Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I truly hope this will never happen. I like my free unlimited Spotify. If Apple steps in its bye bye to this great service :mad:
 
I foresee a version of iTunes in the future where tracks are available for purchase, streaming or there simply not available.

Personally, I stopped purchasing albums on iTunes long ago. I would rather purchase a CD and rip it at a higher bit rate. iTunes is good for purchasing one or two songs.

I would really like to see iTunes allow users to re-download purchased content that has been accidentally deleted. I would like to see iTunes offer artwork for all CDs.
 
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.

What do you use to listen to your music?
 
I foresee a version of iTunes in the future where tracks are available for purchase, streaming or there simply not available.

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.
 
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!
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.
Spotify streaming service is an alternative to iTunes downloads, thus a competitor to Apple.
Buying up your competition and shutting them down (eliminate them from the market) is an anti-competitive act.
 
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.

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)
 
What do you use to listen to your music?

Spotify (Premium) for the most part.

I've always kept my iTunes library on my desktop PC, rather than on my MacBook.

I also switch between Windows and Mac OS X a lot on the MacBook (occasionally Linux as well), which means that maintaining a local music library is too difficult.

In the past 12 months I've had a Symbian Phone, an Android Phone and an iPhone 4.

In the last few weeks, I've set up an old Laptop as a media PC connected to my TV.

All of the devices I mention above have got Spotify installed on them.

I can use my account to access the same wide library of music without having to store anything locally. I can switch between Mac OS X and Windows part-way through a playlist. I can be anywhere with an EDGE or 3G connection on my iPhone and choose one of 10 million songs to listen to.
 
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.


In the last 5 years I have spent much more than this buying music, and guess what? I don't listen much to the music purchased 5, 4, 3 or even 2 years ago. So, yes, a streaming service is a good value. It will not complete replace my purchasing habit, but instead became part of it.
 
Between Spotify and Lala Apple are really turning to bludgeon these streaming services out of existence.

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.
 
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)

Completely agree. I wrote the same argument just minutes after you.
 
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

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

The only cd players I have are in my computers: I haven't listened to a CD in over 5 years!
 
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 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.
 
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.

I'd rather make 20% on each dollar, to be honest. But why don't you trade in coke? You buy some for $100 and you sell it for $350. What do you think all the white plastic is about at Apple? We'll soon be able to cut the stuff with MacBook Airs.
 
Eleemosynary Delight

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.


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.
 
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.

isnt one of the first things you do when you set up a mac is type in and send off to apple your name, address, birthdate, email, and a telephone number, sure it is for 'warranty' purposes but apple do store and use that info, hey even if you buy an iphone/ipod touch/ or ipad you have to have an apple ID which contains all the info above.

I dont ever remember having to do that on ANY other product I have ever bought, computer, mp3 player or any phone
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.