I would much rather buy a song and have it be mine, buy the song and not worry about my subscription service.

"When a subscriber stops paying for the service, they lose access to all the music they have downloaded."

This is the MAIN reason i don't prefer subscriptions over ala carte. Idiots, why don't they understand that half the people will always prefer ala carte to subscription models. If you want to cover all the bases, you have to offer BOTH.

Hmm, I am perplexed. Do people not buy CDs at all? I buy all of my music on CD (iTunes not available in Ireland), rip and transfer onto my iPod. Why would you rent your music, like Ian Robinson says, you rent your apartment, not your music! Oh what happens say after buying say $200 or more worth of music and your hard disc gets corrupted or stolen. "hi Mister Insurance person. I need to replace the Powerbook that was stolen. On was my music collection...." Yeah right, that company is not gonna pay!

Chris

"When a subscriber stops paying for the service, they lose access to all the music they have downloaded."


that's the stupidest strategy i've heard in ages. people want to OWN their music.

Hey MS, music isn't your crapware that people desperately await the next revision that might not suck. No one who really appreciates music is going to buy into your dillusional "volume licensing" scheme. You might have screwed IT with that c***, but it isn't going to happen with the idealistic youth.
Apple is on the move.

I hate when Microsoft makes a stupid statement like this because they are unfortunately listened to very carefully by others, soon they'll all agree no matter how rediculous it sounds.

"We think in the future the sky will be green"

This will fail. Remember Divx? The Circuit City service where you basically "rented" the DVD movies you purchased for $5 and then after 48 hours they wouldn't play again unless you paid another $4 or so each time you wanted to watch them in the future. That service didn't last a year before it failed. This is the same failed concept that Divx was.

I pay $20 for the first month, and download 200 songs. That's a dime a song, great deal! But, wait, nothing but c*** for the second month, now I have paid $.20 per song - still not bad. 10 months later, however, and I have paid for those 200 songs 10 times, now $1.00 per song, and I still don't own them.

This service will only be for people who want to be able to download whatever is currently playing on the radio - assuming it is available - and not worry about ever playing it again. After all, who listens to Stairway To Heaven anymore?

I'm in Australia, so CDs, piracy, free tracks off artist's web sites, TV or radio are my only music options.

I guess subscriptions would be similar to an audio version of Pay TV: monthly subscription, listen all you want. Then stop listening when you stop paying. I think if the price is right, there is a market. But sell it as a form of "Pay Radio", rather than "subscriptions".

Anyway, the market is still young. We'll see what happens.

There will be some for whom subscription makes sense. That's fine and that's their choice.

Would it be viable and profitable (or popular)? I doubt it. And as many have pointed out, this has not been successful and various people have been doing this for a while.

But to point out a few items I disagree with:
That's probably the MSFT way of doing things. If you stop to pay, you don't get anything

No, but that's how subscription works, duh. If you stop paying for cable or XM or satellite or Netflix, do you get to keep anything? Do you b**** about your $80 cable bill because you don't get to keep your favorite sitcom forever? You do get to Tivo or tape it, for extra cost and efforts, of course. Same applies to music subscription too.

They have the money to subsidize a losing music venture indefinitely.
They may but not likely. Microsoft is also known to throw in the towel when things do not work either (see networking equipment, Ultimate TV, Sidewalk, Expedia (which MS should have kept), etc).

"They have the money to subsidize a losing music venture indefinitely. h***, they could buy everyone in the US a new computer and not lose money... "

Let's see - 300M Americans $1000 per computer, comes to $300B. I seriously doubt even Microsoft has that much cash.

"the company pointed out that the average music listener spend $4.66 on music each month, and that subscription services will accordingly generate more money with their monthly fees"

Yeah, I'm sure that the music industry has never done market studies and they need Microsoft to explain their consumer base to them.

"Hey - Music industry - do you realize that you can triple your profit if you simply raise the price of the average CD from $16 to $32?"

Consumers will go for that like Tabasco throat lozenges.

"We think in the future the sky will be green"

You never know, it might be. The way c*** is getting pumped into the air there is no telling what the sky will look like in a millenium.

To be perfectly honest the price, at first, seems quite reasonable, around $5 a month for all the tunes you can eat! However, where they seem to have made a critical error is in the failure to understand the purchasing habits of their target market. Imagine opting for a music downloading service that stipulates that once your subscription lapses or expires, all the music on your computer and mp3 player becomes unplayable. I hardly think I'd have purchased any of the hundreds of CDs and vinyl in my collection had I known that they'd stop being playable once I stopped paying royalties.

Well, your comparing apple's to oranges. If you're doing subscription, you're not "purchasing hundreds of CDs", you're just downloading them. This is the whole point of subscriptions, dude. You pay like 10 cents for each song on your machine for your use for the whole month. So, who cares if it goes away, its not like you spent $600 on it.

Personally, I'm not much into subscription services for entertainment. Some months I'm too busy to just live my life, let alone dig around for music to download/buy. And after the first couple of months, once you got what you came for, basically, you're then either downloading c*** just for the sake of downloading something (gotta get my $20 worth) or you waste your money.

This has always been my problem with NetFlix. h***, I never even bother with going to blockbuster anymore, because I end up standing around looking for something (anything!) that's worth watching (yes, I know blockbuster ain't a subscription). Pay channels like HBO, Showtime, etc, have the same problem (there's only so many showings of "Steel Magnolias" you can watch before you find yourself not crying at the end), although HBO at least has tried to make up for that with their original shows (Cinemax, on the other hand, just tries to get by with their After hours soft-p***).

So I'll stick buying whatever music I have a penchant for (like I do with my movies), be it CDs or through the iTMS (depending on cost, how many songs I want, do I want to try to get it cheaper on eBay, etc).

Oh, nice discussion here, but since it won't be Mac compatible, its all kind of moot to us.

Maybe they'll give it away for free. But then after a year your subscriptions starts. Then unexpectedly pooof all your music is gone unless you pay.

But that first free year hurt itunes so bad apple lost market share and started to have to support windows media.

M will cut a check to the music companies for the first year. Then the flies will pay once the fall into the trap.

10 months later, however, and I have paid for those 200 songs 10 times, now $1.00 per song, and I still don't own them.
Hollywood accountants thought about this and wet their pants with excitement. This way, at some point, they get paid and no body gets to keep the product. They would remove your memory of a song you heard on the radio if they could.

When the first hacker easily hacks through their encryption and rips off all that music for free and distributes it on the undernet.

I guarantee it will happen. I mean, think about it. Your talking about swiss cheese software company Microsoft!

The music industry will loose so much money (along with the artists and every other music related industry including iTunes) and the only people who will end up without music will be Christians (as true Christians will be the only ones who won't steal) and the anti-christ, er I mean Bill Gates will have accomplished what he set out to do.

they're just trying to get people used to renting electronic media instead of owning it. music rental exists already, soon they'll branch into tv and movies (remember the dvd-dead-in-ten-years quote?). somewhere in there will be software too. this seems to me a bad idea, at least for consumers.

No one is making the cable bill analogy, its besides the point. There are subscription models and some people prefer them. But for M$ to say that ALL customers should prefer a subscription model is ridiculous. Some people WANT to own thier music, not rent it.

... works for some people ... incredibly bored cubicle drones, for example (the very people MS is targetting with this service).

Once again, I think MS has come up with a strategy that people PERCEIVE as competing with Apple, but which is in fact NOT competiting with them. By making an overpriced, subscription-only, can't-take-it-with-you type service, they've essentially cried "Uncle" to iTMS, acknowledging that they can't compete (and win) in the real digital music market.

If MS makes sure that the service is available to all platforms, I could see them having a modest success with it (a million or so subscribers).

As for the fellow who says he's "not going to pay full price" for iTMS's compressed music ... hello, you're NOT paying full price. You're paying $9.99 (or less) and not getting as much "stuff" as you get with a $15-20 CD. iTMS is not (at least at this point) about audiophile needs, it's about people who enjoy music emotionally rather than critically.

A subscription model where you lose your music if you want to leave will not work, period. One of the reasons Apple is doing so well with the ITMS, is the "liberal" licensing policy they worked so hard to achieve.

No, but that's how subscription works, duh. If you stop paying for cable or XM or satellite or Netflix, do you get to keep anything? Do you b**** about your $80 cable bill because you don't get to keep your favorite sitcom forever? You do get to Tivo or tape it, for extra cost and efforts, of course. Same applies to music subscription too.

Ah klinux, once again you're being such an idiot.

Your analogy is ridiculous. MS' model has nothing to do with the cable subscription. In that analogy you wouldn't just lose your cable connection once you stop paying, but all the data on your HD that you downloaded over cable in the mean time would miraculously disappear as well. That's what MS is suggesting and that sucks. If you aren't bright enough to see that you might refrain from knee-jerk posts in the future. How 'bout that?

So most people won't bother about it.

It may be that a subscription system is preferable for some people, but I strongly doubt that it is preferable for the majority. And as only a limited share of the music lovers owns a portable player that will work together with the MS solution the market will be tiny.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
That silly Billy G and "Drinkin' Buddy" Ballmer just keep me in stiches.
How out of touch can you be? Well years ago they proposed this same deal for the operating system and it very nearly saw the light of day but then someone who I assume was not certifiably insane stopped it. I actually hope they try this, ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Uh, So let's get this straight...

The online music industry was basically, you pay a subscription and get all the music you want, but that only lasted while the subscription was good... At that point in time, online music made absolutely No money... it was a very tiny market. (obviously, because, people didn't want to rent their music)

Then Apple came along with the iTunes Music Store and let everyone purchase their music song by song and it was theirs for life, and could be listened/used fairly. And it has been very successful. Spawning many copy-cats that have since come and gone.

And now Microsoft, being so brilliant as they are, is saying, wait a second, why would anyone want to pay for each and every song, when they can subscribe to a music service and haves thousands upon thousands of songs at their disposal -- that is, while the subscription is good.

Is it me or does this seem like a huge step back?

I understand that with the MS service, you would be able to listen to your music on a portable device, whereas before you couldn't. But isn't it basically the same thing?

And I don't know about other people... my music tastes do not change, they expand. So when I buy an album, I'd like to think it's going to be one that i'll listen to again and again throughout my lifetime.

another poster compared this to cable, or satellite radio... the only part he's missing is that it takes a lot of time to download songs off the internet... imagine downloading 1,000 songs through this service and in a second, it becomes useless garbage taking up room on your hard drive ... now how much time did you waste downloading all that music?


Microsoft is used to taking advantage of people who don't know too much about computers and pretty much just go with whatever they're told (or use at work). the common person is scared of their computer, they don't want to mess with it. So they do whatever the "experts" tell they should do.

But try and take that attitude and apply it to the music industry... Wont's work! Why? People know music. They know what they want and what to expect. It's easy, turn the radio on, there's music... buy a CD put it in the player, there's music... So far, Apple is the only company that has successfully made the online experience simple enough to make it work. Download iTunes ... purchase and play all your music in one application, no need to go to some website, buy it, download it, and then figure out how to add the new music to your audio player application so you can listen to it.

Anyway, I'm sure Microsoft will put some kind of stupid spin on it and try to make it sound really cool (LOL - Microsoft and cool in the same sentence). And some people may even believe them, but for the most part, it will fail.

when someone release a crack of the DRM. Then everyone can download all the music they want for $5! Woe be the music industry then.

As for the fellow who says he's "not going to pay full price" for iTMS's compressed music ... hello, you're NOT paying full price. You're paying $9.99 (or less) and not getting as much "stuff" as you get with a $15-20 CD.

It would never occur to you that the "stuff" might have any real value, would it? That it's the "stuff" that makes the CD worth buying in the first place? The music I can get anywhere for free. But that "stuff" only comes with the real CD-and I should add that having an original, commercially pressed CD adds value as well.

The "stuff" turns what would otherwise be free (well, free in the sense that I know where to get it and not having to pay per track for it) into something worth paying for.

$10 for COMPRESSED, *LOSSY* (please read that carefully: it means INFERIOR TO THE ORIGINAL) is too much. I would consider paying .25 per track for compressed audio. I would be more likely to pay $1 per track if Apple offered music in their new, lossless compression. I might even consider paying $10 for an album in compressed audio *IF* the actual album (CD and "stuff" included) were mailed to me as well.

when someone release a crack of the DRM. Then everyone can download all the music they want for $5! Woe be the music industry then.

Umm, you can do this for free now. Its called LimeWire, Gnutella, Kazaa, the 18000 other P2P services out there. They'd be just as 'legal'.

And now Microsoft, being so brilliant as they are, is saying, wait a second, why would anyone want to pay for each and every song, when they can subscribe to a music service and haves thousands upon thousands of songs at their disposal -- that is, while the subscription is good.

Is it me or does this seem like a huge step back?

Its you.

You people aren't seeing the BIG picture. WHO this is marketed to. Its to the kids ("Won't somebody think of the children!"). With the monthly comings and goings of the latest pop 'sensation' to pop 'dud', now you don't have to spend $50 on music this month that they won't listen to next month (the Back Street Boys are so yesterday, its all about Hanson now - OK, forgive me, I have no clue whose the latest 'in' group or singer). Now they can get all the music for the couple of months they want to listen to it, then discard it when they realize that it was just c*** (NKB is c***, its all N Sync now!) and download that music.

See, you all look at it as "I buy a CD, I can listen it forever". However, there's a lot of people who buy a CD, listen to it once or a few times, then it gets stuck on a shelf never heard from again. For these people, MS has something!

BTW, I see no difference in spending $10 a month on a subscription service vs. spending $10 a month on XM satellite radio (except one's more portable). If you think of subscription as a "you program your own radio station" kind of thing, it'll sell. You people just look at it in some sort of closed-vision sort of way.

So somehow the way subscription works (pay it, you get it; don't pay it, lose it) somehow does not apply because Microsoft is the one doing it and Macnn's Simon says no?

XM too is music downloaded. Cable (in my case, digital cable)/digital satellite are also downloads, if you will. Neflix - DVD "download" via postal mail. Do you get access to those contents after you stop paying?

Do you get to keep those contents you have paid for? In the above cases, yes, if you get a Tivo, VCR, and.or other workarounds. I bet you can do so with any music subscription service as well. Whether it's a violatio of DMCA or not, I do not know but blame your congressmen and senators for that.

MS does throw in the towel when things don't work IF they do not contribute to their dominance. Expedia was never going to become the sole provider of its service, so outlawing Macs and Linux from Expedia wouldn't have mattered. MSN, on the other hand...though frankly with AOL on the Mac as bad as it is, they didn't need to bother.

MSN -> money loser. Xbox -> money loser. They're not running away from THOSE.

You know if this were such a great idea, don't you think it would have caught on to the brick & mortars years ago like the video model did?

Microsoft has got their head so far up their own a**, they can't admit a stupid idea when it is. Get it through your arrogant, non-innovative minds, Redmond, PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO RENT MUSIC!!!! (well not unless its free like Explorer was.)

Remember BOB, Bill?

My problem with *any* of these services where you have to be "verified" to use it is that they usually require internet access to use them after the initial purchase. I discovered this a few weeks ago when I was trying to read Macworld with Zinio reader. I've already paid for it and downloaded it, hence I should be able to read it when I want, right? Nope -- Zinio Reader needs an internet connection to authenticate the magazine. Flying on an airplane and want to read Macworld? Too bad, no internet. At grandma's house bored with hearing about neice Suzie's latest ballet lesson and want to read a magazine instead? Too bad, no internet. And what happens if Zinio goes out of business in 5 years? All my back issues are unreadable and of no value (and yes, I do occasionally need to access an article in my old printed Macworlds).

Apple has it right with the iTMS -- the computer itself is authenticated, so you can play AAC files with or without internet. Personally, I doubt MS's subscription service will last very long, try as they might. While it might be nice to not have to buy a CD that ends up collecting dust on your shelf, I avoid that by getting my CDs from the local library and *then* buying it (either from Apple or Amazon, as they tend to have the best prices).

Decry Bob all you want, but why? It was an attempt at making computers easier to use. It failed. At least they tried, then took pieces that worked and moved them elsewhere.

The first step to making an advancement is to actually TRY!

And I also don't understand why anyone here cares about whether MS starts a subscription model or what they think. Its not like that, because MS says so, everyone is going to switch to a subscription service. And even if they do, hey, buy the freakin' CD like you had to do up through last year, anyway! Different models work for different people.

For example, some people like to lease cars and think its a great deal. Others think they're getting ripped off and would never dream of doing it. Some people like Taco h***. (run for the bathroom - er, I mean border). Some people like McDonald's. Some people like KFC. Some people like a sit-down restaurant, like Olive Garden or Outback. What does this mean (besides there's a lot of fools who spend good money on lousy food and service)? There's room for choice. There's room for that in music too.

Anyone read the actual HEADLINE in the WSJ?
I get the print edition and it reads:
APPLE'S IPOD MAY MEET ITS MATCH IN MICROSOFT SYSTEM

The headline implies that this is something to compete with the iPod, but it is not, it is a competition for iTUNES. (and MusicMatch and Rhapsody....)

Everyone I know who owns an iPod has it loaded mostly with stuff from their OWN CDs that they ALREADY OWN.

The stupid comments about how it would take you $10,000 to "fill up" your iPod is nonsense. I think anyone who currently owns an iPod or will be buying one in the future is going to look at Microsoft's "SYSTEM" and say:
"It won't work with my iPod? Forget it then"

Join for a month
Download the music
Sync it to your iPod look alike
stop the sub scription
and never sync your player again.
10000 songs for 30 bucks, just don't sync it again.

Some how I doubt this system will work without a lot of inconviences on the users part, like syncing your music player way to often, or adding wifi to your player.

The way c*** is getting pumped into the air there is no telling what the sky will look like in a millenium.

Sorry, the public gave the verdict on that one quite soundly.

I'm not against innovation, but stupid ideas are not innovation. A honest usability study and/or focus groups would have told Microsoft that BOB was overtly burdensome and degrading to its target market. The fact is, BOB is a perfect example of Microsoft believing that market share equals market acceptance; that anything which comes from the company that gave you Windows has to be as good as Windows.

I agree, there's no real reason for Mac or even more so, iTunes users to worry about Microsoft's subscription debacle... I just want to make sure it's heard loudly how awful this concept will fail.

Hey, 95% of the OS market is not going to change OSes, and 99.9% of the music world is not going to change either!!

dThree writes: But for M$ to say that ALL customers should prefer a subscription model is ridiculous. Some people WANT to own thier music, not rent it.

Yeah, some people want to rent their music and not own it too. You are not writing that Apple says ALL customers should prefer a buy-one-at-a-time model is ridiculous do you? To each his own I say. I personally would never rent music and think it will fail but I won't begrudge ANY company for trying it.

davea wrote: MS does throw in the towel when things don't work IF they do not contribute to their dominance.

That's BS. So you are arguing MSN and Xbox contributes to their dominance? Why wouldn't Expedia and UltimateTV fit this bill? There are many problems with MS such as finding new revenue sources beside its OS and Office suite - the only two which are profitable (and hugely at that) - so I can see them trying a whole bunch of new business and ideas right now.

I see this as Microsoft trying to appeal to the music industry and not to its actual customers. The music industry sees this as a method to have a lot more control over its customers and generate more money. Customers lose control and have to pay over and over for songs that they already downloaded.

Of course, to each their own.

Mike

When a subscriber stops paying for the service, they lose access to all the music they have downloaded.

"And I have a Bridge to sell you with that."

All of this has got me thinking. How much would you pay if Apple added an extra monthly subscription service to the iTMS ... allowing users to listen to ALL of songs in the online store in their entirety, and make playlists, but not directly download them? The infrastructure and interface is already there and I think it could be pretty slick.

I'd certainly pay $10/month for that, but then again I have broadband wherever I go. I'd still pay $0.99 to download (ie: "keep" a song I liked, to put on my iPod.) A hybrid service like this would seem to be to be the best of all worlds, giving all customers a CHOICE. Some folks would rather have all the music nicely organized online I suppose, freeing themselves from having to store/archive 60 GB of their own music.

Pretty sure that will never happen though... it flies in the face of Apple's stance that people want to "own" and not "rent" their music, and folks will find ways to save the files locally...

Still, it's fun to think about the "jukebox in the sky" concept. Imagine that one day there will be Wi-Fi everywhere, and wireless iPods will be able to stream...