There already are better mediums than CD, such as Super Audio CD. Why haven't they caught on? Because for most people CD is "good enough".
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iTunes obsolete?
- Thread starter shov
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They didn't catch on partly because there were competing formats, just like the current HD disk fiasco. I doubt that CDs will be the medium for music forever. They may be the last physical medium, though, which would make a subscription service more attractive, imo.
Why would I buy all my albums again and why would the adopting of a new consumer audio format suddenly make all my CDs stop working? If I don't feel like buying any more CDs I can still enjoy all the ones I already own. If you don't feel like paying a subscription fee anymore you lose access to all the music.
How does that make a subscription service more attractive? The songs I buy from Amazon, iTMS, or whomever function similarly to CDs. I give them money, they give me a copy of the song. If I don't want to give them anymore money I still get to keep the songs I paid for.
Lethal
The chicks must love it when you talk all geeky like that.
They'd love it even more if it actually made sense
Renting music doesn't appeal to me. I love the expansion of Last.fm, and it makes more competition for digital media. There is nothing wrong with options for people, but i just like the feeling of owning my music. If the renting scheme suits people's needs then go for it.
Nevertheless, i don't think Last.fm's subscription is by any means going to kill iTunes. Apple has integrated the software into their entire system, and they still dominate the digital music scene. It may take away buyers, but they are continuously adding more and more customers, so I don't see this having that big of an impact.
It's a big step for change in the industry, but the establishment will still win until Last.fm's changes can be fully implemented. I don't know how long that could take but they mentioned a desktop client is in the works... They'll also have to change the mindset of Last.fm being a place of mere discovery and networking to also include commerce... Links to Amazon don't do that for the consumer right now.
Nevertheless, i don't think Last.fm's subscription is by any means going to kill iTunes. Apple has integrated the software into their entire system, and they still dominate the digital music scene. It may take away buyers, but they are continuously adding more and more customers, so I don't see this having that big of an impact.
It's a big step for change in the industry, but the establishment will still win until Last.fm's changes can be fully implemented. I don't know how long that could take but they mentioned a desktop client is in the works... They'll also have to change the mindset of Last.fm being a place of mere discovery and networking to also include commerce... Links to Amazon don't do that for the consumer right now.
because it frees the market from dealing with copyright issues, especially if you plan on paying anyway
What if you enjoy a song or album so much that you're still listening to it 20+ years later? $50 x 12 x 20 = a hell of a lot more than a $10 CD. Last.fm is great for finding new music or streaming music when I'm at my desk, but there is no way I'm going to rent music for the rest of my life when I can get a permanent copy for a fraction of the cost.
Not sure if this was meant is jest or not, but I agree, nothing out there has reproduced the quality of vinyl sound...so says my ear anyway.
Everybody has their own "sweet" spot. If a subscription service can hold all the music a person WANTS, then that's great. Often times, the reality of a subscription service is glossed over... making it into a fairy tale panacea of all things wonderful.
Subscriptions are predicated on the notion that MORE subscribers WON'T buy, than WILL. That way, they make more money in aggregate. I think that's great in some cases... in others, not so much. For instance, Netflix. If I use their "Watch Instantly" service... if that service had EVERY MOVIE IN EXISTENCE. And iTunes ALSO had a pay-per-rental service with the same *everything*.... both downloads. You wouldn't immediately say, "I'll take Netflix!" You'd ask "How much" and "How soon do you get movies"?
I'm concerned that the subscription model... even when priced very nicely, leads to the unappreciation of music as individual artists... and the general impression that no one should be compensated for their unique value. If paying artists is tough now, imagine when its based entirely on some hokey "popularity" scheme and artists can't even make points on readily available album sales.
Meh. Give me iTunes. Give individual artists access to customers. Enable micro-payments if you have to... but let's not pretend that Last.fm, as great as this announcement will be for some people... is the one-size-fits-all for people in the long run. If their service ends up costing $20 each month, or even $9.99 (or something close to eMusic)... it would be too much for me. I love music, and get it from a number of sources, but I only BUY an album or two every couple of months. I like minding my own budget.
~ CB
Subscriptions are predicated on the notion that MORE subscribers WON'T buy, than WILL. That way, they make more money in aggregate. I think that's great in some cases... in others, not so much. For instance, Netflix. If I use their "Watch Instantly" service... if that service had EVERY MOVIE IN EXISTENCE. And iTunes ALSO had a pay-per-rental service with the same *everything*.... both downloads. You wouldn't immediately say, "I'll take Netflix!" You'd ask "How much" and "How soon do you get movies"?
I'm concerned that the subscription model... even when priced very nicely, leads to the unappreciation of music as individual artists... and the general impression that no one should be compensated for their unique value. If paying artists is tough now, imagine when its based entirely on some hokey "popularity" scheme and artists can't even make points on readily available album sales.
Meh. Give me iTunes. Give individual artists access to customers. Enable micro-payments if you have to... but let's not pretend that Last.fm, as great as this announcement will be for some people... is the one-size-fits-all for people in the long run. If their service ends up costing $20 each month, or even $9.99 (or something close to eMusic)... it would be too much for me. I love music, and get it from a number of sources, but I only BUY an album or two every couple of months. I like minding my own budget.
~ CB
When did this become an either/or issue?
Just because a subscription/rent model exists doesn't mean options to buy music (either as a download, or as physical media) will change. Similar to cars, houses, etc. You can choose what's best for you.
CD music is only compressed in that some tracks have 'compression' (as a production effect) so it sounds okay/better on car stereos and radios. This isn't anything to do with the compression that iTunes downloads have. Although I guess you could say CD/Redbook is a 'compressed' version of SACD or whatever digital format the original tracks were recorded as, but again it's really not the same argument at all.
What I don't get is why iTunes/whoever don't offer a ALAC/FLAC lossless version of their DRM-free tracks as an option for people who are willing to wait the extra download time.
Good quality hifi equipment isn't *that* expensive these days. Lots of my friends spend as much on alcohol in a year as I've spent on my moderately nice hifi which will last years and years.
Just because a subscription/rent model exists doesn't mean options to buy music (either as a download, or as physical media) will change. Similar to cars, houses, etc. You can choose what's best for you.
CD music is only compressed in that some tracks have 'compression' (as a production effect) so it sounds okay/better on car stereos and radios. This isn't anything to do with the compression that iTunes downloads have. Although I guess you could say CD/Redbook is a 'compressed' version of SACD or whatever digital format the original tracks were recorded as, but again it's really not the same argument at all.
What I don't get is why iTunes/whoever don't offer a ALAC/FLAC lossless version of their DRM-free tracks as an option for people who are willing to wait the extra download time.
Good quality hifi equipment isn't *that* expensive these days. Lots of my friends spend as much on alcohol in a year as I've spent on my moderately nice hifi which will last years and years.
I suppose your lack of comprehension enables you to dismiss something you'll clearly never understand. It's a bit like trying to explain things like imaging and sound stage to headphone listeners. Hey, if you can't hear it or understand it, it must not be true.
LAST.FM is not the first subscription based service. How have the other subscription based offerings fared compared to iTunes?
iTunes obsolete? haa haa. funny.
iTunes obsolete? haa haa. funny.
Last.fm was not a subscription service first, it was a social networking site based around music and discovery new artists/friends through those interests and tastes. Adding a subscription component gives it much more depth than say a Napster or Rhapsody since users can still and primary have used it at no cost for purposes other than pure commerce. Thus i'd say it's fair to consider Last.fm different than other rental services.
Yes, there are people who prefer to rent music rather than own. They are however a pretty tiny minority. Music subscription services have been tried repeatedly by many, many, many companies - and they remain a tiny part of the market. You cannot compare music to films. Most people are OK with renting movies because they don't want to see the same movie more than once or twice. It's different with music, most people want to hear the same tune many, many times. Which is why you have video rental shops, you don't have CD rental shops. Case closed.
That said, subscription services have their place even for the serious music lover. They can be used to explore new music, find music and then buy it (on your own in the form of CDs). I can picture myself using one, but luckily I don't have to - I use pandora.com to find new music, and it costs me $0.
I still buy music - but ONLY in the form of CDs. I wouldn't dream of buying lossy track downloads. I have over 5000 CDs, and I am happy to buy new ones. I find new music (often on pandora) and buy the CDs I like. CDs give me a physical medium, liner notes and lossless quality. I then rip the CDs in Apple Lossless format and store them on my external drive - the computer is hooked up to my stereo and I use iTunes to control it and listen to music. Best of all worlds
So, I'm not an iTunes store customer, and probably never will be. I might become a subscription service customer, but so far have not had any need to thanks to services like pandora. The other issue is that there is a lot of music that still is not accessible through subscription services (or pandora etc. for that matter) - I certainly cannot imagine subscription services being my sole way of accessing music... that's just insane, just even considering that a TON of music I listen to is simply not available on any subscription service.
That said, subscription services have their place even for the serious music lover. They can be used to explore new music, find music and then buy it (on your own in the form of CDs). I can picture myself using one, but luckily I don't have to - I use pandora.com to find new music, and it costs me $0.
I still buy music - but ONLY in the form of CDs. I wouldn't dream of buying lossy track downloads. I have over 5000 CDs, and I am happy to buy new ones. I find new music (often on pandora) and buy the CDs I like. CDs give me a physical medium, liner notes and lossless quality. I then rip the CDs in Apple Lossless format and store them on my external drive - the computer is hooked up to my stereo and I use iTunes to control it and listen to music. Best of all worlds
So, I'm not an iTunes store customer, and probably never will be. I might become a subscription service customer, but so far have not had any need to thanks to services like pandora. The other issue is that there is a lot of music that still is not accessible through subscription services (or pandora etc. for that matter) - I certainly cannot imagine subscription services being my sole way of accessing music... that's just insane, just even considering that a TON of music I listen to is simply not available on any subscription service.
Are you seriously comparing the cost of ONE cd to 20 years of a (hypothetical at this point) subscription service that lets you access thousands of cds? So you listen to one cd continuously for 20 years and then buy another?
Last.fm is NOT the service I described, and I won't be using it.
Are you seriously comparing the cost of ONE cd to 20 years of a (hypothetical at this point) subscription service that lets you access thousands of cds? So you listen to one cd continuously for 20 years and then buy another?
Last.fm is NOT the service I described, and I won't be using it.
I generally buy 2-3 albums every couple of months.
A mathematical equation of that over 20 years would be:
$9.99 x (2.5 x 12 x 20) = 600 albums = $5,994.00
If I subscribed to a subscription service, it'd be:
$9.99 x 12 x 20 = 0 albums/unlimited listening = $2,397.60
Then, to the subscription service, you add additional for albums you would still wish to purchase or may extra to "move" to your iPod or mp3 player.
I think subscription plans are "bankrupt" as a model, because much like what happens with Netflix, people will simply rent and rip, rent and rip, rent and rip... and KEEP the songs anyway... which means that in many cases, subscriptions encourage/tempt stealing (even for reasonable people).
In the long run, I think subscriptions are quite possibly one of looooongest cons in tech history (because no one has made it work). You can't get something for nothing. Once enough suckers sign on to a subscription model, then they incrementally raise the price, with a captive audience (I need it... so bad! Think "drug dealers". Moreover, they can remove artists they decide to drop, and suddenly you need to look elsewhere and pay more money if you want to hear an album again.
Another long con is that DRM is non-transferable. No consolidating iTunes accounts. If someone dies, their rights die with them. Strange, after all this time, the music industry has a way of killing off used CD/record stores, and they didn't price it so that people would jump onboard in huge numbers. Now DRM is gradually fading, and its too late. --So, I guess that con is being dismantled.
~ CB
Yes, vinyl is the best for sound no doubt about that.
However, it is sure more convenient to carry my iPod loaded with MP3 songs instead of a bunch of records, player, and a huge power supply.
By definition if you will, all digitized music is compressed because it is not analog. Somewhere in the process of going from the analog source to a digital representation, sound is lost -- even with the RBA standard which is good.
Having said that, I prefer the convenience of the iPod, the iTMS, and MP3 encoding of my CDs and am willing to loose sound quality for convenience.
i really don't think most people think like this, or at least i don't.
i want to have my music on my computer. what about when i'm not connected to the internet?
i want to have my music on my computer. what about when i'm not connected to the internet?
They day I rent music is the day I strap a bowl of fruit on my head and dance to marimba music. It just does not fit my usage mode at all.
The more competition that i see for iTunes, the more you realize how hard it will be to unseat them. I've looked and bought from Amazon, Urge and others and they are far from iTunes IMHO.
The more competition that i see for iTunes, the more you realize how hard it will be to unseat them. I've looked and bought from Amazon, Urge and others and they are far from iTunes IMHO.