RealNetwork's Rhapsody

[MacRumors]

RealNetworks launched (http://www.realnetworks.com/company/press/releases/2003/rhapsody.html) their music download service today -- called RealOne Rhapsody. The new service is Windows-only and provides a hybrid model - with both subscription and per-download sales.

RealOne RHAPSODY offers consumers unlimited, ‘all you can eat’ access to the broadest library of major and independent label music with more than 330,000 tracks available for on-demand listening and more than 200,000 songs available for transferring to CD, aka ‘burning.’ At only 79¢ per track, RealOne RHAPSODY offers subscribers the lowest per-burn price available to U.S. consumers through any of the new generation of digital music services.


After a 14 day free trial, the monthly fee is $9.95/month.

[TheInevitable]

<sarcasm>Gee! That's a great idea! Where'd ya get it?"</sarcasm>

[yzedf]

Apple needs the competition to provide a reason to keep the music available fresh, as well as to add new features or services to the product. Custom radio streams for example...

Yeah, whatever.

<sarcasm>Gee! That's a great idea! Where'd ya get it?"</sarcasm>
From Listen.com not Apple! Or maybe even MP3.com before that... or how many others? Apple made it better, but was not first. And now they are being undercut by 20% per song, and it is available to 90% of the desktop market, TODAY.

[vniow]

Mmmm....competition....I hope this only means good things for online music.http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=251585

[RHutch]

In order to be worthwhile, a user would have to download 50 songs EVERY month in which they want to use the service. Only at 50 downloads does the price per download + subscription cost yield the same cost per song as iTMS.

While this does offer service to Windows users, I think that it is inferior to iTMS and is the wrong approach. I think that Windows users will choose iTMS over this service once iTMS is available to them.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by RHutch
In order to be worthwhile, a user would have to download 50 songs EVERY month in which they want to use the service. Only at 50 downloads does the price per download + subscription cost yield the same cost per song as iTMS.

While this does offer service to Windows users, I think that it is inferior to iTMS and is the wrong approach. I think that Windows users will choose iTMS over this service once iTMS is available to them.
Why would they bother to switch? By the time iTMS is available for Windows users, 4-6 months will have slid by, with everyone getting used to the Rhapsody serrvice. The clincher is probably the custom radio thing. If iTMS doesn't have it, Rhapsody people won't bother to change to something else.

iTMS has not created a rush of Mac sales... and the switch campaign is a dud... and OS X has mainly shot blanks as far as convincing most users that Windows is not worth staying with... Apple's market share is declining overall, Jobs is one of the highest paid CEO's in the USA ("bonus" = salary = 25% of Apple's profits in $), for no apparent reason. :rolleyes:

[arn]

Well... the beauty of the iTMS is that there is no reason NOT to try it. There is no obligation... there is no monthly fee. You just buy a song if you want it, or not....

arn

[DGFan]

There doesn't seem to be support for listening on a computer (or portable player) that isn't connected to the internet via a high-speed service. Am I reading that right?

[RHutch]

Originally posted by yzedf
Why would they bother to switch? By the time iTMS is available for Windows users, 4-6 months will have slid by, with everyone getting used to the Rhapsody serrvice. The clincher is probably the custom radio thing. If iTMS doesn't have it, Rhapsody people won't bother to change to something else.

iTMS has not created a rush of Mac sales... and the switch campaign is a dud... and OS X has mainly shot blanks as far as convincing most users that Windows is not worth staying with... Apple's market share is declining overall, Jobs is one of the highest paid CEO's in the USA ("bonus" = salary = 25% of Apple's profits in $), for no apparent reason. :rolleyes:

Maybe you misread my post. I did not suggest that Windows users will switch to Mac OS. I'm not talking about that kind of "switching". I just think that people will get tired of paying $9.95 per month when they won't be able to think of 50 songs to download every month. And I don't think that the custom radio will be such a big deal.

If you don't understand the price per song comparison, then maybe the rest of the country won't either. And Real will be happy to take in your money even though you could have gotten the same thing for less from iTMS. Maybe Real will win out after all. ;)

[Abstract]

My question from another iTMS thread:

The other competitors listed in the first post didn't actually say that they were going to go with a subscription service in the future, did they? So if they want to compete with Apple in the "per-song" download business, won't they need an agreement with all 5 major record companies as well, much like Steve Jobs needed to fight for? If so, then won't it be a long process for them to get all of that worked out? Maybe by the time these companies work out a deal with the music companies, iTunes for Windows would have been out for a long enough time to gain market share early.

Okay, so I guess it was quite easy for Realplayer to get the Big 5 to commit to this project as well. Apple always puts in the legwork to innovate, and a month later, you always hear of someone else using the same idea. Why invest so much money, time, and effort into something if you know that somebody else is going to invest 10% of the effort and time to do the exact same thing, simply because they waited for somebody else to innovate? Its not like Apple is prospering because of their valiant efforts. :o

[Macmaniac]

They better get iTunes for windows fast, I'm afraid they've lost their chance to take the windows music market, once again we have been beat:(

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by yzedf


iTMS has not created a rush of Mac sales...

I think it's a little early to know what the effect of the iTMS is on Mac sales. It looks like it may be quite positive, however.

This is from "Internet Retailer" last week:

"Apple Computer Inc.'s Apple.com led all computer hardware sites in number of shoppers for the week that ended May 11, according to Nielsen/NetRatings' AdRelevance report. Apple.com logged 3.75 million unique visitors, 73.7% of all visitors to hardware sites, which hosted 5.09 million shoppers for the week."

Here's the full story:
http://www.internetretailer.com/dailyNews.asp?id=9361

[foniks2020]

Originally posted by DGFan
There doesn't seem to be support for listening on a computer (or portable player) that isn't connected to the internet via a high-speed service. Am I reading that right?

That's the killer as far as I can tell AND the reason why soooo many people have been using file trading instead of audio on demand streams... if you can't take it with you or at least download an album over night it just won't work for 95% of the internet. It's the same reason people wanted to abuse the iTunes streaming... they wanted to keep those songs around for later, not have to go find them or rely on someone else's generosity... which isn't wrong per se but the problem comes when no method of compensation is provided.

We still need a working micropayment system, credit accounts just aren't cutting it for this type of commerce, too much overhead per transaction. Unfortunately subscription based payment, which is the only viable alternative, isn't appropriate for this scenario either.

[dethl]

Didn't Steve say that subscription services weren't that good, and so thats why iTMS goes the path of 99 cents a song, no contracts, etc?

[Foxer]

What's the bit rate of thier songs? I can't seem to find mention of it on the site? Since they certainly aren't using AAC, it is probably safe to assume that iTMS provides a higher sound quality at 128 AAC.

For some reason, I've always really disliked Real, so I hope this dies some painful death.

[BobX]

Apple Music's value propositions are:
* Freedom to listen to it where you want and in the way you want to (as long as you stick to Apple products a la iPod) and unencumbering, nearly invisible DRM.
* Legal rights to use in home movies and slide show (a big value add that others cannot easily duplicate)

But it will all boil down to selection -- there is no value if I cannot acquire the music I want. (Seems like Rhapsody has a larger library right now, though a good portion of that library is stream-only.)

[tjwett]

Okay, thsongs are 20 cents cheaper BUT there is a ten dollar per month membership fee. So let's say I download 10 songs this month. At 79 cents per song that's $7.90, PLUS the $9.95 monthly fee, that's about $18.00
I could get those same ten songs from Apple for $9.90, almost HALF the price. Hmmm, that's a tough decision. I guess they are just hoping to get all the Windows users who can't use iTunes at the moment. But they better watch out when iTunes for Windows is released because it's obviously a much better deal than this.

[gregorypierce]

Some key questions here to consider:

1) Why Apple waited so late (apparently) to get started on the Windows version of iTunesMS.

2) Will Windows users still want to pay a subscription fee once the alternative comes along. I use both OSX and Windows everyday and I know that I'm not paying a subscription to anyone, so if real even wants to be competitive they need to dump the subscription.

3) Does Apple have the ability to grow its music library faster. The current offerings are kinda .... old or don't appeal to me. The strength of the Apple library is really what they need to work on moreso than anything else. I'd pay 0.20 more to get a song for certain rather than pay a subscription so that I can wait for the songs I want to 'maybe' become availeble.

4) Is Apple seriously talking with independent talent. In doing so, Apple has the potential to be a real 'player' in the music space.

5) The biggie - what form of DRM will Real employ. How much annoyance will there be for the end user. This I think will justify spending money. If its easy to move songs around - Real can probably do some decent numbers. If however they are still doing the ludicrous timebomb subscription model (or similar), once itms comes to Windows people will leave the Real service in droves.

[iJon]

i dont think this will get very big. the problem is will Real advertise on TV, maybe, doubtful though. Will too many people hear about this service, no. I know I have told many customers about the music store, people that dont follow Apple to much, but they have a Mac and I have directed them to the Music Store and showed them around. When you walk into an Apple Store you will see the Music Store, when you go to dell.com, a compaq reseller, gateway store, best best and so on, how many of the employees are gonna advertise this. I do not think Apple is beat, same thing with the iPod, took them a while to get the iPod to work on Windows, but look at them now, leader of the pack. I think once Apple gets iTunes for Windows and they iTMS, they are gonna soar. Lets wait and see how many songs they sell of accounts are made in the next week, if it's 1 million then I think Apple should get scared.

iJon

[jdstoddard]

Thumbs down for Real Networks. Who in their right mind would pay 10 dollars a month to rent the music and then on top of that, if they want to burn a cd its .79 cents per song?!! HAHAHA. iTMS wins hands down.

[RHutch]

Originally posted by gregorypierce
Some key questions here to consider:

1) Why Apple waited so late (apparently) to get started on the Windows version of iTunesMS.



I have seen many comments before about how long Apple waited to start on the service for Windows. The evidence cited most often is how recently the job was posted for working on the Windows version of iTMS.

I don't claim to know much about Apple's history or any other specific information, but why couldn't this be the scenario?

Apple has been working on the Windows version for quite some time, doing as much as they could with the engineers they had. As the version gets closer to done, they advertise for someone with Windows certification to make sure the job is finished up properly. So they might not be that far from having the Windows version ready to go.

This doesn't contradict anything I have read from Apple. All that I know that Steve said is that the Windows version would be ready later this year. June? September? Who knows? Just later this year.

Maybe the competition assumed, like many here have, that Apple is just getting started. This could be a bit of baiting. The competitors are more likely to jump in if they think they have a chance. And then Apple is ready to go earlier than expected and blows them all away.

I'm not saying this is what is going on. Only that it is another possible scenario, just as valid as others that have been put forth.

[BobX]

RealNetwork's press release claims that "There are more than one million subscribers to RealNetworks’ subscription services."

Of course it's hard to tell if that whole one million subscribers are all on Rhapsody subscription or is that a grand total that includes RealNetwork's other subscription services. But if it's one million paying Rhapsody subscribers, that's $10 miliion a month in revenue, not counting any CD-burning revenue... not too bad! Considering that even as Apple announced their one-million-tunes-sold-in-a-week result, the revenue is still smaller than that of vinyl in the same time span. (Read that statistics on AppleTurns.com, but forgot the original source... some music industry group that publishes sales number by media type regularly.)

[e-coli]

Originally posted by Abstract
My question from another iTMS thread:



Okay, so I guess it was quite easy for Realplayer to get the Big 5 to commit to this project as well. Apple always puts in the legwork to innovate, and a month later, you always hear of someone else using the same idea. Why invest so much money, time, and effort into something if you know that somebody else is going to invest 10% of the effort and time to do the exact same thing, simply because they waited for somebody else to innovate? Its not like Apple is prospering because of their valiant efforts. :o

That's been Dell's strategy from day 1.

But this isn't a new idea, and iTMS is still better.

[merge]

Originally posted by TheInevitable
<sarcasm>Gee! That's a great idea! Where'd ya get it?"</sarcasm>

Well is this the same as Audiogalaxy's Rhapsody??
did Real buy it?

This has been out for months... I downloaded it as a free trial...
IMHO, Apple did the right thing with no subscription costs...

Apple is still cheaper if you average less than 50 songs per month...

Through Apple 40 songs in 1 month = $39.60

Through Rhapsody 40 Songs in 1 month = $41.55

or... 40 songs in 1 year with apple... = $39.60

and Rhapsody = $151

[redAPPLE]

Originally posted by Macmaniac
They better get iTunes for windows fast, I'm afraid they've lost their chance to take the windows music market, once again we have been beat:(

actually, i agree with this point. Apple should have given Windows users the ability to download (= buy) songs and albums from the iTMS.

well, maybe Apple was thinking... we lose revenue in G4 sales, why not in iTMS.

;)

[Vonnie]

I think this is a good thing. Apple and Real competing will lower prices, add features, get more music videos and exclusive tracks, add more music players that can play the music (after the ipod and tivo, a module for your hifi, a car radio,...)

Too bad Apple didn't beat Real to the punch with Windows availability. But all is not lost though, neither of them have entered the international market yet.

[e-coli]

Is it $0.79 per track to burn songs onto CD, or per album?

Also, it's funny how it never says what format the songs are in. MP3? AAC? or (yet another) crummy Real format?

[redAPPLE]

Originally posted by RHutch


June? September? Who knows? Just later this year.

Maybe the competition assumed, like many here have, that Apple is just getting started. This could be a bit of baiting. The competitors are more likely to jump in if they think they have a chance. And then Apple is ready to go earlier than expected and blows them all away.

I'm not saying this is what is going on. Only that it is another possible scenario, just as valid as others that have been put forth.

you're not talking about the 970, right? ;)

[QCassidy352]

Originally posted by Flowbee
I think it's a little early to know what the effect of the iTMS is on Mac sales. It looks like it may be quite positive, however.

This is from "Internet Retailer" last week:

"Apple Computer Inc.'s Apple.com led all computer hardware sites in number of shoppers for the week that ended May 11, according to Nielsen/NetRatings' AdRelevance report. Apple.com logged 3.75 million unique visitors, 73.7% of all visitors to hardware sites, which hosted 5.09 million shoppers for the week."

Here's the full story:
http://www.internetretailer.com/dailyNews.asp?id=9361

but the article also says that people spent 3:48 on average on apple's site as opposed to 11:55 for the industry average. Now, that could be because apple's site is much easier to use than the others, or because people take one look and run away. Besides, site traffic doesn't mean much in and of itself.

[ces1965]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the .79 is for a "CD burn" you can play in an audio CD player. Not a download you can load into jukebox type software, a portable mp3 player or share on a local network, etc.

From Listen.com's website:


"9. Can I get downloads in RHAPSODY?
No. RHAPSODY is an on-demand streaming service. This means you don't have to wait for downloads to listen to CD-quality music. Once you've used it for a while, you may never want to download a music file again. If you want to take your music with you, we offer CD burning for an additional fee per track, when you are subscribed to the All Access subscription plan at $9.95 per month.

If you're looking for portability beyond the CD player, stay tuned, because we are working on bringing RHAPSODY to wireless and net-attached consumer electronic devices in the near future."

Sure, you can burn the CD, then rip it to mp3, but this is rather inconvenient to say the least and I'm not sure that CDDB would pick up the track names and info using this method, meaning you'd have to manually enter stuff.

Also, I did not note any prices for whole albums. Anything more than 12 songs per album and you will pay more than the albums on iTMS (many of which are $10, including ones with 20 or more songs).

[chewbaccapits]

BTW, why hasn't Apple come out with the weekly buy count....1 million the first week..2 million 9 days later...Haven't seen numbers in a while, what gives?

[Rufus]

The 79 cents a track is definitely misleading. As others have pointed out, thats how much you pay to burn it to a CD (and every time you burn it, as far as I can tell from the documentation). And when you eventually cancel your subscription, those burned CDs are all you will have. I suppose you can rip the CDs back to your computer, IF they haven't figured out a way for the DRM to exist on the audio CD.

[pyrotoaster]

This is almost exactly what Rhapsody used to be!

The 79 cent downloads can't be played on your computer, and it looks like you can only burn them once! :rolleyes:

It's almost useless compared to the iTMS! With iTunes, I can burn unlimited CDs (just shuffle those songs every now and then) and pack my iPod full of high-quality audio.

What Real isn't thinking about is the fact that a lot of people don't burn CDs, they have these crazy things called "MP3 Players." :rolleyes:

As for Rhapsody's quality and format, the only clue I've found is "CD Quality." Sounds like mp3 or Windows Media to me.


By the time Apple enters the PC market with iTMS, Rhapsody may already be on its way out. Even if it isn't, I think I'll trust Apple to point out not just the fact that the iTMS is better, but that it's way better. ;)

[P-Worm]

I bet that Rhapsody does what Apple does as far as reripping a CD. They make it so that it won't come out right the second time. There are too many question that come with this service and it binds you. The iTMS is still king of the hill.

P-Worm

[mohaukachi]

yes i would love to pay 9.95 a month to look at annoying advertising and disgusting yellow and green color combinations using an awkward interface rather than use iTMS. riiiiight. it still comes back to the subscription. i cant stand that.

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
but the article also says that people spent 3:48 on average on apple's site as opposed to 11:55 for the industry average. Now, that could be because apple's site is much easier to use than the others, or because people take one look and run away. Besides, site traffic doesn't mean much in and of itself.

Agreed. I referenced the article only to make the point that it's too early to say that the iTMS is failing to sell more Macs, as someone stated earlier. I think it's reasonable to assume that increased traffic to Apple's website will result in increased hardware sales (though certainly not proportionally).

As for the time difference, one explanation may be that Apple's computers have far less custom configuration options than most other manufacturers. I think people spend a lot of time pricing lots of different configurations on the other sites.

[NoVi]

A few things I noticed about the press release:

* it's not an out of the blue idea by Real but an acquisition of an existing service (listen.com)
* it's not (yet) up-and-running (that is as 'Real Rhapsody')

So from this perspective the news seems less 'scary'.

Btw. I saw some comments on why the Windows-version wasn't already around. The reason seems obvious to me. The 'Big 5' would first 'test' the working of the iMTS model on a restricted target audience, before making the big leap, internationally and cross platform.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by RHutch
Maybe you misread my post. I did not suggest that Windows users will switch to Mac OS. I'm not talking about that kind of "switching". I just think that people will get tired of paying $9.95 per month when they won't be able to think of 50 songs to download every month. And I don't think that the custom radio will be such a big deal.

If you don't understand the price per song comparison, then maybe the rest of the country won't either. And Real will be happy to take in your money even though you could have gotten the same thing for less from iTMS. Maybe Real will win out after all. ;)
I like how you glossed over the 1st paragraph as if I had not even written it... :rolleyes:

I will try to refrain from multiple topics/examples in 1 post...

[marmoset]

It's not really an option for people who only listen to major label content, but Emusic is still the best deal for the non-mainstream listener. All-you-can-eat 192K VBR MP3s with no DRM, for $9.95 a month. Nothing other (legal) option comes close.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
but the article also says that people spent 3:48 on average on apple's site as opposed to 11:55 for the industry average. Now, that could be because apple's site is much easier to use than the others, or because people take one look and run away. Besides, site traffic doesn't mean much in and of itself.
lol :)

Or maybe the Windows guys thought; "this sounds cool... hmm... Mac only... (clicks over to apple store) still too pricey!!! (clicks over to CNN or whatever)..." :rolleyes:

Who knows. Website statistics are about as ambiguous as this:

"76% of all statistics are made up."

[iJon]

Originally posted by RHutch
I have seen many comments before about how long Apple waited to start on the service for Windows. The evidence cited most often is how recently the job was posted for working on the Windows version of iTMS.

I don't claim to know much about Apple's history or any other specific information, but why couldn't this be the scenario?

Apple has been working on the Windows version for quite some time, doing as much as they could with the engineers they had. As the version gets closer to done, they advertise for someone with Windows certification to make sure the job is finished up properly. So they might not be that far from having the Windows version ready to go.

This doesn't contradict anything I have read from Apple. All that I know that Steve said is that the Windows version would be ready later this year. June? September? Who knows? Just later this year.

Maybe the competition assumed, like many here have, that Apple is just getting started. This could be a bit of baiting. The competitors are more likely to jump in if they think they have a chance. And then Apple is ready to go earlier than expected and blows them all away.

I'm not saying this is what is going on. Only that it is another possible scenario, just as valid as others that have been put forth.
i dont understand it either. im sure most of those people who code at apple know how to code for a x86 platform. apple also makes quicktime, appleworks, filemaker, .mac utilities all for windows, they have people who can do the job.

iJon

[iDonkey]

I agree that Real's downloading restrictions discussed here seem to be a particularly unappealing aspect of the service. I also agree with arn that the "no commitment" aspect of Apple's service is a big plus.

But I still also wouldn't mind seeing an unlimited streaming option through iTMS. First of all, it's a great way to preview music before buying it. 30 second snippets aren't really that useful for determining whether you like a song or not -- let alone a whole album. If, say, I were to hear about a new band, it would be great to be able to listen to their album over and over again (even in fairly restricted situations, i.e. only through my computer with a broadband connection), before deciding whether to buy the whole album or just the single or nothing at all. (In a way, this approach also offers a "no commitment" benefit -- try out a song or a band all you want before buying it and then get broader usage rights if you do.)

Also, access to unlimited streaming is a great way to occasionally revisit music you wouldn't necessarily want to own. There's been many a day when I've had an irrational hankering to hear, let's say, Motorhead's "Ace of Spades" or Def Lepard's "Rocket" or even a little Gorky Park (anyone remember them?), simply for nostalgia's sake -- not stuff I'd ever want to own or load up on an iPod. Wouldn't it be great to have instant access to a massive music collection of stuff you don't necessarily want to cart around on your harddrive for the rest of your life?

Real's 10 bucks a month might be a bit steep for this, but it's not an approach without merit. I think Apple could either offer a flat rate monthly unlimited streaming plan with discounted downloads (in addition to the no-commitment .99/song approach) -- OR BETTER YET, include access to unlimited streaming at the iTunes Music Store as another benefit to subscribing to a .Mac account.

[noel4r]

the question is will Windows users wait to iTunes for Windows which will be released God knows when or would they use Rhapsody which is currently available now?

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by noel4r
the question is will Windows users wait to iTunes for Windows which will be released God knows when or would they use Rhapsody which is currently available now?

I think even Windows users will understand the advantages of the iTMS over Rhapsody. :p

Rhapsody is basically the same business model that has failed to catch on with Windows users... only with a slightly lower disc burning charge. Big whoop.

[Vonnie]

Originally posted by noel4r
the question is will Windows users wait to iTunes for Windows which will be released God knows when or would they use Rhapsody which is currently available now?

Rhapsody has been available to windows users even before the iTunes music store. It was one of those examples of "how not to do it" in steve jobs example.

It is subscription based streaming. Stop paying 10$ a month, and all your music is gone. You can't listen to the music when you are offline, or on your portable music player.

You can burn the music to overcome these disadvantages, but each time you burn it is .79$. They are not unlimited burns, just 1, every track, every burn.

The only thing that changed with before is that an unsuccessfull music-service lowers their prices a little bit, and gets involved with Real network. Neither are enough to really compete with iTunes Music Store.

[RHutch]

Originally posted by yzedf
I like how you glossed over the 1st paragraph as if I had not even written it... :rolleyes:

I will try to refrain from multiple topics/examples in 1 post...

I guess I glossed over it because I didn't think there was much there worth responding to and that what I had written would cover it. But if you insist,...

1) You have no idea how much time will have passed between the introduction of this service from Real and the iTMS for Windows, so your "4-6 month" assertion doesn't really mean anything.

2) You really think that it is so important for people to be able to have custom radio stations that they will be willing to pay $9.95 per month for them?! There is so much talk here about the rights/ability to burn the songs. I think people are way more concerned about getting something that they can hold onto forever. I don't see custom radio being a clincher at all. Would you pay $10 a month for custom radio? Maybe some people will, but I just don't see it being what makes this service superior to iTMS. I would much rather buy they music, arrange it however I like, and own it forever.

3) Being used to something for, as you claim, 4-6 months does not mean that people will stick with it. If they see a superior service or get tired of paying for music that they can't keep, I don't think that a year would matter.

Did I miss anything this time?

[gregorypierce]

Originally posted by yzedf

Who knows. Website statistics are about as ambiguous as this:

"76% of all statistics are made up."

82% of all people know that :D

[chewbaccapits]

Originally posted by Flowbee
I think even Windows users will understand the advantages of the iTMS over Rhapsody. :p

Rhapsody is basically the same business model that has failed to catch on with Windows users... only with a slightly lower disc burning charge. Big whoop.

Read the forums from the yahoo article...Most of the reply are from window users...And many want the ITMS!:

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=l&mid=&board=37138445&sid=37138445&tid=afpusinternetmusic&start=1

[bertagert]

Everyone please WAKE UP!

This is a competitiion between Apple and Microsoft. Not Apple against Real Networks.

This new service from Real is exactly the same as Press Play. There even the same price! Go to Press Play's about service area (http://pressplay.com/theservice.html) . Look at at the Unlimited Plus offering. Its $17.95 a month. This includes unlimited streams and 10 burnable songs per month. That would be the same price as Real ($9.95 + 10 songs @ .79 = $17.85). A little different way of doing it but basically the same.

All of these services us Microsofts DRM technology. Microsoft is all for subscription and only subscription. Cnet article from the other day.Cnet (http://news.com.com/2100-1027-1009794.html)

Usher (Microsoft) said the company's DRM technology is flexible enough to be used in numerous music schemes, including $1 download stores like Apple's. He added that he's confident consumers eventually will warm up to subscription services once they support wider copying rights and their value is better understood.

Now one likes Press Play and they won't like Real. Subscriptions for music will not work.

Now for the people saying Apple is too late because itunes for windows isn't out. Apple doesn't have competition right now and won't for the forseeable future. Why?

1. Everyone else is working of Microsoft's technology. This is not warming up to consumers as Press Play's poor success has proven.

2. Why do you like itunes/apple music store? Because the interface is good, downloading and buying songs is easy, and you get to do what you want with that song (burn it, transfer to ipod, leave on computer, etc).

The only thing Apple doesn't have is mp3 players, other than the ipod, supporting AAC. Once this happens Apple wins! This is a huge gamble for Apple but it looks very promising.

So, in short, Apple is trying to get companies to go with AAC. If they don't and they stay with Microsoft's DRM technology, consumers won't buy from the Apple store because they can't play it on there Jukebox/Zen/Achros player.

Do you see it clearly now?

[RHutch]

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
Read the forums from the yahoo article...Most of the reply are from window users...And many want the ITMS!:

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=l&mid=&board=37138445&sid=37138445&tid=afpusinternetmusic&start=1

I just read every one of the posts on the board quoted above. The people posting there seem excited about the iTMS, for Windows or otherwise. They also seem down on the RealNetworks model--not wanting to spend $120 and have no music to show for it at the end of 1 year--except for the ones that they had to pay AN ADDITIONAL $0.79 to burn each time.

[pudrik]

Originally posted by Flowbee
I think it's a little early to know what the effect of the iTMS is on Mac sales. It looks like it may be quite positive, however.

This is from "Internet Retailer" last week:

"Apple Computer Inc.'s Apple.com led all computer hardware sites in number of shoppers for the week that ended May 11, according to Nielsen/NetRatings' AdRelevance report. Apple.com logged 3.75 million unique visitors, 73.7% of all visitors to hardware sites, which hosted 5.09 million shoppers for the week."

Here's the full story:
http://www.internetretailer.com/dailyNews.asp?id=9361

That's number of visitors, not number of buyers.

[davem2020]

if you listen to the majority of your music at home and in the office and you have highspeed internet then 9.95 is a great value for unlimitted streaming. and once this is available wirelessly on your cell phone, the ipod will be obsolete.

i would like the comfort of knowing that i own the music and can do what i want with it, but i accept the trade off-- having access to box sets and reissues that i would never purchase myself is great. in a couple months i filled my 160 gb hard drive with downloaded music and there is still so much more i want to listen to. with rhapsody i can listen to all the music without spending hundreds of dollars on new hard drives.

think about it. it costs more than $4.00 to rent a movie at blockbuster. for 10 bucks you can "rent" tens of thousands of albums all month.

[chewbaccapits]

[QUOTE] and once this is available wirelessly on your cell phone, the ipod will be obsolete.

Uh, how so?...My understanding is that phone can get bluetooth at best and thats pretty slow, don't you think? Or am I writing out of my butt?

[bertagert]

Originally posted by davem2020
if you listen to the majority of your music at home and in the office and you have highspeed internet then 9.95 is a great value for unlimitted streaming. and once this is available wirelessly on your cell phone, the ipod will be obsolete.

think about it. it costs more than $4.00 to rent a movie at blockbuster. for 10 bucks you can "rent" tens of thousands of albums all month.

Two things:

1. I think most people listen to their songs other places than in the home. In the car, skiing, working out, etc. If you could get the songs streamed through the cell phone, I think that you might be right as long as the interface could easily find the song. That would mean that the song list would have to have a constant stream and the bandwidth for the streaming songs might be to large right now.

2. I really like being able to play my music on my ipod in my house, in my car, at my work, in a friends car, etc. This isn't possible with rented music. On the whole scope of things, rented music doesn't work. Press Play, Real, etc. won't make it. The majority of people don't want or need the monthly expense.

Read my previous post on why rented music will fail and apple music will win.

[bertagert]

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
Or am I writing out of my butt?

Yeah, your talking out your butt. He means that the cell phones will have faster speeds here soon (for surfing the web and other data transferring). This would allow the songs to stream into the cell phone. No bluetooth required.

The problem is: the phone will have to have software to browse and play songs and also a way to get the music into your speakers. This will be tough to do in the near future. It's a ways out there I think.

[pudrik]

Subscription services is they're just like satellite radio, except you can't listen to it in your car or in a portable. Satellite radio is only doing marginally well, so I doubt subscription sites will do well at all. People don't want to have their music tied to their computer, as well as, most people don't have broadband to stream everytime they want to listen to music.

If I am joe blow non-power-user, with Apple's service, I can download the song, bring it to work (if I have a mac there, which I probably don't), put it on my iPod (which I can use at work), burn it to a CD for a friend, and listen to it at home. $1. With dial-up I just set it to download when the phone is free.

With a subscription site, I can't stream it at work (not permitted), can't stream it at home when I want to listen to it (my daughter's on the phone/it sounds horrble over a modem), I can burn it to a CD for my discman and stereo and for a friend, but am out $.79 each time, and I'm paying $10 a month in addition.

Oh, and what happens if your subscription service decides that the music your like isn't popular enough, and they take it off the server. Most people plan to be able to listen to their favorite tunes when they're old.

[tribalogical]

I would say, "DON'T PANIC"... :)

A few short bits of perspective:

1. How many CDs does the "average" person buy in a year, say from Amazon or Tower? Personally, I think I buy about 20 a year on average. That's about $300 a year, or $25 a month...

2. Assuming an average of 12 cuts per CD, that's 240 songs, with an average cost of $1.25 per song...

So, at my purchasing level, let's compare service models...

REAL:
- Real for a year costs $120 ($9.95 X 12mos.)
- 240 "burnable" tracks costs $190 (240 X $0.79)
- Add to that the "hidden" cost of 20 good quality blank CDs, $5 ~ $10....

Total cost over $310. Hmmm, I'm better off buying the CDs...!

Also consider that CDR doesn't hold up as well as production CDs, and if you buy the CD, you get liner notes, etc...

Who's going to pay MORE for LESS???



iTMS:
20 'albums' cost about $200
240 songs cost $238

Either way, I'm saving $60 ~ $100 on the music purchase. I don't usually burn to CD, but if I did, it would still be a significant savings.


Comparing portability, flexibility, ease of use, etc. iTMS really wins hands down. With Real you can build a limited CD collection. With iTMS you build a managed *reusable* music library.


A few other caveats:

- Real does NOT have the top 5 labels yet... only 2 or 3 of them presently...

- Their announced 'downloadable catalogue' is equal to iTMS @ 200,000 songs... not greater than. But we haven't seen the selection. Numbers like that always sounds good in theory...

- The service is announced, but not launched (even though the press release SAYS "launches"... no actual date was given). They are still in the process of acquiring Listen...


All in all, I'm not too concerned about Real beating out iTMS once both are actually competing in the broader -- read Windows -- market (Real certainly won't compete in the Mac arena!)...

The only real concerns are how fast Apple can get the Windows version of iTunes to market, and how fast they can expand the iTMS catalogue...

peace,

tribalogical

[davem2020]

of course it all depends on how you listen. i don't own a mp3 player (still out of my budget) and i haven't listened to a cd in a long time. if you are one of those people who cannot leave the house without headphones, a subscription service will not be sufficient. but i do think that subscription complements pay per download very well. You can listen to whatever music you want at home and if you like a song and want to take it on your next roadtrip or to the gym then you can pay to download it. this beats 30 second previews and imo is worth the subscription fee. there is so much music out there, a lot of it is worth hearing, but on a limited budget, only a tiny fraction is worth owning.

pud, rhapsody is very different from satellite. satellite basically replaces radio but you are still fed the music, you can not browse albums or create playlists.

one last word--
i vowed long ago (after spending thousands of dollars on music in college) never to spend more than $10 on a cd unless it was a rare import or out of print. $1 per song is still too high for me. make it 50 cents and i might be lured away from subscription service.

[dickrichie]

If you figure 9.95 a month x 12 (1 year)
thats 119.40

With 119.40 you can download 120 songs from the iTunes music store.

To download 120 songs from REAL at .79 a song you have to add the 119.40 subscription fee plus 94.80 for all the songs which puts you at a grand total of 214.20.

You would have to download 597 songs to break even with the iTunes music store. Assuming you didn't purchase any of the complete CD's for 9.99.

[bertagert]

Apple needs to change their ad campaign for the music store. There are too many people that are either on-line or just friends that think its .99 a song and that if you downloaded all the songs on the album it would be $15/$16 (15 or 16 songs on the album for example).

davem2020 just said he won't spend for the $10 for an album. He doesn't even know that the album from apple music is $9.99.

Maybe they should have "Download your favorite songs for .99...or the whole album for $9.99 or less".

[whatever]

Apple does not have to rush out iTunesMS. Did Apple rush out a iPod for Windows right away. No. Did others attempt to copy it and beat them to the punch? Yes. Did Apple the entire MP-3 player market share? No. Does Apple make the best player? Yes.

Window users are starving for iTunes and when it comes expect Apple to take over the market.

[davem2020]

i always wondered how that worked. albums with two long tracks for 2 dollars? i would spend $10 for a cd, but downloading the music without liner notes (jpegs of the covers do not count) or jewel case should cost 6 or 7 bucks tops. I know this probably will not happen since the record companies demand something like 50 cents a song. And as long as the music is selling at $1 there is no reason to lower it. hence competition is good (the number of negative votes this story got shows how narrowly most of the users see this issue).

Why is a windows version so important? Apple is not a music vendor. They should not be relying on music store for profits. its primary mission should be to lure people over to the mac. If Apple offers the simplest, most powerful and most affordable solution, people will switch.

[emberton]

Cell phone music streaming will *not* make the iPod obsolete. Not for years and years to come, and maybe never.

Do you have any concept of how expensive data services are over high speed cellular networks? They're DAMN EXPENSIVE.

To imagine that anyone but the affluent and the stupid will stream music day and night over their phone (music that they could just as easily keep in a mobile storage device) is blissful ignorance.

[kangaroo]

Right now, Apple has a superior product and a superior vision--not to worry.

iTMS is clean, cheap and simple. You want to divert yourself? iTMS let's you get in and out for .99. Harddisk->iPod->You (whereever you want to be). :cool:

iTMS=No Subscription. Refreshingly cool. Subscriptions, especially media types, are metastasizing in this society. If you like subscriptions, add Real to your magainze, IPS, cable/satellite, cell phone and site subscriptions. What's one more? ;)

[Cappy]

It's time for Apple to dust off their R&D on a set top box and market an itunes box that connects to the stereo and tv. The tivo thing being able to play aac music is fine but I think people would love to have a box that lets them buy their music and even view music videos on their tv and play them back through their stereo system. If Apple was smart, they'd be offerring to license this off to Sony, Pioneer, and others.

If they don't do it, MS or someone else will. The Xbox already has what it needs hardwarewise to do it.

I've always viewed the set top market that no one has been able to do successfully as a "wouldn't it be cool but really not practical thing" but the idea of this changes my mind completely. The price certainly has to be right but it's not like it takes alot of horsepower to do this. The most expensive items might be a decent size harddrive to put in it and wireless network hardware utilizing rendevous along with a builtin cd burner, and a firewire port for an ipod or other player. A cut down version of OSX with a nice frontend would wrap it up.

[Cappy]

Originally posted by whatever
Apple does not have to rush out iTunesMS. Did Apple rush out a iPod for Windows right away. No. Did others attempt to copy it and beat them to the punch? Yes. Did Apple the entire MP-3 player market share? No. Does Apple make the best player? Yes.

Window users are starving for iTunes and when it comes expect Apple to take over the market.

Keep in mind though that there are a number of analysts who quickly point to the profits Apple missed out on by not having a Windows version of the ipod earlier. It's not always about being the best but being one of the best as quick as possible. Bill Gates has stated before that if he can't see a market where MS can't be #2 or #3 in, they don't really bother. If they do though, they'll pour money into it until they get what they want. Granted Apple doesn't have the money behind them that MS does but I seriously doubt ipods truly sold alot of Macs to firsttime Mac owners so waiting actually hurt Apple.

[bertagert]

Originally posted by davem2020
Why is a windows version so important? Apple is not a music vendor.

They are now!

[mproud]

NOBODY likes monthly fees. People will realize, aww damn, that bites.

Besides, most PC users will still use kaZaa (or however you pronounce it), Limewire, etc.

Apple will do alright when it gets there. It's player is the best in the industry. It is highly underrated. The search capability alone makes it a winner - instaneous searching!

My guess is LAN sharing won't be suppport at all in the Windows version. Other than that, I think the version will be ridiculously similar (Visualizer is a must, equalizer why not, smart playlists.

[FlamDrag]

I don't disagree with any of the comments about iTMS being the best out there - especially when it boils down to dollars and cents.

However, consumers generally don't do math - they think in broad concepts.

"10 bucks for all I can listen to vs. 1 buck / song" While all of us realize that this is not an accurate statement about the various offerings - it's a boiled down version of what many consumers will think.

Perception will beat the truth every damn time. It's unfortunate.

Also many consumers forget - yes FORGET recurring charges on their credit cards. Oh crap, I just spent $60 over the last six months and didn't do jack about it.

Free trials work - ask AOL. Since Apple can't offer a free trial, maybe they should offer 5 free downloads? Dunno, just a thought.

Cancelling a service is usually a pain in the arse. Lots of value minded folks make the mistake of trying to wait until the end of the renewal period to cancel. Then they forget and have already paid for the next month in advance...so they wait...and forget.

However, I do think that ENOUGH people will do the math to make iTMS be successful - but I also don't think that it's going to crush the competition.

[moki]

The Real Rhapsody paradigm is similar to digital cable services that offer music piped into your TV/stereo for a flat monthly fee -- with the difference being that you can pick what songs are played, and the music goes through your computer.

The idea of being able to pick any album I feel like listening to at any moment without having to buy it is an appealing one. Feel like a little Pink Floyd? A few keystrokes later, and Meddle is piped through your computer -- you now have essentially unlimited access to hundreds of thousands of songs for a flat montly fee of $9.95.

However, with it currently limited to working with computers that are hooked up to the Internet via high-speed connections, I can see a number of problems I'd have with the service:

-- I like to listen to music in my car, in the gym, and while jogging -- Rhapsody is of little use here, unless I burn the tracks to CD (for an extra fee of $.79 per track).

-- Then I jump through a few more hoops to rip it to mp3, but you'll be recompressing an already compressed sound file, which is not optimal

-- At work, many companies are heavily firewalled, and without specifically allowing this service or setting up a proxy, or tunneling, it won't work

-- Bandwidth on a commercial level is not cheap. A few dozen people streaming CD quality sound would make a noticable dent in the good old IT budget at most companies

-- If your network is ever down/congested, or you're doing a large bandwidth-consuming download, the music may sputter or skip

-- At home, I want music piped through my stereo, not my computer -- so burning it to CD would be necessary for most music I enjoyed through the service

On the plus side:

++ having on-demand access to that huge of a library of music is a cool thing. I'd definitely enjoy it.

++ I also think that having a flat-rate music streaming service is a perfect way to pull in burning sales. You listen to a song a few dozen times on your computer, decide you really like it, and burn it to disc.

++ Many people enjoy music for only so long; not purchasing CDs that you aren't going to listen to in a few months/years it appealing

For now, I think Apple's solution is more viable for me -- but Apple could also morph their store to offer something similar if they wanted to. iTunes already supports listening to music streams, and Apple does own a nifty piece of software called QuickTime Streaming Server...

[gandalf55]

ever heard of the saying, "You can't polish a turd?"

Apple has it right so far. They need to release a Windows iTunes yesterday, they need to introduce songs quicker, they need a bigger range of artists (no Zep, no Metallica, etc?), they need to keep their approach the same. They need to get Europe involved ASAP as well. There be gold in those hills!

Soon MS will annouce something I'm sure. Apple needs to prepare for that. So far I have purchased 5 albums & about 30 tracks from the Store.

[billyboy]

I hope Apple combine their current track preview option with the streaming option currently available with MP3.com.



If I like an individual taster track that I have streamed on MP3.com I can download it, that's my freebie. (If Apple could extend the preview of one of the album tracks to full-length and have it available as streamed - or to buy as normal for $0.99, that would create a lot of good transparency about their product without giving too much away.) Give a little now to get a lot later on.

With streamed taster tracks from MP3.com I' have to buy the whole album on trust. (Apple's preview option wets my appetite even more and currently cuts out the potential disappointment when shelving out for whole albums on the strength of one song.)

Dealing with independent music with this combo would work wonders I reckon for generating traffic to iTMS.

Paying Rhapsody $9.95 a month to preview music is a real bad deal IMO. At the moment I just link to MP3.com for free. Combine the mp3.com philosophy for promoting music with Rhapsody's lbrary and you have iTMS pretty much as it is now, but with an additional streaming option.

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by pudrik
That's number of visitors, not number of buyers.

Yes, I think we all realize that. That was my point, it looks like the iTMS has increased visitors to Apple's website, and that may have a positive effect on hardware sales.

Thanks for sharing.

[billyboy]

Originally posted by Flowbee
Yes, I think we all realize that. That was my point, it looks like the iTMS has increased visitors to Apple's website, and that may have a positive effect on hardware sales.



What's the strategy though to actually get those extra visitors to buy a computer? It is one thingto get people in the door, and hopefully the strength of iTMS will persuade some people to just pop an order in for a new Powerbook etc, but if buying a Mac was anything like my experience, it's almost all down to the punter (metaphorically) to go along the shelves (website) and convince themselves.

I just hope there is a good hook waiting to turn interest into closing deals.

[lost_n_mad]

Originally posted by foniks2020
We still need a working micropayment system, credit accounts just aren't cutting it for this type of commerce, too much overhead per transaction. Unfortunately subscription based payment, which is the only viable alternative, isn't appropriate for this scenario either.

I am personally hoping the start selling prepaid cards at retaillers and Apple stores. I would love to bop into my local re-seller and buy a $25 card that gives me 25 songs from the store, especially since 1)my credit sucks and no credit card for me 2) I would have better control on what I would spend. I would imagine that it would be a nightmare for Apple to put up with, but it might be worth it when the Window's version comes out.

[Christner]

Originally posted by ces1965

Also, I did not note any prices for whole albums. Anything more than 12 songs per album and you will pay more than the albums on iTMS (many of which are $10, including ones with 20 or more songs).

You may be right, but I was going to buy Pink Floyd's "The Wall" on iTMS the other night (26 tracks in all) and nearly choked on the $25 price! They were selling the individual tracks for $.99 (some of which are only 30 seconds long). Suddenly the idea of purchasing a CD online while foregoing the tray liner and liner notes (especially since "The Wall" includes lyrics) is not as attractive as when the concept was new 4 weeks ago. Even Amazon.com only charges $28, and that includes the "Deluxe Packaging."

[Vroem]

In short we can say:[list=1]
don't worry, Rhapsody is a subsciption service like all the others
for streaming it's ony cheaper than iTMS when you listen to more than 10 songs a month
if you want to burn CDs it's only cheaper if you download more than 50 songs per month
if you want to transfer songs to other devices/computers... you can't!
[/list=1]Here's the math:
Rhapsody 10 streaming songs: 9.95 / 10 = 0.99¢ per track
Rhapsody 50 songs to burn: [ 9.95 + (50 x 0.79) ] / 50 = 0.99¢

And the songs from Apple are easy to "unprotect", even without hacking. Just convert it with a non-Apple utility that supports Quicktime 6.2 (on an authorised computer, of course).
And btw you can download the 30 sec previews to your hard disk just by using a browser, altough I won't say how. (usefull if you don't want to pay 99cents for a track that's less than 30 secs)

[kangaroo]

Originally posted by billyboy
...but if buying a Mac was anything like my experience, it's almost all down to the punter (metaphorically) to go along the shelves (website) and convince themselves.
What do you mean?:confused:

[P-Worm]

Originally posted by Christner
You may be right, but I was going to buy Pink Floyd's "The Wall" on iTMS the other night (26 tracks in all) and nearly choked on the $25 price! They were selling the individual tracks for $.99 (some of which are only 30 seconds long). Suddenly the idea of purchasing a CD online while foregoing the tray liner and liner notes (especially since "The Wall" includes lyrics) is not as attractive as when the concept was new 4 weeks ago. Even Amazon.com only charges $28, and that includes the "Deluxe Packaging."

Well if it's cheaper than Amazon without shipping is it really a bad thing. It is always possible to find things cheaper when shopping around. That's what makes the iTMS great, if you don't want to purchase from them you are not obligated to. No subscriptions or anything.

P-Worm

[billyboy]

Originally posted by kangaroo
What do you mean?:confused:

Sorry, verry badly written sentence. I meant that in my experience, it seems the only shopping and information-gathering option for a potential switcher to Mac is to go through various websites and buy on faith. It probably sounds stupid to those living in areas well-served by mature Apple Stores, but as a European I never got my hands on a mac till my PB arrived at my house - bought and paid for on faith that my research had been accurate.

Living in Europe I get the impression that Macs are supposed to sell themselves and in this competitive age, I just dont think that's too helpful an approach. I hope that Apple dont think splattering iTunes across PC users screens and linking them to the Apple.com site is enough of itself to get the curious to part with a huge wad of cash. At he very least they need some seriously good presentations of OSX in action on their site.

As this following expo shows, Apple and sales is a bit of a joke term - unless I was just unlucky in three countries.

I first got a taste for switching when I lived in Bordeaux. I had the money to buy any computer in the shop and used to look at these classy Mac machines in FNAC. The closest you got to a play on a machine was watching a loop of that iMac ad when the screen copies the bloke's head movements. I went several tmes, but noone ever came running over to sell one to me, which was sort of typical of french service, so I didnt bother pursuing it.

If I want some info on buying something major I ask around my friends . So when I was back in England still debating buying a Mac I asked assorted computer heads I know what they thought of the mac. None of them had one, and although none said dont buy one they're crap, all they said was they're supposed to be good, very user friendly and stylish, but we dont know enough about them to say yeah or nay.

So I went looking for another opinion and tried to get a good salesman to wow me over to Mac. Where I was living in Wales, there was literally one Apple dealer in a hundred mile radius, and no retail shop as such. All I could see was a couple of machines either waiting collection or in for repair. And the "salesman" was like, well we have our regular customers, they are very pleased with the products and the service, I dont think you'll be disappointed if you buy something from us. Its stricty next day delivery we hold no stock, prices are Apple's. There was nothing to play around on. It was like they were doing me a favour letting me spend $3000 blind. Not exactly the way to break down barriers.

I sold the PB to myself trawling the Apple Store, reading reviews. It was stupid really having to go to the lengths I did trying to escape buying another PC. The way a lot of resellers I found in the Yellow Pages were set up you had to make an appointment to see them. How stupid is that?

Having bought the Mac I had the chance to go to a couple of more realistic computer superstores in Bristol - PC dominated of course but they carried the Mac range. Sales was a ********* joke. In one there was a sizeable Mac stand but the sales pitch was a loop of some iPod commercial playing on a CinemaDisplay and deafening music - and the salesman was a PC boy, and it was like, arent they a good looking bit of kit really good, mmm yeah. He sent me to talk to another complete PC head about advice on a USB hub. I actually bought Appleworks there, because I had found out about it and it suited/still suits my meagre needs, and none the wiser left without a hub. In the other store they had all the Mac range, but nothing turned on, one salesman with no time to scratch his a**and it was like what do you need to do to find out about Macs.

I now live in a small town in a remote part of Spain, there is one other known Mac here (an iBook) - the engineering college threw all their macs out last year. In the 5 months of owning a Mac, even with the visits to the superstores, I have honestly not seen another Mac up and running OSX. I think it is brilliant when there are threads asking for "post your desktop"!

I tell everyone here how easy Mac is to use, but i can just envisage massive headbanging against walls when Apple launches iTunes for Windows - unless they really come up with some ground-breaking sales pitch to match their amazing products and show people surfing the net exactly what a Mac can do. And then go to great lengths to make sure that the resellers being publicised in flashing neon are actually accessible and have something to show the gagging masses.

[bcsimac]

I think iTMS will be ok......we need to give it more time. Yeah, I would like Apple to get more songs.....especially the newer ones.....the Inspiration genre is particularly lacking right now......no Point of Grace, Jaci Velasquez, Third Day......these are big name Dove and even Grammy winners! I think right now Apple's only real problem is the need to update and expand selection. The idea and model is brilliant though and I give it a thumbs up.



I really don't care for Real......a lot of their services and subscriptions are for PCs only and it took them a long time to get their multimedia player out.

[bcsimac]

Apple has always been that way. Remember Steve saying "We do the whole widget!" This is truly Apple's philosophy. Apple feels that the only way to do anything is to do it themselves and keep it to themselves. Apple is always finding ways to make it harder for retailers to sell, service, and market their products. Look at the lawsuits dealers were filing against Apple. Apple treats dealers with toleration.......Apple could care less if there any dealers at all. I have heard so many times that behind the scenes Steve has always called dealers (explecative this and that) and calling them a ******* hassle. Apple also has a hard rear attitude toward service providers. They treat certified techs like crap.......many times Apple will call a tech incompetent for even calling and asking a question to double check on something. More and more Apple is making certain products only servicable by Apple.....by depot repair only. How can a service provider make any money if half of the time all they do help depot systems to Apple for depot repair?
Recently Apple had dealers sign new contracts that to be honest were offensive.....telling a dealer that they can't sue Apple and that if they didn't like something they would have to go before a mediator service chosen by Apple......yeah like you have a chance of winning your case by a hand picked mediator! Apple also doesnt allow product returns for defective products.....so the dealer is stuck with stuff they can't sell......it just takes up space and time and money! All the time, I hear about Apple stealing customers away from dealers. Why would a dealer put the effort in if they know Apple is only going to eventually steal their customers away and dump dung on their faces? Apple thinks they are the know it all and end all of everything......the truth is Apple messes up all the time and isn't even willing to admit it. Don't get me wrong; I love Apple and the Mac.....but sometimes Apple is simply to arrogant for their own good!


Originally posted by billyboy
Sorry, verry badly written sentence. I meant that in my experience, it seems the only shopping and information-gathering option for a potential switcher to Mac is to go through various websites and buy on faith. It probably sounds stupid to those living in areas well-served by mature Apple Stores, but as a European I never got my hands on a mac till my PB arrived at my house - bought and paid for on faith that my research had been accurate.

Living in Europe I get the impression that Macs are supposed to sell themselves and in this competitive age, I just dont think that's too helpful an approach. I hope that Apple dont think splattering iTunes across PC users screens and linking them to the Apple.com site is enough of itself to get the curious to part with a huge wad of cash. At he very least they need some seriously good presentations of OSX in action on their site.

As this following expo shows, Apple and sales is a bit of a joke term - unless I was just unlucky in three countries.

I first got a taste for switching when I lived in Bordeaux. I had the money to buy any computer in the shop and used to look at these classy Mac machines in FNAC. The closest you got to a play on a machine was watching a loop of that iMac ad when the screen copies the bloke's head movements. I went several tmes, but noone ever came running over to sell one to me, which was sort of typical of french service, so I didnt bother pursuing it.

If I want some info on buying something major I ask around my friends . So when I was back in England still debating buying a Mac I asked assorted computer heads I know what they thought of the mac. None of them had one, and although none said dont buy one they're crap, all they said was they're supposed to be good, very user friendly and stylish, but we dont know enough about them to say yeah or nay.

So I went looking for another opinion and tried to get a good salesman to wow me over to Mac. Where I was living in Wales, there was literally one Apple dealer in a hundred mile radius, and no retail shop as such. All I could see was a couple of machines either waiting collection or in for repair. And the "salesman" was like, well we have our regular customers, they are very pleased with the products and the service, I dont think you'll be disappointed if you buy something from us. Its stricty next day delivery we hold no stock, prices are Apple's. There was nothing to play around on. It was like they were doing me a favour letting me spend $3000 blind. Not exactly the way to break down barriers.

I sold the PB to myself trawling the Apple Store, reading reviews. It was stupid really having to go to the lengths I did trying to escape buying another PC. The way a lot of resellers I found in the Yellow Pages were set up you had to make an appointment to see them. How stupid is that?

Having bought the Mac I had the chance to go to a couple of more realistic computer superstores in Bristol - PC dominated of course but they carried the Mac range. Sales was a ********* joke. In one there was a sizeable Mac stand but the sales pitch was a loop of some iPod commercial playing on a CinemaDisplay and deafening music - and the salesman was a PC boy, and it was like, arent they a good looking bit of kit really good, mmm yeah. He sent me to talk to another complete PC head about advice on a USB hub. I actually bought Appleworks there, because I had found out about it and it suited/still suits my meagre needs, and none the wiser left without a hub. In the other store they had all the Mac range, but nothing turned on, one salesman with no time to scratch his a**and it was like what do you need to do to find out about Macs.

I now live in a small town in a remote part of Spain, there is one other known Mac here (an iBook) - the engineering college threw all their macs out last year. In the 5 months of owning a Mac, even with the visits to the superstores, I have honestly not seen another Mac up and running OSX. I think it is brilliant when there are threads asking for "post your desktop"!

I tell everyone here how easy Mac is to use, but i can just envisage massive headbanging against walls when Apple launches iTunes for Windows - unless they really come up with some ground-breaking sales pitch to match their amazing products and show people surfing the net exactly what a Mac can do. And then go to great lengths to make sure that the resellers being publicised in flashing neon are actually accessible and have something to show the gagging masses.

[patmcfar8]

I don't know if any of you read John Manzione over at Mac2Net, but here's his opinion on the situation:

http://www.macnet2.com/comments.php?id=347_0_1_0_C

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by davem2020
if you listen to the majority of your music at home and in the office and you have highspeed internet then 9.95 is a great value for unlimitted streaming. and once this is available wirelessly on your cell phone, the ipod will be obsolete.

i would like the comfort of knowing that i own the music and can do what i want with it, but i accept the trade off-- having access to box sets and reissues that i would never purchase myself is great. in a couple months i filled my 160 gb hard drive with downloaded music and there is still so much more i want to listen to. with rhapsody i can listen to all the music without spending hundreds of dollars on new hard drives.

think about it. it costs more than $4.00 to rent a movie at blockbuster. for 10 bucks you can "rent" tens of thousands of albums all month.

Your theory is massively flawed for two reasons.

1. Do you have any idea the cost of downloading data onto your cell phone from it's service? So you're talking $10 a month but you're not thinking about how much you're spending on your cell phone bill to pay for all that listening.

2. XM already streams 100 digital radio stations for $10 a month. GM is even installing their receivers into their cars and the Delphi receiver has connections for a home stereo, car and a portable juke box.

People like to OWN their music, not just listen. That's the whole point. Why would you subscribe to a service when you can hear the music you want on the Radio? So what if it's not on demand. People have enough bills in their lives. For watching movies, this platform might catch on but people are used to going to a record store and buying a CD which they will own forever.

[billyboy]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Y

People like to OWN their music, not just listen. That's the whole point. Why would you subscribe to a service when you can hear the music you want on the Radio? So what if it's not on demand. People have enough bills in their lives. For watching movies, this platform might catch on but people are used to going to a record store and buying a CD which they will own forever.

I dont necessarily want to own all the music I listen to, but the radio isnt a particularly useful alternative. Streaming is the option IMO that lets people listen to what they want, keeps their HD clear of music they aren't too sure about, and if they like it, then they can buy it, own it and do what they want with it. To pay $10 a month to rent what essentially should be seen as demos of material on sale seems indeed an a** backwards way of doing things. Paying twice for the same product is not a concept the average consumer should support.

Edit: Maybe Apple could ak consumers to pay $10 amonth to stream if the deal allowed for 10 free downloads. Knowing what people are like, they'd download the 10 early in the month, and then later on get itchy fingers and download a couple more at $0.99. That set up might suit the punter and Apple in terms of a single $10 transaction once a month, considerably cutting accounting costs for all.

The movie stream option could be a good one too. And mobile phones as you say are a dear dear job - for anything.