digital music/video
08/19/2005, 2:25pm, EDT
Friday, August 19th
Mossberg picks iTunes over subscription schemes
Companies as formidable as Microsoft, Sony and Wal-Mart have been unable to gain any traction in the music download market, despite closely imitating iTunes, explains Walter Mossberg in his latest column. Mossberg cites three key reasons why iTunes has seen so much success, while others have not: tight integration with the iPod, ease of use on both PC and Mac, and "comparatively liberal" restrictions on downloaded files. Unable to find success with the 99-cents-per-song model pioneered by iTunes, competitors have turned to subscription-based programs. The problem, Mossberg says, is the rental model is "far more complicated and restrictive than iTunes, and has several big downsides." These downsides include a loss of music files the user stops paying his or her subscription. [See all the latest iPod-related news on iPodNN.]
Filed under: industry
Other story tags: digital music/video
,
, 14
,
,
,
,
,

subscribe to comments
for this article
You know, I hear that water is wet too...
I suppose they don't, just like iTunes doesn't keep you from ripping all of your family's and friend's cd's.
It is like owning land...you legally do, but it doesn't stop the landslide form taking it away. "Ownership" is such a strange concept.
It just amazes me how so many people on these boards seem to completely not understand how subscription services work, and how they can actually be more beneficial to the music afficiando, rather then less. (Of course, I'm sure if Apple's iTMS started out as a subscription service, most of you "subscriptions suck!" people would be "They're just copying Apple!" and "Why waste your money buying 10 albums a month when, for the cost of 1, you can listen to any of a 1 million songs!")
And the subscriber can still buy music, you people do understand that, right? In fact, he's still got $380 to spend on albums and such. And then he KNOWS its music he wants and wants for the long term, and doesn't necessarily get stuck with a slew of albums from crap artists like "Hanson" or "Mariah Carey" or "Michael Bolton" (well, unless he wants to, I guess).
Subscriptions aren't for everyone, esp. if you don't listen to a lot of music, but just like some people buy books, and others just go to the library, there's people who'll have no problem 'renting' music.
[Oh, and if you think there can't be any money in it, keep in mind idiots buy ringtones for their cellphones like it was porn, selling like $3 billion worth a year. And if you can make that kind of money selling freakin' ringtones, imagine what you could make on renting music]