Why Zune Beats the iPod... Seriously

[Adam Krebs]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://jeffblankenburg.com/2008/11/10-reasons-zune-beats-ipod-seriously.aspx' target='_blank'>http://jeffblankenburg.com/2008/11/...-seriously.aspx</a><br /><br /></div><p>"<em>Okay, we know that the Zune doesn&rsquo;t beat the iPod where it matters (sales) so this is sort of like BetaMax/VHS but the Zune really is an increasingly impressive device. I&rsquo;m beginning to wonder if it&rsquo;ll become the cult device that is sort of cooler than the iPod but not as popular. Sound familiar?</em>"</p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com//zt/auto/1228279596.usr495.png" border="1" /></p><p>Jeff Blankenburg shares his thoughts on why the Zune is better than the iPod (seriously) and they're all important. He's got all the usual suspects (Zune Pass, FM radio, wireless sharing and syncing) but also mentions a few others, like Zune Originals, the consistently updated firmware, and how anyone can make games for their Zunes. Click through to see each of these points discussed in depth, and maybe pass it on to your "iPod owning uncle" at Christmastime.</p>

[David Tucker]

I will say that the backwards compatibility point was a bit of a reach. The older gen models don't even have the hardware you'd need for a modern firmware update. Eventually the Zune 30 won't be able to keep up I'm sure. The current models all out actually I imagine won't be supportable forever.

MS has done a commendable job thus far but technology does have to move forward at some point. Apple's iPods did a lot to advance the actual tech of MP3 players and really expecting the older models to be kept current isn't very realistic!

I agree with many of his other points though. :D

[crashdaddy20]

1. The Zune Pass is certainly the best of the subscription models available, especially now that Microsoft allows you to keep 10 tracks per month. The subscription model is still extremely niche and now matter how slice and dice it, Steve Jobs is correct, the overwhelming majority of people want to keep their music, not rent it.

2. New iPods run OS X, older iPods do not. The new updates to the iPod lineup require OS X, therefore, the older iPods cannot take advantage of iPod software updates. Besides, do you really want to watch video on an old monochrome screen on a seven year old iPod? Didn't think so.

3. Until recently weren't Zunes and iPods the same price? So the Zune lineup now runs about $20 less? I guess that could sway some but cheaper is not always better. If that were the case then Coby would have the MP3 player market wrapped up.

4. Wireless sharing is a very innovative idea, all you need to do is find someone else with a Zune in order to share. Could take a while.

5. Wireless sync is great and something Apple needs to take advantage of.

6. Wireless music shopping was available on both the iPhone and iPod touch several months before it was on the Zune. Now if comparing iPod Classic, then yeah, Zune wins there, but honestly Apple appears to be pushing the iPod Touch as the defacto iPod these days and that is where the Zune competes.

7. If you want a smiley face on the back of your Zune, then more power to you. I woud like to know just how this affects the consumer's choice in an MP3 player.

8. FM radio. Whatever. Radio is as dead as dead.

9. I can stream all of my iPods on my Xbox 360 just as easy as a Zune.

10. User created games are great and no other MP3 player has games available for it. Now excuse me while I browse the iTunes App Store for some more game to download to my iPod Touch.

11. iTunes regularly has free TV shows and movies. When NBC came crawling back to Apple in September there multiple free episode of The Office, Battlstar Galactica, Monk, Heroes, 30 Rock, and many other NBC Universal properties.

Nice try, but do or do not, there is no try.

[onlydarksets]

1. The Zune Pass is certainly the best of the subscription models available, especially now that Microsoft allows you to keep 10 tracks per month. The subscription model is still extremely niche and now matter how slice and dice it, Steve Jobs is correct, the overwhelming majority of people want to keep their music, not rent it.
That's why Sirius XM has 18 million+ subscribers? Not to mention the millions using Pandora, last.fm, etc. (admittedly, these are free solutions, but the "10 for $15" model gets it pretty close to free).

2. New iPods run OS X, older iPods do not. The new updates to the iPod lineup require OS X, therefore, the older iPods cannot take advantage of iPod software updates. Besides, do you really want to watch video on an old monochrome screen on a seven year old iPod? Didn't think so.
What about a 3 year old 5G? Not that Apple has innovated much on the Classic in years, but they could support the newer features on the 5G if they chose.

3. Until recently weren't Zunes and iPods the same price? So the Zune lineup now runs about $20 less? I guess that could sway some but cheaper is not always better. If that were the case then Coby would have the MP3 player market wrapped up.
Price is never a factor?

5. Wireless sync is great and something Apple needs to take advantage of.
They'd have to put wireless in the Classic and Nanos first...

6. Wireless music shopping was available on both the iPhone and iPod touch several months before it was on the Zune. Now if comparing iPod Classic, then yeah, Zune wins there, but honestly Apple appears to be pushing the iPod Touch as the defacto iPod these days and that is where the Zune competes.
It's not, though. It directly competes against the classic. Plus, how many songs can you download on a Touch for $15/month?

10. User created games are great and no other MP3 player has games available for it. Now excuse me while I browse the iTunes App Store for some more game to download to my iPod Touch.
Let me know when you fit 120GB on that Touch. Oranges to oranges.

[crashdaddy20]

That's why Sirius XM has 18 million+ subscribers? Not to mention the millions using Pandora, last.fm, etc. (admittedly, these are free solutions, but the "10 for $15" model gets it pretty close to free).


What about a 3 year old 5G? Not that Apple has innovated much on the Classic in years, but they could support the newer features on the 5G if they chose.


Price is never a factor?


They'd have to put wireless in the Classic and Nanos first...


It's not, though. It directly competes against the classic. Plus, how many songs can you download on a Touch for $15/month?


Let me know when you fit 120GB on that Touch. Oranges to oranges.

Sirius/XM has 18 million subscribers and still loses money, not a very solid argument. Pandora and last.fm are free. Is the Zune Pass free? Rhapsody Unlimited? Napster Unlimited? Nope. The people like to own their tunes, not rent them.

A 5th gen iPod cannot utilize the new features of the current iPod lineup because it does not have OS X as its operating system. I thought we covered that?

Only until recently the Zune was the exact same price as the iPod classic and iPod Nano. Recent price drops have changed that, but are they enough to sway someone on the fence. Is cheaper really an argument for better?

The Zune competes with the entirety of the iPod lineup sans the iPod Shuffle. The screen size is similar in size to the iPod touch, has wireless capabilities like the iPod touch, storage like the iPod Classic and iPod nano.

As for how many songs can I put on my iPod touch for $15? Well that depends on what music store I am purchasing from and the price of the songs. You see, I don't believe in wasting my cash on renting music. If iTunes offered a subscription, I would pass on it.

[David Tucker]

18 million people use Sirius and XM.
Sirius and XM lose money.
Therefore...people like owning their music.

Your logic is interesting.

[jdmichal]

These posts against subscription-based music are so apologetic, I can't even fathom them. Basically, I'm confused... Since when did the idea of choices become a bad thing? It's not like you can't just ignore that the Zune Pass exists and go about your life.

Honestly, if I'm going to buy music, I'm going to the store, buying a CD, and ripping it with LAME V0 to get a decent quality, DRM-free track out of it, not the 192 cbr stuff you get otherwise. But to be honest, I don't care about owning music; I care about listening to it. Same as I don't care about owning the movies I get from Blockbuster or Netflix; I just care about watching them. This is why I listen to the radio, and to Pandora, and why I will use the Zune Pass.*


* To clarify as to the future tense of this statement: BLUE ZUNES!! YAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAY!

[onlydarksets]

These posts against subscription-based music are so apologetic, I can't even fathom them. Basically, I'm confused... Since when did the idea of choices become a bad thing? It's not like you can't just ignore that the Zune Pass exists and go about your life.

Honestly, if I'm going to buy music, I'm going to the store, buying a CD, and ripping it with LAME V0 to get a decent quality, DRM-free track out of it, not the 192 cbr stuff you get otherwise. But to be honest, I don't care about owning music; I care about listening to it. Same as I don't care about owning the movies I get from Blockbuster or Netflix; I just care about watching them. This is why I listen to the radio, and to Pandora, and why I will use the Zune Pass.*


* To clarify as to the future tense of this statement: BLUE ZUNES!! YAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAY!

Word - well said.

[Pony99CA]

3. Until recently weren't Zunes and iPods the same price? So the Zune lineup now runs about $20 less? I guess that could sway some but cheaper is not always better.
True, but if everything else is equal or better, it is. ;)

7. If you want a smiley face on the back of your Zune, then more power to you. I woud like to know just how this affects the consumer's choice in an MP3 player.
It's not about a smiley face; it's about customization options. While I agree that it's a pretty lame reason (I prefer function over form), it matters to a lot of people.

By the way, why do the new Nanos come in 8 colors (or however many they have) instead of one or two?

8. FM radio. Whatever. Radio is as dead as dead.
Please. I listen to it every day driving to and from work. I could play music from my Windows Mobile device or CDs in my stereo, but I generally like to have the opportunity to hear different music, hear some chat, etc. (While I could do without the ads, I can usually switch channels to avoid them.)

10. User created games are great and no other MP3 player has games available for it. Now excuse me while I browse the iTunes App Store for some more game to download to my iPod Touch.
If you're going to compare the Zune with the iPod Touch (which is more like a music PDA), I'm going to compare my Motorola Q9m and iPAQ hx2795 (both of which can play MP3 files quite well) against your Touch. I can get lots of games for Windows Mobile. If I don't like those, I can get many emulators and play various console games.

Nice try, but do or do not, there is no try.
Right back at you.

Steve (Not a Zune owner)

[Pony99CA]

A 5th gen iPod cannot utilize the new features of the current iPod lineup because it does not have OS X as its operating system. I thought we covered that?
Do the new Nanos really run OS X? I thought only the iPhone and iPod Touch did. That would be very cool.

Steve

[onlydarksets]

A 5th gen iPod cannot utilize the new features of the current iPod lineup because it does not have OS X as its operating system. I thought we covered that?
Ah, yes, well the discussion must be over, then :rolleyes:. The point is that it's a positive thing that the Zune is supporting it's previous generation hardware. Apple is not, and, if what you say is true, it's not because the 5G hardware can't handle Cover Flow - it's because Apple abandoned the platform. However, if what you say is wrong, then it's simply a business decision. I tend to agree with Pony - I think you are wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_classic#Operating_system_and_firmware) about the iPod Classic/Nano using OS X (and so do others (http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/os_x_ipod_nonsense)).

[crashdaddy20]

18 million people use Sirius and XM.
Sirius and XM lose money.
Therefore...people like owning their music.

Your logic is interesting.


Sirius and XM were offered as reasons why people like subscription and it being a successful business model. Sirius and XM have lost money from their inception, not a compelling argument for success because in the long haul, people want to own their music.

Not that hard to figure out really.

[crashdaddy20]

Ah, yes, well the discussion must be over, then :rolleyes:. The point is that it's a positive thing that the Zune is supporting it's previous generation hardware. Apple is not, and, if what you say is true, it's not because the 5G hardware can't handle Cover Flow - it's because Apple abandoned the platform. However, if what you say is wrong, then it's simply a business decision. I tend to agree with Pony - I think you are wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_classic#Operating_system_and_firmware) about the iPod Classic/Nano using OS X (and so do others (http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/os_x_ipod_nonsense)).



You can believe I am wrong all day long, doesn't make it any less true. The new iPod family uses OS X.

Apple has not "abandoned" the older iPod platforms. Updates are still available for them when needed for stability and what not, and Apple of course still honors those iPods that under warranty and Applecare, they just don't have the new features because the software does not allow it.

[onlydarksets]

You can believe I am wrong all day long, doesn't make it any less true. The new iPod family uses OS X.

Apple has not "abandoned" the older iPod platforms. Updates are still available for them when needed for stability and what not, and Apple of course still honors those iPods that under warranty and Applecare, they just don't have the new features because the software does not allow it.
Link, please?

[David Tucker]

Sirius and XM were offered as reasons why people like subscription and it being a successful business model. Sirius and XM have lost money from their inception, not a compelling argument for success because in the long haul, people want to own their music.

Not that hard to figure out really.

No, if that's what you're really arguing then you're grasp on economics is a bit weak there. Whether or not Sirius and XM are profitable are pretty much irrelevant to the point of what people like. Sirius and XM may have unsustainable business models but 18 million subscribers (actually...more like 19 million) isn't what I would consider a 'flop'. SatRad is popular enough that its in all the big box stores, available as options in rental & new cars.

Why they lose money is a seperate discussion. Ever since the merger their costs have gone down and revenue has increased. They're project to be profitable next year I believe. Does that instantly change your mind about people's attitudes on music ownership? (I should hope not but by your logic it should)

The facts are pretty simple:

There are 19 million people who are happy to pay for what is essentially a radio. And they don't get to own anything. This is no different than subscription music other than the fact that with subscription you have more flexibility on what you listen to.

And why you should care that subscription exists anyway? Does it somehow hurt your ability to 'own' music (whatever that means).

[onlydarksets]

The facts are pretty simple:

There are 19 million people who are happy to pay for what is essentially a radio. And they don't get to own anything. This is no different than subscription music other than the fact that with subscription you have more flexibility on what you listen to.
Not to mention Zune Pass nets out to $5/month ($10/month in "owned" music), which is far less than the $13/month Sirius XM charges.

And why you should care that subscription exists anyway? Does it somehow hurt your ability to 'own' music (whatever that means).
Falling on deaf ears...

[Pony99CA]

And why you should care that subscription exists anyway? Does it somehow hurt your ability to 'own' music (whatever that means).
Based on his statements, he doesn't care. His premise is that subscriptions aren't much of an advantage for most people, not that they hurt the ability to purchase music. That makes some sense, but his logic against the satellite radio analogy is faulty, as you pointed out.

However, I'm not sure how good the satellite radio analogy is. Yes, it's subscription music (if you listen for the music, not sports or Howard Stern), but all radio is basically content that you don't own because you don't have the source media. With MP3 players, you do have the media right there.

I think when it comes to music you can carry around with you and choose exactly what you hear, most people do like to own the music. Maybe that's one reason you don't see CD rental stores. (CDs and standard DVDs aren't that different in price any more.)

Steve

[onlydarksets]

However, I'm not sure how good the satellite radio analogy is. Yes, it's subscription music (if you listen for the music, not sports or Howard Stern), but all radio is basically content that you don't own because you don't have the source media. With MP3 players, you do have the media right there.

I think when it comes to music you can carry around with you and choose exactly what you hear, most people do like to own the music. Maybe that's one reason you don't see CD rental stores. (CDs and standard DVDs aren't that different in price any more.)

Steve
The analogy is apt - in both cases you are listening to music you pay for but don't own. How you access the media is irrelevant - it's your rights to the music that matter. However, this seems to be the point that most people who think subscription music services are stupid can't get past. They see a WMA file and think they are all the same, when that's simply not the case.

CD rental stores is a licensing issue. There may be a demand component as well, but it never gets to that because the labels won't let it happen because of ripping.

[Pony99CA]

The analogy is apt - in both cases you are listening to music you pay for but don't own. How you access the media is irrelevant - it's your rights to the music that matter.
Of course the media matters. With broadcast, I can't have any rights to the media -- because I don't have the media. So arguing about whether I can own the media in that case is a moot point.

Of course, you might be able to record the broadcast music, but that's an inferior copy in most cases, so let's not nitpick about that, OK? :)

With Zune Pass, I assume the music is downloaded to the device and expires when your Zune Pass subscription expires. If that's essentially correct, you have the media locally, but it disappears if you stop paying for it monthly. I also assume that you can't copy it to other devices, which would be another downside.

Of course, you could argue that any DRM music is essentially a pay once subscription. You can access the music as long as you like -- until the DRM servers go away (like WalMart, Yahoo and others). :eek:

Steve

[onlydarksets]

Of course the media matters. With broadcast, I can't have any rights to the media -- because I don't have the media. So arguing about whether I can own the media in that case is a moot point.
It really doesn't. With radio you do have a right - the right to listen to it. With subscription, you have the right to listen on demand. The difference is in the rights, not the media.

[David Tucker]

Thanks onlydarksets, you saved me a lot of time tonight ;) I'll just say....you're right on all counts! :cool:

[crashdaddy20]

No, if that's what you're really arguing then you're grasp on economics is a bit weak there. Whether or not Sirius and XM are profitable are pretty much irrelevant to the point of what people like. Sirius and XM may have unsustainable business models but 18 million subscribers (actually...more like 19 million) isn't what I would consider a 'flop'. SatRad is popular enough that its in all the big box stores, available as options in rental & new cars.

Why they lose money is a seperate discussion. Ever since the merger their costs have gone down and revenue has increased. They're project to be profitable next year I believe. Does that instantly change your mind about people's attitudes on music ownership? (I should hope not but by your logic it should)

The facts are pretty simple:

There are 19 million people who are happy to pay for what is essentially a radio. And they don't get to own anything. This is no different than subscription music other than the fact that with subscription you have more flexibility on what you listen to.

And why you should care that subscription exists anyway? Does it somehow hurt your ability to 'own' music (whatever that means).


Let's please remember that I am not the one who initially brought XM and Sirius into the conversation. Onlydarksets did and was used as a defense for subscription based music. If the logic is faulty, it's his. I don't equate satellite radio with subscription music, other than both services lose money.

What does it mean to own music? Well, I give Amazon MP3 $7.99 and I get 15 tracks of DRM free music to put on as many iPods as I choose, burn as many CDs as I choose, put those files on as many computers as I choose. If Amazon MP3 closes their doors, there is no DRM "phoning home" to deactivate.

That is what it means to own music.

[David Tucker]

I notice that it doesn't mean listening to whatever you want, whenever you want. That's what subscription means. I'll take that over burning CDs (what do you do with them? Add them to the cassette tape & 8 track collection you've created? :p)

[onlydarksets]

Let's please remember that I am not the one who initially brought XM and Sirius into the conversation. Onlydarksets did and was used as a defense for subscription based music. If the logic is faulty, it's his. I don't equate satellite radio with subscription music, other than both services lose money.
Your lack of logic is my fault because I introduced the analogy? That just makes so little sense it's bewildering.

Can you provide anything to support your position? If not, I'm done trying to guess why you think you are right, especially in the absence of any evidence other than "because I (http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f5/why-zune-beats-ipod-seriously-91607-2.html#post698589) said so (http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f5/why-zune-beats-ipod-seriously-91607-2.html#post698588)".

[crashdaddy20]

I notice that it doesn't mean listening to whatever you want, whenever you want. That's what subscription means. I'll take that over burning CDs (what do you do with them? Add them to the cassette tape & 8 track collection you've created? :p)


It certainly does mean listening to whatever I want whenever I want. If I want the latest Metallica album, I buy it, download it, listen to it on my iPod in the car, in my speaker dock, through my home theater, or on my computer.

Never said I burn CDs, BTW, just that I have that freedom to do so.

[Pony99CA]

It really doesn't. With radio you do have a right - the right to listen to it. With subscription, you have the right to listen on demand. The difference is in the rights, not the media.
The difference is that you can't have the right to listen to radio on demand due to the medium. If XM or broadcast comes up with radio-on-demand (like some cable companies have video-on-demand), then you can claim that the medium makes no difference.

Until then, it's not fair to say that a medium that can't provide a right doesn't allow that right. Your argument is like claiming that people didn't have the right to record on CDs (before recordable CDs existed) while they had the right to record on cassettes. It's not that the right didn't exist (the Home Recording Act probably applies to recordable CDs as well as cassette tapes), it's that the non-recordable nature of the medium made that right moot.

How do you not understand that?

Steve

[crashdaddy20]

Your lack of logic is my fault because I introduced the analogy? That just makes so little sense it's bewildering.

Can you provide anything to support your position? If not, I'm done trying to guess why you think you are right, especially in the absence of any evidence other than "because I (http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f5/why-zune-beats-ipod-seriously-91607-2.html#post698589) said so (http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f5/why-zune-beats-ipod-seriously-91607-2.html#post698588)".


YOU brought up XM and Sirius, not me. XM and Sirius are money losing ventures that were forced to merge in order to hopefully stop the bleeding. It's a fact not a "because I said so" proposition.

Why YOU injected satellite into the conversation, I don't know.

[onlydarksets]

The difference is that you can't have the right to listen to radio on demand due to the medium. If XM or broadcast comes up with radio-on-demand (like some cable companies have video-on-demand), then you can claim that the medium makes no difference.

Until then, it's not fair to say that a medium that can't provide a right doesn't allow that right. Your argument is like claiming that people didn't have the right to record on CDs (before recordable CDs existed) while they had the right to record on cassettes. It's not that the right didn't exist (the Home Recording Act probably applies to recordable CDs as well as cassette tapes), it's that the non-recordable nature of the medium made that right moot.

How do you not understand that?

Steve
I get it, but it is irrelevant to the analogy. For those who don't understand the value proposition of Zune Pass (or other subscription music services), it's similar to satellite radio - you are paying for access to content, not for the music itself.

All of your posts are about why subscription music is a better value proposition than satellite radio, because it is on demand, too. I agree 100%, but it's not necessary to make the analogy.

[Pony99CA]

I notice that it doesn't mean listening to whatever you want, whenever you want. That's what subscription means.
Wow, the logic in this thread is taking a beating. If I can put the music anywhere I want and it has no DRM, that implies that I can listen to it anywhere at any time.

A subscription doesn't imply that, however. First, you obviously can't listen to the music after your subscription expires (or the service disappears). (If you can, you really own the music.)

Second, how does the Zune Pass model work? Is music placed on your Zune with an expiration date, and if you don't sync every so often (even if you renew the subscription), it expires? Does the music actually stream over the Internet to your Zune? Either way prevents listening to the music whenever (or wherever) you want.

Steve

[onlydarksets]

If I can put the music anywhere I want and it has no DRM, that implies that I can listen to it anywhere at any time.
That's not "whatever" - that's "whenever". You can't listen to what you don't own.

[Pony99CA]

I get it, but it is irrelevant to the analogy. For those who don't understand the value proposition of Zune Pass (or other subscription music services), it's similar to satellite radio - you are paying for access to content, not for the music itself.
If that's all that you're trying to convey, fine. I still think the analogy falls short because of the medium, though, and that there are better analogies.

The XM analogy also falls short because broadcast radio also provides access to content -- for free. So there has to be more to satellite radio than just access to content or else the analogy is actually proving that subscriptions aren't worth it.

The real advantage to satellite radio is fewer/no commercials, access almost anywhere in the country, channels for specific interests, etc. Those are the features people are paying for, not just mere access to content.

All of your posts are about why subscription music is a better value proposition than satellite radio, because it is on demand, too. I agree 100%, but it's not necessary to make the analogy.
It is to get the full value of the subscription model. Video-on-demand is better than simple one-way cable TV. I assume that Zune Pass is more like video-on-demand than one-way cable TV because it provides fine-grained control of what I listen to -- I can choose the exact song that I want to hear, not just some channel which may play songs that I like.

A good analogy should convey as much of the similarity as possible. :)

Anyway, let's stop nitpicking on the analogy. Crash, do you now understand why at least some people may find benefit in subscription music (even if you personally don't)? If so, we can let this die. :)

Steve

[Pony99CA]

That's not "whatever" - that's "whenever". You can't listen to what you don't own.
Whatever. :p

In both cases I can't listen to something that I haven't paid for, so your point is meaningless. What you really want to point out is that subscriptions allow me to sample more music that I could afford to buy. The downside of a pure subscription service is that I lose all of the music when I stop paying; I don't lose purchased music (unless it's got DRM and the DRM service goes away).

Zune Pass seems to combine the best of both models, allowing me to sample a lot and keep 10 songs per month that I really like. So, if I understand the model correctly, it's basically a $5.10 per month all-you-can-sample service if you always take the 10 songs you're entitled to (which cost $9.90 on iTunes).

Steve

[onlydarksets]

Whatever. :p

In both cases I can't listen to something that I haven't paid for, so your point is meaningless. What you really want to point out is that subscriptions allow me to sample more music that I could afford to buy.
Sigh...that's exactly what I (and David) said. Rewording it does not undermine my point (or his) and make it your own.

The downside of a pure subscription service is that I lose all of the music when I stop paying; I don't lose purchased music (unless it's got DRM and the DRM service goes away).
This is the same conceptual difficulty that many have with subscription music - with subscription, you don't "lose" the music because it was never yours to begin with. "Ownership" is a foreign concept with "pure subscription services".

Zune Pass seems to combine the best of both models, allowing me to sample a lot and keep 10 songs per month that I really like. So, if I understand the model correctly, it's basically a $5.10 per month all-you-can-sample service if you always take the 10 songs you're entitled to (which cost $9.90 on iTunes).

Steve
Yes, you understand it correctly, and I agree that it is the best of both worlds.

[Pony99CA]

Sigh...that's exactly what I (and David) said. Rewording it does not undermine my point (or his) and make it your own.
I understood the benefits of subscriptions from the beginning, and was referring to what you said in the quoted post (I quoted it for a reason), not some other post. What you said in that post wasn't an accurate description of the differences in models -- in both purchase and subscription models, if you don't pay, you can't play. The important point that you didn't mention (in that post) was that subscriptions allow you to play more, but give you fewer rights.

Nor was I trying to make anything "my own", either. The concept of subscriptions (or their benefits and drawbacks) doesn't belong to anybody, and I highly doubt you were the first person to think that subscriptions allow you to listen to more music than you can purchase. In fact, if subscription services didn't allow that, they'd really be stupid.

This is the same conceptual difficulty that many have with subscription music - with subscription, you don't "lose" the music because it was never yours to begin with.
Now you're just pettifogging. "Lose" is short for "lose access to", which you most certainly do. The user doesn't care why he can't play the music; the fact that he can't is the important issue.

Also, technically, the music is never "yours" -- unless the copyright owner gives you that right. The medium may be yours, but your uses (including access) may be restricted. This is true whether you purchase or subscribe to content.

Yes, you understand it correctly, and I agree that it is the best of both worlds.
Good, so I think we've agreed that subscription models can be useful, haven't we? Crash was the person who called subscriptions "extremely niche", and even he said "Zune Pass is certainly the best of the subscription models available." So why are we arguing about something we basically agree on? :confused:

Steve