If and when Apple offers a music subscription service, I think it will be a huge success and they'll see big numbers of people move toward it.
I'm not buying that (or should I say renting that ?). The mp3 player market is pretty much saturated from Apple's point of view. Most of the iPods continued success comes from the sale of new models that existing customers seem to want. Looking at craigslist it appears that Apple is gaining some Zune (and other players) users but I suspect it's an extremely small percentage. Speculation on my part but I suspect the average music subscriber would rather have a root canal done than to buy an Apple product.
If it were, there are plenty of devices that supported the Plays for Sure DRM that should've soared. The hardware wasn't that poor compared to the iPod. If people wanted subs, they would've bought any device they could get them on.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I don't think you're giving Apple enough credit with the iPod.
The reason the iPod has been so successful, in my opinion is the combination of hardware and software that they simply "got right" far better than anyone else. Sure, you had early players like the Rio Karma with great hardware, but the software experience? Pretty ugly. iTunes + iPod was a massively better sync/user experience than PlaysForSure MP3 Player + Windows Media Player.
That's the biggest reason why Microsoft came out with the Zune - only tight integration of both hardware and software would allow them to compete with what the iPod offers. And, despite all the mockery in this forum of the Zune, it really is a great user sync experience. Most people that have spent time with both pieces of software say that the Zune desktop software is better than iTunes. I know for me it is (speaking as an iPod Touch and Zune owner).
Subscription music is a tough sell because most people don't understand it - and they can't really appreciate it until they try it...and because we live in an iPod world, they can't try it. It will remain a "quirky" option for consuming music until either the iPod is replaced by something else in the market, or Apple offers a subscription music plan.
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
Rather, think of it as "your own customized radio station, that you can carry in your pocket", and suddenly it sounds cool and useful. That's why I have Rhapsody (albeit without the pocket-carrying, because I carry an iPhone).
--janak
Hmm, I like that. Folks don't seem to have a big problem shelling out for Satellite radio, and you don't get to keep anything there, or have that much control over what you hear, save channels that are dedicated to genres, etc. Now if we could get Zune Pass support on a WM phone, to get 'anywhere' access....Hmmm
Not an apt cost comparison, though. The physical infrastructure for satellite is massive, much bigger than a subscription music service. The number of subscribers you need to break even is much smaller (though nonzero, so some sane marketing would certainly help).
1. They won't be going bankrupt any time soon. I'm a shareholder and if they were I'd sell immediately. With the debt relief loan they got from Liberty Media, they'll be good for a few years while they restructure (which they have been doing since the DOJ approved the merger). The merger created a ton of debt because of XM's poor financial performance AND the expenses of running a private Satellite network (as Janak correctly noted).
2. They have about 3.2 million subscribers. I'd hardly call that "no interest." That means 1% of Americans have paid radios from SiriusXM. Nothing to shake a stick at.
__________________
Current Apple Stuff: 24" iMac, iPhone 4, AppleTV (original), 4gb Shuffle, 64gb iPad 2.
They have about 3.2 million subscribers. I'd hardly call that "no interest." That means 1% of Americans have paid radios from SiriusXM. Nothing to shake a stick at.
See, that's what I'm thinking. How much different is satellite radio than subscription music. At least as far as what you get to keep. It's transient entertainment. People pay for Cable, Netflix, via subscription.
See, that's what I'm thinking. How much different is satellite radio than subscription music. At least as far as what you get to keep. It's transient entertainment. People pay for Cable, Netflix, via subscription.
Exactly. The problem is that, amongst all of the stuff you mentioned, only subscription music is targeted differently (as a "competitor to music you'd purchase").
Well, the other dynamic is that, in general, people value music ownership more highly than video ownership; most people are not the type to repeatedly watch the same episodes/movies. However, the fact that satellite can attract users should suggest that there is at least some possibility of music subscription succeeding along similar lines.
I'm sure lots of people are looking to shell out another $15 a month for something they can't own. I don't know why I'm even bothering addressing this, though.
Thank you so much. ive paid already, so why does my music have to expire after one month? but either way, thats cheap for some quality music. Limewire pisses me off more than the Zune Pass does. either way, both of them have cons.
Linear Mode
