Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Yahoo Online Music Service

Why do you people not see that this is helping to put Aple out of business? LOOK at their stocks PLUNGING right now!

Why do you want to see Apple go down? I don't understand it at all....

I LOVE my G5, I LOVE Tiger, I LOVE my iPod Mini, etc....why on earth would I want to hurt the company that brought me these fantastic products?

Just so some teenage punks can steal a bunch of lousy music???...sheesh! Look at the ramifications.

People, get your act together!
 
Boo. Subscription services are bad for artists and ultimately bad for consumers. They should not be supported. "do not support subscription based music services" should echo across the internet.
 
bubbalwz said:
It should be noted that the yahoo service will also allow the purchase of songs (own instead of use) for $.79 and albums for $8. Of course the music won't play on an iPod.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that would be cool because Muscimatch can convert WMA to WAV or MP3.
 
bernardb said:
Why do you people not see that this is helping to put Aple out of business? LOOK at their stocks PLUNGING right now!

Why do you want to see Apple go down? I don't understand it at all....

I LOVE my G5, I LOVE Tiger, I LOVE my iPod Mini, etc....why on earth would I want to hurt the company that brought me these fantastic products?

Just so some teenage punks can steal a bunch of lousy music???...sheesh! Look at the ramifications.

People, get your act together!
Click to expand...

I hardley think that Yahoo is going to run Apple out of business. Apple is a much too savey business and has weathered too many storms to let Yahoo or Napster put them out of business. I mean C'mon!
 
bbyrdhouse said:
Well, I guess that would be cool because Muscimatch can convert WMA to WAV or MP3.
Click to expand...
DRM-protected WMA files? I'd find that hard to believe.

If you're talking about unprotected WMA, iTunes can convert that.
 
I wouldn't worry about Apple too much, judging by the latest iteration of the iTMS sales chart:



That sales curve is accelerating.
 
I know I'm in the minority, but I want a subscription service.

Why? It's simple. I'm tired of managing my music... I really am. My CD collection is over 500 CDs (I've been buying for over 20 years). I've ripped these things numerous times (first at 128kbps MP3, 64kbps MP3Pro, 128kbps AAC, 192 AAC...). I have two external hard drives filled with music. I have a huge stack of MP3 CDs. I have two iPods and an iPod mini filled with music. I have a desktop PC with music on its hard drive, an old iBook filled with music, a Powerbook filled with music, and a work desktop with music.

This music that I "own" is all over the place. It's gotten out of control. At this point, I just want a central place that can keep track of my favorites that follow me whereever I go.
 
I think Yahoo entering the market is great. The bottom line is that it offers choice to us - the consumers. With choice, comes change as other companies compete to get ahead.

I think Apple should be worried. Maybe not about us die-hard mac users who would never desert Apple but about the average PC user. When an average person decides to buy an MP3 player they will factor in this new service.

And the fact that iPods cant use it and that iTunes is now overpriced does mean something. There are other MP3 players out there which are actually quite good and are capable of competing strongly with the iPod. This is just one more factor to think about when buying. I think that Apple's reluctance to introduce choice in iTunes might affect the selling power of the iPod. Also, many people say that iPod's are old hat. They are not updated frequently enough. Other companies are intruducing new models all the time. This all will reduce the competitivness of the iPod.

Of course I will stick with the iPod.
 
Would Apple license fairplay to Amazon?

Yahoo entering the field for downloadable music is substantial for the marketplace and will eventually be something Apple must combat. To reinforce their position Apple may well find one key player in the market to align with by licensing fairplay (ipod compatible) technology for music downloads. Personally, I can't think of a better company than Amazon for such an arrangement. Amazon's market presence, brand, size, and talent in the online world would immediately elevate it to a successful position and help Apple crush competition. The arrangement would not be dis-similiar to the iPod license deal Apple and HP have arranged. In both cases it would offer a win-win situation for both parties involved by providing Apple with a new revenue stream and fending off competition and by providing Amazon with instant market recognition.

I firmly believe Apple does not wish to offer a subscription-based service to customers due to overhead costs and other reasons. But, based on the arrangement above, there would be nothing stopping its partner to provide such a service to the limited market interested in such a service. This would put Apple in an incredible position enabling it to offer iPod owners the options they want but in ways that are economical to support.
 
The more the merrier

As I see it, we should be happy that yahoo, Napster and others enter the market. More online shops -> Fiercer competition -> Lower prices -> Me happy.
I hardly think it will come to the point where Brittany or some of the other "starving musicians" won't be able to buy themselves another $25 gazillion house... But one can always hope right? 😉
 
Subscription based music service is for people who just listens to music not for people who love music. These are the people who like Backstreet Boys, Ricky Martin, Britney Spears or anybody who’s current. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but do you care if you hear “La Vida Loca” again? As for me, I have been listening to The Clash, New Order, The Cure, etc. for more than 20 years now and there’s no way I would keep paying money for years and years to listen to these bands. It be much wiser to just pay the $0.99 to own the song period because I think I will still be listening to them for another 20 years. Although, if Apple drops the price per song to $0.79, I’d purchase more music….
 
This model has possibilities...

Hey - I am one of those people that want to own my music. There may be songs/albums that I don't listen to for years, but I eventually want to listen again. For that reason, I need to own the music. However, I don't listen to the radio much, so I it is hard for me to find new music. This is where ITMS is weak. 30 second previews aren't long enough to determine if I really like the music. I use the shopping cart method on ITMS, and it is full of albums and songs that I just can't pull the trigger on yet. I wish I had a way to listen to these albums and songs fully so I could determine if they are worth buying. So, at a price of $4.99 a month, I am very tempted to go get a cheap MP3 player that will work with Yahoo. I would then use that service as a way to find new music. Hear a group that seems to have good music - I pop it on the "Plays for Sure" player and try it out for a while. If I decide I like it and want to own the music, I pop over to iTunes and buy it and then put it on my iPod. I don't plan to rent the music forever, just long enough to determine whether I want it or not. This is a perfect compliment to the ITMS, and if Apple won't provide it, I may have to use Yahoo until Apple does.
 
DTphonehome said:
I think it's great that someone has undercut Napster so significantly on price. Yahoo! can afford to sell this service at break-even, or even at a loss, while Napster has no other revenue stream. If they lower their prices, they'll kill margins, and they can't stay in business. Napster stock is down 30% so far this morning (Apple is down 3%...btw, 35 bucks for Apple is a bargain, stock up, kiddies).
Click to expand...
That would be predatory pricing and REAL would have every right to take them to court. You cannot sell something for a loss just to kill competition. (XBox, PS2 and Gamecube sales always make me wonder on this rule though)

That's why Microsoft got slapped for in the 90's.
That's what airlines often get occused of too.
 
I don't think you really OWN the music you get from iTunes. Something you own is something you can do whatever you want with, and songs you buy from iTunes have all kinds of limitations and barriers built into it. Much more so than if you buy a CD full of music.

So, you don't own anything when buying songs from iTunes. You are licensing them.
 
eric_n_dfw said:
That would be predatory pricing and REAL would have every right to take them to court. You cannot sell something for a loss just to kill competition. (XBox, PS2 and Gamecube sales always make me wonder on this rule though)

That's why Microsoft got slapped for in the 90's.
That's what airlines often get occused of too.
Click to expand...

I guess it's different because the market is really in the games. Companies don't profit from the systems, maybe just break even, but the games are where it's at.

Whereas with music and music players, it's obviously not that way. iPods aren't being sold just so people can be baited into iTunes. iPods are the money maker, as far as I know.
 
MontyZ said:
I don't think you really OWN the music you get from iTunes. Something you own is something you can do whatever you want with, and songs you buy from iTunes have all kinds of limitations and barriers built into it. Much more so than if you buy a CD full of music.

So, you don't own anything when buying songs from iTunes. You are licensing them.
Click to expand...

I hear this argument all the time, and I don't think it is accurate. Sure you can do more with the physical CD, but I don't think you are actually allowed to "do whatever you want". DRM simply forces people to obey Copyright law. Even when you buy a CD, you don't own the music, you are simply licensing it also. But you are correct, there is nothing on the physical CD that forces you to obey the rules.

Anyone who is familiar with copyright law, please post what you are actually ALLOWED to do with a CD
 
applebum said:
At a price of $4.99 a month, I am very tempted to go get a cheap MP3 player that will work with Yahoo.
Click to expand...
Yeah, me too. But since I don't have a PC, it's a hassle. If it was Mac supported, I'd probably jump on it.

I easily spend a couple hundred dollars a year on music. At $60 a year, it's practically owning music. When it's that cheap, there isn't much of a line between owning and renting.

But as others have noted, I don't see how Yahoo and the record companies are making any money off of this. It doesn't seem like a sustainable model.

Finally, the growing popularity of satellite radio shows that people don't mind not owning music. I love my iPod and iTunes, but I also love XM radio in my car. Couldn't live without it in LA.
 
I like it!

I own a Mac, and an Ipod (3g first Rev 15g floor model!). I have never bought music from Itunes, but I have downloaded free tracks, pepsi tracks, and used Wiretap to "rip" music from the videos. But .99 has always seemed a bad value to me. And I have *never* burned a CD.

I still buy cds, about 1/3 new and 2/3 used. I am a value oriented guy.

Are you kidding me?!? 5 bucks a month for all the music I want. And if I don't pay for awhile, it goes dark, but as soon as I pay again it comes back on? (that is not a problem, that is a feature!). Give me the equivelant of Itunes Essentials, but they are just 50 playlists I get for *FREE!*.

I still get all of my cd's, the yahoo police doesn't take them. I can still *buy* whatever music I want, in whatever form I want. And I get to have the rest of the universe for 5 bucks a month... WOO HOO! The only *buy* crowd, go ahead I am not stopping you, too busy LISTENING to music, who cares if I buy it? and if I want to buy it... I CAN! For only 5 bucks a month I get everything I have today, plus all the rest of the music. 5 bucks is a way different value proposition than 14 bucks. I can't get ANYTHING for 5 bucks.
 
plasticparadox said:
God, they're going to be selling individual songs for 0.79? Can't believe someone would undercut Walmart. If this new Yahoo store is a success, I'm sure 0.79 will be the new standard price for individual songs. Sounds good to me 🙂
Click to expand...

Yes, but... remember that you have to pay for a subscription to the service first - unlike iTunes or Walmart's service. Ignoring the rental side, if you prefer to purchase songs, you'd have buy at least 25-35 songs a month (depending on annual or monthly subscription) to break even with iTunes non-subscription model.

I looked all over Yahoo's site, but couldn't find any details on the limits to burning purchased songs. There is a rather ominious statement: "Note: Yahoo! Music does not permit copying or transferring music files to other users." Does that mean you can burn once to a CD but that CD won't be copyable, or you can burn to one mp3 player which also would be locked?

As for the rental model - this is a great price point. But, like others have said, how will Yahoo, the artists, and the labels make any money on it? It seems like it would be nearly impossible to earn a profit at that price.
 
applebum said:
I hear this argument all the time, and I don't think it is accurate. Sure you can do more with the physical CD, but I don't think you are actually allowed to "do whatever you want". DRM simply forces people to obey Copyright law. Even when you buy a CD, you don't own the music, you are simply licensing it also. But you are correct, there is nothing on the physical CD that forces you to obey the rules.

Anyone who is familiar with copyright law, please post what you are actually ALLOWED to do with a CD
Click to expand...
I think we actually agree. Buying a CD is not really "owning" the music, it's owning the plastic disc and licensing the music on it. But, you own a lot less when you buy from the iTunes Store because there are built-in restrictions that are obviously there to protect copyright, which is understandable, but it also restricts where you can play that music and on how many devices. I see posts all the time in the Apple forum about people who are unable to play the music they purchased from iTunes on their new computer or their new iPod. You have to jump through more hoops to play the music you bought from iTunes than you do if you buy it on a CD.

The "renting" scenario is almost the same as buying from iTunes, but, instead of restricting only where and on how many devices you play the music, you also have a time limit. So, my point is that the two are not so different as some people make them out to be. There's more difference between buying a CD and buying from iTunes, IMO.
 
If you pay $60 for a year's subscription, pay 79 cents to buy burning rights on one song a day (saving 20 cents compared with iTunes), you'd break even before the year is out. If you purchased more songs you'd come out further ahead, and if you purchased less than 300 songs in the year you'd come out behind. You'd also get to listen to any other music along the way. So I can see some people being interested in this model, especially if their interest is in making their own CDs, or in simply listening to what's currently popular.

I'm not interested in listening to music temporarily (only while I'm a subscriber), or in making my own CDs for that matter. Having no rights to play songs if I drop the subscription would make me feel stuck with the service, with my music held hostage. Even though my tastes change over time, I want to know that I'll be able to keep copies of my favorites without paying further. So I'll stick with the iTunes model.
 
Porchland said:
I'm all for competition keeping Apple on its toes, but the window is closing on the downloadable music market. One of Apple's competitors is going to have to get some traction with the buffet model before Apple is forced into a decision; if Apple added a monthly plan today, it would simply be to squash everyone else out.

By the time Yahoo or Napster or whoever is able to make any kind of move in the music market, Apple will be selling episodes of "Nip/Tuck" in HD for 99 cents a pop through its iWatch service that you can stream to your HDTV through Airport Express 2 or download to your iTablet.

Yahoo is swimming in the kiddie pool.
Click to expand...

I whole heartedly concur. I don't understand why Apple investors were so freaked out this morning by this news (with Apple's stock price sinking at one point by almost three dollars). If Yahoo isn't even comptabile with the iPod its hardly going to be making much of a dent in Apple's marketshare anyway.
 
I've been thinking about this some more today.

Renting sounds cheap at first, but it doesn't scale well over time.

-you have to rely on content you want to always be available on the rental service, or else you still have to buy it.
- you have to rely on the service being around indefinitely. How confident are you that yahoo's music service will still exist 20-30 years from now?
- the $60/year is apparently an introductory price. What will the price be a year from now? Let's be conservative and say it bumps up to $100. Subscribe for 20 years and you've spent $2000 and have absolutely no music to show for it unless you keep subscribing.

So instead, you try the songs, buy the ones you want. But you ahve to buy 25 songs/month to break even vs. the iTunes store's .99/song with no subscription fees. Then these songs you "own" are controlled by microsoft's DRM. Buy a new computer, you have to migrate your license. Do it 10 times, your license no longer migrates - the limit can even be set to fewer than 10, 10 is the max - some WMA based stores set it to zero - you have to depend on the store to still exist and the content to still be available every time you ever buy a new computer for songs you thought you bought. So you spend $300/year to buy music just to break even with the iTunes price and the music has DRM that will cause it to stop working some day - simply because you upgrade computers too many times.

And once you start using Microsoft's DRM, they install it on files you rip off of your own CD - those files have to be migrated too and are subject to the same 10 migration limit. Lose or break a CD, and what you thought was a digital backup on your computer is going to someday stop working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back