yahoo music unlimited. may force revamped itunes?

[biohazard6969]

came accross this, it is yahoo's online music store they are offering UNLIMITED songs for only 4.99 a month. this is huge, it cuts in half napster's offer of 10.00 a month, and will definitely force apple to consider a revamped music store. the one thing that may keep itunes in first for online music downloads is that neither napster nor yahoo work on the ipod, but that may change. there have been rumblings that yahoo will soon support the ipod as well, this would mean serious trouble for the iTMS

 

[yellow]

It would?

I'm not so sure. I prefer to own my music, rather then rent it. But that's just me.

 

[Lacero]

Why can't iTMS offer both? Let the customer decide if they want to rent or own.

Considering I spend $30 a month renting TV shows and third-rate movies, paying $5-10 a month renting songs doesn't seem too bad, and I get to listen to the same song as many times as I want.

 

[iMeowbot]

I'm guessing that Apple are waiting for the Yahoo introductory pricing to expire before they respond (probably with an "I told you so").

 

[freiheit]

Even at $4.99 a month, I for one would not be willing to pay a fee every month for the right to continue listening to music I've already paid to download. Rental music is just not the same as rental movies, you know?

 

[zap2]

yahoo is a better deal short term( so is naspter) but over time itunes is. and sinc eim in it for the long time i use itunes. Most of the time

 

[solvs]

You do know Yahoo! launched their service like, a month ago, don't you? This is a temporary price like when Real first released their new service, then hiked up the prices. Plus, to get that price, you have to pay for the whole year. And as I've heard, it's eating more into the other stores' sales, not iTunes.

I'm sure Apple will adapt iTunes based on where the market goes, and if subscriptons are where it's at, they will change.

 

[mxpiazza]

i'm sorry, i just don't buy into the long-term viability of rent-a-music subscription services, with xtra charges to burn/place on an mp3 player... for now, iPod works on iTunes, and it's going to stay that way, and as long as the iPod remains the force that it is, no subscription service is going to be able to topple iTunes... it just wont happen.

 

[michaelrjohnson]

i'm sorry, i just don't buy into the long-term viability of rent-a-music subscription services, with xtra charges to burn/place on an mp3 player... for now, iPod works on iTunes, and it's going to stay that way, and as long as the iPod remains the force that it is, no subscription service is going to be able to topple iTunes... it just wont happen.

I concur. Well put.

 

[mxpiazza]

I concur. Well put.

i thank you. my friends and i aren't wealthy by any means, but most of us have iPods and buy off the iTMS (i'm the only one using an Apple computer), and those friends of mine that don't have iPods would never use a subscription service, i mean, who wants to rent music? i guess there are some people out there, but i would think that half of the people that use subscription-based services don't even realize they'll have to pay $10 a month for the rest of their lives to keep their music.

 

[MoparShaha]

I'd love a streaming subscription service. I don't care about downloading music to my PB or to an MP3 player. I just like listening to a large variety of music, and that's something only a streaming service can offer. I don't want to "rent", I just want to listen to a large catalog. If I like something, I can buy it.

Like others have said, why can't we have both?

 

[biohazard6969]

apple always seems to do it best, their store is so easy to use, and the pricing is adequate. i wouln't like a subscription.

 

[superbovine]

i thank you. my friends and i aren't wealthy by any means, but most of us have iPods and buy off the iTMS (i'm the only one using an Apple computer), and those friends of mine that don't have iPods would never use a subscription service, i mean, who wants to rent music? i guess there are some people out there, but i would think that half of the people that use subscription-based services don't even realize they'll have to pay $10 a month for the rest of their lives to keep their music.

i don't buy the long term renting music either, but with a smaller subscriber base the subscription based service i think the subscriptions would provide the best revune for the company.

 

[nagromme]

Do the math, as Napster would say

That low monthly rate comes only with a long-term commitment, AND you pay extra for any songs you want to keep: MORE than iTunes charges!

You'd have to play it just right--and have very specific needs--to make it worthwhile to pay Yahoo forever.

Some good cost comparisons have been posted in these forums, but the bottom line is, Yahoo's $5/month deal has catches that make it cost more than iTunes for very many people.

Apple may well add subsrciptions one day if they find it useful. But it won't be because subscriptions kill the "keep your music forever" model!

 

[LethalWolfe]

i don't buy the long term renting music either, but with a smaller subscriber base the subscription based service i think the subscriptions would provide the best revune for the company.

That's only assuming that customers actually like the idea of a subscription service and sign up in enough numbers. Which, of course, hasn't happened yet.


Lethal

 

[superbovine]

That's only assuming that customers actually like the idea of a subscription service and sign up in enough numbers. Which, of course, hasn't happened yet.


Lethal

well, napster and real networks have a subscriber base, so there is a market out there for it. you are also thinking yahoo wants to make money right now, they might just be in for a price war.

http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43049.html

 

[dotdotdot]

The iTMS will not have competition until like, at LEAST 2007. iTMS is the strongest thing, because its so easy. I bet its a pain in the ass to find what your looking for in that, and have it be compatible with a Mac...