Yes, eMusic is a subscription model; I’ve been a member for over two years. But comparing that to ZunePass is comparing apples to oranges. eMusic’s model is not renting, you OWN the tracks downloaded each month, which is obviously why there’s a limit on how many you get each month. If I stopped paying eMusic next month, all the music I’ve downloaded the last 2+ years is unaffacted, still there, still playable, and still DRM-free.

It should be understood that for the purposes of this post — which was about Microsoft implying $15 gets you the same as $30,000 — a “subscription model” is of the “unlimited” kind, which is is also what Napster advertised. My point is that if you’re OK with a model that lets you RENT unlimited music, you’re OK with DRM. I never said it was good or bad, that’s for the user to decide. But you can’t be OK with unlimited music rental services like ZunePass (or the old Napster) and not also be “OK” with DRM. The latter is what allows the former to exist.

As for Apple’s dropping of DRM to be recent, so what? Amazon MP3 — Apple’s best competition for major label music — is a fairly recent occurrence as well (around 19 months old), and didn’t start with near as many tracks as iTunes had at the time. The fact is the labels were awfully strict about doling out their wares DRM-free, which neither Apple nor Amazon could control. I’m not going to slam Apple for this any more than I’d slam Amazon for not opening their store five years ago.

#24 Tom Reestman says:
“Any support of a subscription model requires being OK with DRM.”
That makes no sense. DRM is not equal to a subscription and to say that a subscription requires compliance with DRM makes just as little sense. I’ve been happily purchasing DRM-free music through my eMusic _subscription_ for years now. DRM is embedded protection that lets the licensing party of the product control its use even after purchase. Don’t try to change that definition just to help your argument against Microsoft.

“iTunes Store music works on any player worth noting, including the Zune. The absence of DRM does that.”
And this has been the case for all of what? 4 months now? And what about the years worth of music that you purchased before that? To portray Apple as a company that opposes DRM is misleading to say the least.

I don’t want to sound like I’m pro-Microsoft, because I’m not. I just get really tired of reading posts where people act like Apple is some perfect company. The fact that Microsoft-bashing usually accompanies this blind support for Apple makes the whole conversation seem simultaneously elitist and childish. Honestly Apple is just as capitalist/monopolistic as Microsoft; they just haven’t been as successful at it yet.

You do realize that all of those years that you were “buying” that DRM crap from Apple you were doing the exact same thing (at a much higher price), right? You don’t own any of the music that you “bought” through the iTunes store (unless you purchased it recently). You were, and still are, leasing all of the music with DRM. Bummer, huh? Maybe you should have read the fine print (especially before bashing other companies that are essentially doing the same thing – it just makes you look ignorant).

Wouldn’t it technically be $15/month for unlimited rentals?

Both systems use DRM, Tom, and I’m going to guess that you were purchasing music on iTunes prior to them offering DRM-free music (not that the music isn’t still wrapped in FairPlay), right? You could rather conveniently say that you’ve never bought any DRMed music from iTunes because you’re being challenged on it, of course, but such a claim would seem highly unlikely. And what does that mean? Well, I *guess* it would mean that “Any support of iTunes requires being OK with DRM.” Never mind the fact that purchasing an iPod/iPhone would be implicit endorsement of the system as well, as they all come with iTunes, and there’s still DRM actively being used for video content and applications.

“Because Apple doesn’t do the same thing. ZunePass subscription music works only on Zunes. Period. iTunes Store music works on any player worth noting, including the Zune. The absence of DRM does that.”

It hurts your credibility if you’re suggesting that Apple doesn’t have DRM in iTunes, because it suggests you haven’t done the scant research required to know what you’re talking about.

I’ve got a bunch of music on my iPod and iPhone that will ONLY work with those devices. Why? Because I bought them when DRM was still actively being used in music, and I don’t think it’s fair to have to pay 30 cents per song to unlock them. That’s an odorous system, and while I’m sure you think it’s cool because of el Jobso, I don’t see Microsoft pulling that kind of a stunt.

To the point that MunchE made: Very true, he *is* saying that MS sucks for offering more options. I’m sure Tom would disagree, and say that the games (and video, as I’m guessing Tom has such a cursory knowledge of the Zune that he doesn’t actually realize the breadth of content available on the thing) and apps on the iPhone alone more than make up for it.

I own an iPod (I couldn’t get a Zune in 160gb and iPod works with more of my other devices) and I enjoy it as a player, but seriously, you’re riffing on MS for offering more options than Apple?

I honestly feel both options are lacking. I don’t like DRM, I do want to own my music, but $1 for a digital download is far too expensive. In my ideal world, I would be paying $15 a month for unlimited non-DRM downloads. I don’t like either companies model and I use neither model.

But this article, like others by this author, is just absolutely blatant fanboyism. It’s crap like this that makes me want to turn in my iPod, because I don’t like being associated with this sort of blathering idiocy.

Because many here are defending ZunePass, which requires DRM. That means they’re OK with it. Any support of a subscription model requires being OK with DRM.

“How can you criticize MS for having Zune-only music unless you’re also criticizing Apple for doing the exact same thing”

Because Apple doesn’t do the same thing. ZunePass subscription music works only on Zunes. Period. iTunes Store music works on any player worth noting, including the Zune. The absence of DRM does that.

Oh wait, it would cost THE SAME as filling the iPod.

Nevermind. Carry on with the FUD, Microsoft, you 2-bit dinosaur.

“I could easily have blasted it for other reasons, like the music being heavily DRM’ed, which everyone hates when Apple does it but is cool for Microsoft, I guess. Or that it doesn’t work with the iPod or any other music player (because of the afore-mentioned DRM). Or that the iPod ecosystem of iPhone and iPod Touch is moving beyond just music (to apps, games, etc.), and Microsoft is WAY behind on this. In short, the biggest problem is that ZunePass REQUIRES a Zune.”

Why do you think that everyone’s okay with Microsoft putting in DRM? People get much angrier at Microsoft for their DRM because it’s generally much more invasive; you notice it more, where Apple’s DRM is, by contrast, hardly noticed. I’m all for Apple’s way of DRM, and I’m not entirely sure where you’re getting the notion that MS gets a pass from critics for that.

As for your other arguments (as quoted)? They fall pretty short, because they’re all ones you could make of the iPod itself. Ex: “In short, the biggest problem with buying music on iTunes is that it REQUIRES an iPod.” How can you criticize MS for having Zune-only music unless you’re also criticizing Apple for doing the exact same thing, in which case you can’t point it out as a specific flaw of MS (above and beyond and issues Apple might be having).

Point taken about the intent of your article, though it seemed to me you were hitting the money as the main sticking point, not the type of ownership. As counter to that (because playing the Devil’s Advocate is fun!), I’m guessing that Microsoft’s aiming at the people who don’t care if they own the music or not, those people who just want to listen, and that’s the cost of admission. For most people, they’re functionally renting the music they actually purchase through iTunes; they buy (at a low enough price that it doesn’t require any thought of long-term commitment) they listen a few times and then never listen again. If you’re going to be getting song for only a handful of listens in most cases, why not rent?

I agree that a mixed model is a great idea; let me get access to all of the songs for a rental fee, and if I REALLY like them, I’ll buy them. And maybe I should get a discount on the purchase for already having paid for the rental fee.

The math listed here also takes into account that while $15 gets you a single album forever on iTunes, $15 gets you access to an always increasing library for an entire month. If you’re talking bang for your buck, $15 dollars to listen to as much as you’d like for an entire month seems like a pretty good deal. Now, sure, you can say that purchasing or renting is your preference, and I can’t disagree because it’s your own preference, but that doesn’t make the MS ad stupid.

This argument isn’t really about investing in an artist, it’s about the consumer’s wallet, nothing else. And subscription-based service are definitely cheaper in the long run than but-to-own services for a majority of people.

You could also argue that subscription-based music services are good for new artists too, since the barrier to hear their music is much lower. Most people don’t want to chance their $10 on an album that might suck.

The argument that subscription-based services screw over the artists is also flawed because, well, the record industry screws over artists no matter what format your buying the music in. If you REALLY want to support an artist, buy some concert tickets. :-)