Universal Music 'Free Music' Plan to Take on iTunes

[clevin]

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/music/uni...sic-310214.php
I don't like
1. subscription
2. DRM

but it IS Cheap, $5/month, all music you want, pay through phone bill or something else..

anyway, I will just goto amazon mp3 download, 89c, and DRM-free.

[Piarco]

Just read this on engadget and iLounge too. Subscription models just aren't for me, I like to own my music so I can move it to whatever player I choose.
Amazon MP3 has got it right IMHO, but any competition is good. But why are they choosing to go down a well trodden path that only have ever led to the sheer drop of doom? Have any subscription based models worked??

[clevin]

Originally Posted by Piarco

Amazon MP3 has got it right IMHO, but any competition is good. But why are they choosing to go down a well trodden path that only have ever led to the sheer drop of doom? Have any subscription based models worked??

only cable tv/cellphone/car/electricity/water subscription works.

they are probably thinking that adding $5 to the cellphone bill is less noticeable vs. blatantly asking for $5 on website. Which might be true. but again, DRM is a line I can never cross.

[Stampyhead]

Man, these companies just don't get it. If it doesn't work on the iPod then a large majority of mp3-player owners just won't use it.

[mkrishnan]

How would Universal get hardware makers to defray their $5/month cost as proposed? I could see cell companies bundling it into their service fees, but if you buy a Zune for $200, how can Microsoft pay Universal $5/month indefinitely for you to have access to their music on it?

[Peace]

Originally Posted by Stampyhead

Man, these companies just don't get it. If it doesn't work on the iPod then a large majority of mp3-player owners just won't use it.

I wouldn't be so sure.If most of the music content leaves iTunes for other pastures people will start buying a product that can use the other service.That's what this conspiracy hopes.

Makes me wonder if the FCC or some other Fed watch-group will start looking into this could-be-illegal practice.

[MacRumors]

Businessweek details the plans of Universal chief Doug Morris to take on Apple's iTunes music service.

Morris was once a proponent of Apple's iTunes music store, but has since changed his tune. According to Businessweek sources, Morris is joining forces with other record companies to launch an "industry-owned" subscription service.

Representing 75% of music sold in the U.S., they would ask hardware makers or cell carriers to pay them a $5/month subscription fee. In exchange, consumers of their products would get unlimited music at no additional cost to them ("free"). Music companies would get the $5/month and hardware companies would theoretically sell more units.

Of interest, Businessweek notes that despite these efforts to undermine iTunes, Universal can't afford to simply pull their music from iTunes, which holds a 70% marketshare in music downloads.

Article Link

[DMann]

The more competition, the better... this seems to be true regarding iTunes..

[zombitronic]

F the industry. How about an "artist-owned" service?

[dr_lha]

When are these 'tards going to realise: Consumers don't want subscription music services.

[xJulianx]

This sounds like an absolutely huge operation and definitely for the good of the industry and end consumer. iTunes will always be there for smaller bands on indie labels by the looks of it though?

[Yateball]

Great idea as far as I'm concerned

And the more competition the better everyone's products get!

[Stampyhead]

Originally Posted by Macrumors

Representing 75% of music sold in the U.S., they would ask hardware makers or cell carriers to pay them a $5/month subscription fee.

MY cell provider had better not even think about charging me a fee for a service I don't ever plan on using.

[Morky]

How would Apple charge $5/month for an iPod? An iPod contract? What if the iPod breaks? Why don't the record companies just charge end users of the service $5/month directly? Now that might not be too shabby.

[lanray]

Would I be able to download music to use from now on? What I could see happening is that I get access to my music as long as I have the subscription; after that, after I'm tired of paying $xx a month, I don't get to use it anymore.

If you could just go crazy with the cheese whiz and download what you like, then this would be great (but, then, kind of dumb on the label's part).

[zap2]

"industry-owned"

Thats the worst thing I've heard to date...more DRM, more stupid record labels....hopefully mainstream artist begin to go indie...

[morespce54]

LOL!
Yeah...
The coolest part is that hardware makers and cell carriers won't ever pass the $5 to the end user...
sure... whatever...

[mac 2005]

Originally Posted by zombitronic

F the industry. How about an "artist-owned" service?

Always a good sentiment. I'd love for the industry to get more of a "direct-distribution model" so that the talent gets the proceeds and the overpaid execs have to earn an honest's day pay the old-fashioned way; by doing their own work and not sponging off another's creativity.

With respect to the $5/month, I don't understand how that will help the record labels. I spend more than $5/month now on iTMS and most of that money goes to the labels. Also, I don't want a subscription!

[twoodcc]

Originally Posted by DMann

The more competition, the better... this seems to be true regarding iTunes..

if you say so. i personally don't like subscription stuff though

[samh004]

Originally Posted by Macrumors

Of interest, Businessweek notes that despite these efforts to undermine iTunes, Universal can't afford to simply pull their music from iTunes, which holds a 70% marketshare in music downloads.

Perhaps they could start rolling out unprotected music on iTunes (or was it them that already did it and the others should follow suit).

I think competition is good, however they've got the wrong idea, which is to "beat" iTunes right now, and not serve their musicians correctly. I can imagine the musicians making even less money from this deal than they do on iTunes, how is that helpful ?

Bearing in mind I don't think they should be reaping huge profits, but they have to live somehow.

Lastly the obvious question is which format will they choose ? Surely it wont be mac-compatible, that'd just be silly... as usual.

[nateco]

I wonder how many different uses you'll get out of this service.


My guess.....none.....it'll be locked down like you couldn't imagine.



It'd be funny once they crack the DRM and you keep the songs.




What a bunch of idiots.

[zap2]

Originally Posted by xJulianx

iTunes will always be there for smaller bands on indie labels by the looks of it though?

doubt it...if all the major media companies pull the plug on iTunes Music Store, I can't see Apple keeping it around.


I'd much rather see artist leave the record labels, and Apple let them sell/give their music away in iTunes Music store....to bad Apple's won't ever allow that

[Consultant]

Subscription services had been tried for many many years, none has been successful. The main thing is that people know the companies can change the price of the subscription at any time, and thus any money so far put into the subscription would vaporize if you choose not to stick with that subscription anymore. Therefore it will not impact iTunes / iPod combination.

Ask Virgin's online subscribers how great subscription music is. They're shutting down and now their users find they've been paying $$ a month and don't have any music out of it.

[morespce54]

Originally Posted by morespce54

LOL!
Yeah...
The coolest part is that hardware makers and cell carriers won't ever pass the $5 to the end user...
sure... whatever...

[sarcasm]
Oh, I forgot that they won't pass the bill to the end-user because they'll sell more units, therefore covering their $5... And since every cell carriers will follow, you'll be able to use any cell carriers you wish... therefore... oh wait a minute...
[/sarcasm]

[bretm]

Originally Posted by morespce54

LOL!
Yeah...
The coolest part is that hardware makers and cell carriers won't ever pass the $5 to the end user...
sure... whatever...

Well, yeah, I imagine they would most likely charge $10 to the end user. It's called business. Then Verizon or Sprint or whoever would charge $7 and eventually someone would give it away, making up for it somewhere else no doubt.