Why should I?
I can run Spotify on just about any platform and listen to those songs at much higher quality.
The DRM isn't the main issue, it's the comparatively low quality of the files.
Even if Apple increases the bit rate on the store, it's going to cost me to upgrade my existing library (and that was a lot for iTunes Plus).
If I buy something from iTunes now, it's always going to be the same quality. I have to back it up - Apple doesn't let me download it again for free. It will work on the same devices and with the same software.
With a Streaming service, it's no different to a cable TV package vs. buying DVDs/Blu Ray
When a new technology (like 3D or HD) comes along, I just buy a new box and subscribe to the new service. If I bought loads of DVDs, I'd have to buy them all again on Blu Ray.
I foresee a version of iTunes in the future where tracks are available for purchase, streaming or there simply not available.
Apple doesn't have to be in the streaming business to be deemed anti-competitive. Technically speaking, Apple is in the streaming business when they bought Lala. Shutting them down and then going after another streaming company has the under tones of anti-trust written all over it.What regulations are these?
I'm not sure people actually know what they are talking about.
Apple doesn't operate in the streaming business.
It'd be hard for a court to rule that they are being anti-competitive when they don't even compete in that area!
In 5 years time when you've spent £600+ and have nothing to show for it will you still feel the same?
I would personally rather listen to radio and use youtube to discover new music for free.
The £600 would buy almost 800 songs on iTunes or around 100 albums.
What do you use to listen to your music?
The way I hope this is going, is that your whole library (music, tv shows, movies etc.) will be available everywhere (with your registered devices obviously). It would make airplay even better.
In 5 years time when you've spent £600+ and have nothing to show for it will you still feel the same?
I would personally rather listen to radio and use youtube to discover new music for free.
The £600 would buy almost 800 songs on iTunes or around 100 albums.
Between Spotify and Lala Apple are really turning to bludgeon these streaming services out of existence.
What do you use to listen to your music?
Nothing lasts forever: I spend a couple of thousand on a computer and after a couple of years I have to get another one. Using your argument, I've got nothing to show for that money. However, my view is that the money I spend on a computer gives me value for the period of time I'm using it. Same thing with Cars, holidays, etc, etc, etc.
With Spotify, I am paying each month for the music I listen to that month. You clearly don't see the value and that's fine. Can't you understand that some people do see the value in it and enjoy the service?
(as an aside, I've spent far more than £600 in the iTunes store in the last 5 years, and lots of it on music I don't listen to any more as my musical tastes change)
If you want to listen to the music elsewhere, burn it to a CD. Simples
apple1990 said:I've spent thousands of pounds on 128kbps AAC files from the iTunes Store that only play on Devices that Apple approves.
Many of those songs I don't really like any more.
Buying music doesn't get you anything better IMO.
Even iTunes Plus isn't that attractive.
256kbps AAC?
Spotify has 320kbps Ogg Vorbis.
If you want to listen to the music elsewhere, burn it to a CD. Simples
Well just ask the Oil companies why they still charge so much money for petrol when they have such huge profits...
If Apple adds Spotify access to the mobileme subscription, I'd be interested...
You lack common business sense.
Oil companies in the US have around a 6% profit margin. Apple is around 20%. Apple is three times as profitable as most oil companies in existence.
You buy a candy bar for $1 and sell it for $1.20. I buy a box of cereal for $4 and sell it for $4.24. I made $0.24, you made $0.20.
Who is more profitable? You made a 20% on your candy bar, I made 6% on my cereal. But when you and I go to the store, I have more buying power.
When Google makes an acquisition, they make the services available to the public, for free.
When Apple makes an acquisition, they shut it down. Sad.
Obviously they wouldn't kill it.
That's because Google is a charitable institution. They are rich and don't need your money--just your birthdate, SSN, mail-to, and a few other vitals.
Unlike Apple, which makes actual hardware for us to buy, and kills anyone who would give us content to make the hardware useful.
From this thread, damned if I can figure out their business model.