RealNetworks drops 21%, Napster plummets 30% on Yahoo music ...


PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,232
4
i guess the subscription market is rather fickle right now, wonder how much all three would drop if Apple entered the market with subscription service?
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
We are convinced this is the way you should be listening to your music.
Not 'we are convinced that this is what our customers want'.

The arrogance of that first statement is breathtaking.
 

Alukardo

macrumors newbie
Jan 10, 2005
11
0
Canada
Meh.

If the subscription model does take off, Apple can simply offer it along its usual service.

I'm surprised the music majors aren't catching on about how potentially easy it is to abuse a subscription service.
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,232
4
Blue Velvet said:
Not 'we are convinced that this is what our customers want'.

The arrogance of that first statement is breathtaking.
i know, thats the music labels and greedy folks for you though, they push the model that will make the the most money, not what is neccissarily what the consumer wants
 

Nickygoat

macrumors 6502a
Dec 11, 2004
992
0
London
Their prices are right to drop- Yahoo is far more serious competition than Apple is in this market. Yahoo has very strong brand recognition and an installed subscriber base. If I was a Yahoo subscriber for $7 a month more I'd do it too. $15 would make me think a little bit. What surprised me from that article was that Napster only has 410,000 subscribers and Real 1 million? I find that suprisingly low for Napster and high for Real.
Apple isn't really the competition in this field - they're eating each other.
 

MarcelV

macrumors 6502
Jul 12, 2004
318
0
Nickygoat said:
...What surprised me from that article was that Napster only has 410,000 subscribers and Real 1 million? I find that suprisingly low for Napster and high for Real....
The 1 million include the SuperPass subscriptions and that's around for a few years. So, it is not just the Rhapsody subscribers.
 

shamino

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2004
3,386
130
Purcellville, VA
Sun Baked said:
Can't wait until they find a way of including commercials into the mix... :p
I wonder if Microsoft mandates such a provision in their DRM system. For all you know, they may provide the ability to secretly upload commercials into your portable player along with the purchased songs. They can even tie the comemrcials to the DRM decryption key, so the songs break if you delete them.

Of course, this, by itself, is not really a problem. If someone offered a subscription service for free, in exchange for 15 seconds worth of commercials after every 2-3 tracks, a lot of people (maybe even myself) would probably go for it. This, after all, is very close to what you get when you tune in to an internet radio station.

Of course, record-labels' greed is far too great to allow this. They would insist on monthly subscription fees in addition to the ads. You'd have to be insane to scubscribe under those terms.
 

SiliconAddict

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2003
5,889
0
Chicago, IL
Many record label executives prefer the subscription approach, Leigh said, because consumers are more likely to sample songs from relatively unknown artists, a phenomenon that helps the industry create more moneymaking stars.
What a complete load of BS and they know it. I'm willing to bet Leigh couldn't keep a streight face when he said that. :mad:
 

shamino

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2004
3,386
130
Purcellville, VA
Ad insertion

SiliconAddict said:
They don't. :rolleyes:
How would you know? As far as I know, you can't get the developer docs for Microsoft's DRM with signing an NDA.

I did not say that they mandate commercial-insertion. It's obvious that they don't, because it isn't happening.

I'm asking whether they have this capability in their DRM system (in order to support services that want it), and if they require portable players to support the capability in order to be fully "Windows-DRM" compliant.
 

SPUY767

macrumors 68020
Jun 22, 2003
2,018
112
GA
Yahoo is going to flounder because right of the bat, by choosing PFS, they alienated 70% of the market.
 

Fender2112

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2002
1,077
268
Charlotte, NC
I think Apple should go ahead and offer a subscription service. There is nothing to be lost but a lot to gained. It would also put an end to all of this quibbling about who's going to take down Apple. :D
 

J-Squire

macrumors regular
Nov 10, 2003
208
0
Australia
SPUY767 said:
Yahoo is going to flounder because right of the bat, by choosing PFS, they alienated 70% of the market.
What other choice do they have???

I don't understand this comment. What was the alternative? Apple has refused to license FairPlay DRM to other music providers, so they have no choice but to go with WMA and Janus. Janus is a good technology is you have no option but to go with WMA.

I think this is a major announcement and could have the potential to rattle Apple's cage more than any competitor so far. It is the first option that seriously undercuts Apple. You can purchase single tracks for 79c.

How are these other companies getting such good deals from the record labels!?? Apple is the industry giant, yet they seem to be the least favoured supplier.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,641
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Dunno, though, it seems like a very economical package. Although any subscription plan that doesn't have iPod support is...well... Yeah. Nice on paper.

I don't know how I feel still about the burn-to-CD issues. I do like being able to burn CDs....
 

macnulty

macrumors 6502
May 18, 2003
496
0
Rehoboth Beach, De
dejo said:
If there are no choices, then it's called a monopoly...
Nope, not a monopoly. There is choice - WMA and providers or Apple and its' hw/sw offering. You can choose one or the other but the ability not to mix is not a monopoly. Anymore then not being able to mix any other competitive packages or formats.
 

stcanard

macrumors 65816
Oct 19, 2003
1,490
0
Vancouver
PlaceofDis said:
i guess the subscription market is rather fickle right now, wonder how much all three would drop if Apple entered the market with subscription service?
Kind of expected this. After all with the hardware lock-in both sides are using, this was only going to affect the WMA services -- do they really think people are going to drop their $500 iPods, and buy $500 <hmm, what are the other ones called anyway> just because this service is a little cheaper?
 

jettredmont

macrumors 68030
Jul 25, 2002
2,704
299
macnulty said:
why would he sell after the stock dropped?
Because many stock brokers work on a "window" philosophy. They expect a stock to trade within a certain "window" of prices, which generally they expect to rise over time (otherwise why be investing in that stock?). If it falls out of the "window", either on the upside or on the downside, it means that the stock is not acting as they expected and so they generally drop the stock immediately, and perhaps investigate and get back in on the stock once the "unexpected" action has ceased (with an adjusted window, of course).

The nice neat little side effect of "drop first, investigate later" is that the broker gets a nice trading commission in most cases.
 

dejo

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 2, 2004
15,725
447
The Centennial State
macnulty said:
Nope, not a monopoly. There is choice - WMA and providers or Apple and its' hw/sw offering. You can choose one or the other but the ability not to mix is not a monopoly. Anymore then not being able to mix any other competitive packages or formats.
I never said there wasn't any choices. I said "If there are no choices..."