Apple to Overhaul iTunes Service?

[MacFly123]

I could see it as some kind of hybrid system ... where you download the music to a certain number of computers, but you can also login and stream the music to others - such as work - for an additional fee.

I doubt that the local download model will be made obsolete. Instead I see this as a way of moving the iTunes Music store out of iTunes. I for one think this is a great idea. Not only will an online store be more accessible but iTunes will get a much needed trim. Remember when iTunes was just for playing music?

If this is stream only I would HATE it! If it is merely an additional option to free up space while still having access to copies and ownership then great. I think the VAST MAJORITY of people would agree with me, as Apple has stated repeatedly!

I think Apple will go for the latter. They won't radically change what has been so immensely successful when hardware sales are at risk. There is no way they will change their entire philosophy and business model. If people haven't been following them over the years, IT WORKS QUITE WELL!

Now whether or not this would be a free new feature or something I have to pay for like maybe rolling it into MobileMe then that would be a lil lame.

 

[kzin]

It will be both. Apple will still let you download the music to your HD and iPhones and whatnot, but you will also be able to listen to the music you have bought through somekind of cloud based inclusion in iTunes. Kinda like the iTunes store previews but with whole songs that you have bought. That way you can log into your iTunes cloud on someone elses computer and listen to your streaming music, playlists, movies, podcasts and everything else you have bought through iTunes (or hopefully have in your iTunes library). It will be awesome because it will be the best of both worlds. Just you wait!

"both" seems a little over-loaded. I see 4 different models here:

1) download and own (no DRM)
2) download and rent (might be one time view and then self-trashes the data file, or it might be subscription based (like netflix, only with media downloads instead of physical media)) (heavy DRM)
3) stream and own (your collection is owned, but is stored in the cloud (perhaps in addition to being stored on your own device -- sort of like Google Docs, only instead of storing your word docs, it's storing your music/videos/etc.) (no DRM)
4) stream via subscription (you don't own it, and you probably don't get to keep a local copy; or if you do get a local copy, it's heavily DRM'ed and you'll lose access to it as soon as you stop paying -- this is sort of like Rhapsody or Pandora (Rhapsody has, or had, dedicated media players that would cache music you selected, but you otherwise had no access to the media files, and you'd stop being able to play them if you stopped paying for Rhapsody)) (heavy DRM)

I think all 4 options are good. As long as all 4 options are available ...

#1 gives you autonomy

#2 gives you flexibility, and might be cheap depending on your viewing habits, and what form the rental takes (pay per view vs subscription)

#3 gives you storage options, probably flexibility about location, safety for disasters, scalability independent of your device's raw storage (yet, without having to resort to SD cards), but hopefully still gives you options for autonomy

#4 gives you flexibility and should be relatively cheap, and in a way, it might replace the role of radio in terms of discovering music and finding what you want to buy.

There's also the question of: which media are going to be covered? Just music? videos/movies/tv-shows? the rumors about emerging news/virtual-print media?

I'd personally love to have #1 and #4. Use #4 when I'm in a Wifi spot, or at a desktop with broadband, and use it to casually listen to new music (music/movie/tv browsing), read news, watch movies at home, etc. And then use #1 to purchase media for off-line/disconnected use and things I want to "own" (favorites, etc.). Maybe #2 for content that I want to access off-line, but don't want to own (if it's much cheaper than #1).

Combine that with a 10" Apple Tablet, running a finger-friendly version of desktop OS X, and a PixelQi hybrid display, and that'd be golden.

 

[RyanR.]

I will admit I don't understand lala 100%, but I would think maybe, just maybe iTunes is going to the me.com cloud.?.

I must admit this would save a lot of my HD space.

With the new server farm in N.C. they must have something up there sleeves. What else could this Server Farm be used for??

 

[slu]

I may be one of the few here, but (as I already posted in a different thread) I don't want to own music anymore, nor I'm anymore interested in storing a file in any of my personal media or device. Instead, I'm looking forward to the day when I will just pay-per-listen to the music of my choice.

Why? First of all, because I will have access to an immensely vast collection of music, magnitudes bigger that the one I can ever store locally (and I do love exploring and discovering music and artists). The size of the memory (or hard drive) in my media render will not anymore define the size of my music collection. Secondarily, I will save money: Assuming to pay 1¢ to listen to a song, and to listen to 120 songs a day (or 120 repetitions of the same song), then the daily total is $1.20. That is $36 a month. Because my purchasing habit exceed that amount, I will save money. And, as a bonus, I will not have all the cost (and space and time) associate with storing and back-upping all the files.

I don't care if this will take the form of a subscription or a meter, a timer, or whatever; the key point is that I want to be able to select the music I'm going to listen to, not simply to select a channel Pandora style. I believe the mucic/iTunes industry is going there (step by step), and in future owning music will look simply as something of the last century, and it will, rightly so, just means owning the copyright of it.

You would love Lala.

 

[Prof.]

I knew something like this was going to happen when Apple revamped their iTunes preview screen on their site. My prediction is that www.iTunes.com will redirect to Apple's version of www.LaLa.com where you can DL songs via web browser.

Their slogan will be something like: LaLa is now the new iTunes.

 

[kzin]

I knew something like this was going to happen when Apple revamped their iTunes preview screen on their site. My prediction is that www.iTunes.com will redirect to Apple's version of www.LaLa.com where you can DL songs via web browser.

Songs only? or all iTunes media (hopefully).

And, hopefully, it'll work with browsers other than Safari.
And, hopefully, it'll finally bring iTunes to Linux.

 

[Eric S.]

I wouldn't mind, as long as I can continue to download purchased songs and rip CDs. Otherwise I guess my iTunes collection will freeze as it is.

Well I'd just keep running iTunes 8.2.1 on my PM G4 and continue ripping my own CDs. Adios, Apple.

 

[Analog Kid]

Streaming has it's place, but central servers don't. I have a computer, I have a network connection-- I should be able to stream from my own server. Apple's done a good job of allowing it on the local subnet, now it's time to open it up to the broader net again. I shouldn't need to carry all of my music on my iTouch-- I should be able to stream it to anywhere I have WiFi.

 

[bobr1952]

I personally love streamed music and since I work mostly at home, on my iMac, I use Sirius pretty much exclusively--it is perfect for me. But I certainly wouldn't rule out whatever apple has in store of iTunes. Maybe I'm just too lazy to decide what I want to listen to--I can pick a genre and then just listen and not worry about it.

 

[Analog Kid]

Why are people equating owning music with storing the data locally? Those attributes don't have to be linked.

Any of these models are possible:

1. Music purchased and stored locally - what we do now with iTunes.
   
2. Music rented and stored locally - the way iTunes movie rentals work.
   
3. Music purchased and stored remotely - a streaming model or a server-based iTunes library with rights to make local copies or burn CDs if you want to.
   
4. Music rented and stored remotely - a streaming model or a server-based iTunes library where you can play the music only online.

If our destiny is to be online 24 hours a day, with our iPhones and tablets as our portable media devices and our desktop computer as our media center, we aren't going to care where the music is stored. Ownership is about our rights, not our method of playback.

You're absolutely right-- I can only hope the music providers are this enlightened and are willing to offer the full menu. I think the big reason for linking ownership with local storage is control-- there was a lot of concern about DRM back in the day and the risk that providers could change the rules after the purchase. If the files are stored remotely, I think there's an equivalent risk that the rules change or access is hampered in some other intentional or unintentional way.

Apple could create several pricing tiers (e.g. $20/month, $30/month, etc.) that would allow you access to a bundle of themes just like the cable companies do with television.

$250 a year to listen to music is absurd, and I don't think there are a lot of people who want the cable TV model moving into other areas of their life...

 

[kwikdeth]

hmmmmm.
Call me crazy if you like, but I dont see this as Apple adopting a streaming service model for iTunes. What I see this as, is Apple moving away from an iTunes-based store format, and transitioning it to a web store format. As it stands now, transitioning between web links to the itunes store for songs and applications is a sometimes slow and cumbersome process. Moving to a web-based experience would streamline the process of buying content and would also put in place an infrastructure for other kinds of web-based content (as in what has been reported lately with print outlets looking to solidify behind an online delivery method)
I would imagine this would also allow Apple to appease the movie studios and such in terms of streaming downloads to compete with services like Netflix while retaining enough controls over the content to satisfy them. If anything, I see Lala's acquisition more as an extension of that than anything; Given Apple's position with DRM I seriously doubt they would use Lala's technologies to impose draconian DRM measures in music - the battle against DRM in music has pretty much been won by this point. I think Apple wants to use Lala as a way of making a workable premium video streaming service. Because the itunes model for video streaming is too cumbersome to be workable, and itunes itself too big and too overcomplicated to be adaptable to ever-changing internet technologies.
Something like this would also be pretty big project - might explain the real reasoning behind the massive DC they're building in North Carolina.

just some crazy thoughts, but i think this all has do to with a transition of the itunes store to the web.

 

[kzin]

Why are people equating owning music with storing the data locally? Those attributes don't have to be linked.

Any of these models are possible:

1. Music purchased and stored locally - what we do now with iTunes.
   
2. Music rented and stored locally - the way iTunes movie rentals work.
   
3. Music purchased and stored remotely - a streaming model or a server-based iTunes library with rights to make local copies or burn CDs if you want to.
   
4. Music rented and stored remotely - a streaming model or a server-based iTunes library where you can play the music only online.

If our destiny is to be online 24 hours a day, with our iPhones and tablets as our portable media devices and our desktop computer as our media center, we aren't going to care where the music is stored. Ownership is about our rights, not our method of playback.

I must have skimmed past your post before I posted my 4 items. Looks like we have basically the same 4 models of delivery. My main concerns are:

• all iTunes media should be available on all of the available storage/purchase plans.
• the "rental" model to have both "subscription" and "pay-per-use" options
• this new web iTunes store should be open ... firefox and linux compatible, etc.

 

[aucl]

Looks like Apple might try and beat Spotify to the US music-streaming market. I'm a Spotify Premium subscriber and I absolutely love the service. Having a premium account lets me keep my playlists stored offline on my Mac, my iPod touch and my phone (Nokia 5800 XpressMusic), which is an absolute dream.

Basically any music that I discover and like I can just put into a playlist and keep it on my three devices. It lets you store 9,999 files offline (spread evenly over three devices meaning 3,333 actual tracks), which would cost over £2,500 on iTunes. With Spotify you pay £120 per year to do the same, meaning it would take a long time before you'd make a loss against iTunes' service (plus you can keep changing your stored music as your tastes change).

I seriously doubt that iTunes would switch to a rental/streaming-only service, but if they were to make such a change, it would need a similar offline mode to Spotify's.

The quality is also better (on the desktop application) than iTunes. Spotify Premium streams and saves at 320 Kb/s, compared to 256 for iTunes Plus.

Clearly Apple sees Spotify as a threat to iTunes and might try and beat it to the US market, which Spotify is planning on entering in the next year or two...

throwing in a little ad ?

 

[AwakenedLands]

We have almost come full circle with music. We already had the radio which was free. Then we downloaded MP3s. Then we streamed music from the LAN. Now we want to stream music to our phones/music devices through our cellular plan.

Assume the service was "free" even though you pay for a cell plan. Basically we have radio again. Funny, this whole time my car streamed music and I didn't pay a monthly fee for connectivity. I know all the audiophiles out there want to listen to their customized playlists, and that's fine. But for us average people, we just push the button for another station.

It's cool to have your data in "the cloud", but eventually it will start raining.

 

[trip1ex]

What about the Ipod? Last time I checked it allows you to bring thousands of your songs anywhere you go. A Classic allows 40,000.

I think folks like LaLa because it is cheap. But whether it was making money or not is another question.

And I don't want to buy web songs if I can't put them in the Ipod. That would be an annoying limitation.

And a streaming iPod would just eat battery life, introduce connectivity hassles and lack responsiveness of a local app. Never mind that you would need 3g/4g service as well.

I think Apple is just going to use the tech to give consumers access to the iTunes store through the browser instead of the clunky way you can do that today. And they'll use the social networking features of LaLa as well. Streaming songs? Maybe it's an option. Maybe it's part of just MobileMe. I think streaming makes more sense right now with video because video is more of a one and done experience. And it takes up alot of space.

 

[heisetax]

< $60/TB for storage or 6 cents/GB

U paid $89 for my last 2 1.5 TB hard drives. With that kind of cost & size why would I not want to own my music. Streaming doesn't always work. Plus I may have other things that need to be up or down loaded.

 

[muncyweb]

I think Apple stole this idea from Ford. Their recent program "Cloud Motoring" does the same thing. You buy a new pickup and you get to drive it around their parking lot any time you want. It's wonderful because it doesn't take up any room in your driveway. Plus, if the government fails to make your payments or your license is suspended, Ford locks up your truck, never to be seen again.

Now, normally putting so much power into the hands of one company could prove disastrous. But thanks to the government's plan to get into the car business, you have no need to worry! The new government-owned Ford will be more reliable than ever. Trust us.

This advertisement paid for by the IRS and a de facto government of force and coercion.

CarolinaLiberty.com

 

[kzin]

I think Apple stole this idea from Ford. Their recent program "Cloud Motoring" does the same thing. You buy a new pickup and you get to drive it around their parking lot any time you want.

Except, of course, that there's nothing that limits you geographically about such a proposal.

As for "cloud motoring", I do that all the time. It's called:

a) public transportation (which I pay for via monthly subscription/pass)
b) rental car (for special events)

Between insurance, parking fees, and gas, I'm paying several hundred dollars less per month than I did 2 years ago. And that was on a "paid for" car. It doesn't even address the cost of a car payment, if it was a new car. Combine that with the little bit of exercise I get from walking to/from the light rail every day, and it's quite a good deal.

Tell me again how "cloud motoring" is such a bad thing...

 

[instaxgirl]

1) Burn CDs? I stopped doing that in 2004. Come on...really?

I still use CDs and DVDs as back up. This is because CDs and DVDs have never failed me, several hard drives have They're the back up to my hard drive and iPod.

Also having just started working at a music store I've realised A LOT of people still buy cds. Many of my customers have no idea what downloading or iTunes really is. (and not all of my customers are 60+ )

I'm not interested in streaming. It'd just come with more bills. And iTunes is a pain in the arse to use these days, and expensive compared to other online stores.

 

[Gregintosh]

I don't mind storing music, but I guess having it "backed up" in the cloud would be nice. That way if something were to happen, I can get what I paid for back.

But the REALLY AWESOME feature I'd look forward to is storing TV shows I bought on iTunes in the cloud. That's the BIG part of my library. Movies and TV shows that I have paid for (mostly TV shows) that take up TENS OF GIGS (since each episode can be around a gig for an HD one).

I hardly ever watch them though, but at the same time if I delete them then I can never watch them again.

So for me, buying a TV show in the cloud and being able to watch it whenever I like without storing it on my computer or external HD would be GREAT. Provided that there is an option for a download anytime I'd like too, that way if I want to go on a road trip I can download a few TV shows I've already paid for and I'm good to go.

 

[paradox00]

Apple isn't going to get rid of their current business model. It makes no sense to do so. You don't just throw away solid business models, you make them better. Any services Apple uses from their Lala acquisition will supplement the current model.

You will still buy songs through iTunes and download them to your hard drive. Things that could change would include allowing access to the iTunes store through a web browser in addition to the itunes software (downloads would probably still have to take place through the itunes software, but streaming would be available immediately), full song previews, and online streaming of your itunes library through a site requiring you to log into your itunes account (with the possible option to upload content not found on iTunes, but in your library).

 

[RazHyena]

I don't like this at all. I'm glad I've backed up my iTunes purchased albums to audio discs.

I certainly hope Apple doesn't do something similar to what Wal*Mart did with their online music store...

Two thumbs down.

 

[Mike Nassour]

I will not purchase anything I cannot download. The end.

 

[MattInOz]

You can buy music from Lala and store it on you local system. If anything Apple is looking to have the option of both owning and renting your music.

Not sure if Apple really want people to rent music.
Their artist friends in creative fields don't want it, they want people "own" their music, love it and upsell to there friends. Do you really feel the same about rented music.

Their network friends at AT&T and all the other phone company partners don't like it. With renting people are fickle with bits, they download stuff here there and every where then just cast it off. So lots of meaningless traffic, not to mention people downloading the same track over and over again. They want you to 'own' the bits you download, if you see value they can add value.

The interesting thing to me is lala seems to be an effective syncing service so effective people don't realise that, that is the value they offer.
Apple to me wants to improve the syncing side you still 'own' but can access* anywhere. That helps sell more devices as they are reducing the pain in the ass factor of owning another device.

*for a small fee.

 

[paradox00]

I don't like this at all. I'm glad I've backed up my iTunes purchased albums to audio discs.

I certainly hope Apple doesn't do something similar to what Wal*Mart did with their online music store...

Two thumbs down.

That isn't happening. Apple didn't buy this company to reduce their profits. I also can't believe that you think Apple is going to delete songs from your hard drive....