Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
M$ to Compete with iTMS
- Thread starter alset
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i really don t think so.
you ll need an external device to listen to the music, listening it on the pc is unpossible. and once you cancel the contract, you can t listen anymore to your music.
But apple has to release itms soon for windows, otherwise m$ is once more better running that apple is doing.
you ll need an external device to listen to the music, listening it on the pc is unpossible. and once you cancel the contract, you can t listen anymore to your music.
But apple has to release itms soon for windows, otherwise m$ is once more better running that apple is doing.
I agree with maradong. I think the reason the iTMS has taken off like it has, is because noone is really under contract. You pay as you go along. You'll never feel ripped off for paying fo a month's worth of music without listening to anything.
P-Worm
P-Worm
I bet you this is what happened. Right after Steve Jobs finished his iTunes Music Store presentation Apple's legal team called up Microsoft and said "don't even think about it..." So them microsoft is like oh s--- and busts out with this stupid subscription service that is sure to flop. $120 a year? That's assuming I download 120 a year (that may happen I'm at 61) but still... will it work with Joe Blow's mp3 player? Probably not...
It'll be one more Microsoft department that's bleeding red ink and is only being held up by Windows and Office sales.
It'll be one more Microsoft department that's bleeding red ink and is only being held up by Windows and Office sales.
in all fairness... does itunes music store work with joe blow's mp3 player?
that said, this does seem like a poor attempt at a steal.
You are right, it does not. I think that is the biggest fall of the iTMS. And it won't be changed because the only people who would complain to no ends about it would be the people like us, and people like use probably use the iPod if we have an mp3 player.
Re: Re: M$ to Compete with iTMS
Just like how Apple ripped off every service that sold music online. Really, there is no ripping off. This is just an attempt to steal Apple's thunder.
I don't think this service will crush iTMS, by any means. It doesn't appear to allow CD burning, and that's a serious weakness. However, the average consumer is famous for settling for less. The general public is almost solely responsible for allowing weak products to survive, and I think it's at least a strong possibility that they'll do it here.
Dan
Originally posted by Billicus
All it is is Micro$oft ripping Apple off....again!
Just like how Apple ripped off every service that sold music online. Really, there is no ripping off. This is just an attempt to steal Apple's thunder.
I don't think this service will crush iTMS, by any means. It doesn't appear to allow CD burning, and that's a serious weakness. However, the average consumer is famous for settling for less. The general public is almost solely responsible for allowing weak products to survive, and I think it's at least a strong possibility that they'll do it here.
Dan
I think the whole idea sucks big time, who would want to rent music. I wouldn't. And I for sure would never buy a mp3 player that has microsoft security embedded in its harware.
If i pay for the music i own it, thats the way it is and thats the way it should be. In this regard I'm also not fond of Apple's aac files with drm embedded in them.
One point of relief thought is that in the pc world some eager and clever hacker WILL hack the security they always do
If i pay for the music i own it, thats the way it is and thats the way it should be. In this regard I'm also not fond of Apple's aac files with drm embedded in them.
One point of relief thought is that in the pc world some eager and clever hacker WILL hack the security they always do
-Gents
There another factor here that I feel is being overlooked.
No, Apple didn't invent anything really new with iTMS. They just made it effective.
Apple found the business model that would be successful and went with it.
There's another thing: I really don't think that MS can really succeed with their ideas as there are several things against them - or actually, for Apple.
1. Apple doesn't use proprietary compressions. MS would use a .wma file of some kind.
The music industry finds proprietary technology abhorrent - especially MS as they know that there would be a potential of ending up under MS's thumb.
2. Apple, via Steve @ Pixar, is an industry insider. That is a very big plus for Apple, and one of the reasons why they were able to get all five majors.
Showbiz is 90% who you know, not what you know.
There another factor here that I feel is being overlooked.
No, Apple didn't invent anything really new with iTMS. They just made it effective.
Apple found the business model that would be successful and went with it.
There's another thing: I really don't think that MS can really succeed with their ideas as there are several things against them - or actually, for Apple.
1. Apple doesn't use proprietary compressions. MS would use a .wma file of some kind.
The music industry finds proprietary technology abhorrent - especially MS as they know that there would be a potential of ending up under MS's thumb.
2. Apple, via Steve @ Pixar, is an industry insider. That is a very big plus for Apple, and one of the reasons why they were able to get all five majors.
Showbiz is 90% who you know, not what you know.
There's also the little problem that $120 per year for unlimited music does very little to support artists to actually MAKE the music.
This model would promote rushed, poorly produced, cheap to manufacture music. Apple's system actually rewards artists who produce a good song (ok - or well liked song anyway). $120/8000 songs, assuming that all the artists get an equal share doesn't really go very far.
This really makes me quite mad. It's pure arrogance; a decision made by some idiot corportate accountant - not by someone interested in trying to sell music (which is something the RIAA - despite their current actions - actually does want).
Rubbish rubbish rubbish rubbish.
This model would promote rushed, poorly produced, cheap to manufacture music. Apple's system actually rewards artists who produce a good song (ok - or well liked song anyway). $120/8000 songs, assuming that all the artists get an equal share doesn't really go very far.
This really makes me quite mad. It's pure arrogance; a decision made by some idiot corportate accountant - not by someone interested in trying to sell music (which is something the RIAA - despite their current actions - actually does want).
Rubbish rubbish rubbish rubbish.
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-mim
Well, that is Microsoft's business model.
lol!
...how does that slashdot cliche go?
Microsoft Business Plan
1. Jump on latest money making bandwagon.
2. Implement hopelessly flawed product.
3. Profit!
slashdot had some interesting discussion on this new service. I still don't understand why and how these morons come up with rental music services...
One guy mentioned how it would cost $7,500 to fill a 30 gb iPod using iTMS... and how people won't have problem "renting" songs because they would listen to the same song over and over for 6 months and then forget about it.
Answers:
1) There are many of us who's dropped a lot of money, in the thousands, on CDs before. We just don't realize how much we've spent. If you can afford a 30 gb iPod, chances are, he/she has already spent quite a bit of money on CDs. (Basically, no one who buys a 30 gb iPod will start from scratch and fill it all up with iTMS, dropping $7,500.)
2) People do have problem with renting music. Most of us like our album collection.
3) Lastly... if we listen to the same song over and over for 6 months and forget about it, it costs $1 (for a song) or $10 (for an album) at iTMS, but to do the same, you'd need to pay $60 in subscription for 6 months! Geez, that's a ripoff...
Subscription based music service will never work. It comes up again and again because finance types can't get over the allure of constant revenue.
Music is very portable, it takes less than 5 minutes to listen to a song... We'd like to own music because it takes very little time committment on our part.
Movies, which takes considerable amount of time, ~2 hours, we don't mind renting because it's too much of an effort to be spontaneous.
One guy mentioned how it would cost $7,500 to fill a 30 gb iPod using iTMS... and how people won't have problem "renting" songs because they would listen to the same song over and over for 6 months and then forget about it.
Answers:
1) There are many of us who's dropped a lot of money, in the thousands, on CDs before. We just don't realize how much we've spent. If you can afford a 30 gb iPod, chances are, he/she has already spent quite a bit of money on CDs. (Basically, no one who buys a 30 gb iPod will start from scratch and fill it all up with iTMS, dropping $7,500.)
2) People do have problem with renting music. Most of us like our album collection.
3) Lastly... if we listen to the same song over and over for 6 months and forget about it, it costs $1 (for a song) or $10 (for an album) at iTMS, but to do the same, you'd need to pay $60 in subscription for 6 months! Geez, that's a ripoff...
Subscription based music service will never work. It comes up again and again because finance types can't get over the allure of constant revenue.
Music is very portable, it takes less than 5 minutes to listen to a song... We'd like to own music because it takes very little time committment on our part.
Movies, which takes considerable amount of time, ~2 hours, we don't mind renting because it's too much of an effort to be spontaneous.
yeah, one of them, sure... but does itunes music store work with anything BUT the ipod? i'm not saying it needs to even, just pointing it out.
i know that part of the issue is other mp3 players taking on aac capabilities... so perhaps it's not all apple.
This is terrible and weak response to iTunes and the Music Store. Microsoft is obviously counting on intertia and installed base because the solution is a kludge. Can't beleive with all of MS' resources this is the best they can do.
Boy if I were Apple I'd be burning the midnight oil to get iTunes and AAC on the Windows platform. Microsoft's lethargy is giving them ample time. Hope they don't waste it.
Boy if I were Apple I'd be burning the midnight oil to get iTunes and AAC on the Windows platform. Microsoft's lethargy is giving them ample time. Hope they don't waste it.
So true. "The end of the year" is going to be >far< too late. They also need to get at least European Mac users on too.
It's going to suck. Imagine surfing throught WMP trying to find songs to RENT. Who want's to rent Music. If i'm going to pay money then I better be able to keep what I buy. The way the article sounded you can't burn your music to a CD which would defeat the purpose of anyone who wants to listen to the music on the go or make them buy a Portable Music Player. And if you compare how many people that have Players to the number of people that like to listen to music then it just doesn't match up. I mean I really wouldn't want to be able to only listen to my music on my PC just because I don't have a laptop or Music Player. But I can see the outcome of this in a few different ways.
1.) Without support of burning your music to CD's and the idea of only RENTING the music cause the so-called service to fail letting Apple reign over Downloading Music.
2.) Windows user do like they do now and accept whatever is put in front of them by MS no matter how crappy it is and yet again Apple is screwed over even though there system is better.
3.) This service comes out and is okay but iTunes kickes it's butt.
1.) Without support of burning your music to CD's and the idea of only RENTING the music cause the so-called service to fail letting Apple reign over Downloading Music.
2.) Windows user do like they do now and accept whatever is put in front of them by MS no matter how crappy it is and yet again Apple is screwed over even though there system is better.
3.) This service comes out and is okay but iTunes kickes it's butt.
-mim
Yes they do and they will. Apple just needed to see if the bloody thing worked[/]. I don't think they're done with that yet.
Small steps, small steps...
Heh - it's the small steps that worry me. If they decide the business is worth their while getting into, MS effectivley have the capital to release a mediocre system, and then buy the market (aka Xbox).
MS's whole strategy has been based on "if hardware is effectively free (or very cheap) then the money is in software." BSD & Linux are a big threat to them here - so they are looking for other revenue streams. Consoles are an obvious one. Music distribution may be another. If they want it, they'll do what they've always done. Bankroll a rushed, sub-standard v.1, buy the market out, & then work towards a functional v.3 product that makes money.
Apple need to establish quickly to have a hope of countering this. That's all. I'm sure they're going as fast as they can, rather than sitting around feeling all smug.....but you never know.