go ahead and give people a choice. Do both the current model and a subscription model at the same time. Get it over with.

Hopefully most people (I can't people I saying this) are smart enough to buy their music instead of just renting it.

Ok, Ok, I do get some music from allofmp3, but stopped a couple of months ago because I got scared. There, I got that off my chest, I feel better.

By the way, how can the RIAA want to up Apple's 99 cent price while letting yahoo and walmart sell songs for less then Apple, are they starting to play favorites against Apple?

i.Feature
May 11, 2005, 07:43 AM
I can't understand why anyone would pay for what is essentially satellite radio with less options. I understand you get to pick which songs you want loaded but that said satellite radio stations are quite narrowly marketed meaning you can pretty much always get what you want. Not too mention you get much, much more content.

If I have an mp3 player i want it to play my music. The key word being "my". I want to own it. If i wanted to rent music, I'd buy a satellite radio reciever.

munkle
May 11, 2005, 07:50 AM
I can't understand why anyone would pay for what is essentially satellite radio with less options. I understand you get to pick which songs you want loaded but that said satellite radio stations are quite narrowly marketed meaning you can pretty much always get what you want. Not too mention you get much, much more content.

If I have an mp3 player i want it to play my music. The key word being "my". I want to own it. If i wanted to rent music, I'd buy a satellite radio reciever.

The key word being "you". You want to own your music, doesn't mean everybody does. Of course if you really wanted to "own" your music, you'd buy a CD without any DRM restrictions.

Yahoo!/Napster are providing an alternative. If you don't like it, don't use - simple. Doesn't mean they shouldn't provide the service for people who do though.

jackc
May 11, 2005, 08:01 AM
I just saw a segment about this on CNN. The anchor (I don't know his name) added that he doesn't like the subscription model, and said iTunes is much easier.

LSlugger
May 11, 2005, 08:07 AM
I rated this negative, because it's Windows/WMA only. However, I think there is a market for a subscription service. I'm very cautious about buying a $15 album: I'll rarely buy it on the strength of one single. I'm less cautious about buying it used for $6. I've filled in my collection with several $1 iTunes tracks from albums I'd probably never buy. When it comes to a subscription-based service, the only thing you have to waste is your time.

I think i.Feature is on to something, by comparing this to radio, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I hate DRM as much as the next guy, but they can add subscriptions to the menu. So long as unrestricted, lossless CDs are still available, I don't mind having another choice.

xli_ne
May 11, 2005, 08:07 AM
You can share your music across their Yahoo! messenger. Probably just be able to listen and not copy, but its still kinda of a cool feature. :)

bobringer
May 11, 2005, 08:07 AM
I wonder if that same exploit is there that there is in Napster.

There is nothing specific about Napster that is hackable that is different than any other type of audio being played on your computer. The actual files aren't hacked... the audio output of your computer is just captured as a non-DRM'd file. The only problem here is that compressing the audio a second time causes a loss in quality.

By the definition of the "napster exploit"... every piece of audio coming out of your computer is hackable, including Yahoo.

stephenli
May 11, 2005, 08:12 AM
it should be far from attractive to mac users like us, as
it won't support any iPod, right?

alandail
May 11, 2005, 08:14 AM
How are the artists supposed to make any money off of this model? Yahoo will need 10 million subscribers to bring in the same monthly revenue the iTunes store brings in right now. Since there aren't even that many MP3 players out there that are compatible with this Yahoo service, where are they going to get the customers? And without the customers, where is the revenue going to come from that will cause artists to put their music on the yahoo service?

~Shard~
May 11, 2005, 08:17 AM
Ah, and yet another player enters the market - who hasn't opened an online music store yet? ;)

Yahoo is a big player though, and will definitely bring added competition to the marketplace, which is a good thing for Apple - and ultimately a good thing for us consumers!

bbyrdhouse
May 11, 2005, 08:17 AM
Own vs. rent songs. Rent just does not work for me.

I just don't "get" renting songs either.

I guess if you were giong to have a party or something and needed access to alot of music for only $7.00, but buying the music just makes more sense to me.

munkle
May 11, 2005, 08:21 AM
it should be far from attractive to mac users like us, as
it won't support any iPod, right?

No iPod support makes it unattractive to iPod users. No Mac support is what makes it unattractive to Mac users.

(Requirements: Windows 2000 or XP, IE 6.0+, Windows Media Player 9.0+) :rolleyes:

Tulse
May 11, 2005, 08:30 AM
How are the artists supposed to make any money off of this model?

How is Yahoo! supposed to make money on this model? The economics of this makes no sense to me, unless Yahoo! is licensing the songs for practically nothing.

I can't see this threatening Apple much -- none of the subscription services are playable on the overwhelmingly favourite player. And, for that matter, if Apple did feel threatened, it would be trivially easy for them to add a subscription version of iTMS that would play on the iPod, suggesting that this move is a lousy long-term strategy for Yahoo! It looks like all this will do is kill off Napster and the other smaller subscription services.

bubbalwz
May 11, 2005, 08:50 AM
It should be noted that the yahoo service will also allow the purchase of songs (own instead of use) for $.79 and albums for $8. Of course the music won't play on an iPod.

nichos
May 11, 2005, 08:52 AM
The summary here is wrong. The price (which is introductory) is as low as $4.99/mo. See here (http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/)
Second, you CAN burn your music to a CD, yes there is an additional fee, but they start at $.79 depending on how which plan you get.
All the info is here:
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
A real good pro/con article by one of the developers can be found on his blog (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-FDuiCSg4eqinB8z.GGJ7TmAz?p=89)
One of the cons: doesn't work on mac, yet

andiwm2003
May 11, 2005, 09:06 AM
so, our favorite company REAL just released their music service. although they revolutionized the internet with their service (thats what those morons claimed on their page) nobody even took notice. this offer hopefully puts them out of business for good.
but apple beware, there might be something to subscription services. i wouldn't want one but the people in all of the companies offering subscription aren't stupid. seems there is a market for subscription. apple shouldn't ignore it.

my 2 cents.

Lord Sandwich
May 11, 2005, 09:14 AM
Hopefully this leads to iTunes allowing you to stream the entire catalog for free, rather than just 30-second clips. It'd be a killer feature, and one that only Apple can pull off since they make most of their money selling iPods anyway.

cgc
May 11, 2005, 09:15 AM
The Yahoo music store annual subscription rate was $60 according to the commercial on TV a few minutes ago. Pricing is getting more and more attractive.

DTphonehome
May 11, 2005, 09:24 AM
I think it's great that someone has undercut Napster so significantly on price. Yahoo! can afford to sell this service at break-even, or even at a loss, while Napster has no other revenue stream. If they lower their prices, they'll kill margins, and they can't stay in business. Napster stock is down 30% so far this morning (Apple is down 3%...btw, 35 bucks for Apple is a bargain, stock up, kiddies).

However, Apple had really better step up to the plate by either offering a subscription that is competitively priced with Yahoo!, or lowering the price of per-track downloads (which won't happen). While I would never pay $15 a month for unlimited music, I certainly would pay $7 (or $5 with the year option!) per month.

--DT

Wash!!
May 11, 2005, 09:31 AM
I read a comment one time and so happens I agree with it. Music is about feelings and memories, it touches your soul and it takes you to places and memories where you were happy or sad, it makes you want to dance or being near what you hold dearly it touches you. That's why we buy it because every time you played it, it takes you there, with this "subscriptions" models you are renting your memories and feelings to someone else, and if you decided to cancel all your memories are gone...

Have we come in this society so materialistic that we are willing to rent out our feelings and memories for cheap...

I buy from itms or buy cd's because every time I feel like listing to that special song it's there for me and I don't have to worry about if I paid my monthly fee to have....

end of rant
:cool:

numediaman
May 11, 2005, 09:32 AM
This reinforces something that seems rather apparent: there are few obstacles to entering this market. Because of this fact, there will always be new companies who will want to eat into Apple's marketshare.

Maybe this shows that Apple should diversify . . . say, enter the market for high-quality computers. Nah, will never happen. They'll stick to iPods.

sinisterdesign
May 11, 2005, 09:36 AM
the best thing that i can think of to come out of this is the quicker demise of Crapster.

i guess if you just listen to top 40 or the latest passing fad in music, this is GREAT, but i don't like the thought of renting my music. i'll admit, i have stacks of CDs that i haven't broken out of their cases in ages, but that's b/c most of them are in itunes.

LionelEHutz
May 11, 2005, 09:36 AM
It's a subscription where you pay for a certain amount of downloads per month. The files don't have any restriction and eMusic says that their files play on the iPod. I don't have an iPod so I can't confirm this. Anyway, I've been using it since December and I'm happy with it. It's a good compliment to iTunes since eMusic has more indie label stuff and iTunes has the major releases. Renting music from Yahoo or Napster -- No thanks.

scu
May 11, 2005, 09:41 AM
why would you want to rent songs and then just have to end up paying extra in the end to burn them to a cd-r. im going to stick with the itunes :)

agreed. I spend an average of $15 a month on iTunes. Two months may go by before I buy something. But in the end I own the music for ever.

Apple is a head of the curve on this. I suspect they will also introduce a subscription plan, but no one has been very successful with it. The market is sure betting on Yahoo.

crawdad62
May 11, 2005, 09:44 AM
No iPod support makes it unattractive to iPod users. No Mac support is what makes it unattractive to Mac users.

(Requirements: Windows 2000 or XP, IE 6.0+, Windows Media Player 9.0+) :rolleyes:

This is why these services are having a hard time getting a foothold. Some people would be fine with the subscription service. Heck Yahoo's seems like a deal. Even if it were and adjunct to listen to whole tracks and review them a bit before actually buy it on ITMS. But for the life of me I can't figure out why these service pretty much lock the iPod out.

The iPod had a HUGE marketshare. Yeah that's what I want to do. Set up a service that locks out the most potential customers. :rolleyes:

shamino
May 11, 2005, 09:45 AM
Wow, only half the price of Napster. I think they'll have to do the math again. I wonder whether this new subscription service has a DRM which can be as easily hacked as Napster's.
It's the Microsoft-standard DRM. Crack one, crack 'em all.

KrysBaz
May 11, 2005, 09:48 AM
Ah, and yet another player enters the market - who hasn't opened an online music store yet?

Me, but I am thinking about it, global domination of the online music business.

Where do I start?


Does anybody know what the weathers like in the Bahmas at the moment? :D

alfismoney
May 11, 2005, 09:49 AM
Pay per song wants users to pay about $1 each for songs that don't sound as good as they do on the radio, let alone on CD or vinyl. Bad deal in my opinion. However, if one were to use the new automator in Tiger (or Applescript on an older version), one could set up the Yahoo or Napster services to automatically strip the drm rights on download so they could be used on an iPod. Not the most ethical thing in the world but that's exactly why Apple won't offer a subscription service, they provide the best software available to circumvent it...

Lancetx
May 11, 2005, 09:50 AM
Of course the music won't play on an iPod.

And that one simple fact is why this Yahoo! service (or any service based on M$ DRM) will never challenge the iTMS as long as the iPod continues to dominate the mp3 player market.

DTphonehome
May 11, 2005, 09:51 AM
This is why these services are having a hard time getting a foothold. Some people would be fine with the subscription service. Heck Yahoo's seems like a deal. Even if it were and adjunct to listen to whole tracks and review them a bit before actually buy it on ITMS. But for the life of me I can't figure out why these service pretty much lock the iPod out.

The iPod had a HUGE marketshare. Yeah that's what I want to do. Set up a service that locks out the most potential customers. :rolleyes:

These services would like nothing more than to support the iPod. But they can't sell unprotected MP3s, and Apple won't share its DRM (rightly so).

shamino
May 11, 2005, 09:52 AM
"This is all about expanding the market," said Dave Goldberg, general manager of Yahoo's music division. "We are convinced this is the way you should be listening to your music."
Note the statement. They think you should be doing what they want. They did not say they think this is what people actually want.

They're trying to force their customers in doing things the Yahoo/Microsoft/Napster way, even though the market has repeatedly said that they're not interested.

This is precisely the attitude that is responsible for all those other music-rental services failing to take market share away from Apple (or even slow its growth rate.)

But that's fine. Let them go ahead with this nonsensical thinking. They'll lose money like all the rest.

I think the mantra of the music business must be "if it failed for a hundred other people, we should do it too."

munkle
May 11, 2005, 09:53 AM
I read a comment one time and so happens I agree with it. Music is about feelings and memories, it touches your soul and it takes you to places and memories where you were happy or sad, it makes you want to dance or being near what you hold dearly it touches you. That's why we buy it because every time you played it, it takes you there, with this "subscriptions" models you are renting your memories and feelings to someone else, and if you decided to cancel all your memories are gone...

Have we come in this society so materialistic that we are willing to rent out our feelings and memories for cheap...

I buy from itms or buy cd's because every time I feel like listing to that special song it's there for me and I don't have to worry about if I paid my monthly fee to have....

end of rant
:cool:

Yes music can have that wonderful quality but not all music possesses the same personal significance . Sometimes it's fun just to listen to a song, to try some tracks by new artists, to broaden your musical horizons. It is similar to books. Books can be breathtaking, change your mode of thinking, affect you to the core but sometimes you just want to read a fun novel or a trashy magazine. Doing one does not preclude you from doing the other, nor does it diminish the significance of either.

And you misunderstand the subscription music model. A subscription model does not prevent you from buying songs or albums. You are able to do both.

And your memories belong to you and only you, even if they are tied in with a song. I have memories tied in with songs, places, landmarks, occasions, films etc. I don't have to own a restaurant for a memory of a wonderful meal I shared there to become mine. Has society become so materialistic that we have to own something before it means something to us? ;)

end of retort
:cool:

Thataboy
May 11, 2005, 09:55 AM
I have to believe apple has something big in store for itunes. it could be the addition of a subscription option, but it could be a lot more.

apple probably needs to create a new, itunes-like jukebox called something like iHub. you organize all your media in there with all the itunes niceties we have grown to love. part of iHub would be content stores, such as iTunes, iFlix (if they can get the name), iTones (ringtones for my fantasy mobile OS, Apple Gala), etc. They could expand fairplay to have an ownership and rental component. you could buy or rent music, and you could buy or rent fairplay protected movies. You could rent at lower cost and maybe lower quality, and buy at near lossless.

this has to be where they are headed, right? no? im insane, you say? :)

DTphonehome
May 11, 2005, 10:02 AM
Pay per song wants users to pay about $1 each for songs that don't sound as good as they do on the radio...

I hope you're talking about satellite radio. If you mean FM, then dude, you haven't listened to the radio in a long time.

bernardb
May 11, 2005, 10:28 AM
Why do you people not see that this is helping to put Aple out of business? LOOK at their stocks PLUNGING right now!

Why do you want to see Apple go down? I don't understand it at all....

I LOVE my G5, I LOVE Tiger, I LOVE my iPod Mini, etc....why on earth would I want to hurt the company that brought me these fantastic products?

Just so some teenage punks can steal a bunch of lousy music???...sheesh! Look at the ramifications.

People, get your act together!

railthinner
May 11, 2005, 10:29 AM
Boo. Subscription services are bad for artists and ultimately bad for consumers. They should not be supported. "do not support subscription based music services" should echo across the internet.

bbyrdhouse
May 11, 2005, 10:41 AM
It should be noted that the yahoo service will also allow the purchase of songs (own instead of use) for $.79 and albums for $8. Of course the music won't play on an iPod.

Well, I guess that would be cool because Muscimatch can convert WMA to WAV or MP3.

bbyrdhouse
May 11, 2005, 10:44 AM
Why do you people not see that this is helping to put Aple out of business? LOOK at their stocks PLUNGING right now!

Why do you want to see Apple go down? I don't understand it at all....

I LOVE my G5, I LOVE Tiger, I LOVE my iPod Mini, etc....why on earth would I want to hurt the company that brought me these fantastic products?

Just so some teenage punks can steal a bunch of lousy music???...sheesh! Look at the ramifications.

People, get your act together!

I hardley think that Yahoo is going to run Apple out of business. Apple is a much too savey business and has weathered too many storms to let Yahoo or Napster put them out of business. I mean C'mon!

shamino
May 11, 2005, 10:44 AM
Well, I guess that would be cool because Muscimatch can convert WMA to WAV or MP3.
DRM-protected WMA files? I'd find that hard to believe.

If you're talking about unprotected WMA, iTunes can convert that.

swissmann
May 11, 2005, 10:48 AM
I wonder how soon if ever some of these stores just go out of business. Who ends up king I wonder?

Tulse
May 11, 2005, 10:53 AM
I wouldn't worry about Apple too much, judging by the latest iteration of the iTMS sales chart:

http://lionguys.com/todd/itmssales.jpg (lionguys.com/todd/itmssales.jpg)

That sales curve is accelerating.

iPost
May 11, 2005, 10:54 AM
I know I'm in the minority, but I want a subscription service.

Why? It's simple. I'm tired of managing my music... I really am. My CD collection is over 500 CDs (I've been buying for over 20 years). I've ripped these things numerous times (first at 128kbps MP3, 64kbps MP3Pro, 128kbps AAC, 192 AAC...). I have two external hard drives filled with music. I have a huge stack of MP3 CDs. I have two iPods and an iPod mini filled with music. I have a desktop PC with music on its hard drive, an old iBook filled with music, a Powerbook filled with music, and a work desktop with music.

This music that I "own" is all over the place. It's gotten out of control. At this point, I just want a central place that can keep track of my favorites that follow me whereever I go.

moot
May 11, 2005, 11:09 AM
I think Yahoo entering the market is great. The bottom line is that it offers choice to us - the consumers. With choice, comes change as other companies compete to get ahead.

I think Apple should be worried. Maybe not about us die-hard mac users who would never desert Apple but about the average PC user. When an average person decides to buy an MP3 player they will factor in this new service.

And the fact that iPods cant use it and that iTunes is now overpriced does mean something. There are other MP3 players out there which are actually quite good and are capable of competing strongly with the iPod. This is just one more factor to think about when buying. I think that Apple's reluctance to introduce choice in iTunes might affect the selling power of the iPod. Also, many people say that iPod's are old hat. They are not updated frequently enough. Other companies are intruducing new models all the time. This all will reduce the competitivness of the iPod.

Of course I will stick with the iPod.

ezrabud
May 11, 2005, 11:30 AM
Yahoo entering the field for downloadable music is substantial for the marketplace and will eventually be something Apple must combat. To reinforce their position Apple may well find one key player in the market to align with by licensing fairplay (ipod compatible) technology for music downloads. Personally, I can't think of a better company than Amazon for such an arrangement. Amazon's market presence, brand, size, and talent in the online world would immediately elevate it to a successful position and help Apple crush competition. The arrangement would not be dis-similiar to the iPod license deal Apple and HP have arranged. In both cases it would offer a win-win situation for both parties involved by providing Apple with a new revenue stream and fending off competition and by providing Amazon with instant market recognition.

I firmly believe Apple does not wish to offer a subscription-based service to customers due to overhead costs and other reasons. But, based on the arrangement above, there would be nothing stopping its partner to provide such a service to the limited market interested in such a service. This would put Apple in an incredible position enabling it to offer iPod owners the options they want but in ways that are economical to support.

Dr.Gargoyle
May 11, 2005, 11:32 AM
As I see it, we should be happy that yahoo, Napster and others enter the market. More online shops -> Fiercer competition -> Lower prices -> Me happy.
I hardly think it will come to the point where Brittany or some of the other "starving musicians" won't be able to buy themselves another $25 gazillion house... But one can always hope right? ;)

noel4r
May 11, 2005, 11:37 AM
Subscription based music service is for people who just listens to music not for people who love music. These are the people who like Backstreet Boys, Ricky Martin, Britney Spears or anybody who’s current. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but do you care if you hear “La Vida Loca” again? As for me, I have been listening to The Clash, New Order, The Cure, etc. for more than 20 years now and there’s no way I would keep paying money for years and years to listen to these bands. It be much wiser to just pay the $0.99 to own the song period because I think I will still be listening to them for another 20 years. Although, if Apple drops the price per song to $0.79, I’d purchase more music….

applebum
May 11, 2005, 11:38 AM
Hey - I am one of those people that want to own my music. There may be songs/albums that I don't listen to for years, but I eventually want to listen again. For that reason, I need to own the music. However, I don't listen to the radio much, so I it is hard for me to find new music. This is where ITMS is weak. 30 second previews aren't long enough to determine if I really like the music. I use the shopping cart method on ITMS, and it is full of albums and songs that I just can't pull the trigger on yet. I wish I had a way to listen to these albums and songs fully so I could determine if they are worth buying. So, at a price of $4.99 a month, I am very tempted to go get a cheap MP3 player that will work with Yahoo. I would then use that service as a way to find new music. Hear a group that seems to have good music - I pop it on the "Plays for Sure" player and try it out for a while. If I decide I like it and want to own the music, I pop over to iTunes and buy it and then put it on my iPod. I don't plan to rent the music forever, just long enough to determine whether I want it or not. This is a perfect compliment to the ITMS, and if Apple won't provide it, I may have to use Yahoo until Apple does.

macridah
May 11, 2005, 11:38 AM
Yahoo has a sorry model with hidden fees.

eric_n_dfw
May 11, 2005, 11:41 AM
I think it's great that someone has undercut Napster so significantly on price. Yahoo! can afford to sell this service at break-even, or even at a loss, while Napster has no other revenue stream. If they lower their prices, they'll kill margins, and they can't stay in business. Napster stock is down 30% so far this morning (Apple is down 3%...btw, 35 bucks for Apple is a bargain, stock up, kiddies).
That would be predatory pricing and REAL would have every right to take them to court. You cannot sell something for a loss just to kill competition. (XBox, PS2 and Gamecube sales always make me wonder on this rule though)

That's why Microsoft got slapped for in the 90's.
That's what airlines often get occused of too.

MontyZ
May 11, 2005, 11:46 AM
I don't think you really OWN the music you get from iTunes. Something you own is something you can do whatever you want with, and songs you buy from iTunes have all kinds of limitations and barriers built into it. Much more so than if you buy a CD full of music.

So, you don't own anything when buying songs from iTunes. You are licensing them.

aznsal612
May 11, 2005, 11:50 AM
That would be predatory pricing and REAL would have every right to take them to court. You cannot sell something for a loss just to kill competition. (XBox, PS2 and Gamecube sales always make me wonder on this rule though)

That's why Microsoft got slapped for in the 90's.
That's what airlines often get occused of too.

I guess it's different because the market is really in the games. Companies don't profit from the systems, maybe just break even, but the games are where it's at.

Whereas with music and music players, it's obviously not that way. iPods aren't being sold just so people can be baited into iTunes. iPods are the money maker, as far as I know.

applebum
May 11, 2005, 12:00 PM
I don't think you really OWN the music you get from iTunes. Something you own is something you can do whatever you want with, and songs you buy from iTunes have all kinds of limitations and barriers built into it. Much more so than if you buy a CD full of music.

So, you don't own anything when buying songs from iTunes. You are licensing them.

I hear this argument all the time, and I don't think it is accurate. Sure you can do more with the physical CD, but I don't think you are actually allowed to "do whatever you want". DRM simply forces people to obey Copyright law. Even when you buy a CD, you don't own the music, you are simply licensing it also. But you are correct, there is nothing on the physical CD that forces you to obey the rules.

Anyone who is familiar with copyright law, please post what you are actually ALLOWED to do with a CD

dongmin
May 11, 2005, 12:02 PM
At a price of $4.99 a month, I am very tempted to go get a cheap MP3 player that will work with Yahoo.Yeah, me too. But since I don't have a PC, it's a hassle. If it was Mac supported, I'd probably jump on it.

I easily spend a couple hundred dollars a year on music. At $60 a year, it's practically owning music. When it's that cheap, there isn't much of a line between owning and renting.

But as others have noted, I don't see how Yahoo and the record companies are making any money off of this. It doesn't seem like a sustainable model.

Finally, the growing popularity of satellite radio shows that people don't mind not owning music. I love my iPod and iTunes, but I also love XM radio in my car. Couldn't live without it in LA.

bit density
May 11, 2005, 12:12 PM
I own a Mac, and an Ipod (3g first Rev 15g floor model!). I have never bought music from Itunes, but I have downloaded free tracks, pepsi tracks, and used Wiretap to "rip" music from the videos. But .99 has always seemed a bad value to me. And I have *never* burned a CD.

I still buy cds, about 1/3 new and 2/3 used. I am a value oriented guy.

Are you kidding me?!? 5 bucks a month for all the music I want. And if I don't pay for awhile, it goes dark, but as soon as I pay again it comes back on? (that is not a problem, that is a feature!). Give me the equivelant of Itunes Essentials, but they are just 50 playlists I get for *FREE!*.

I still get all of my cd's, the yahoo police doesn't take them. I can still *buy* whatever music I want, in whatever form I want. And I get to have the rest of the universe for 5 bucks a month... WOO HOO! The only *buy* crowd, go ahead I am not stopping you, too busy LISTENING to music, who cares if I buy it? and if I want to buy it... I CAN! For only 5 bucks a month I get everything I have today, plus all the rest of the music. 5 bucks is a way different value proposition than 14 bucks. I can't get ANYTHING for 5 bucks.

OnaMacSince1989
May 11, 2005, 12:29 PM
God, they're going to be selling individual songs for 0.79? Can't believe someone would undercut Walmart. If this new Yahoo store is a success, I'm sure 0.79 will be the new standard price for individual songs. Sounds good to me :)

Yes, but... remember that you have to pay for a subscription to the service first - unlike iTunes or Walmart's service. Ignoring the rental side, if you prefer to purchase songs, you'd have buy at least 25-35 songs a month (depending on annual or monthly subscription) to break even with iTunes non-subscription model.

I looked all over Yahoo's site, but couldn't find any details on the limits to burning purchased songs. There is a rather ominious statement: "Note: Yahoo! Music does not permit copying or transferring music files to other users." Does that mean you can burn once to a CD but that CD won't be copyable, or you can burn to one mp3 player which also would be locked?

As for the rental model - this is a great price point. But, like others have said, how will Yahoo, the artists, and the labels make any money on it? It seems like it would be nearly impossible to earn a profit at that price.

MontyZ
May 11, 2005, 12:41 PM
I hear this argument all the time, and I don't think it is accurate. Sure you can do more with the physical CD, but I don't think you are actually allowed to "do whatever you want". DRM simply forces people to obey Copyright law. Even when you buy a CD, you don't own the music, you are simply licensing it also. But you are correct, there is nothing on the physical CD that forces you to obey the rules.

Anyone who is familiar with copyright law, please post what you are actually ALLOWED to do with a CD
I think we actually agree. Buying a CD is not really "owning" the music, it's owning the plastic disc and licensing the music on it. But, you own a lot less when you buy from the iTunes Store because there are built-in restrictions that are obviously there to protect copyright, which is understandable, but it also restricts where you can play that music and on how many devices. I see posts all the time in the Apple forum about people who are unable to play the music they purchased from iTunes on their new computer or their new iPod. You have to jump through more hoops to play the music you bought from iTunes than you do if you buy it on a CD.

The "renting" scenario is almost the same as buying from iTunes, but, instead of restricting only where and on how many devices you play the music, you also have a time limit. So, my point is that the two are not so different as some people make them out to be. There's more difference between buying a CD and buying from iTunes, IMO.

Doctor Q
May 11, 2005, 12:46 PM
If you pay $60 for a year's subscription, pay 79 cents to buy burning rights on one song a day (saving 20 cents compared with iTunes), you'd break even before the year is out. If you purchased more songs you'd come out further ahead, and if you purchased less than 300 songs in the year you'd come out behind. You'd also get to listen to any other music along the way. So I can see some people being interested in this model, especially if their interest is in making their own CDs, or in simply listening to what's currently popular.

I'm not interested in listening to music temporarily (only while I'm a subscriber), or in making my own CDs for that matter. Having no rights to play songs if I drop the subscription would make me feel stuck with the service, with my music held hostage. Even though my tastes change over time, I want to know that I'll be able to keep copies of my favorites without paying further. So I'll stick with the iTunes model.

Blue Moon
May 11, 2005, 12:46 PM
I'm all for competition keeping Apple on its toes, but the window is closing on the downloadable music market. One of Apple's competitors is going to have to get some traction with the buffet model before Apple is forced into a decision; if Apple added a monthly plan today, it would simply be to squash everyone else out.

By the time Yahoo or Napster or whoever is able to make any kind of move in the music market, Apple will be selling episodes of "Nip/Tuck" in HD for 99 cents a pop through its iWatch service that you can stream to your HDTV through Airport Express 2 or download to your iTablet.

Yahoo is swimming in the kiddie pool.

I whole heartedly concur. I don't understand why Apple investors were so freaked out this morning by this news (with Apple's stock price sinking at one point by almost three dollars). If Yahoo isn't even comptabile with the iPod its hardly going to be making much of a dent in Apple's marketshare anyway.

alandail
May 11, 2005, 12:54 PM
I've been thinking about this some more today.

Renting sounds cheap at first, but it doesn't scale well over time.

-you have to rely on content you want to always be available on the rental service, or else you still have to buy it.
- you have to rely on the service being around indefinitely. How confident are you that yahoo's music service will still exist 20-30 years from now?
- the $60/year is apparently an introductory price. What will the price be a year from now? Let's be conservative and say it bumps up to $100. Subscribe for 20 years and you've spent $2000 and have absolutely no music to show for it unless you keep subscribing.

So instead, you try the songs, buy the ones you want. But you ahve to buy 25 songs/month to break even vs. the iTunes store's .99/song with no subscription fees. Then these songs you "own" are controlled by microsoft's DRM. Buy a new computer, you have to migrate your license. Do it 10 times, your license no longer migrates - the limit can even be set to fewer than 10, 10 is the max - some WMA based stores set it to zero - you have to depend on the store to still exist and the content to still be available every time you ever buy a new computer for songs you thought you bought. So you spend $300/year to buy music just to break even with the iTunes price and the music has DRM that will cause it to stop working some day - simply because you upgrade computers too many times.

And once you start using Microsoft's DRM, they install it on files you rip off of your own CD - those files have to be migrated too and are subject to the same 10 migration limit. Lose or break a CD, and what you thought was a digital backup on your computer is going to someday stop working.

maxterpiece
May 11, 2005, 01:31 PM
Quite frankly I doubt that most people, on average, buy more than 60 songs a year. I probably buy a few more than that and compared to most people I know, I'm a music lover.

I think I would pay $2/month for a subscription service.

Anyway, the bottom line here is that it doesn't work with the iPod, so at least for now it's pretty irrelevant.

It's kind of funny - every time a new one of these subscription services comes out, apple's stock plummets. When will investors... and corporations for that matter, learn that subscription services are a niche kind of thing. I see them as just a way of not having to directly compete with the elegance of ITMS.

BMG has been around for years offering tons of free CDs/year in exchange for an obligation to buy in the future. It's a similar thing.

Question: Why are all these companies desperate to get into the online music store business when Apple only created it as a way to up iPod sales, not as a big profit maker?

DTphonehome
May 11, 2005, 02:05 PM
That would be predatory pricing and REAL would have every right to take them to court. You cannot sell something for a loss just to kill competition. (XBox, PS2 and Gamecube sales always make me wonder on this rule though)

That's why Microsoft got slapped for in the 90's.
That's what airlines often get occused of too.

First off, Real isn't behind Napster. They have the Rahpsody service. But I know what you mean.

True, the pricing could be construed as sneaky, but there are myriad ways out of these types of legal dilemmas. Yahoo! could arge that they aren't trying to kill Napster at all, they are just trying to offer a service which could lead consumers into subscribing to other Yahoo! services. That may not be a perfect argument, but you can come up with dozens of ways that Yahoo! could argue that they aren't directly competing.

shamino
May 11, 2005, 02:30 PM
I hear this argument all the time, and I don't think it is accurate. Sure you can do more with the physical CD, but I don't think you are actually allowed to "do whatever you want". DRM simply forces people to obey Copyright law. Even when you buy a CD, you don't own the music, you are simply licensing it also. But you are correct, there is nothing on the physical CD that forces you to obey the rules.

Anyone who is familiar with copyright law, please post what you are actually ALLOWED to do with a CD
I'm no lawyer, but the way I've read the laws:

- If it is for personal use, then the "fair use" provisions apply. Under these terms, you can basically do whatever you want with the music, as long as you don't redistribute anything. Make all the copies you want, load it onto whatever devices you like, rip samples and mix the sounds together in whatever way you desire. Even run performances (e.g as a DJ) at private events. But make absolutely sure that none of this results in somebody else getting a copy.

- If it is for professional use (public performance, broadcast, advertising, whatever), then you can't do much of anything with that CD without paying for additional licenses. Duplication is (usually) prohibited, even for backup purposes. A wide variety of different kinds of usage licenses may be required for different kinds of public performance - whether it's background music in a store, a DJ performance at a club, a sporting event, a radio/web broadcast, etc.

The rules regarding professional use of music are incredibly complex. Some Googling will reveal more than you'd ever care to know on the subject.

dcgreg
May 11, 2005, 02:37 PM
Listen, I love my iPod. It looks great, sounds great, works great. I'm fine with buying songs at .99, after all, my wife and I have a combined collection of around 300 cd's, so 3,000 songs give or take. But what if you're say between 12-22 years old? Might you have $3,600 in cd's? Sure, you might borrow and rip from friends and family, but the truth is many new to the market won't have a collection of the size of most the posters on this thread. What Yahoo is offering is great. C'mon $5 a month on average for all the songs you want. Given that experience you'll have the opportunity to cherry pick the ones you want for burning or keeping, at .79, not bad. And don't give me that bit about being unable to burn to cd for convenience, that's why you've got the DAP to begin with, spend $6 on an audio out cable.

You can have the same per song or per album experience as on iTMS, plus a music subscription for $5. I would gladly pay Apple a premium (say another $2/mo) to open up a smimilar service.

Here's hoping they do ;-)

shamino
May 11, 2005, 02:39 PM
That would be predatory pricing and REAL would have every right to take them to court. You cannot sell something for a loss just to kill competition. (XBox, PS2 and Gamecube sales always make me wonder on this rule though)
When your product is data and not something physical, it is very hard to pin-down what the actual costs are.

In the case of a music-purchase site (like iTMS), the costs are pretty straightforward. Each song causes Apple to make a payment to the record labels, and there's a per-transaction cost for the credit card usage. All other costs (network bandwidth, server maintenance, etc.) are very fuzzy and can be considered "overhead" inherent in running the service, and probably doesn't have to be reflected in the per-song costs.

In the case of a music-rental site, the costs are compeltely fuzzy. We know the service is paying fees to the record labels, but they're certainly not per-song fees. They are probably per-subscriber fees of some kind, and they're definitely less than the monthly fee subscribers pay. Everything else can be considered "overhead".

Similarly for software products. Although it might have cost Microsoft billions of dollars to develop Windows XP, their per-unit cost is really nothing more than the cost to stamp the CD and package it. The rest is overhead costs that may be made up by unit sales, by selling support contracts, by profits from other parts of the company, or just about anything else. And they may decide to recoup those costs over the course of many years.

If a company wants to eat the overhead costs, they can sell their product at a loss and have it appear otherwise for the purpose of avoiding antitrust legislation.

This is very different from a company selling physical goods (like cars), where the per-unit manufacturing costs (parts and labor) are a large chunk of the purchase price.

shamino
May 11, 2005, 02:48 PM
I think we actually agree. Buying a CD is not really "owning" the music, it's owning the plastic disc and licensing the music on it. But, you own a lot less when you buy from the iTunes Store because there are built-in restrictions that are obviously there to protect copyright, which is understandable, but it also restricts where you can play that music and on how many devices.
And these restrictions are easily, and legally circumvented by burning the tracks to a CD - which is expressly permitted by Apple's DRM terms. Once the CD is burned, your rights with respect to that CD are the same as those from a purchased CD - including the right to rip the tracks into a computer, make duplicates, etc.

For a service that doesn't allow CD burning (which is all of the rental services, if you don't pay extra per-song fees), you have to break the DRM (which means breaking federal law in the US) in order to make that CD. Which means there is no legal way to end up with the (legal) equivalent of a purchased CD.

alandail
May 11, 2005, 02:59 PM
is nobody troubled by the migration issue with Microsoft's DRM that I pointed out earlier?

The license on files you buy can only be migrated to a new computer when you upgrade a limited number of times determined by the service you buy them from, not to exceed 10. You don't just authorize another computer like Apple's DRM does, you have to migrate each and every license.

Not only that, the license can be set to not migrate at all, but rather require a new download from the service, which means the service you buy a protected WMA file from has to both still exist and still have the content years from now for your purchase to still be usable.

And these same migration restrictions are placed on files you rip in from CD.

The result is your music library you spend all of that time building, organizing, buying, etc, using Microsoft's DRM, will someday stop working bit by bit just because you buy new computers from time to time.

paulsecic
May 11, 2005, 03:04 PM
Wow, only half the price of Napster. I think they'll have to do the math again. I wonder whether this new subscription service has a DRM which can be as easily hacked as Napster's.
On local TV news they said Yahoo's service would cost $60 a year.

alandail
May 11, 2005, 03:09 PM
to follow up on my last post, this is from Microsoft's DRM page

You've reached the Windows Media Personal License Migration Service Web page because the Player has determined that a new license is required to play the protected file. To play the file on this computer, you must download a new license (a process known as “license migration”) from the Web page by clicking the Migrate License button. The license will act as an electronic key that allows you to unlock the protected file and play it. Keep in mind that a license for a file can only be migrated ten times.

So, if you upgrade your computer every year, in 11 years, your songs will stop playing. If you wait 2 years, in 22 years you'll run into this.

To put this in persepctive, as a software developer, I upgrade my computer about once/year and bought my first mac 21 years ago. Had all of that music had the same DRM that WMA files have, Anything I bought before 1995 would now be unplayable. I have 2137 tracks on my iPod. I would guess 1600 of those were bought prior to 1995. That would be approximately $1600 worth of music that simply stopped working because of upgrading my computer if all music I bought in the past 20 years had Microsoft's DRM system. Some of that music is out of print, so couldn't be replaced when it stopped working, even if I wanted to spend the money again.

VanNess
May 11, 2005, 03:19 PM
This is great! More competition = better for customers! :D

Actually, to date, there isn't a competitor to Apple. Not a single one. No one offers what Apple offers: The holy trinity of the iTunes Music Store/iTunes Jukebox software/iPod combination; seamlessly integrated and whose ease of use is legendary now.

Apple's "competition" to date has been a laughing stock of disparate companies with disparate profit interests presumably trying to align themselves for a piece of the Apple pie, and, rather predictably, it hasn't worked.

It's almost too late now. The iPod has become so iconized as the portable music player of choice at this point that simply matching specs and price isn't going to cut it anymore. Not to mention its user interface, one of the most important details that gets lost anytime a new player is announced and pitted against the iPod. The press may gloss over it, but the public doesn't. There's much more to it than just being small, white and shinny and the press just doesn't get it. It just sees portable players through the thin lens of hardware feature comparisons. How about Integration with jukebox software and on-line music store? Please....

And, despite that fact that there has never, ever been a single instance of a successful "music rental store" in the entire history of modern music, Yahoo, et al, and the rest of the well known failures in the subscription service business soldier on, apparently believing their technology is more important than the music itself. It's fundamentally flawed from the get-go, and it results in such laughably over-arching statements as this from one of Yahoo's execs, "WE are convinced this is the way YOU should be listening to YOUR music."

The bottom line is people want to own their music of choice. Thats the way its always been, and thats the way it always will be.

After all, we aren't talking about books or movies, which do "lend" very well.

alandail
May 11, 2005, 03:22 PM
as for the yahoo service, those who think they'll buy a cheap MP3 player and try out a subscription are in for a surprise. the subscription service doesn't work with all WMA players, but rather only this small subset

http://www.playsforsure.com/AdvancedSearchResults.aspx?searchtype=Advanced&subscription=true

apparantly playsforsure doesn't quite mean that. it has to be subscription compatible playsforsure devices. The cheapest portable devise is 279.99 for a 5 gig model. No $99 iPod shuffles, that's for sure.

shamino
May 11, 2005, 03:50 PM
And these same migration restrictions are placed on files you rip in from CD.
Windows Media Player only puts DRM on ripped tracks you have it configured to do so.

(On the Windows XP install of WMP 10) Go to Tools->Options, select the "Rip Music" tab and uncheck the "Copy Protect Music" box. End of problem.

As for the problems of DRM, they don't try to hide anything. The program's help page describes the "Copy Protect Music" option as:
Specifies whether tracks copied from CDs in Windows Media Audio format are protected files. A license is required to play protected files. Licenses help protect the copyrights of artists by preventing illegal distribution. Selecting this check box may prevent you from playing the tracks on another computer.

36183
May 11, 2005, 03:52 PM
there are two ways of apple dealing with these subscription services. one they could start a overkill service that could lead napster to going broke. or they could team up with the RIAA and make a case against these services as the limits they enforce are far to easy to walk around. meaning that people can be renting music but end up having no limits over it. it is like when someone rents a dvd and makes a "back-up" on their computer, but this is far easier/faster and requires little contact with physical goods.

ijimk
May 11, 2005, 03:54 PM
no thx yahoo, itunes 4 life in my book (unless i buy the CD)! :cool:

36183
May 11, 2005, 04:00 PM
i just noitced that yahoo are advertising this feature

"Share music with friends using Yahoo! Messenger"

now that is something that RIAA will not be happy with. :rolleyes:

Edit: another mistake, they have "Sony" lisited on the "Plays-for-Sure subscription-compatible devices".

i did a search of "sony" on the "play-for-sure" site and no results were returned. yahoo need to get their act together.

alandail
May 11, 2005, 04:04 PM
Windows Media Player only puts DRM on ripped tracks you have it configured to do so.

(On the Windows XP install of WMP 10) Go to Tools->Options, select the "Rip Music" tab and uncheck the "Copy Protect Music" box. End of problem.

As for the problems of DRM, they don't try to hide anything. The program's help page describes the "Copy Protect Music" option as:

well, that's good that this is an option. Of course, they can turn that option off any time they decide to, but until then, it's not as much of a problem as the restrictions they place on the music you buy.

CubaTBird
May 11, 2005, 04:07 PM
subscription service is like a love/hate thing the way i see it... i mean yeah u get all the songs you want... but then the minute u cancel, pop, there goes all ur songs.. at least with itunes u "own" em so to speak... and plus you'd basically have to set up a "lifetime" subscrition with yahoo on their music service... and i don't see yahoo music service on this earth 20 or 30 years from now... well unless its standardized across the board...

Dagless
May 11, 2005, 04:13 PM
what a crap idea. digital out recording to a digital device would make a completely new file but with the same quality audio right? arnt there apps which remove DRM too?

how stupid :)

36183
May 11, 2005, 04:14 PM
subscription service is like a love/hate thing the way i see it... i mean yeah u get all the songs you want... but then the minute u cancel, pop, there goes all ur songs.. at least with itunes u "own" em so to speak... and plus you'd basically have to set up a "lifetime" subscrition with yahoo on their music service... and i don't see yahoo music service on this earth 20 or 30 years from now... well unless its standardized across the board...

that is what i like about itunes, i only used the music story to "try it out" and i was aware of the price of the songs i bought paid for them and i still listen to them. so far i have only bought 5 songs off iTMS and have been pleased with the service.

with the subscription stuff people will get carried away and start downloading songs like mad, then when they realise that they have to keep on paying yahoo to listen to the songs they will feel really let down and angry, some would just finds ways of removing the DRM form the songs they "rented" (and this is why the RIAA should be shutting down these services) and other will just get really pissed and it will get yahoo some very bad rep.

wide
May 11, 2005, 04:20 PM
at least they're gonna take out Napster by making it much cheaper :)

shamino
May 11, 2005, 04:24 PM
i just noitced that yahoo are advertising this feature

"Share music with friends using Yahoo! Messenger"

now that is something that RIAA will not be happy with. :rolleyes:
I wonder what they really mean.

If they're talking about sharing, as in classic-Napster/Kazaa/Gnutells file-sharing, yeah, the RIAA's going to be rather upset.

I could, however, seem them doing something completely different. Where you click "share" from your Yahoo-Music player application and the other person is simply given a link to the Yahoo Music store. If the other end of your chat session is a Yahoo Music subscriber, he can stream/download from that link. Anybody else is told that they need to subscribe.

Technically, this is a form of music-sharing, even though you can only share with other subscribers. And it's probably a good feature for every subscription service to provide.

36183
May 11, 2005, 04:25 PM
does anyone here remember that futurama episode that had that place called "KidNapster"?

after seeing that i have always thought very little of napster for some reason :rolleyes:

36183
May 11, 2005, 04:30 PM
I wonder what they really mean.

If they're talking about sharing, as in classic-Napster/Kazaa/Gnutells file-sharing, yeah, the RIAA's going to be rather upset.

I could, however, seem them doing something completely different. Where you click "share" from your Yahoo-Music player application and the other person is simply given a link to the Yahoo Music store. If the other end of your chat session is a Yahoo Music subscriber, he can stream/download from that link. Anybody else is told that they need to subscribe.

Technically, this is a form of music-sharing, even though you can only share with other subscribers. And it's probably a good feature for every subscription service to provide.

regardless, that will raise certain peoples hopes into thinking that they can send the songs to their mates. on that subject yahoo are really raising a lot of hopes with this service. people will feel lets down once they learn about the limits of the service.

Back onto topic: if yahoo think sending music store links to your mates is a service that is worth advertising they should seriously reconsider some stuff. i have been sending music iTMS links to my mates (over any IM client/IRC/Forums and such) for ages.

fatfish
May 11, 2005, 04:52 PM
I had to think hard as to whether this is really worth a post or not.

Yet another subscription service. Yawn.

With each new subscription service not only do iTMS sales keep rising, but suprisingly so does the market share. These services seem to have no impact at all on iTMS, they just share out the non iTMS market even thinner between them.

It just makes more and more sense for Apple not to license their DRM.

The point at which I thought it was worth making a post, came when I thought about the record labels part in all this. They continually crib about Apple dominating the pricing structure, then seem to sell themselves cheap with these subscription services, I have to wonder how they make money from it, or any reasonable amount of money anyway.

Rant coming on............

I really have no interest in subsrciption services, forget what happens when I drop my subscription, that's my choice. My worry would be, what happens when the subscription service goes bust (and many will) or if I want to change my platform (and many are starting to do this) or my PC (not as though I have one or want one) is so old I can't run the new OS (ha ha) and hence I can't run the required updated jukebox needed to still play my music.

Well actually these wouldn't be my worries at all, because I simply want to own my music, even if I was guaranteed the subscription service would go on for ever, I wouldn't be interested. I can do more or less what I want with my music and that's how I like it, I can even leave my music collection to my children when I'm gone.

End of rant.................

So having no interest, I don't know a lot about them, perhaps someone will tell me how it goes with Top 20 stuff, are they still available on subscription. If so, it seems a fairly poor deal for the artist who ordinarily has but a few weeks to sell as many copies of his tune as he can, before they drift into obscurity (often forever).

Maybe someone will answer this for me, since understanding this was the perhaps the only objective I could think of when I decided to post about what to me has really become a very boring subject (another subscription service)

MontyZ
May 11, 2005, 07:43 PM
And these restrictions are easily, and legally circumvented by burning the tracks to a CD - which is expressly permitted by Apple's DRM terms.
Yes, that's true. Now, if only the quality was higher. I don't like the 128 bps clips. Some songs sound "warbly" at that rate. I'd prefer AT LEAST 192 or better.

TheMonarch
May 11, 2005, 10:16 PM
GO YAHOO!... Kill Napster!

I don't do subscription though...

But at least it will put an end to those awful napster commercials. So in a way, yahoo is doing us all a favor by undercutting them so severely (50%, ouch!)

Yahoo is very competitive, they might be able to pull this off. Just look what they're doing to compete with Gmail.

alandail
May 11, 2005, 10:51 PM
And these restrictions are easily, and legally circumvented by burning the tracks to a CD - which is expressly permitted by Apple's DRM terms. Once the CD is burned, your rights with respect to that CD are the same as those from a purchased CD - including the right to rip the tracks into a computer, make duplicates, etc..

No they are not - you are still bound by the DRM license of the original purchase - it expressly allows you to burn it to CD, but doing so does not make it legal to rip that song back into the computer, thus circumventing the original DRM. You are bound by the terms of the DRM license, and I believe that the language of the license allows burning a CD, but prohibits ripping that CD back into a computer. I know MS's license has this language and i would guess Apple's does as well.

It's easy to do, but it's not legal.

alandail
May 11, 2005, 10:59 PM
here, I found it - this is in the agreement to buy songs from the iTunes store

Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product.

MS has similar language in their DRM - in both cases, they clearly state that allowing you to burn a CD does not authorize you to rip the CD back in, thus circumventing the DRM.

The thing is, they could impose the same licensing restrictions without DRM, as could competitors - and doing so would let competitors downloads run on an iPod.

MontyZ
May 11, 2005, 11:19 PM
Why all the hate towards Napster?

They really kind of got this whole digital music revolution started. I give them props for that. Yahoo is a johnny-come-lately.

bit density
May 11, 2005, 11:40 PM
I had to think hard as to whether this is really worth a post or not.

Yet another subscription service. Yawn.

With each new subscription service not only do iTMS sales keep rising, but suprisingly so does the market share. These services seem to have no impact at all on iTMS, they just share out the non iTMS market even thinner between them.

It just makes more and more sense for Apple not to license their DRM.

The point at which I thought it was worth making a post, came when I thought about the record labels part in all this. They continually crib about Apple dominating the pricing structure, then seem to sell themselves cheap with these subscription services, I have to wonder how they make money from it, or any reasonable amount of money anyway.

Rant coming on............

I really have no interest in subsrciption services, forget what happens when I drop my subscription, that's my choice. My worry would be, what happens when the subscription service goes bust (and many will) or if I want to change my platform (and many are starting to do this) or my PC (not as though I have one or want one) is so old I can't run the new OS (ha ha) and hence I can't run the required updated jukebox needed to still play my music.

Well actually these wouldn't be my worries at all, because I simply want to own my music, even if I was guaranteed the subscription service would go on for ever, I wouldn't be interested. I can do more or less what I want with my music and that's how I like it, I can even leave my music collection to my children when I'm gone.

End of rant.................

So having no interest, I don't know a lot about them, perhaps someone will tell me how it goes with Top 20 stuff, are they still available on subscription. If so, it seems a fairly poor deal for the artist who ordinarily has but a few weeks to sell as many copies of his tune as he can, before they drift into obscurity (often forever).

Maybe someone will answer this for me, since understanding this was the perhaps the only objective I could think of when I decided to post about what to me has really become a very boring subject (another subscription service)


First off, and this is for everyone that seems to be not getting this. NOBODY IS MAKING YOU NOT OWN YOUR OWN MUSIC! Who cares if you are going to continue buying music or not.

This is NOT an either/or kinda thing. This is an *ADDITIONAL* thing. Like I said before, I *own* a lot of music. Do I own *everything* I want to listen to. Nope...

Who cares if they shut it off. Then it doesn't exist anymore and you don't have to pay for it. It wasn't yours. And you can always go buy it if you want.

The key to understanding the business model is understanding the average customer monthly purchase and the effect that credit card charges have. 6.95 or 60 dollars annually provides a much thicker profit slice than a $1.00 credit card charge.

From the RIAA side, "buying" music vs. "renting" music means nil difference to them. *ALL* that matters is the income stream.

This will not prevent me from buying CD's. But *will* expose me to a much larger world of music. And all for a *MEASLY* 5 bucks a month.

I think that Apple will have a problem, because I am pretty sure that fairplay and the IPOD is not set up to support this model. The DRM is wrapped on the client (itunes). And each IPOD does ZERO DRM checking. It is not engineered in. And the reason they may have the problem... The rental model may be attractive enough that I may switch away from an iPod and all that cool, for a greater feature set/A cheaper price/and more choice in how I want to spend money on my music experience. And Apple and all its cool may not be able to keep me in the end. I might keep my white headphones just so people think I am still cool.

Doctor Q
May 12, 2005, 01:35 AM
Let's think ahead: What company will be next to the market, undercutting Yahoo with an even cheaper subscription service?

Apple can stay above the fray with for-sale-only music, announcing an ever increasing library size and international presence, while there is a bloodbath in the subscription business.

giba
May 12, 2005, 10:42 AM
Why all the hate towards Napster?

They really kind of got this whole digital music revolution started. I give them props for that. Yahoo is a johnny-come-lately.

Well, the Napster now is not the Napster that was yesterday. It's owned by a completely different company now.

granex
May 12, 2005, 12:43 PM
- the $60/year is apparently an introductory price. What will the price be a year from now? Let's be conservative and say it bumps up to $100. Subscribe for 20 years and you've spent $2000 and have absolutely no music to show for it unless you keep subscribing.


I general, I think that this is a great development. $60/year is not too much for what the service gets you -- on top of buying the music you want. But if people rely on this for their whole music collection, then they are going to be very susceptible to bait and switch pricing.

This is the business advantage of being first to offer. If people are tied in and feel that they will "lose" their music if they don't stay with the same company, then that company has hooked a bunch of zombies. This would be easy to solve by providing a migration path in which play lists established for one service can be converted to another service. Since you really only own the idea of which songs you want to have, this should actually be pretty easy in practice.

alandail
May 12, 2005, 12:51 PM
I general, I think that this is a great development. $60/year is not too much for what the service gets you -- on top of buying the music you want. But if people rely on this for their whole music collection, then they are going to be very susceptible to bait and switch pricing.

This is the business advantage of being first to offer. If people are tied in and feel that they will "lose" their music if they don't stay with the same company, then that company has hooked a bunch of zombies. This would be easy to solve by providing a migration path in which play lists established for one service can be converted to another service. Since you really only own the idea of which songs you want to have, this should actually be pretty easy in practice.

except no two services have the same collection of songs. And nobody is going to set something up to help you leave their service.

MontyZ
May 12, 2005, 01:13 PM
Well, the Napster now is not the Napster that was yesterday. It's owned by a completely different company now.
Okay. But, I dislike Yahoo even more. Their search engine suks.

Doctor Q
May 12, 2005, 01:26 PM
I read an article about the music subscription model this morning. It made a good point, that people subscribe to cable TV and watch what's on, from a vast catalog of movies and other shows, as long as they are a subscriber. Once they give up their subscription, they lose access to all that content (except individual shows they might have saved) and nobody expects it to be otherwise.

Subscription music is the same idea, except that people expect otherwise. That's a mindset that might be overcome by marketing, convincing people that what's good enough for cable TV is good enough for music. In fact, digital cable service often includes a variety of music-only channels, so a Yahoo-style music subscription service is yet another instance of that model.

shamino
May 12, 2005, 01:42 PM
here, I found it - this is in the agreement to buy songs from the iTunes store
Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product.
MS has similar language in their DRM - in both cases, they clearly state that allowing you to burn a CD does not authorize you to rip the CD back in, thus circumventing the DRM.
That's not what that quote says.

That line says that you do not become the copyright holder of the song. Which is no different from a purchased CD. It does not, in any way, negate your fair-use rights, as defined by US copyright law.

DRM schemes, no matter how many lawyers sign off on them, do not take away your fair-use rights (although the DMCA prohibits you from hacking them).

iPost
May 12, 2005, 02:17 PM
>> So, you don't own anything when buying songs from iTunes. You are licensing them.

I hear this argument all the time, and I don't think it is accurate.

It sure is accurate. Just try selling the songs that you bought from iTunes. If you really owned them, you'd be able to sell them (just like you can legally sell your used CDs). You are not allowed to re-sell your iTunes songs. You don't own iTunes songs themselves... if you own anything, it's a non-transferable license to them... and you are subject to the terms of the license.

iPost
May 12, 2005, 02:41 PM
Why all the hate towards Napster?

They really kind of got this whole digital music revolution started. I give them props for that. Yahoo is a johnny-come-lately.

Hmmm... except that Yahoo bought Musicmatch, who was in the game even before Apple and Napster. If it wasn't for early products like Musicmatch, Rio, Winamp, Napster, MP3.com... would Apple have even thought of iTunes and the iPod? Musicmatch was the first to produce a product that offered the idea of a music library on your computer and transferring to a portable player (the iTunes library borrows from that idea). Rio was the first to offer a portable MP3 player. MP3.com was one of the first to offer streaming and downloads.

I still have the Rio 300 that I purchased back in 1998 (which came with Musicmatch on a CD). And, I can tell you, during that time, the Mac platform was NOWHERE when it came to digital music, which was very frustrating. It's actually the reason I bought a new PC back then... to move to digital music.

Steve Jobs did a great job in picking up on the digital music trend and building a very good and popular product around it. But Apple was the one moving into existing markets and taking over. How can you fault other companies for wanting to do the same? (Yes, this is MacRumors, I know you can and will ;)

By the way, I just checked out the Yahoo service. The 79 cent downloads are actually 192 kbps files! They sound awesome! Why is Apple still selling 128 kbps files for 99 cents? The Yahoo music files offer 50% greater sonic resolution than what Apple is selling. I'm surprised we haven't heard more about this in the press.

All-in-all I think this is good for everyone. Apple needed a little push to get beyond selling those 128 kbps tracks and offering more ways to listen to music. Maybe this will do it.

Of course, the Beatles might just come in and take over everything anyway. They certainly own the name Apple when applied to music, and I believe that I've heard Yoko Ono scream "Yahoo" a couple of times during the Let It Be recording sessions, so maybe they can stake a copyright claim there too. ;)

shamino
May 12, 2005, 02:46 PM
It sure is accurate. Just try selling the songs that you bought from iTunes. If you really owned them, you'd be able to sell them (just like you can legally sell your used CDs).
It should be noted that in the recent past, the RIAA was claiming that you weren't allowed to sell used CDs. Fortunately, nobody listened to them and I don't think they've been able to pay off enough Congressmen to get the law changed.

Don't believe everything you read when trying to figure out what your rights are.
You are not allowed to re-sell your iTunes songs. You don't own iTunes songs themselves... if you own anything, it's a non-transferable license to them... and you are subject to the terms of the license.
Copyright law allows you to resell the songs. You can resell downloaded content just like you can resell purchased software.

The DRM makes them unplayable on anyone else's computer, but this has nothing to do with copyright law. Yes, the DMCA makes it illegal to break the DRM, but the DMCA does not take away your right to resell your purchases.

iPost
May 12, 2005, 03:01 PM
First off, and this is for everyone that seems to be not getting this. NOBODY IS MAKING YOU NOT OWN YOUR OWN MUSIC!

This will not prevent me from buying CD's. But *will* expose me to a much larger world of music. And all for a *MEASLY* 5 bucks a month.

Very well put!!!

I have memories of when I was a teenager, working at a minimum wage job, and walking into a record store. There I found so many bands and singers that I wanted to listen to... old stuff... new stuff... to expand my musical horizons and figure out what I liked (I wonder if I would like jazz, or blues, or classical guitar, ...)

But becaue I only had $6 in my pocket, I could only walk out of the store with one album, and maybe a 45.

I would have done anything for the chance to listen to it all for only $5 a month!

Kids today have it made! (I also had to walk five miles to get to that record store... in a foot of snow... up-hill... both ways! We didn't have any of this fancy mouse clicking back then!)

alandail
May 12, 2005, 04:54 PM
That's not what that quote says.

That line says that you do not become the copyright holder of the song. Which is no different from a purchased CD. It does not, in any way, negate your fair-use rights, as defined by US copyright law.

DRM schemes, no matter how many lawyers sign off on them, do not take away your fair-use rights (although the DMCA prohibits you from hacking them).

no, you didn't buy the CD, you bought DRM protected content, and the line says that letting you burn the song to CD doesn't release you from the license restrictions the DRM otherwise imposes. And the DMCA is quite clear about the limitations imposed on DRM protected content.

shamino
May 12, 2005, 05:11 PM
no, you didn't buy the CD, you bought DRM protected content, and the line says that letting you burn the song to CD doesn't release you from the license restrictions the DRM otherwise imposes. And the DMCA is quite clear about the limitations imposed on DRM protected content.
DRM is a technical measure used to impose restrictions that may or may not be supported by law.

The DMCA doesn't state that shrink-wrap or click-through licenses are binding. You are thinking of the UCITA - a completely different law, which only exists in two states.

Please read the text of the DMCA (http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304.html) instead of listening to rumors.

It ammends the US Code (which I've already posted links to) such that:

Circumventing copy-protection schemes (encryption, DRM, etc.) is prohibited
Altering/removing digital copyright notices is prohibited
Software/tools/devices designed for circumventing copy-protection or altering copyright notice may not be developed or distributed.
Penalties for violation are updated

It should be noted that the links I provided to the US code include all the DMCA-specified updates.

Nothing there says anything about DRM terms being binding in lieu of the rest of the law. Nothing in there says that clicking "I Agree" when you install iTunes makes you legally bound by the text you clicked under (but the UCITA binds you to that if you live in MD or VA.)

As long as you don't break the DRM, what you're allowed to do with the music you download is no different from what you're allowed to do with music from any other source.

If you think I've missed something in the DMCA, please point out the section that proves me wrong.

shamino
May 12, 2005, 05:18 PM
It ammends the US Code (which I've already posted links to)
Sorry. I posted that in a different discussion thread. Here they are:

Here's a summary (http://www.digitalproducer.com/2001/09_sep/features/09_24/cdlaw3.htm) of the key issues.

Section 106 (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html) of the copyright act is what gives copyright holders the right to make duplicates.

Fair use is defined in section 107 (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html) which allows duplication for some specific purposes, including news reporting, commentary, criticism and teaching.

Section 108 (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000108----000-.html) allows libraries to make archival copies.

Section 117 (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html) allows you to make backup copies of software (but not music.)

Left to just this, you might get the impression that you're not allowed to copy your own CDs or make a mix-tape for the car. However, the Audio Home Recording Act (http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm) says in section 1008 (emphasis mine):
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Meaning that you can not be prosecuted for making copies of music for personal use. The law does not distinguish between analog, digital or download media.

fatfish
May 12, 2005, 07:28 PM
First off, and this is for everyone that seems to be not getting this. NOBODY IS MAKING YOU NOT OWN YOUR OWN MUSIC! Who cares if you are going to continue buying music or not.

This is NOT an either/or kinda thing. This is an *ADDITIONAL* thing. Like I said before, I *own* a lot of music. Do I own *everything* I want to listen to. Nope...

Who cares if they shut it off. Then it doesn't exist anymore and you don't have to pay for it. It wasn't yours. And you can always go buy it if you want.

The key to understanding the business model is understanding the average customer monthly purchase and the effect that credit card charges have. 6.95 or 60 dollars annually provides a much thicker profit slice than a $1.00 credit card charge.

From the RIAA side, "buying" music vs. "renting" music means nil difference to them. *ALL* that matters is the income stream.

This will not prevent me from buying CD's. But *will* expose me to a much larger world of music. And all for a *MEASLY* 5 bucks a month.

I think that Apple will have a problem, because I am pretty sure that fairplay and the IPOD is not set up to support this model. The DRM is wrapped on the client (itunes). And each IPOD does ZERO DRM checking. It is not engineered in. And the reason they may have the problem... The rental model may be attractive enough that I may switch away from an iPod and all that cool, for a greater feature set/A cheaper price/and more choice in how I want to spend money on my music experience. And Apple and all its cool may not be able to keep me in the end. I might keep my white headphones just so people think I am still cool.

My actual point was I don't think it will have very much impact on Apple. Yes I had a rant about owning my music, but that's what I want, each to his own and all that, the fact that you prefer to rent or a mixture of both actually doesn't make much difference and rather supports my point. I prefer to buy, I will continue to use ITMS, those that prefer to rent can't use Apple anyway, so those that are going to rent from Yahoo are going to stop using someone else, but it won't be apple because they didn't use them in the first place.

As for not caring whether you lose your music and have to pay for it all over again, I rather suspect you are in a very small minority there, but again each to his own, I'm sure some people enjoy poking themselves in the eye as well.

fatfish
May 12, 2005, 07:37 PM
I read an article about the music subscription model this morning. It made a good point, that people subscribe to cable TV and watch what's on, from a vast catalog of movies and other shows, as long as they are a subscriber. Once they give up their subscription, they lose access to all that content (except individual shows they might have saved) and nobody expects it to be otherwise.

Subscription music is the same idea, except that people expect otherwise. That's a mindset that might be overcome by marketing, convincing people that what's good enough for cable TV is good enough for music. In fact, digital cable service often includes a variety of music-only channels, so a Yahoo-style music subscription service is yet another instance of that model.

Not the same model at all.

People generally watch a show once only. maybe a couple of times if it's a movie. It doesn't matter to them if their subscription stops. That's not the case with music.

Music only channels on cable is another thing all together, it's radio, you don't choose your songs and you can't save 'em and it's also not what you conciously pay your subscription for either.

Doctor Q
May 12, 2005, 08:28 PM
Not the same model at all...What you say is true if you think of it in the iTMS model - you pick your favorite song at Yahoo, get it once, and listen to it over and over forever as long as you subscribe. You are correct that it doesn't match cable TV's offerings of a dozen or few dozen music channels.

But if you think of one TV channel as one tune, then they are offering the equivalent of a million TV music channels. You pick one, listen to it, and that's that. Next time, you pick something else.

In between those two extremes, imagine that a TV channel is equivalent to a playlist (a feature Yahoo is pushing as a way to share your selections). A playlist might contain the current Top 100 in a certain genre, for example, or the latest album by one artist. You pick a playlist (channel) and listen to it. Tomorrow, you may hear something different on the same playlist, the same way you might watch the same evening news program every night, with content changed daily.

Presented that way, subscription music (with thousands or tens of thousands of playlists) and cable music (which could progress to hundreds of channels) would differ more in quantity than in the model.

All my rambling is intended to make the point that Yahoo and other services could push this idea and its advantages.

If, instead, they continue to assume that people want particular individual songs, they have to convince people either that the service is worth having forever, that paying by the month AND ALSO paying by the tune for downloading is worth it financially, or that their tastes will change over time so they wouldn't really want to keep their "old" music anyway.

fatfish
May 12, 2005, 08:51 PM
What you say is true if you think of it in the iTMS model - you pick your favorite song at Yahoo, get it once, and listen to it over and over forever as long as you subscribe. You are correct that it doesn't match cable TV's offerings of a dozen or few dozen music channels.

But if you think of one TV channel as one tune, then they are offering the equivalent of a million TV music channels. You pick one, listen to it, and that's that. Next time, you pick something else.

In between those two extremes, imagine that a TV channel is equivalent to a playlist (a feature Yahoo is pushing as a way to share your selections). A playlist might contain the current Top 100 in a certain genre, for example, or the latest album by one artist. You pick a playlist (channel) and listen to it. Tomorrow, you may hear something different on the same playlist, the same way you might watch the same evening news program every night, with content changed daily.

Presented that way, subscription music (with thousands or tens of thousands of playlists) and cable music (which could progress to hundreds of channels) would differ more in quantity than in the model.

All my rambling is intended to make the point that Yahoo and other services could push this idea and its advantages.

If, instead, they continue to assume that people want particular individual songs, they have to convince people either that the service is worth having forever, that paying by the month AND ALSO paying by the tune for downloading is worth it financially, or that their tastes will change over time so they wouldn't really want to keep their "old" music anyway.

I see the point your making, sort of an on demand radio station, but I think the model falls down when you consider the d/l times and storage iisues.
For the majority of people with DSL it still takes longer to d/l a song than to listen to it, and even if it didn't you'd spend all your time choosing and listening, rather than just listening and getting on with your work.

But yes I see your point even if it's not for me.

Nermal
May 12, 2005, 09:32 PM
For the majority of people with DSL it still takes longer to d/l a song than to listen to it

Huh? Apple encodes songs at 128 kb/s, and presumably Yahoo etc use a similar rate. That means that you can listen to the song in real time if your connection is 128 kb/s or faster. The vast majority of DSL connections are faster than this.

fatfish
May 12, 2005, 09:45 PM
Huh? Apple encodes songs at 128 kb/s, and presumably Yahoo etc use a similar rate. That means that you can listen to the song in real time if your connection is 128 kb/s or faster. The vast majority of DSL connections are faster than this.

ugh ugggh. wrong answer try again.

It doesn't work like that. 512 Kb connection probably gives most users about 55 KBps d/l speed and that's max, during the d/l it might drift to less than half of that and that's presuming the server isn't all that busy.

fatfish
May 12, 2005, 09:52 PM
Huh? Apple encodes songs at 128 kb/s, and presumably Yahoo etc use a similar rate. That means that you can listen to the song in real time if your connection is 128 kb/s or faster. The vast majority of DSL connections are faster than this.

Your signature displays your total confusion with numbers. Yes the x-box has 3 core 3.2Ghz PPC chip, but it is only good for one purpose it is totally stripped down of other functions, it would be no good in a computer for example.

Think of it as a dragster. Fine for doing 300 mph for 5 seconds in a straight line, but it won't even take you to the shops.

~Shard~
May 12, 2005, 10:00 PM
Think of it as a dragster. Fine for doing 300 mph for 5 seconds in a straight line, but it won't even take you to the shops.

Good analogy. :cool:

Nermal
May 12, 2005, 10:31 PM
Your signature displays your total confusion with numbers.

I didn't write it, which is why I attributed it to Matthew Goeden. I saw it somewhere and thought it was worth sharing.

512 Kb connection probably gives most users about 55 KBps d/l speed and that's max, during the d/l it might drift to less than half of that and that's presuming the server isn't all that busy

A 128 kbit/s AAC file uses 16 kbyte/s. Until last year, I had a 128 kb/s connection, and it could stream 128 kb/s AAC/MP3/RealAudio etc without any problems (other than a few seconds of buffering at the start). If your 512 connection can't keep up with a file encoded at a quarter of that, then there's a serious problem with it.

barneygumble
May 12, 2005, 11:30 PM
Good analogy. :cool:
imagine trying to park the damn thing 300 inch chassis and 7 foot wing assembly

beatle888
May 12, 2005, 11:34 PM
I wouldn't worry about Apple too much, judging by the latest iteration of the iTMS sales chart:


Tulse, my girlfriend would like to see the source on that chart. can you give it up please.


thanks

bit density
May 12, 2005, 11:35 PM
My actual point was I don't think it will have very much impact on Apple. Yes I had a rant about owning my music, but that's what I want, each to his own and all that, the fact that you prefer to rent or a mixture of both actually doesn't make much difference and rather supports my point. I prefer to buy, I will continue to use ITMS, those that prefer to rent can't use Apple anyway, so those that are going to rent from Yahoo are going to stop using someone else, but it won't be apple because they didn't use them in the first place.

As for not caring whether you lose your music and have to pay for it all over again, I rather suspect you are in a very small minority there, but again each to his own, I'm sure some people enjoy poking themselves in the eye as well.

Now, to the poking a stick in their own eye. This is hardly fair. Lets take TV for example. I subscribe to DirectTv, Blockbuster Online, and I get free OTA television as well. They each do three different things, and I use all three.

With music, I have Free OTA, the Music I have purchased, and now the music I rent. I do not subscribe to satellite radio because it has nearly no value to me. Between the Internet and OTA I get enough of music on somebody elses time schedule. What the Yahoo model gives me, for a price point where I get value, is I get access to music on my time, and my list, and I don't have to pay the extra price for owning it. over 10 bucks is too much for that. 5 bucks and under pushes the value.

Now for the second point...

APPLE CANNOT PROVIDE THIS SERVICE. The existing portal player device (iPod) does not have ANY DRM AT ALL, or rather it has a universal key. It does not have a protected clock, and in no way can it expire music.

This means that a significant feature in my enjoyment of music is not, and will not be available to iPod owners, ever, unless engineered into a newer Ipod, and not available to older owners, and I just do not think that Apple will bite off the PR disaster that will cause until too late.

I am currently a 1st gen/3rd gen 15 gig ipod owner. And an Ibook owner. Because these were the best at the time, and I was a switcher. By this time next year... There is a serious chance that I may switch back. Given a operating system that will instant-on, have significantly reduced malware vulnerabilities, and music files that have the right balance of drm and quality restrictions that it does not get in the way of the enjoyment of my music.

But today, apple still wins. But I am not a fan boy. I am totally fickle. I like the best value and solution for the money. And just as I switched due to complacency on one side and innovation on the other, I can just as easily switch back. We shall see.

fatfish
May 13, 2005, 04:31 AM
I didn't write it, which is why I attributed it to Matthew Goeden. I saw it somewhere and thought it was worth sharing.



A 128 kbit/s AAC file uses 16 kbyte/s. Until last year, I had a 128 kb/s connection, and it could stream 128 kb/s AAC/MP3/RealAudio etc without any problems (other than a few seconds of buffering at the start). If your 512 connection can't keep up with a file encoded at a quarter of that, then there's a serious problem with it.

Don't wriggle

You were the one who tied the bitrate and d/l speed with each other, I was the one that pointed out it didn't work the way your post suggested, now you seem to be telling me I got it wrong, you brought the numbers into it.

The point is; follow the thread of the discussion and we were actually talking about a specific model were the service was used to play different tunes all the time.

Whilst your 3 minute tune, will theoretically d/l in slightly under a minute, it is often nearer 2, even on iTMS, and this from a service were the average user might d/l one tune every 2 days. In the model we were discussing were the user is playing different tunes all the time, the demand is likely to be 20 or 30 tunes a night, add in the time it takes to choose your tunes and a further slowdown while your browsing the store and any other organising you have to do and I suggest you will be playing them faster than you can d/l them.

fatfish
May 13, 2005, 04:54 AM
Now, to the poking a stick in their own eye. This is hardly fair. Lets take TV for example. I subscribe to DirectTv, Blockbuster Online, and I get free OTA television as well. They each do three different things, and I use all three.

With music, I have Free OTA, the Music I have purchased, and now the music I rent. I do not subscribe to satellite radio because it has nearly no value to me. Between the Internet and OTA I get enough of music on somebody elses time schedule. What the Yahoo model gives me, for a price point where I get value, is I get access to music on my time, and my list, and I don't have to pay the extra price for owning it. over 10 bucks is too much for that. 5 bucks and under pushes the value.

Now for the second point...

APPLE CANNOT PROVIDE THIS SERVICE. The existing portal player device (iPod) does not have ANY DRM AT ALL, or rather it has a universal key. It does not have a protected clock, and in no way can it expire music.

This means that a significant feature in my enjoyment of music is not, and will not be available to iPod owners, ever, unless engineered into a newer Ipod, and not available to older owners, and I just do not think that Apple will bite off the PR disaster that will cause until too late.

I am currently a 1st gen/3rd gen 15 gig ipod owner. And an Ibook owner. Because these were the best at the time, and I was a switcher. By this time next year... There is a serious chance that I may switch back. Given a operating system that will instant-on, have significantly reduced malware vulnerabilities, and music files that have the right balance of drm and quality restrictions that it does not get in the way of the enjoyment of my music.

But today, apple still wins. But I am not a fan boy. I am totally fickle. I like the best value and solution for the money. And just as I switched due to complacency on one side and innovation on the other, I can just as easily switch back. We shall see.

Not disputing what you say, infact it just supports my point.

You don't use iTMS, the fact that you will be subscribing to yahoo from now on will have no impact on Apple.

Whilst I'm an owner not a renter, I do not disagree that others would have it the other way round, it would be a drab world if we all had blue ford fiesta's. I still find it difficult to accept there would be many who would happily pay for their music twice, I think whilst your point is valid it is not quite the scenario that was discussed, which is were the user had paid for a subscription service on the assumption they would be able to play the tunes they had d/ld as long as they continued to pay only to find the service had gone bust.

I believe those that what will actually happen is that those that own will own and those that rent will rent and there will be a few like yourself that do both. And in reality if your rental service goes bust, you'll simply chose another with the only drawback being that you have to redownload everything you had.

But 2 points, 1. you said that you would be happy to buy something after paying to rent it, I don't think many others would. 2. Yahoo will on the whole only impact on other subscription services because people are mainly in one of 2 groups.

rickag
May 13, 2005, 09:55 AM
...
Now for the second point...

APPLE CANNOT PROVIDE THIS SERVICE. The existing portal player device (iPod) does not have ANY DRM AT ALL, or rather it has a universal key. It does not have a protected clock, and in no way can it expire music.

I'm no expert, actually I'm quite ignorant of this technology. But would it be possible to require owners of older iPods to update the firmware on their older iPods before being eligible for a subscription service.
:)

bit density
May 13, 2005, 10:18 AM
I'm no expert, actually I'm quite ignorant of this technology. But would it be possible to require owners of older iPods to update the firmware on their older iPods before being eligible for a subscription service.
:)

The device does NOT have a protected clock (which is as much hardware as it is software) and is critical for this form of DRM enforcement. There is a reason that this is only supported by a small subset of the windows media devices, and it is not just because of a firmware upgrade.

This could be added in future Ipods, and it would also have to change alot about fairplay so that the new files wouldn't play on the old ipods, and the old Ipods would not be able to subscribe to the subscription services. A tough problem as there are now MILLIONS of users out there.

AppleFoussa
May 13, 2005, 11:20 AM
This is great! More competition = better for customers! :D

Now bring on iTMS Subscription! :D


I hope not. Subscription based music store stinks. I like to keeo my songs and not have to pay regularly to keep them over time that will be one expensive song. My view...

Orlando Furioso
Sep 10, 2005, 09:16 PM
I realize this is old news, but it might be noteworthy in light of the recent iPod addition.

The following is a link to Yahoo (http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/) pushing it's online music service during my regular email reading. (A screen-cap is provided at the end of this post). Although the subscription service idea still bothers me, a service at $5 a month is extremely inviting. Too bad about the wma files. though.

Most posters see Yahoo as competing with Napster, but this ad compares their service side-by-side to iTunes (which I think we are to assume is iTMS). According to their comparison, iTunes cannot "transfer my music to a compatible player without extra charge". Im not sure how they reason around that one. But their other phrasings are slippery/biased enough to be true. Such as, "access to saved subscription music from multiple pc's". Although, iTMS allows multiple accounts and access from different computers (albeit limited), the keyword "subscription" makes their claim true as iTMS has no subscription offerings.

http://students.expression.edu/~mbarrera/yahoo_unlimited.jpg