September Apple Event Rumor: "iTunes Unlimited", iPhone iDisk Access?

[RMo]

iTunes 7.8? Wouldn't this bring it to 8.0 since its features major new features.

You never really know with Apple and iTunes--we went from version 5 to version 6 in about a month with very few changes, but they've been on version 7 for over two years now with quite a few changes: support for iPhone/iPod touch, movie rentals, App Store, and so on, in addition to a few interface changes. Maybe they realized they were upping it to fast and didn't want to have, say, iTunes 20 in a few years.

 

[iMacmatician]

What do you want from 8? The only feature that I want isn't going to happen.

This, this, and this.

Does anyone know, when this event will take place?

Most likely on a Tuesday in September.

 

[umbilical]

what about the kbs per second? 1kb by second hahaha for slow downloads? or give full speed downloads?

 

[.Chris]

Macbook Pro is considered a Pro product, not a consumer based product.... Apple only makes A MAJOR announcement on Pro products on either the WWDC or Macworld Expo, not on September music month event, which is focused on more consumer product, such as Macbook, iMac, iPod, iPhone (falls into both Pro and consumer product) Mac mini, etc....

and how is a macbook and imac fall under "music" huh? EXACTLY quit talking you'll only confuse your self even more

Dude whats ur problem and u missed the point, it says in the news that itll be US Store only so i assume no one from out of the US could just sign up for it only. So i was wondering if we could still use it with the retail box

Dude whats YOUR problem. learn to read next time I was commenting on someone who was talking about the Europeans. dumb ass kids...

 

[econoline06]

Again, this is within a LAN, but try sharing your iTunes library to a friend at another school (technically legally).

As for the EULA issue, again time and time again EULAs have yet to be won by the corporations. TIME AND TIME again. Imho, using the "EULA" argument on "who owns the music" just doesn't hold any water.

w00master

Oh, I didn't realize you meant off the LAN, sorry.

As far as the EULA goes, yeah thats true, but still you do not own that music or software. I thought that was a pretty well known fact.

 

[Peace]

Sometime between Aug. 26th. and Aug. 29th. invitations will go out to the media. More likely on Friday Aug. 29th so as not to interfere with the Democratic National Convention.

just watch.

 

[econoline06]

You obviously didn't read my post. To go back, I'm a firm believer in "owning my music," but at the same time think about what you "can't" do with the music you own. See my post on the top of the previous page (page 4).

w00master

Stuff you cannot do meaning like how you can't add some song you purchased on iTunes into an iMovie your making? That has frustrated me a few times recently...

Anyway, that sort of goes to show you how you don't really own the music. It is the property of the artist and record label. I still don't understand why you believe you own the music you have. Can you explain further?

 

[w00master]

Stuff you cannot do meaning like how you can't add some song you purchased on iTunes into an iMovie your making? That has frustrated me a few times recently...

Anyway, that sort of goes to show you how you don't really own the music. It is the property of the artist and record label. I still don't understand why you believe you own the music you have. Can you explain further?

I believe you are confusing between two separate issues (which do often intertwine): DRM and Subscription Music Services.

With DRM, I am completely and totally against it. 100%. In terms of why I "believe... own the music," my point is if I purchased the music I should be able to rip it from CD, transfer to any music player, use it in my home movies, stream to any of my own personal players over the internet (or via cell towers), etc. Most of these things I consider them fair use and I will continue to use the files on my harddrive the way I like. LEGALLY speaking though? You're absolutely correct. Reality wise though? I completely deny and disagree with the legal community (and RIAA).

With Subscription Music Services, although it isn't for me, I believe that the people on this board who are so adamantly against Apple going in this direction aren't "seeing the big picture." They only talk about what is wrong with Subscription Services: you're renting music, when you stop paying you can't listen, etc. etc. What they fail to realize is the flip side of what (maybe) is possible legally with Subscription Music services: sharing music with friends/family/etc. (as long as they have a subscription).

Examples:
1. No need to "buy" all the songs for iMixes for subscribers
2. Posting playable playlists on websites
3. When you "tell a friend" in iTunes about an amazing song, they can immediately listen to the whole song and add it to their library.
4. Steam your iTunes account songs anywhere around the world.

Those are just some examples. Now, I haven't talked about the "issues with Subscription Music Services" (ahem DRM), but I was addressing the "poo poo-ers" of Subscription Music. There is a good side that many of them simply aren't addressing and/or seeing.

w00master

 

[iMacmatician]

Sometime between Aug. 26th. and Aug. 29th. invitations will go out to the media. More likely on Friday Aug. 29th so as not to interfere with the Democratic National Convention.

just watch.

I'll be watching… for some other date!

I wonder what the invitation will be like. Assuming both Macs and iPods are updated, Apple would want to combine two different platforms into one cohesive invite… that's interesting.

 

[babyj]

The iPhone iDisk access seems more a case of when than if, though I'm not sure its really that big a deal. More likely its something that will be slipped in with a firmware update at some point. I wouldn't of thought its that big an update either so no reason why it couldn't be in the next release (2.1).

The big question with the subscription model is whether Apple have changed their stance on it. The major record labels want it and have been pushing Apple for it in the past, it makes a lot of sense from their point of view as the potential revenue levels are massive. They could easily sell 10 million in the first year, which at $100 a pop would be $1 billion of revenue - I'd say that is a conservative estimate, it could easily generate 5 times that.

From Apple's point of view they can't really lose either - they're likely to sell a lot more iPod's and they'll get a cut of the subscription fee which could easily be more profitable than at present. The labels are desperate for it which puts Apple in a strong negotiating position - maybe strong enough to ensure all music is also available for purchase drm free and at a lower price. A lower price for outright purchases of drm free music might also remove Apple's objections to the drm protected subscription model.

I've never bought a song from iTunes and I won't until lossless quality is offered, but I do buy a lot of cd's though. I'd sign up for the subscription just to give me quick and easy access to all music and I'd be happy with a lower quality until I bought the cd or a lossless copy.

Most people that own iPods would sign up for a subscription on the spot.

 

[Loge]

If Steve Jobs though subscriptions were a good idea for music, they'd be doing it already. I don't see what has changed to make this a good idea now if it wasn't before. Steve wants less DRM not more.

 

[3MacTim]

I think the main rumor to start this thread is interesting, but what if we combine it with information on this page:

http://www.macuser.com/music/apple_may_offer_allyoucaneatmu.php

Two-thirds of the way down:

"The subscription models under discussion in the music industry include the provision for customers to keep up to 40 or 50 tracks a year, which they would retain even if they changed their device or their subscription lapses."

At that point it's basically $5 a month for the subscription since you're excluding the 40-50 purchased songs. If those 40-50 are DRM-free, I think I'd have to at least sign up for one year and see how it goes. But only if the tipster's wrong about only 50% of the store being available. I smell a Video Rental style fake out.

 

[babyj]

If Steve Jobs though subscriptions were a good idea for music, they'd be doing it already. I don't see what has changed to make this a good idea now if it wasn't before. Steve wants less DRM not more.

One thing that has changed is that the majors are now licensing drm free music but most of them are refusing to license it to Apple. Maybe this has had an effect on Apple and they will give in on the subscription model in exchange for drm free music. Except of course the subscription music will have drm.

 

[Loge]

Except of course the subscription music will have drm.

Which is one reason why it is unlikely. And it seems a lot of trouble to go to, when the DRM songs in iTunes are still selling well. More likely they will concede some ground on the flexible pricing issue, which is a well known sticking point with the labels.

 

[G58]

I agree.

And another two reasons are:

This message was delivered in a scatter-gun seeding of the usual suspects in the rumour industry. Not exactly subtle is it? What does Steve say about ships that leak from the top?

Secondly, since Apple clearly doesn't normally leak from the top, and MS does, it stinks of a spoiler to cause Apple's iTunes numbers to fall. Who benefits? The guy who just singed Jerry Seinfeld for a series of new ads in which he will appear alongside him. One way to blow $300m!!

It's what I'd do if I were Bill. But then if I were Bill, I wouldn't hire Jerry Seinfeld. Either way, it's unlikely.

Move along folks. There's nothing to see here.

Which is one reason why it is unlikely. And it seems a lot of trouble to go to, when the DRM songs in iTunes are still selling well. More likely they will concede some ground on the flexible pricing issue, which is a well known sticking point with the labels.

 

[babyj]

This message was delivered in a scatter-gun seeding of the usual suspects in the rumour industry. Not exactly subtle is it? What does Steve say about ships that leak from the top?

Secondly, since Apple clearly doesn't normally leak from the top, and MS does, it stinks of a spoiler to cause Apple's iTunes numbers to fall. Who benefits? The guy who just singed Jerry Seinfeld for a series of new ads in which he will appear alongside him. One way to blow $300m!!

The most likely leak / source for this would be the music labels themselves, who have a history of using the media for their own aims. Except they are normally a lot more blatant and don't mind being named as the source.

What would be the point in MS spreading this rumour? If anything it would be more damaging for their sales rather than Apple's, and even MS aren't that stupid.

I doubt there is any substance to the subscription service rumour, but that doesn't mean it is a bad idea or won't happen. It wouldn't be the first time Apple had made a complete about turn on something either.

 

[umbilical]

HEY REALLY is that Possible???? well for $179 per user, apple can get more money that the money that get today with the users that have today? Really sounds amazing that, well apple always make amazing things.

wake me when that dream comes true!!!!!

 

[Randman]

Sorry for asking if its been answered but any word on if this includes movies and TV shows as well? What about the App store?

I'd likely get (already have MobileMe) it just for the music but with movies and TV shows, I'd be first in line, just after I cancelled NetFlix and pared my cable options down as much as possible.

 

[econoline06]

I believe you are confusing between two separate issues (which do often intertwine): DRM and Subscription Music Services.

With DRM, I am completely and totally against it. 100%. In terms of why I "believe... own the music," my point is if I purchased the music I should be able to rip it from CD, transfer to any music player, use it in my home movies, stream to any of my own personal players over the internet (or via cell towers), etc. Most of these things I consider them fair use and I will continue to use the files on my harddrive the way I like. LEGALLY speaking though? You're absolutely correct. Reality wise though? I completely deny and disagree with the legal community (and RIAA).

With Subscription Music Services, although it isn't for me, I believe that the people on this board who are so adamantly against Apple going in this direction aren't "seeing the big picture." They only talk about what is wrong with Subscription Services: you're renting music, when you stop paying you can't listen, etc. etc. What they fail to realize is the flip side of what (maybe) is possible legally with Subscription Music services: sharing music with friends/family/etc. (as long as they have a subscription).

Examples:
1. No need to "buy" all the songs for iMixes for subscribers
2. Posting playable playlists on websites
3. When you "tell a friend" in iTunes about an amazing song, they can immediately listen to the whole song and add it to their library.
4. Steam your iTunes account songs anywhere around the world.

Those are just some examples. Now, I haven't talked about the "issues with Subscription Music Services" (ahem DRM), but I was addressing the "poo poo-ers" of Subscription Music. There is a good side that many of them simply aren't addressing and/or seeing.

w00master

Oh alright, I understand. Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I too am irritated that the license agreement does not provide for use in other applications besides mobile devices and your personal computer (as far as simply listening to the music goes). Why we cannot use the song file in other applications is a mystery...perhaps enough folks out there are willing to pay $0.99 to simply listen to the song on their own computer and mobile device without any further usage. Seems kind of limited to me...Though there are programs out there that strip DRM out of the music.

 

[krye]

How about flash? Can we please get some flash already?

 

[eb201]

Some people may be able to take advantage of this, but, imo, it is a waste of money. I have to pay an annual fee and then pay again to keep the music? Basically I am renting the song. That is fine for movies but I should be able to keep the song and play it whenever I want, even after my subscription ends.

Maybe I just don't completely understand the subscription model, but this seems ridiculous.

I am hoping for something like pay a monthly fee ($15-$25 a month) and get unlimited downloads, that you get to keep.

 

[reallynotnick]

Make everything 256kbs (or better yet 320kbs or even lossless!) with no DRM for 99¢ and give me a subscription for TV shows and movies as I don't care to own those, especially TV shows.

That would be killer on an Apple TV, oh and make everything HD.

 

[macwall]

i would love to pay to get unlimited itunes songs

 

[Alx9876]

Don't care about either one. Give me the new Macbook now. I've waited since July of this year. Bring it out goddamn it.

 

[econoline06]

Don't care about either one. Give me the new Macbook now. I've waited since July of this year. Bring it out goddamn it.

May I offer you some scotch to calm the nerves good Sir?