iTunes obsolete?

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by shov, Jan 23, 2008.

  1. shov macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    #1
  2. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #2
    Link does not work... I'll stick with iTunes. ;)
     
  3. huck500 macrumors 6502

    huck500

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Southern California
    #3
    Subscriptions are best. Nothing else makes sense.

    I think the first service to offer HD movie downloads from all studios with a subscription will be the winner.
     
  4. Sky Blue Guest

    Sky Blue

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    #4
    huh? why would you want to rent music?
     
  5. kudukudu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #5
    People "rent" TV shows through subscription based services and "rent movies" from stores or cable/satellite providers all the time and are quite happy with this model. Given the choice between downloading $30 in music every month and having to maintain my own music library and just paying a $30 monthly subscription fee for unlimited access to a 5 Terabyte sized music collection I'll take the subscription based service any day of the week.
     
  6. huck500 macrumors 6502

    huck500

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Southern California
    #7
    From a subscription service, I want to be able to choose artists, albums, or songs from basically everything ever recorded, put them on my iPod or listen at home, and pay a reasonable fee for it. Why do I need to "own" (quotes because the ownership of music on a cd is pretty sketchy right now) an album if I have access to it at any time?

    I don't know whether or not that will work as a business model, but that's what I want.;)
     
  7. Virgil-TB2 macrumors 65816

    Virgil-TB2

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    #8
    Try to find anyone who really cares about music to agree with you. ;)

    Subscriptions only make sense if you are the kind of person that just wants whatever music the media is pushing lately, playing in the background while you drive/work/whatever.

    If you care that little for the music itself, get a radio.
    That's what they are for.
     
  8. Virgil-TB2 macrumors 65816

    Virgil-TB2

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    #10
    You realise you are quoting Digg right? And you think this is authoritative? :rolleyes:

    Telling us you read Digg and take what you read there seriously is like prefacing all your remarks with ...

    "I'm a moron but ... " :p
     
  9. shov thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    #11
    nope, saw it through last.fm; but, seeing as the link didn't work, i knew they'd be one on digg.

    anyway i like ron paul and pictures of lolcats...
     
  10. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #12

    That's because the two mediums are completely different.

    There are very few films that you can bother watching more than once or twice... a conventional linear dramatic structure holds no surprises upon repeated viewing. Who needs to own most Hollywood movies? If you think that you'll be wanting to watch Aliens vs Predator for the 23rd time, you're kidding yourself.

    Whereas music, your favourite albums, classic albums, can be listened to time and time again... this is why most, but not all, people prefer to own their music collections in one form or another, and why subscription models aren't that popular... especially as subscription models, as far as I know, aren't as comprehensive as many music fans would like. I like to know that wherever I am in the world, I can listen to Tetsu Inoue or Philip Glass on my iPod at any time I like, without having to pay monthly for the privilege... :)
     
  11. Killyp macrumors 68040

    Killyp

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    #13
    You're having a laugh?

    CDs are best, nothing else makes as much sense.
     
  12. shov thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    #14
    anyway, back to the topic: if you really like music you wouldn't download low bandwidth versions of tunes off itunes; you'd buy cds or vinyl. the subscription model of last.fm is directly competing with downloads from itunes - and will very likely provide much better value for money.

    at the moment downloads may win out, only because you can put them on your ipod, but the way things are going (ie. ipod touch, stuff hooked up to wifi all the time) the subscription-streaming model will eventually win out.
     
  13. elppa macrumors 68040

    elppa

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    #15
    What you neatly ommit is that you are tied into to paying a monthly fee for the rest of your life in order to "own" this music.

    If you buy iTunes plus, then 256 AAC is every bit as good as CD. It's all subjective, but I highly doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference.
     
  14. Stampyhead macrumors 68020

    Stampyhead

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK
    #16
    Say what you will, but the majority of people on here, myself included, would NOT use a subscription model and would never use last.fm. If if works for you then that's good, but it will never become the standard and will never overtake download-based purchasing.
     
  15. vandlism macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    #17
    I use last.fm, but it's not a replacement for iTunes - it is a complementary service. It tracks all of my listening habits and suggests new music for me based on other users with similar musical tastes. "Just for You" and the Mini-store for iTunes have never gotten me anything good, but Last.fm will now allow me to find something that may be a good fit for me, then listen to a few songs or even a few albums before deciding whether I should buy the music or not. And even if I decide to not buy the music, the ad revenue gets passed on to the artist anyways so it's good karma. last.fm is a great service for finding new music, and I suggest using a program such as CoverSutra to scrobble your tracks for you.
     
  16. CIrawI3riCIge macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    #18
    God I love blanket statements by ppl who clearly have sub par hearing or crap audio equipment. 320 AAC is thin and brittle sounding compared to 1411kbps uncompressed audio. There goes your 256 AAC argument. And the reconstruction of the analogue waveform is anything but subjective. The more you approximate and truncate the quantification, the less accurate the waveform, and the more degraded the music. It's just a matter of who still gives a damn about quality or who can be bothered to detect it.
     
  17. jimthorn macrumors 6502a

    jimthorn

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Huntington Beach, CA, USA
  18. elppa macrumors 68040

    elppa

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    #20
    Which isn't the vast majority of people. Because they just want to listen to their music and not go on some sort of audiophile superiority complex/"my ears are better than your ears" ego trip.
     
  19. huck500 macrumors 6502

    huck500

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Southern California
    #21
    I thought I explained this clearly, but I guess not. Let me try again.

    Here's what I want from my subscription service:

    - As close to every existing recording as possible... my taste in music is very diverse

    - The ability to download/stream and listen to any of it at home or on a portable device

    - A reasonable price... I'd say under $50/month would be good

    I own about 900 cds, which I've purchased over the past 20 years or so. That's 3-4 cds a month, so $30-$40/month.

    If I have the choice to spend $40 on cds or spend $50 on a service that gives me access to thousands or tens of thousands of recordings, probably more, I'd choose the service. Anyone who REALLY cares about music would, I think.;)

    Lossless quality would be great, but I have no problem with some compression.

    Saying that CDs are the best option today is pretty short-sighted, in my opinion. There are plenty of great artists that have very limited distribution, and plenty of old recordings that will never be distributed again because it wouldn't be profitable.
     
  20. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #22
    I would beg to differ. Some movies can be watched over and over again. While others, one time is painful.

    For those movies that one enjoys watching, it is very convenient to already have them. Note, I did not say all movies, just those one enjoys.
     
  21. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #23
    Let's say I spend $40 on some CDs and you spend $50 on a subscription service. A month later your subscription service shuts down. I still have my CDs. What do you have?


    Paying to stream music is just burning money, IMO.


    Lethal
     
  22. hexonxonx macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Location:
    Denver Colorado
    #24
    Always will stay loyal to iTunes. The music is mine and it won't stop playing when a sub runs out.
     
  23. huck500 macrumors 6502

    huck500

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Southern California
    #25
    I'll just switch to another service. What will you do when a better medium supplants CDs? Buy all your favorite albums again? I already did that with LPs.

    And it's all just burning money, let's face it...:p
     

Share This Page