Is The Zune Pass Living Up to the Hype?

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://waltl.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!BCA7C2445E36861F!1257.entry' target='_blank'>http://waltl.spaces.live.com/blog/c...861F!1257.entry</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"I had some free time the other day, and thought I would get some "interesting" music from the Zune Marketplace on my pass. With "over 3 million songs" in the catalog, these things might turn up. I actually found one of the albums: Kraftwerk's Autobahn. This obscure album somehow managed to get the only popular track blacklisted from the Zune Pass. I would have to pay more money to download the relatively popular track from the album while the rest of the album was available on the Pass. I checked early albums of the Doors, the Stones, other artists. Apparently, Microsoft has decided that if a track ever had more than a handful of listeners on the radio, or sold some albums, it would be much too valuable for those scruffy Zune Pass subscribers. Same thing for new releases from slightly-known artists. At this point I am idly wondering if the Zune Pass still covers "over a million" tracks. Is it possible that Microsoft should update that effusive marketing hype? My survey of the Zune marketplace showed about 1% coverage of tracks (and I had to really look for those) which would translate to about 30,000 tracks. Somehow the real figures just wouldn't sound the same."</em></p><br /><p>Walter Lounsbery makes an interesting point in his <a href="http://waltl.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!BCA7C2445E36861F!1257.entry" target="_blank">blog post about the Zune Pass</a>: it's just not providing enough value for him. I don't have a Zune Pass, and since Microsoft is a bit slow when it comes to getting it up here in Canada, I continue to wait. When the Zune Pass was first launched with the v1 Zune, it was one of the more important differentiating features that the Zune had over the iPod. But what's the point of the Zune Pass if it doesn't give you access to the music you want? If you're a Zune Pass subscriber, how has your experience been with it?</p>

[TruckinGeek]

One of the main reasons I chose the Zune over the Ipod was the Zune Pass subscription. I waited over a year for Itunes to offer something like this, and I wasn't too confident of Rhapsody providing a good user experience. Being a long haul driver, I listen to audio content at least 10 hours a day. There is a limit to the amount of interesting podcasts you can find, and even XM starts repeating songs after awhile.

I signed up for Zune Pass almost immediately after receiving my Zune30 (got it used, at a pretty good deal!). I'm running at about 80% availability right now, though I'm just catching up on old music for now. It's surprising how the same songs they blacklist on the artists' own albums are available on a compilation. And then you have folks like Metallica who restrict ALL of their music - for them, they won't get my money. For the amount of music I DO find on ZunePass, the ones that are missing are not much of a problem; however, I doubt I'll be making up the difference by buying the missing tracks. Have I been infected by the horrid "sense of entitlement"? Well, you could say I'm paying for that sense of entitlement, so there you go!

Paying for the same amount of music via individual purchases would quickly smother my wallet, and I would be forced to restrict my choices. With the subscription, even with the blocked tracks, I'm still coming out ahead in the game.

It's funny that some of the old-style artists like Wayne Hancok (mis-spelled I know, but the proper spelling of the gentleman's last name gets edited - go figure) are restricted. It seems they'd be the ones that would benefit the most from a subscription market, where one can try out older or lesser known artists without the risks that an Itunes-like market brings.

[timbevil]

I'm very satisfied with Zune Pass. I, for one, thought the number of blacklisted songs were very low. Like the other comment, a popular song blacklisted on an artist's album can be gotten on compilations (whole album or single) or by extended or remixed versions of the song. I had an original 30G Zune, sold it, missed the whole Zune experience, and came back and bought a 80G. I listen to Zune much more than the 15-16 albums I have downloaded on my iPod.

[Kacey Green]

I'm with Truckin, I've found very few tracks that I want blacklisted. They're out there but I get frustrated, then call the artist greedy and move on.

What I'd like is a video pass that has no blacklists and includes all of the video content. With a cap on the number of included movies per month say something like 15 movies a month more have to be purchased normally. And unlimited TV shows and other content on the pass.

[crashdaddy20]

Subscription music in theory sounds great, but in practice it's abysmal for most users. Steve Jobs hit the nail on the head when he said people want to own their music, not rent it. If subscription model servies were a valuable asset to the MP3 player paradigm, then you can bet iTunes would have had it by now.

Subscription will forever be a stinker for the majority because of the DRM attached. What happens when a service goes under (MSN Music) and the DRM on those rented tracks is no longer supported? Well, there goes those months and months of $15 payments out the window. Not good.

I can't help but notice how many Rhapsody To Go and now Zune Pass members bemoan that the most popular tracks from an artist are excluded in the subscription model. This is just bad form and it conveys a notion that both the provider (Rhapsody, Zune) and the record labels view the subscription member as a second class customer who prefers to shop on the cheap.

Leave the subscription behind and purchase the tracks in an open form from Amazon MP3, Rhapsody MP3, iTunes Plus, and eMusic.

[Kacey Green]

when Urge went under, all I did was accept the roll-over to Rhapsody, but the software was crap and didn't work properly on Vista and with my Zen Vision:M so I dropped them like a bad habit and switched to the new Zune 80.

The Zune pass worked nicely too. I don't have the money to buy all the music I listen to with the pass, and some of the music is only marginal so I'd have way less music even if money were no object.

Getting the amount of music currently sitting on my Zune would set me back about $8830.80 from iTunes. Vs $14.99 a month from Microsoft. It would take me over 49 years to get this same amount of music from iTunes at the same monthly price as I spend now with Zune.

I don't know about anyone else but I don't think I'll still be listening to ALL of the same music 50 years from now, maybe a few choice tracks, but if they're that good I'm sure I'll buy them between now and then.

I don't understand why I need to OWN copies of ALL of my media, some content I'm emotionally attached to, and I do own that content; I also own all content that I've personally created but I don't see why I'd want to pay for all that mass media content. If Zune goes under I'm sure I'd be able to obtain whatever I'm in the mood for, for a nominal fee, of course.

[David Tucker]

Getting the amount of music currently sitting on my Zune would set me back about $8830.80 from iTunes. Vs $14.99 a month from Microsoft. It would take me over 49 years to get this same amount of music from iTunes at the same monthly price as I spend now with Zune.

I remain convinced that subscription music users have a much firmer grasp on finance than those who for some reason ridicule it. (Those people probably have cable TV which is the SAME THING. Except for video.)

As for this article...its completely and utterly wrong. 1%? Really? REALLY? He was very clear what his search parameters were: early albums from artists who aren't popular anymore but were once big (or in some cases...artists that aren't well known). I have noticed that if an artist has some albums not available they almost always are the older ones. Hmm, maybe that's got something to do with the fact that artists change their labels all the time (and many times the older ones are with smaller labels) and while Microsoft certainly has the major labels on board for subscription...it is probably a lot harder to get permission from the thousands of tiny labels out there.

But yes, it must be a big conspiracy.

If he estimates that there's 30K subscription songs out there then my music collection includes over 10% of all available music. Which is unlikely. My experience says that its probably in the vicinity of 80% available. Certainly not perfect but millions of songs are available to me.

[trolane]

I once owned most of the cds I had for old music. Do i care how i get the music that i paid for once in my life? no, if its not on zune pass i will download it via a torrent.
For new music, mainly european bands, I either buy it on cd if it's really good or find it on zune pass which has gotten ALOT better with european bands lately.

I would never ever buy all the music i have on my zune. I have like 40GB of stuff. Most of that is old stuff i once owned or zune pass with a few torrent things.

[Janak Parekh]

I don't know about anyone else but I don't think I'll still be listening to ALL of the same music 50 years from now, maybe a few choice tracks, but if they're that good I'm sure I'll buy them between now and then. There's a surprisingly large demographic out there that gets attached to their music and stops listening to anything else. I find that a lot of folks switch to this mode once they cross 30. I'm 31 and constantly trying to expand my music selection -- that's why I have Rhapsody -- but I notice I'm a shrinking population.

That said, when I discover music I end up buying the CD or the MP3s via Amazon. Zune Pass and Rhapsody don't support all the players, and while I know it's not their fault (well, not Rhapsody's -- Zune Pass is too limited for me by design), the bottom line is I want flexibility on where and when I play my music. Also, I've had times when some of my favorite artists' material rotates inside subscription services. Some albums by Orbital, for instance, used to be in Rhapsody, and they aren't anymore. By owning the music, I know I can listen to it at any time. I essentially use Rhapsody as a customized radio subscription, but for me buying the music is the eventual goal.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

As for this article...its completely and utterly wrong. 1%? Really? REALLY? He was very clear what his search parameters were: early albums from artists who aren't popular anymore but were once big (or in some cases...artists that aren't well known). I have noticed that if an artist has some albums not available they almost always are the older ones. Hmm, maybe that's got something to do with the fact that artists change their labels all the time (and many times the older ones are with smaller labels) and while Microsoft certainly has the major labels on board for subscription...it is probably a lot harder to get permission from the thousands of tiny labels out there. I don't necessarily agree with the poster's numbers, but it certainly devalues Zune Pass for him. I don't listen to purely mainstream music anymore, and I hit limits in Rhapsody all the time. Overall, the subscription is a net positive, but the coverage for me is nowhere near 100%; TruckinGeek's 80% is a good estimate for me too.

--janak

[Kacey Green]

There's a surprisingly large demographic out there that gets attached to their music and stops listening to anything else. I find that a lot of folks switch to this mode once they cross 30. I'm 31 and constantly trying to expand my music selection -- that's why I have Rhapsody -- but I notice I'm a shrinking population.
I hope I don't become in that group either, right now I retire about twenty songs a day from my collection and add either the same amount or more on average. This would be a wasteful hobby the way I consume music without this viable payment method. I'd also be restricted to stuff played in mass media (radio, TV, movies) or introduced to my by friends. I'd waste about $138.60 per week on music (the stuff I retire out of rotation not counting the cost of loading in the fresh stuff).

That said, when I discover music I end up buying the CD or the MP3s via Amazon. This I usually end up doing for music that won't likely be retired from my collection.

Zune Pass and Rhapsody don't support all the players, and while I know it's not their fault (well, not Rhapsody's -- Zune Pass is too limited for me by design), the bottom line is I want flexibility on where and when I play my music. Thankfully Zune works where I need it most, right now. My Prius has the Soundgate CORE system (http://www.grlt.com/Portable-Electronics-Articles/Zune-integration-Car-Audio.html) so the Zune is directly jacked in. I can have three PCs auth'ed to my account at a time one is always mobile and another is always at home, the last varies on my needs. If I had more than one Zune device I'd get one for general consumption and another for when I'm active (exercising etc, that playlist is much more restricted). My stereo system has a Zune V2 dock V1 remote, sitting next to the controller. I also have my eye on the mini boom-boxes with docks built in for more flexibility. My work setup has a speakers with a mini-jack input and a PC without the Zune software (for charge maintenance) [I'll add a dock or mini boom box here soon]. I absolutely love how much more flexible the Zune ecosystem is than it was for my Zen Vision:M.


By owning the music, I know I can listen to it at any time. Agreed, when I forget the Zune there is a setup of disks in the CD changer but the selection can't meed my needs (having a song to counter/compliment my current mood) You can never know when something will go wrong with all of your technology.

[onlydarksets]

Subscription music in theory sounds great, but in practice it's abysmal for most users. Steve Jobs hit the nail on the head when he said people want to own their music, not rent it. If subscription model servies were a valuable asset to the MP3 player paradigm, then you can bet iTunes would have had it by now.
That's like saying, "if people wanted feature X in a desktop operating system, then Microsoft would have implemented it by now". It's simply not true - there is the power of selectivity when you command market share.

Subscription will forever be a stinker for the majority because of the DRM attached. What happens when a service goes under (MSN Music) and the DRM on those rented tracks is no longer supported? Well, there goes those months and months of $15 payments out the window. Not good.
See here (http://onlydarksets.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/fuzzy-on-the-concept-subscription-music-services/).

I can't help but notice how many Rhapsody To Go and now Zune Pass members bemoan that the most popular tracks from an artist are excluded in the subscription model. This is just bad form and it conveys a notion that both the provider (Rhapsody, Zune) and the record labels view the subscription member as a second class customer who prefers to shop on the cheap.
What's your basis for this statement? There are some tracks excluded, but it's often because of the artist/label - not the Zune service. Metallica has the clout to set their terms. Finger Eleven is similarly blocked, but most likely due to the label.

Leave the subscription behind and purchase the tracks in an open form from Amazon MP3, Rhapsody MP3, iTunes Plus, and eMusic.
Each serves a purpose. For me, subscription isn't so much worth it for the music I like, but rather the music I think I will like, but end up hating. I download 5-6 new albums a month, and I keep at most one album in my rotation. Using traditional services, I would be out $60/month for crap music I don't like. "Owning" music doesn't really make sense, now, does it?

[Janak Parekh]

I absolutely love how much more flexible the Zune ecosystem is than it was for my Zen Vision:M. With a massive "but": it's the Zune platform only. It doesn't work so well when you want to use non-Zune devices.

--janak

[Adam Krebs]

With a massive "but": it's the Zune platform only. It doesn't work so well when you want to use non-Zune devices.

--janak

Actually.... It does (http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/02/26/zune-marketplace-songs-work-on-playsforsure-devices/). The Marketplace uses a version of the PlaysForSure DRM that allows songs downloaded from the Marketplace to sync to PlaysForSure devices (non-Zune) through WMP and other sync solutions. Zune devices, on the other hand, do not accept PlaysForSure DRM'd music from other P4S stores.

[Kacey Green]

Actually.... It does (http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/02/26/zune-marketplace-songs-work-on-playsforsure-devices/). The Marketplace uses a version of the PlaysForSure DRM that allows songs downloaded from the Marketplace to sync to PlaysForSure devices (non-Zune) through WMP and other sync solutions. Zune devices, on the other hand, do not accept PlaysForSure DRM'd music from other P4S stores.

Two very good points, but since I was using that device for subscription music too it wasn't about software compatibility but rather the number of places I could use the device, b/c now its much more difficult to get music on my PPC Phone than it used to be. Thing is the Zen had a handful of dock speakers, I don't recall seeing a car kit or boom-boxes or all the ways I can enjoy the Zune through both the dock connector and the headphone port.

I've also squirted a song once, they need some kind of audible notification there is another Zune nearby, the guy saw me with the Zune and asked, but if he'd just sent the song and the device was in my pocket or a holster (anyone seen a good Zune holster case yet?) I wouldn't have seen the pop-up asking if I wanted the song. This is relevant because I then added the song to my collection and the subscription kept the song fresh well past the 3 plays limit.

[Jason Dunn]

Steve Jobs hit the nail on the head when he said people want to own their music, not rent it. If subscription model servies were a valuable asset to the MP3 player paradigm, then you can bet iTunes would have had it by now.

I have to disagree...Steve Job is *infamous* for refusing to integrate things that are perfectly good ideas, all because he didn't come up with the concept and his enormous ego gets in the way. Two-buttons on a mouse, Blu-ray drives in Macs, memory card slots in Macbooks, FM radios in the iPod, take your pick. Just because Stevie doesn't like something has zero bearing on whether or not it's a good idea.

I think for some people, subscription music is a great concept. It's not for me - I prefer to own my music. When I had a Napster subscription, I kept all that music separate because it wasn't really "my" music. But a cable subscription works well for me, while some people are cancelling their cable and buying their TV shows one at a time via iTunes or Xbox Marketplace.

Keep in mind that all video content currently being sold is DRM-based, and Steve Jobs is *very* pro-video. So I don't think it's about the DRM - if, somehow, iTunes were to go away (unlikely, I know) or change their rules (possible), it's entirely possible that everyone's DRM'd video content would stop working. Jobs is a hypocrite when it comes to DRM as well - he's the head man at Pixar, so why isn't there DRM-free Pixar content? Maybe I need to write an open letter to him. :rolleyes:

[Janak Parekh]

I have to disagree...Steve Job is *infamous* for refusing to integrate things that are perfectly good ideas, all because he didn't come up with the concept and his enormous ego gets in the way. Or, more simply, because he doesn't think it's a good idea. I guess that's what you mean by his enormous ego getting in the way? ;) To me, it's a philosophical difference. Apple looks for a "minimum" set of functionality with looks/UI, while Microsoft focuses first on a maximal set of functionality.

I think for some people, subscription music is a great concept. It's not for me - I prefer to own my music. When I had a Napster subscription, I kept all that music separate because it wasn't really "my" music. Maybe part of the problem, and the reason Apple can use the lame soundbite of "people want to own their music", is because Microsoft blurs the distinctions. When I use Rhapsody, I don't use it to download music into my library; instead, I use it completely separately (in fact, since I'm using it on the Mac, there's a browser plugin, so it's completely separate), and so the appeal to me is very obvious and non-confusing.

Keep in mind that all video content currently being sold is DRM-based, and Steve Jobs is *very* pro-video. Remember that was only when he changed his mind, he didn't think iPods should have done video originally. ;)

Jobs is a hypocrite when it comes to DRM as well - he's the head man at Pixar, so why isn't there DRM-free Pixar content? Maybe I need to write an open letter to him. :rolleyes: I'm not sure that's a great example -- most of Pixar's movies have been under contract with Disney, and fall under the usual publication and distribution guidelines. A better example are the new apps in the App Store, all of which get FairPlay-DRM-wrapped when you download them to an iPhone or an iPod Touch.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

Actually.... It does (http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/02/26/zune-marketplace-songs-work-on-playsforsure-devices/). The Marketplace uses a version of the PlaysForSure DRM that allows songs downloaded from the Marketplace to sync to PlaysForSure devices (non-Zune) through WMP and other sync solutions. Zune devices, on the other hand, do not accept PlaysForSure DRM'd music from other P4S stores. I'm not sure I'd consider that an officially-supported method. Microsoft could change the DRM wrapper at any point and release Zune firmware updates to match, and then this model goes out the window.

Even so, I'm arguing even further than that, to the class of devices that don't support PFS (Apple, Sony, ...). Quite frankly, I'm not convinced PFS is to stay for the long-term anyway.

--janak

[rzanology]

zune pass does its job for me. the one thing that continues to eat away at me....is the lack of video bundled with the zune pass. even if they raise the price (which i think they shouldn't) for the love of god...can't i get the music videos included with my all you can eat subscription!!!!!!!!!!

[Jason Dunn]

the one thing that continues to eat away at me....is the lack of video bundled with the zune pass.

Yeah, it would be cool to get music videos as part of that price...but I don't know how that would work. They'd probably want to add a $5/month charge on top of that or something...

[tbird]

I remain convinced that subscription music users have a much firmer grasp on finance than those who for some reason ridicule it. (Those people probably have cable TV which is the SAME THING. Except for video.)

Sorry but I disagree. On cable I can record anything I want and its mine, whether on tape or disc.
But to rent music....Give me a break!
15 dollars a month times 12 equals a 180 dollars a year for music you don't evem own and if you miss a payment it is gone, until you pay up. And to top it off, you can't even burn it to a cd.
The subscription service is a good idea, but I would rather have a bit more control over what I am spending my money on, which IMO makes me a better manager of my financial situation.

[Janak Parekh]

Sorry but I disagree. On cable I can record anything I want and its mine, whether on tape or disc. On digital cable? I can't record anything except on the DVR, and that DVR is owned by Time Warner Cable. When I cancel my service, the DVR and all of its content are gone.

15 dollars a month times 12 equals a 180 dollars a year for music you don't evem own and if you miss a payment it is gone, until you pay up. And to top it off, you can't even burn it to a cd. You're looking at it as an alternative to purchasing CDs. It's not. Rather, view it as an alternative to, say, satellite radio -- with a customizable playlist. If anything, I use it as a means of discovering new music, and then I'll buy the CDs I like to keep control over my music.

--janak

[Kacey Green]

On digital cable? I can't record anything except on the DVR, and that DVR is owned by Time Warner Cable. When I cancel my service, the DVR and all of its content are gone.

You're looking at it as an alternative to purchasing CDs. It's not. Rather, view it as an alternative to, say, satellite radio -- with a customizable playlist. If anything, I use it as a means of discovering new music, and then I'll buy the CDs I like to keep control over my music.

--janak

exactly, both counts

[onlydarksets]

On digital cable? I can't record anything except on the DVR, and that DVR is owned by Time Warner Cable. When I cancel my service, the DVR and all of its content are gone.

You're looking at it as an alternative to purchasing CDs. It's not. Rather, view it as an alternative to, say, satellite radio -- with a customizable playlist. If anything, I use it as a means of discovering new music, and then I'll buy the CDs I like to keep control over my music.

--janak
With the Hauppauge HD PVR (http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hdpvr.html), you can record anything with component outputs.

I agree 100% with your point about satellite radio.

[Jason Dunn]

With the Hauppauge HD PVR (http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hdpvr.html), you can record anything with component outputs.

Sure, but hardware like that is certainly the exception, not the rule. I understand the general concept - I record TV shows and sometimes burn DVDs with my Media Center PC, but in standard quality there's not a lot I want to keep...

[onlydarksets]

I keep a ton of stuff, mostly to watch off-season or to take on the go. Plus, with kids - it beats the pants off of buying the latest series on DVD!

[Jason Dunn]

I keep a ton of stuff, mostly to watch off-season or to take on the go. Plus, with kids - it beats the pants off of buying the latest series on DVD!

Yeah, I can definitely see the kid factor requiring the collection of a lot of content. :)

[Janak Parekh]

With the Hauppauge HD PVR (http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hdpvr.html), you can record anything with component outputs. :eek: I've been looking for something like this for years. Does it also let you watch HD video on your computer?

(Context: in my bedroom, I've had a 24" iMac and a 26" LCD TV, and I'd love to consolidate the two. Looks like this is Windows-only, so I'd probably have to wait, but at least there's hope.)

--janak

[onlydarksets]

It doesn't do decoding, but I recall reading somewhere (http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f307/whats-apples-big-transition-news-90154.html) that the new Macs might have an in-built h.264 decoder...

[crashdaddy20]

I have to disagree...Steve Job is *infamous* for refusing to integrate things that are perfectly good ideas, all because he didn't come up with the concept and his enormous ego gets in the way. Two-buttons on a mouse, Blu-ray drives in Macs, memory card slots in Macbooks, FM radios in the iPod, take your pick. Just because Stevie doesn't like something has zero bearing on whether or not it's a good idea.

71% of the MP3 market agrees that an integrated FM Tuner is not essential to an MP3 player.

The #1 online retail store of music has no subscription model, yet continues leave Rhapsody, Zune, and Napster with their subscription models in the dust.

[Jason Dunn]

71% of the MP3 market agrees that an integrated FM Tuner is not essential to an MP3 player.

Essential, as in "if it doesn't have it, I won't buy it"? Sure, I agree. But show me a survey of iPod users where the majority that wouldn't like an FM tuner, and then I'll change my mind. Why wouldn't consumers want to have an added feature? Why is Apple making people purchase third party add-ons instead of just integrating the damn thing. You know why? Because Apple HATES FREE CONTENT. It's the same reason why no Mac has ever come with a TV tuner. Steve Jobs wants you buying your movies, TV shows, and music from iTunes.

Up until pretty recently Apple didn't deem is necessary to offer a right-mouse button, but I bet if you were to ask users they wouldn't say "One mouse button is more than enough for me thanks - I love pressing a keyboard button and my left mouse button at the same time!"

The #1 online retail store of music has no subscription model, yet continues leave Rhapsody, Zune, and Napster with their subscription models in the dust.

See above. Subscription models are not going to be considered a necessity by most people, but I bet that if Apple offered a subscription model you'd see a healthy percentage of users giving it a try. iTunes dominates the music market, so it wouldn't matter what the other players did, it would look like a failure.

In both cases, you seem to be ignoring the first-mover advantage - the average consumer is like a sheep, and he'll buy whatever everyone else is buying. In the case of MP3 players, the iPod was the first to really nail the hardware + software components, and they dominated the market as a result. Trying to de-throne an incumbent player is a long, long process - and it only ever happens if the incumbent player gets lazy or makes big mistakes...or if a competitor comes along and BLOWS AWAY the market leader with new features, prices, etc.

[Janak Parekh]

Essential, as in "if it doesn't have it, I won't buy it"? Sure, I agree. But show me a survey of iPod users where the majority that wouldn't like an FM tuner, and then I'll change my mind. Why wouldn't consumers want to have an added feature? Why is Apple making people purchase third party add-ons instead of just integrating the damn thing. You know why? Because Apple HATES FREE CONTENT. I disagree. Apple uses the "less-is-more" metaphor heavily, and I think the repeated omission of a FM tuner is a classic example of this.

If you ask 1,000 people and ask them what they want most in an MP3 player, I daresay you'll get a broad array of opinions. Integrating all of them results in a fairly complex device. Instead, Apple's philosophy is to implement their vision, and it's take-it-or-leave-it. The FM tuner is nowhere in that scenario. (And if Apple truly hated free content, they wouldn't have a Podcast feature in iTunes, nor would they have MP3 support or ripping support.)

It's the same reason why no Mac has ever come with a TV tuner. Steve Jobs wants you buying your movies, TV shows, and music from iTunes. I think of it in the opposite direction. Jobs doesn't care for a TV tuner, and probably finds it convenient that his promotion of his music store fits neatly in with his opinion. Take it or leave it. ;)

Up until pretty recently Apple didn't deem is necessary to offer a right-mouse button, but I bet if you were to ask users they wouldn't say "One mouse button is more than enough for me thanks - I love pressing a keyboard button and my left mouse button at the same time!" Historically, Mac applications were designed not to depend on right-click, although they supported it for forever. Apple's a big believer that two buttons are confusing (whether or not you disagree is irrelevant -- again, it's take-it-or-leave-it), and therefore goes with the one button model. It's important to note that even with the Mighty Mouse, by default right-click is disabled, and you have to go to System Preferences to enable it.

In both cases, you seem to be ignoring the first-mover advantage - the average consumer is like a sheep, and he'll buy whatever everyone else is buying. In the case of MP3 players, the iPod was the first to really nail the hardware + software components, and they dominated the market as a result. Agreed. Plus marketing. For some reason, most electronics vendors don't get marketing. Apple does, so they manage to sell their philosophy well.

Trying to de-throne an incumbent player is a long, long process - and it only ever happens if the incumbent player gets lazy or makes big mistakes...or if a competitor comes along and BLOWS AWAY the market leader with new features, prices, etc. You have to be really careful when you say "blowing away with new features", though. If it means added cost or complexity for something that a majority don't particularly need, it'll be difficult. Keep in mind the iPod is "good enough" for a lot of people.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

71% of the MP3 market agrees that an integrated FM Tuner is not essential to an MP3 player. No, 71% of the MP3 market agrees that a player without FM is "good enough" for them. If Apple added FM support, I'm sure some percentage of that 71% would use it. (Not me, mind you; New York's FM stations suck more and more, and I can barely listen to most FM stations when driving now. About the only thing I can tolerate is classical music on radio, and when I'm in Manhattan the reception is mixed, so I gave it up years ago except for the morning clock radio.)

The #1 online retail store of music has no subscription model, yet continues leave Rhapsody, Zune, and Napster with their subscription models in the dust. Correlation doesn't imply causation. ;)

--janak

[crashdaddy20]

Essential, as in "if it doesn't have it, I won't buy it"? Sure, I agree. But show me a survey of iPod users where the majority that wouldn't like an FM tuner, and then I'll change my mind. Why wouldn't consumers want to have an added feature? Why is Apple making people purchase third party add-ons instead of just integrating the damn thing. You know why? Because Apple HATES FREE CONTENT. It's the same reason why no Mac has ever come with a TV tuner. Steve Jobs wants you buying your movies, TV shows, and music from iTunes.

The iPod Radio Remote is available for those who want an FM tuner option for their iPod. FM radio is dead as dead, no dancing around it. Why MP3 makers outside of Apple continue to pimp this feature is silly. From what I have read and heard from users is that an AM radio would be preferrable.

Apple hates free content? Interesting how every Podcast is FREE. There is the FREE music download of the week. Threre is FREE video content in the TV section. There are also FREE independent short films in the movie section. In other words, there is an overwhelming abundance of content for FREE on iTunes.

BTW, third party mice (Logitech, Microsoft, Kennsington, etc.) all offered right click options for the Mac long before OS X, it was implentened in the included drivers.

[Jason Dunn]

I disagree. Apple uses the "less-is-more" metaphor heavily, and I think the repeated omission of a FM tuner is a classic example of this.

Pfft. I don't buy this any more than I buy your argument that iTunes lacks folder monitoring because it's "too complex". :) Incredibly small MP3 players have FM radios in them, and one additional menu item called "Radio" doesn't add unduly to the level of complexity. This is just Apple sticking it to their users.

I really do believe that Apple doesn't like their users getting free content - they didn't really have a choice when it came to Podcasts you know; when the name of something is named after your device, you can't NOT support it. :rolleyes:

[Janak Parekh]

Pfft. I don't buy this any more than I buy your argument that iTunes lacks folder monitoring because it's "too complex". :) Incredibly small MP3 players have FM radios in them, and one additional menu item called "Radio" doesn't add unduly to the level of complexity. This is just Apple sticking it to their users. We'll have to disagree, then. You have to draw the feature line somewhere. Apple clearly drew the line without radio. (Note that I'm not agreeing with the decision per se, although I myself couldn't care less about bundled FM. I'd much rather have AM.)

(BTW: it's worth mentioning that Apple sold a very compact "Radio Remote" for their classic iPods and iPod nanos. I don't think it's supported on the newer (touch) platform, at least yet.)

I really do believe that Apple doesn't like their users getting free content - they didn't really have a choice when it came to Podcasts you know; when the name of something is named after your device, you can't NOT support it. :rolleyes: Really? Then what about the free iTunes content that the other poster alluded to? Heck, Jobs even showed off free HD video podcast content in one of his keynotes about a year ago, and repeatedly pointed out it was free. Apple also allows free programs in their app store, and clearly lists free apps. While your theory is interesting, I don't buy it. ;)

--janak

[crashdaddy20]

I really do believe that Apple doesn't like their users getting free content - they didn't really have a choice when it came to Podcasts you know; when the name of something is named after your device, you can't NOT support it. :rolleyes:

Again, if Apple hates free content why are there FREE podcasts, a FREE music download of the week, FREE television content, and FREE independent short films available on iTunes?

Answer? You have none.

BTW, right now on the front page of iTunes there a FREE download of the pilot episode of Primeval (full version, not edited) along with the FREE song of the week. Also if you are so inclined, on the front page of iTunes on the bottom is an entire section called "FREE on iTunes."

Sorry my friend, your theory that Apple hates free content is baseless and you have provided no evidence to support your position other than the iPod not having an FM radio built in.

[onlydarksets]

While I don't agree that Apple has a "nefarious plot" to keep free content off the iPhone, I don't see where all of this "free content" is. There is a song of the week, which I did find, but it sucks. The free TV shows are, I'm sure, paid for by the network in an attempt to draw viewership to underwatched shows (i.e., I would be shocked if Apple is not getting their same cut for the "free" TV shows). I couldn't find the free independent films.

I guess both sides of this argument sound a bit evangelical to me.

[Jason Dunn]

Again, if Apple hates free content why are there FREE podcasts, a FREE music download of the week, FREE television content, and FREE independent short films available on iTunes? Answer? You have none.

I'm well aware of the free content that Apple offers via iTunes. Let me adjust my statement slightly, because this is really more about money than it is about free content: if there's money to be made in offering content, Apple wants a piece of it, and if they can't have a piece of it, they don't want to give it to users either.

I pay my monthly cable bill to get TV shows, and I record them on my PVR and watch them on my Xbox 360, Zune, laptop, etc. Apple can't get a piece of that business model by bundling a TV tuner, so they provide TV shows and movies via iTunes. Ditto for radio: there's money to be made in radio, but not by offering a radio tuner in the iPod. So there's no incentive for Apple to offer it - other than user satisfaction, and why would they care about that? ;)

It's ok if we disagree you know - I'm not going to change my mind no matter how excited you get. :)

[Janak Parekh]

I'm well aware of the free content that Apple offers via iTunes. Let me adjust my statement slightly, because this is really more about money than it is about free content: if there's money to be made in offering content, Apple wants a piece of it, and if they can't have a piece of it, they don't want to give it to users either. ... and yet the podcast features on iTunes undercut this argument. Are you saying that Apple's ego is so massive that they only spent engineering resources on podcasts because it has the substring "pod" in it? Why would they bundle a YouTube application on the iPhone, iPod touch and the Apple TV?

There's a much simpler theory: Apple doesn't believe in the future of air broadcast technology, and choose not to implement it. I don't think that's great, but... that's how it is. It hasn't hurt them at all in the iPod department, and I doubt it will. However, the Apple TV hasn't taken off yet, and Apple may be forced to rethink their strategy there.

--janak

[Jason Dunn]

... and yet the podcast features on iTunes undercut this argument. Are you saying that Apple's ego is so massive that they only spent engineering resources on podcasts because it has the substring "pod" in it? Why would they bundle a YouTube application on the iPhone, iPod touch and the Apple TV?

And how much money is there to be made in podcasting? Not much - ask any podcaster. YouTube? Look, Apple isn't a stupid company, they know that the tide was rising on podcasting and YouTube - and they'd be fools to not support it.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else, I'm just stating on my opinion as to why Apple doesn't support FM tuners - please stop hammering on me to change my opinion, I'm not going to.

Can we please agree to disagree and move on?

[Janak Parekh]

Can we please agree to disagree and move on? Who said I was trying to change your opinion? ;)

Anyway, back to the discussion: I've recently discovered Pandora, which is an excellent streaming radio service; it's completely free, uses various engineering-derived classification to determine, given artists or songs, what else you might be interested in, etc. I've discovered a bunch of new artists, and want to listen to their entire back collection, but time and time again Rhapsody doesn't have the tracks. :( Maybe some of them are not quite as mainstream here, but nevertheless, what do you guys do when there's a track from an artist you really like, you want to check out the rest to see if the album is worth your time, and it's not available on your music subscription? 30-second previews aren't always enough, especially for longer electronica pieces (which are the ones in this scenario).

I guess I'll just have to risk buying the CD. :(

--janak

[crashdaddy20]

It's ok if we disagree you know - I'm not going to change my mind no matter how excited you get. :)


The only thing that gets me excited/agitated is misinformation. I appreciate your modification, but still believe you are far removed in your assertion.

I'll let this go as well, but here is one last thing concerning free iTunes content from PC World Magazine from their "11 Things We Hate About iTunes and 3 Things We Love About iTunes" article:

2. Free Stuff
Every week, the iTunes Store offers a new free song and, more often than not, one or more free TV shows. You'll even find the occasional free audiobook. To browse the weekly giveaways, head to the "FREE on iTunes" section at the bottom of the main store page.

[Jason Dunn]

The only thing that gets me excited/agitated is misinformation. I appreciate your modification, but still believe you are far removed in your assertion.

Look, the truth is that neither you nor I know exactly why Apple doesn't offer FM tuners on their iPods or TV tuners in their Macs. This entire discussion thread is just opinion after opinion, not fact after fact. So you trying to "set me straight" is just you expressing your opinion, just like my points are only my opinion.

"Misinformation" would be when I made the comment about the right-mouse button on the Mac, and you pointed out the FACT that Macs now ship with a mouse with a right mouse button. I was wrong, you corrected me, and I appreciate that.

I enjoy a healthy debate, but it's critical to understand that your opinion remains your opinion, not a fact - and it's unfair to label my opinion as "misinformation". Unless one of us has a contact at Apple that can explain to use why there are no FM tuners on iPods, this is all just conjecture and we have to keep it all in context. :)

[crashdaddy20]

I enjoy a healthy debate, but it's critical to understand that your opinion remains your opinion, not a fact - and it's unfair to label my opinion as "misinformation". Unless one of us has a contact at Apple that can explain to use why there are no FM tuners on iPods, this is all just conjecture and we have to keep it all in context. :)

I enjoy a healthy debate as well and this has been one.

Best regards :)

[onlydarksets]

EDIT: your post changed while I typed this up, so what I've written isn't really necessary. Still, I think it's relevant, so I'm leaving it.

This is the problem with the word "free" - it means two different things.

crashdaddy20, you appear to be talking about "free as in beer". Apple does, indeed, offer some content at no charge.

Jason seems to be talking about "free as in speech". This would be content that Apple cannot control. Podcasts fall under this category (podcasts are just MP3 files, so really it's just the space in iTunes - I'm not sure if that counts as really embracing free content, or if it's more tolerating something they can't lock down). FM radio would as well. Apple has historically been in favor of closed systems that allow them to control what may be done with those systems (e.g., OS tied to Apple hardware, iTunes/iPod/AppleTV ecosystem, etc.).

That's my impression of this conversation, anyway.

[Janak Parekh]

Jason seems to be talking about "free as in speech". This would be content that Apple cannot control. Podcasts fall under this category (podcasts are just MP3 files, so really it's just the space in iTunes - I'm not sure if that counts as really embracing free content, or if it's more tolerating something they can't lock down). FM radio would as well. Apple has historically been in favor of closed systems that allow them to control what may be done with those systems (e.g., OS tied to Apple hardware, iTunes/iPod/AppleTV ecosystem, etc.). I don't want to prolong this conversation, so I'll keep it brief -- I perfectly understand this, and if this was the case, iPods wouldn't support MP3, nor would they have offered a "radio remote" for the iPod for years that ties into the iPod's firmware. One can argue that Apple did these because they had no choice, and I suspect we'll never find an agreement on that, so I'm going to stop now. :)

--janak

[onlydarksets]

I don't want to prolong this conversation, so I'll keep it brief --
That's the debate equivalent of "No offense, but..." ;)

I perfectly understand this, and if this was the case, iPods wouldn't support MP3, nor would they have offered a "radio remote" for the iPod for years that ties into the iPod's firmware. One can argue that Apple did these because they had no choice, and I suspect we'll never find an agreement on that, so I'm going to stop now. :)

--janak
As you point out, the MP3 argument is pretty weak. Apple had to support the de facto standard (MP3) to gain market share while pushing their closed format (AAC w/ DRM). Microsoft did the same - the Zune supported MP3 and AAC, while pushing the Zune WMV + DRM format. Sony tried omitting MP3 support to disastrous results (ATRAC-only player, anyone?). Yanking MP3 support now wouldn't alienate all of their customers, but, c'mon - they're called "MP3 players"!

As for the FM add-on - that is a good point, which I know you have raised before. I don't know why Apple doesn't support FM radio, but I have a feeling it's a combination of two things:


The anticipated profit resulting from increased sales is marginal at best;
They want you to get your content through iTunes, not from anywhere else (I'm not saying they prevent it - just that they prefer you to buy from them).

If there isn't a ton of money to be made and it isn't integral to the business model, why would they put an FM tuner in there?

Now, for the external FM tuner, they can make money off that - probably at least $45/unit (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MA070G/D) (yes, that is pure speculation, but hopefully everyone gets the point)!

[Janak Parekh]

Gah, and I thought I had finally left this for dead. :(

Apple had to support the de facto standard (MP3) to gain market share while pushing their closed format (AAC w/ DRM). Well, not exactly. The first iPods didn't support FairPlay, it didn't exist at the time. They supported MP3 and AAC, and that was about it. I agree that there wasn't much choice on the player, but for example, they chose to support ripping-to-MP3 for free in iTunes (i.e., paying a license fee per copy downloaded). Compare that to Windows Media Player, which didn't add free MP3 ripping support until v10 -- prior to that, you had to purchase an add-on.

If there isn't a ton of money to be made and it isn't integral to the business model, why would they put an FM tuner in there? But their online music business model came a few years after the iPod, so... you're giving them more credit than they deserve.

--janak

[onlydarksets]

Gah, and I thought I had finally left this for dead. :(
I admire your perseverance!

Well, not exactly. The first iPods didn't support FairPlay, it didn't exist at the time. They supported MP3 and AAC, and that was about it. I agree that there wasn't much choice on the player, but for example, they chose to support ripping-to-MP3 for free in iTunes (i.e., paying a license fee per copy downloaded). Compare that to Windows Media Player, which didn't add free MP3 ripping support until v10 -- prior to that, you had to purchase an add-on.

But their online music business model came a few years after the iPod, so... you're giving them more credit than they deserve.

--janak
You're probably right - I assumed they had some inkling that they would want to support an extended feature set in a format they had more control over.

However, it doesn't negate the point about why they supported MP3.

[onlydarksets]

Back to topic (sort of), here is a completely unsubstantiated rumor about iTunes Unlimited:
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/08/20/the-rumor-room-itunes-unlimited/

[Jason Dunn]

Back to topic (sort of), here is a completely unsubstantiated rumor about iTunes Unlimited:
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/08/20/the-rumor-room-itunes-unlimited/

Interesting. What will all the subscription music haters say if that happens?

[Janak Parekh]

Interesting. What will all the subscription music haters say if that happens? They continue to hate and misunderstand it -- look at the comments below the post.

--janak

[Jason Dunn]

They continue to hate and misunderstand it -- look at the comments below the post.

If Apple really does do this, they'll spin it in a way that makes it seem like they're the first ones to get it right, and all the Apple fans will love it suddenly. You'll see. :)

[onlydarksets]

They continue to hate and misunderstand it -- look at the comments below the post.

--janak
The ignorance is truly amazing, isn't it?

[Janak Parekh]

If Apple really does do this, they'll spin it in a way that makes it seem like they're the first ones to get it right, and all the Apple fans will love it suddenly. You'll see. :) I have no idea if I will actually see this; I don't attach much to the rumor. However, if Apple manages to convey the value in a way no previous vendor, including Microsoft, has done, they deserve the credit for knowing how to market things. Despite the vocal nature of Apple fanboys, the fanboys make up a very small part of the iPod userbase.

Personally, I think the current subscription services have marketed their service wrong. Advertising as unlimited downloads is absolutely the wrong way to do it, because people then perceive the system as one that yanks the music from you the moment you stop paying. There's a possessiveness to downloading, and limiting that is perceived as bad. Instead, if they advertised it as your own custom radio station you can take in your pocket? That people would understand, and more, might get excited about.

--janak

[Jason Dunn]

The ignorance is truly amazing, isn't it?

Subscription music is one of those things that you can really only understand once you've tried it - and since Apple has the biggest chunk of device-using music listeners in the world (beyond the desktop PC) every subscription music service seems like a failure because it's not hitting that huge user base.

Subscription music isn't for everyone - I personally found it easy to cancel mine after about six months - but for people that like to explore new music, and listen to a variety of music for one monthly fee, it can make a lot of sense.