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.
RealNetwork's Rhapsody
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
if you listen to the majority of your music at home and in the office and you have highspeed internet then 9.95 is a great value for unlimitted streaming. and once this is available wirelessly on your cell phone, the ipod will be obsolete.
i would like the comfort of knowing that i own the music and can do what i want with it, but i accept the trade off-- having access to box sets and reissues that i would never purchase myself is great. in a couple months i filled my 160 gb hard drive with downloaded music and there is still so much more i want to listen to. with rhapsody i can listen to all the music without spending hundreds of dollars on new hard drives.
think about it. it costs more than $4.00 to rent a movie at blockbuster. for 10 bucks you can "rent" tens of thousands of albums all month.
i would like the comfort of knowing that i own the music and can do what i want with it, but i accept the trade off-- having access to box sets and reissues that i would never purchase myself is great. in a couple months i filled my 160 gb hard drive with downloaded music and there is still so much more i want to listen to. with rhapsody i can listen to all the music without spending hundreds of dollars on new hard drives.
think about it. it costs more than $4.00 to rent a movie at blockbuster. for 10 bucks you can "rent" tens of thousands of albums all month.
Two things:
1. I think most people listen to their songs other places than in the home. In the car, skiing, working out, etc. If you could get the songs streamed through the cell phone, I think that you might be right as long as the interface could easily find the song. That would mean that the song list would have to have a constant stream and the bandwidth for the streaming songs might be to large right now.
2. I really like being able to play my music on my ipod in my house, in my car, at my work, in a friends car, etc. This isn't possible with rented music. On the whole scope of things, rented music doesn't work. Press Play, Real, etc. won't make it. The majority of people don't want or need the monthly expense.
Read my previous post on why rented music will fail and apple music will win.
Yeah, your talking out your butt. He means that the cell phones will have faster speeds here soon (for surfing the web and other data transferring). This would allow the songs to stream into the cell phone. No bluetooth required.
The problem is: the phone will have to have software to browse and play songs and also a way to get the music into your speakers. This will be tough to do in the near future. It's a ways out there I think.
The additional problem with subscription
Subscription services is they're just like satellite radio, except you can't listen to it in your car or in a portable. Satellite radio is only doing marginally well, so I doubt subscription sites will do well at all. People don't want to have their music tied to their computer, as well as, most people don't have broadband to stream everytime they want to listen to music.
If I am joe blow non-power-user, with Apple's service, I can download the song, bring it to work (if I have a mac there, which I probably don't), put it on my iPod (which I can use at work), burn it to a CD for a friend, and listen to it at home. $1. With dial-up I just set it to download when the phone is free.
With a subscription site, I can't stream it at work (not permitted), can't stream it at home when I want to listen to it (my daughter's on the phone/it sounds horrble over a modem), I can burn it to a CD for my discman and stereo and for a friend, but am out $.79 each time, and I'm paying $10 a month in addition.
Oh, and what happens if your subscription service decides that the music your like isn't popular enough, and they take it off the server. Most people plan to be able to listen to their favorite tunes when they're old.
Subscription services is they're just like satellite radio, except you can't listen to it in your car or in a portable. Satellite radio is only doing marginally well, so I doubt subscription sites will do well at all. People don't want to have their music tied to their computer, as well as, most people don't have broadband to stream everytime they want to listen to music.
If I am joe blow non-power-user, with Apple's service, I can download the song, bring it to work (if I have a mac there, which I probably don't), put it on my iPod (which I can use at work), burn it to a CD for a friend, and listen to it at home. $1. With dial-up I just set it to download when the phone is free.
With a subscription site, I can't stream it at work (not permitted), can't stream it at home when I want to listen to it (my daughter's on the phone/it sounds horrble over a modem), I can burn it to a CD for my discman and stereo and for a friend, but am out $.79 each time, and I'm paying $10 a month in addition.
Oh, and what happens if your subscription service decides that the music your like isn't popular enough, and they take it off the server. Most people plan to be able to listen to their favorite tunes when they're old.
I would say, "DON'T PANIC"... 
A few short bits of perspective:
1. How many CDs does the "average" person buy in a year, say from Amazon or Tower? Personally, I think I buy about 20 a year on average. That's about $300 a year, or $25 a month...
2. Assuming an average of 12 cuts per CD, that's 240 songs, with an average cost of $1.25 per song...
So, at my purchasing level, let's compare service models...
REAL:
- Real for a year costs $120 ($9.95 X 12mos.)
- 240 "burnable" tracks costs $190 (240 X $0.79)
- Add to that the "hidden" cost of 20 good quality blank CDs, $5 ~ $10....
Total cost over $310. Hmmm, I'm better off buying the CDs...!
Also consider that CDR doesn't hold up as well as production CDs, and if you buy the CD, you get liner notes, etc...
Who's going to pay MORE for LESS???
iTMS:
20 'albums' cost about $200
240 songs cost $238
Either way, I'm saving $60 ~ $100 on the music purchase. I don't usually burn to CD, but if I did, it would still be a significant savings.
Comparing portability, flexibility, ease of use, etc. iTMS really wins hands down. With Real you can build a limited CD collection. With iTMS you build a managed *reusable* music library.
A few other caveats:
- Real does NOT have the top 5 labels yet... only 2 or 3 of them presently...
- Their announced 'downloadable catalogue' is equal to iTMS @ 200,000 songs... not greater than. But we haven't seen the selection. Numbers like that always sounds good in theory...
- The service is announced, but not launched (even though the press release SAYS "launches"... no actual date was given). They are still in the process of acquiring Listen...
All in all, I'm not too concerned about Real beating out iTMS once both are actually competing in the broader -- read Windows -- market (Real certainly won't compete in the Mac arena!)...
The only real concerns are how fast Apple can get the Windows version of iTunes to market, and how fast they can expand the iTMS catalogue...
peace,
tribalogical
A few short bits of perspective:
1. How many CDs does the "average" person buy in a year, say from Amazon or Tower? Personally, I think I buy about 20 a year on average. That's about $300 a year, or $25 a month...
2. Assuming an average of 12 cuts per CD, that's 240 songs, with an average cost of $1.25 per song...
So, at my purchasing level, let's compare service models...
REAL:
- Real for a year costs $120 ($9.95 X 12mos.)
- 240 "burnable" tracks costs $190 (240 X $0.79)
- Add to that the "hidden" cost of 20 good quality blank CDs, $5 ~ $10....
Total cost over $310. Hmmm, I'm better off buying the CDs...!
Also consider that CDR doesn't hold up as well as production CDs, and if you buy the CD, you get liner notes, etc...
Who's going to pay MORE for LESS???
iTMS:
20 'albums' cost about $200
240 songs cost $238
Either way, I'm saving $60 ~ $100 on the music purchase. I don't usually burn to CD, but if I did, it would still be a significant savings.
Comparing portability, flexibility, ease of use, etc. iTMS really wins hands down. With Real you can build a limited CD collection. With iTMS you build a managed *reusable* music library.
A few other caveats:
- Real does NOT have the top 5 labels yet... only 2 or 3 of them presently...
- Their announced 'downloadable catalogue' is equal to iTMS @ 200,000 songs... not greater than. But we haven't seen the selection. Numbers like that always sounds good in theory...
- The service is announced, but not launched (even though the press release SAYS "launches"... no actual date was given). They are still in the process of acquiring Listen...
All in all, I'm not too concerned about Real beating out iTMS once both are actually competing in the broader -- read Windows -- market (Real certainly won't compete in the Mac arena!)...
The only real concerns are how fast Apple can get the Windows version of iTunes to market, and how fast they can expand the iTMS catalogue...
peace,
tribalogical
of course it all depends on how you listen. i don't own a mp3 player (still out of my budget) and i haven't listened to a cd in a long time. if you are one of those people who cannot leave the house without headphones, a subscription service will not be sufficient. but i do think that subscription complements pay per download very well. You can listen to whatever music you want at home and if you like a song and want to take it on your next roadtrip or to the gym then you can pay to download it. this beats 30 second previews and imo is worth the subscription fee. there is so much music out there, a lot of it is worth hearing, but on a limited budget, only a tiny fraction is worth owning.
pud, rhapsody is very different from satellite. satellite basically replaces radio but you are still fed the music, you can not browse albums or create playlists.
one last word--
i vowed long ago (after spending thousands of dollars on music in college) never to spend more than $10 on a cd unless it was a rare import or out of print. $1 per song is still too high for me. make it 50 cents and i might be lured away from subscription service.
pud, rhapsody is very different from satellite. satellite basically replaces radio but you are still fed the music, you can not browse albums or create playlists.
one last word--
i vowed long ago (after spending thousands of dollars on music in college) never to spend more than $10 on a cd unless it was a rare import or out of print. $1 per song is still too high for me. make it 50 cents and i might be lured away from subscription service.
heres the math
If you figure 9.95 a month x 12 (1 year)
thats 119.40
With 119.40 you can download 120 songs from the iTunes music store.
To download 120 songs from REAL at .79 a song you have to add the 119.40 subscription fee plus 94.80 for all the songs which puts you at a grand total of 214.20.
You would have to download 597 songs to break even with the iTunes music store. Assuming you didn't purchase any of the complete CD's for 9.99.
If you figure 9.95 a month x 12 (1 year)
thats 119.40
With 119.40 you can download 120 songs from the iTunes music store.
To download 120 songs from REAL at .79 a song you have to add the 119.40 subscription fee plus 94.80 for all the songs which puts you at a grand total of 214.20.
You would have to download 597 songs to break even with the iTunes music store. Assuming you didn't purchase any of the complete CD's for 9.99.
Apple needs to change their ad campaign for the music store. There are too many people that are either on-line or just friends that think its .99 a song and that if you downloaded all the songs on the album it would be $15/$16 (15 or 16 songs on the album for example).
davem2020 just said he won't spend for the $10 for an album. He doesn't even know that the album from apple music is $9.99.
Maybe they should have "Download your favorite songs for .99...or the whole album for $9.99 or less".
davem2020 just said he won't spend for the $10 for an album. He doesn't even know that the album from apple music is $9.99.
Maybe they should have "Download your favorite songs for .99...or the whole album for $9.99 or less".
Apple does not have to rush out iTunesMS. Did Apple rush out a iPod for Windows right away. No. Did others attempt to copy it and beat them to the punch? Yes. Did Apple the entire MP-3 player market share? No. Does Apple make the best player? Yes.
Window users are starving for iTunes and when it comes expect Apple to take over the market.
Window users are starving for iTunes and when it comes expect Apple to take over the market.
i always wondered how that worked. albums with two long tracks for 2 dollars? i would spend $10 for a cd, but downloading the music without liner notes (jpegs of the covers do not count) or jewel case should cost 6 or 7 bucks tops. I know this probably will not happen since the record companies demand something like 50 cents a song. And as long as the music is selling at $1 there is no reason to lower it. hence competition is good (the number of negative votes this story got shows how narrowly most of the users see this issue).
Why is a windows version so important? Apple is not a music vendor. They should not be relying on music store for profits. its primary mission should be to lure people over to the mac. If Apple offers the simplest, most powerful and most affordable solution, people will switch.
Why is a windows version so important? Apple is not a music vendor. They should not be relying on music store for profits. its primary mission should be to lure people over to the mac. If Apple offers the simplest, most powerful and most affordable solution, people will switch.
Cell phone music streaming will *not* make the iPod obsolete. Not for years and years to come, and maybe never.
Do you have any concept of how expensive data services are over high speed cellular networks? They're DAMN EXPENSIVE.
To imagine that anyone but the affluent and the stupid will stream music day and night over their phone (music that they could just as easily keep in a mobile storage device) is blissful ignorance.
Do you have any concept of how expensive data services are over high speed cellular networks? They're DAMN EXPENSIVE.
To imagine that anyone but the affluent and the stupid will stream music day and night over their phone (music that they could just as easily keep in a mobile storage device) is blissful ignorance.
iTMS clean and simple
Right now, Apple has a superior product and a superior vision--not to worry.
iTMS is clean, cheap and simple. You want to divert yourself? iTMS let's you get in and out for .99. Harddisk->iPod->You (whereever you want to be).
iTMS=No Subscription. Refreshingly cool. Subscriptions, especially media types, are metastasizing in this society. If you like subscriptions, add Real to your magainze, IPS, cable/satellite, cell phone and site subscriptions. What's one more?
Right now, Apple has a superior product and a superior vision--not to worry.
iTMS is clean, cheap and simple. You want to divert yourself? iTMS let's you get in and out for .99. Harddisk->iPod->You (whereever you want to be).
iTMS=No Subscription. Refreshingly cool. Subscriptions, especially media types, are metastasizing in this society. If you like subscriptions, add Real to your magainze, IPS, cable/satellite, cell phone and site subscriptions. What's one more?
It's time for Apple to dust off their R&D on a set top box and market an itunes box that connects to the stereo and tv. The tivo thing being able to play aac music is fine but I think people would love to have a box that lets them buy their music and even view music videos on their tv and play them back through their stereo system. If Apple was smart, they'd be offerring to license this off to Sony, Pioneer, and others.
If they don't do it, MS or someone else will. The Xbox already has what it needs hardwarewise to do it.
I've always viewed the set top market that no one has been able to do successfully as a "wouldn't it be cool but really not practical thing" but the idea of this changes my mind completely. The price certainly has to be right but it's not like it takes alot of horsepower to do this. The most expensive items might be a decent size harddrive to put in it and wireless network hardware utilizing rendevous along with a builtin cd burner, and a firewire port for an ipod or other player. A cut down version of OSX with a nice frontend would wrap it up.
If they don't do it, MS or someone else will. The Xbox already has what it needs hardwarewise to do it.
I've always viewed the set top market that no one has been able to do successfully as a "wouldn't it be cool but really not practical thing" but the idea of this changes my mind completely. The price certainly has to be right but it's not like it takes alot of horsepower to do this. The most expensive items might be a decent size harddrive to put in it and wireless network hardware utilizing rendevous along with a builtin cd burner, and a firewire port for an ipod or other player. A cut down version of OSX with a nice frontend would wrap it up.
Keep in mind though that there are a number of analysts who quickly point to the profits Apple missed out on by not having a Windows version of the ipod earlier. It's not always about being the best but being one of the best as quick as possible. Bill Gates has stated before that if he can't see a market where MS can't be #2 or #3 in, they don't really bother. If they do though, they'll pour money into it until they get what they want. Granted Apple doesn't have the money behind them that MS does but I seriously doubt ipods truly sold alot of Macs to firsttime Mac owners so waiting actually hurt Apple.
No one likes monthly fees
NOBODY likes monthly fees. People will realize, aww damn, that bites.
Besides, most PC users will still use kaZaa (or however you pronounce it), Limewire, etc.
Apple will do alright when it gets there. It's player is the best in the industry. It is highly underrated. The search capability alone makes it a winner - instaneous searching!
My guess is LAN sharing won't be suppport at all in the Windows version. Other than that, I think the version will be ridiculously similar (Visualizer is a must, equalizer why not, smart playlists.
NOBODY likes monthly fees. People will realize, aww damn, that bites.
Besides, most PC users will still use kaZaa (or however you pronounce it), Limewire, etc.
Apple will do alright when it gets there. It's player is the best in the industry. It is highly underrated. The search capability alone makes it a winner - instaneous searching!
My guess is LAN sharing won't be suppport at all in the Windows version. Other than that, I think the version will be ridiculously similar (Visualizer is a must, equalizer why not, smart playlists.
I don't disagree with any of the comments about iTMS being the best out there - especially when it boils down to dollars and cents.
However, consumers generally don't do math - they think in broad concepts.
"10 bucks for all I can listen to vs. 1 buck / song" While all of us realize that this is not an accurate statement about the various offerings - it's a boiled down version of what many consumers will think.
Perception will beat the truth every damn time. It's unfortunate.
Also many consumers forget - yes FORGET recurring charges on their credit cards. Oh crap, I just spent $60 over the last six months and didn't do jack about it.
Free trials work - ask AOL. Since Apple can't offer a free trial, maybe they should offer 5 free downloads? Dunno, just a thought.
Cancelling a service is usually a pain in the arse. Lots of value minded folks make the mistake of trying to wait until the end of the renewal period to cancel. Then they forget and have already paid for the next month in advance...so they wait...and forget.
However, I do think that ENOUGH people will do the math to make iTMS be successful - but I also don't think that it's going to crush the competition.
However, consumers generally don't do math - they think in broad concepts.
"10 bucks for all I can listen to vs. 1 buck / song" While all of us realize that this is not an accurate statement about the various offerings - it's a boiled down version of what many consumers will think.
Perception will beat the truth every damn time. It's unfortunate.
Also many consumers forget - yes FORGET recurring charges on their credit cards. Oh crap, I just spent $60 over the last six months and didn't do jack about it.
Free trials work - ask AOL. Since Apple can't offer a free trial, maybe they should offer 5 free downloads? Dunno, just a thought.
Cancelling a service is usually a pain in the arse. Lots of value minded folks make the mistake of trying to wait until the end of the renewal period to cancel. Then they forget and have already paid for the next month in advance...so they wait...and forget.
However, I do think that ENOUGH people will do the math to make iTMS be successful - but I also don't think that it's going to crush the competition.
The Real Rhapsody paradigm is similar to digital cable services that offer music piped into your TV/stereo for a flat monthly fee -- with the difference being that you can pick what songs are played, and the music goes through your computer.
The idea of being able to pick any album I feel like listening to at any moment without having to buy it is an appealing one. Feel like a little Pink Floyd? A few keystrokes later, and Meddle is piped through your computer -- you now have essentially unlimited access to hundreds of thousands of songs for a flat montly fee of $9.95.
However, with it currently limited to working with computers that are hooked up to the Internet via high-speed connections, I can see a number of problems I'd have with the service:
-- I like to listen to music in my car, in the gym, and while jogging -- Rhapsody is of little use here, unless I burn the tracks to CD (for an extra fee of $.79 per track).
-- Then I jump through a few more hoops to rip it to mp3, but you'll be recompressing an already compressed sound file, which is not optimal
-- At work, many companies are heavily firewalled, and without specifically allowing this service or setting up a proxy, or tunneling, it won't work
-- Bandwidth on a commercial level is not cheap. A few dozen people streaming CD quality sound would make a noticable dent in the good old IT budget at most companies
-- If your network is ever down/congested, or you're doing a large bandwidth-consuming download, the music may sputter or skip
-- At home, I want music piped through my stereo, not my computer -- so burning it to CD would be necessary for most music I enjoyed through the service
On the plus side:
++ having on-demand access to that huge of a library of music is a cool thing. I'd definitely enjoy it.
++ I also think that having a flat-rate music streaming service is a perfect way to pull in burning sales. You listen to a song a few dozen times on your computer, decide you really like it, and burn it to disc.
++ Many people enjoy music for only so long; not purchasing CDs that you aren't going to listen to in a few months/years it appealing
For now, I think Apple's solution is more viable for me -- but Apple could also morph their store to offer something similar if they wanted to. iTunes already supports listening to music streams, and Apple does own a nifty piece of software called QuickTime Streaming Server...
The idea of being able to pick any album I feel like listening to at any moment without having to buy it is an appealing one. Feel like a little Pink Floyd? A few keystrokes later, and Meddle is piped through your computer -- you now have essentially unlimited access to hundreds of thousands of songs for a flat montly fee of $9.95.
However, with it currently limited to working with computers that are hooked up to the Internet via high-speed connections, I can see a number of problems I'd have with the service:
-- I like to listen to music in my car, in the gym, and while jogging -- Rhapsody is of little use here, unless I burn the tracks to CD (for an extra fee of $.79 per track).
-- Then I jump through a few more hoops to rip it to mp3, but you'll be recompressing an already compressed sound file, which is not optimal
-- At work, many companies are heavily firewalled, and without specifically allowing this service or setting up a proxy, or tunneling, it won't work
-- Bandwidth on a commercial level is not cheap. A few dozen people streaming CD quality sound would make a noticable dent in the good old IT budget at most companies
-- If your network is ever down/congested, or you're doing a large bandwidth-consuming download, the music may sputter or skip
-- At home, I want music piped through my stereo, not my computer -- so burning it to CD would be necessary for most music I enjoyed through the service
On the plus side:
++ having on-demand access to that huge of a library of music is a cool thing. I'd definitely enjoy it.
++ I also think that having a flat-rate music streaming service is a perfect way to pull in burning sales. You listen to a song a few dozen times on your computer, decide you really like it, and burn it to disc.
++ Many people enjoy music for only so long; not purchasing CDs that you aren't going to listen to in a few months/years it appealing
For now, I think Apple's solution is more viable for me -- but Apple could also morph their store to offer something similar if they wanted to. iTunes already supports listening to music streams, and Apple does own a nifty piece of software called QuickTime Streaming Server...
ever heard of the saying, "You can't polish a turd?"
Apple has it right so far. They need to release a Windows iTunes yesterday, they need to introduce songs quicker, they need a bigger range of artists (no Zep, no Metallica, etc?), they need to keep their approach the same. They need to get Europe involved ASAP as well. There be gold in those hills!
Soon MS will annouce something I'm sure. Apple needs to prepare for that. So far I have purchased 5 albums & about 30 tracks from the Store.
Apple has it right so far. They need to release a Windows iTunes yesterday, they need to introduce songs quicker, they need a bigger range of artists (no Zep, no Metallica, etc?), they need to keep their approach the same. They need to get Europe involved ASAP as well. There be gold in those hills!
Soon MS will annouce something I'm sure. Apple needs to prepare for that. So far I have purchased 5 albums & about 30 tracks from the Store.
I hope Apple combine their current track preview option with the streaming option currently available with MP3.com.
If I like an individual taster track that I have streamed on MP3.com I can download it, that's my freebie. (If Apple could extend the preview of one of the album tracks to full-length and have it available as streamed - or to buy as normal for $0.99, that would create a lot of good transparency about their product without giving too much away.) Give a little now to get a lot later on.
With streamed taster tracks from MP3.com I' have to buy the whole album on trust. (Apple's preview option wets my appetite even more and currently cuts out the potential disappointment when shelving out for whole albums on the strength of one song.)
Dealing with independent music with this combo would work wonders I reckon for generating traffic to iTMS.
Paying Rhapsody $9.95 a month to preview music is a real bad deal IMO. At the moment I just link to MP3.com for free. Combine the mp3.com philosophy for promoting music with Rhapsody's lbrary and you have iTMS pretty much as it is now, but with an additional streaming option.
If I like an individual taster track that I have streamed on MP3.com I can download it, that's my freebie. (If Apple could extend the preview of one of the album tracks to full-length and have it available as streamed - or to buy as normal for $0.99, that would create a lot of good transparency about their product without giving too much away.) Give a little now to get a lot later on.
With streamed taster tracks from MP3.com I' have to buy the whole album on trust. (Apple's preview option wets my appetite even more and currently cuts out the potential disappointment when shelving out for whole albums on the strength of one song.)
Dealing with independent music with this combo would work wonders I reckon for generating traffic to iTMS.
Paying Rhapsody $9.95 a month to preview music is a real bad deal IMO. At the moment I just link to MP3.com for free. Combine the mp3.com philosophy for promoting music with Rhapsody's lbrary and you have iTMS pretty much as it is now, but with an additional streaming option.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not worth it
Yes, I think we all realize that. That was my point, it looks like the iTMS has increased visitors to Apple's website, and that may have a positive effect on hardware sales.
Thanks for sharing.
Yes, I think we all realize that. That was my point, it looks like the iTMS has increased visitors to Apple's website, and that may have a positive effect on hardware sales.
Thanks for sharing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not worth it
What's the strategy though to actually get those extra visitors to buy a computer? It is one thingto get people in the door, and hopefully the strength of iTMS will persuade some people to just pop an order in for a new Powerbook etc, but if buying a Mac was anything like my experience, it's almost all down to the punter (metaphorically) to go along the shelves (website) and convince themselves.
I just hope there is a good hook waiting to turn interest into closing deals.
What's the strategy though to actually get those extra visitors to buy a computer? It is one thingto get people in the door, and hopefully the strength of iTMS will persuade some people to just pop an order in for a new Powerbook etc, but if buying a Mac was anything like my experience, it's almost all down to the punter (metaphorically) to go along the shelves (website) and convince themselves.
I just hope there is a good hook waiting to turn interest into closing deals.
Hopefully
I am personally hoping the start selling prepaid cards at retaillers and Apple stores. I would love to bop into my local re-seller and buy a $25 card that gives me 25 songs from the store, especially since 1)my credit sucks and no credit card for me 2) I would have better control on what I would spend. I would imagine that it would be a nightmare for Apple to put up with, but it might be worth it when the Window's version comes out.
I am personally hoping the start selling prepaid cards at retaillers and Apple stores. I would love to bop into my local re-seller and buy a $25 card that gives me 25 songs from the store, especially since 1)my credit sucks and no credit card for me 2) I would have better control on what I would spend. I would imagine that it would be a nightmare for Apple to put up with, but it might be worth it when the Window's version comes out.