Some six months
after first announcing it, Microsoft and MTV have launched their URGE music service. The new service will be fairly similar to other subscription-based services that rely on Microsoft's PlayForSure DRM, and will offer 2 million songs, and have a monthly fee of $9.99, or $14.99 for a "to go" version that will work with PlaysForSure-compatible audio players. Of course, URGE will have one advantage that will inevitably help it make up for its late entry to the market: integration into the next version of Windows Media Player. That may cause some grumblings from the likes of Yahoo and Napster, though Microsoft has already settled with Real, so we suspect we're not going to hear them crying foul (besides, Real has been focusing most of its ire on Apple lately, something we think Microsoft will be perfectly happy to support).
posted May 15th 2006 9:16AM
What the nay-sayers say about the subscription model doesn't make sense... "People don't want a subscription model", "You have to give up the music once you stop paying, that sucks!", etc...
So, do you think Netflix sucks too? Netflix, you have to buy a subscription. You get all the movies you want, 3 at a time. You have to give them back when you stop paying for the service. The "to go" service is no different, except you aren't limited to 3 at a time and you don't have to mail them back. I can listen to 1 song a month, or 100....
Granted, it isn't for everyone, there are some people that only want to hear the same song or two (or 10) during a month. But to those of us that have a wide range of eclectic tastes, this is perfect.
Can anyone answer why, if the subscription model is so bad, Netflix is doing so well? The closest thing I hear to an answer is (hammed a bit by me), "Dude, I need my tunes. My music is who I am..".
#28 (greg) I own a Mac Mini that I use for testing websites in Safari... I bought it from an Apple store... You know what I saw? I bunch of Apple people getting paid to tell you how great Apple stuff is.
I NEVER use my Mac EVER... why? Because I have PCs that do EVERYTHING better.
#46 (james)
My currently media player is a Creative Labs Portable Media Center... it has a 30GB hard drive and holds EVERY album I have purchased legally and ripped to my Media Center PC... From my Xbox 360 I can listen to all of the music that is on my Media Center PC... I can burn any kind of CD I want with whatever music I want on it to take in my car... I can plug my PMC into my Xbox and listen to the music off of it and I can plug my PMC into an FM modulator in my car and listen to any of the music that is on it... Oh and by the way... I can also copy live TV recorded with my Media Center PC to my PMC and watch it on the go... Videos and photos too... pretty much any media on my computer can go right on my PMC (Creative Labs).
When I am in my basement working out I plug my PMC into a set of amplified PC speakers and listed to my music without head phones...
When I go out jogging I strap my Rio (used to be diamond then Sonic Blue) onto my arm and can't even tell its there... it has PERFECT sound quality and was made for runners... oh and it was only like $60 bucks... and it plays WMAs (my ripping codec of choice).
If you want to see GREAT integration go get a PMC and a Windows Media Center PC.
Point of the matter... name something that your iPod does that my Creative Labs player doesn't do. You can't... there are tons of things my PMC does that your iPod can't do... period... but hey... the iPod does look cool... and I guess that is what is important to most people...
My former boss (owner of a computer reseller) has an iPod nano... why cause his 13 year old daughter told him they are cool... that is TRUE... im not kidding... little does he know he could easily have gotten a cheaper player that was the same size or small WITH a screen... but I guess if Steve says that $99 bucks is a good deal for a player without a screen than that must be true.
Just wait... when the iPod video is finally released everyone is going to think that Apple invented portable video... but it probably wont be playing any WMV files.
People People, this discussion is getting insane.
For one, stop yelling at people to buy CD's if they want REAL music. WHO the hell are you to tell me what "real" music is to me? And youre speaking as if the ONLY thing available on the iTMS or URGE or anything like it is pop trash. Yes, theres plenty of it, but it not like its the ONLY thing available. WHat happens if I like a band or artist but have sampled the CD and only want maybe a track or 2 from the album. I should go out and pay $12-$15 for the entire thing, just so I can be DRM free? Or should i sign up for a subscription based service, so I only have the option to play it on my computer (as long as I'm paying the fee) and cant put it on my mp3 player if it happens to be an iPod? WHy not just pay the dollar or 2 for the music that I want, that i know i can keep, share with 4 others (legally), burn to cd, and put on my iPod, or any other mp3 player were i to circumvent the DRM with the many known ways of doing that? People saying that the iTunes model is trash, in favor of cd purchases, or a subscription model are talking from their anus. period.
About the audio quality from these online services - yes, it can, and probably should be better. But dammit people, you act like its like listening to a tape or 8track. Its not THAT BAD. What are we all expecting here? audiophile quality? 128kbps to MOST people is literally indistinguishable from the actual master coming out of the ProTools session in the studio in which it was created. Hell I bet if you polled everyone whoever bought music online if they even know what a bitrate is, they would NOT know. I wonder if alot of you even know how this type of compression works. I mean, yeah all the high frequencies suffer most(cymbal crashes, brush sounds, etc), but seriously, some of you people are acing like buying a song from iTunes is like buying a cheap karaoke version of a song, or a song thats been copied from tape to tape like 9 times. GET OVER IT.... these are services for CONSUMERS, not uber-analytical engadget readers. The majority of people who use this, like their iPod, cant tell the difference from a song in 128AAC or 24bit AIFF, and most of them are happily content with buying what they want, when they want, and not having to drive out to a store to get it, or pay every month to have an even more crippled version of their favorite tune.
i produce music and have a very good ear for compression artifcts and all, and i've even bought stuff from online music stores. Why, because its a buck, and it sounds GOOD ENOUGH.
end of story.
You know what would be great? If you could just go to a band's site, donate money to them directly, and download their DRM-free album right then and there. No RIAA. No middleman. Wouldn't that be perfect? But I guess that's a hopelessly utopian scenario.
ANother thing too, all yall people talking about integration with the 360 and the Windows MCE, assume that most people want this. I dont know that MOST want it. I dont want to sound like I'm stickign up for Apple or anything, cause i'm not, but no matter how much you try to discredit the iPod's capabilities and price, you all seem to be forgetting the iPod got where it is because of ease-of-use. The verical system. Consumers are dumb, dont think they are going to want to buy a non-iPod mp3 player,( even though some of them are great), and then go out to buy a CD from a store, import it, manage the album info and album art, buy music from Napster, URGE etc, continue to pay the subcription, make sure they have a PlaysForSure capable player... the list goes on. The reason iTunes/iPod is where it is today is because its simple, Buy an iPod, know (roughly) how many songs you can put on it, know that everytime you connect it to your computer it just transfers by itself, know that if you buy a song on iTunes it WILL work on your iPod, and you can keep it forever, burn it to CD, or do whatever else with it. iPods have a cool factor yes, but i think that they have somehwhat earned it. I mean, my freaking grandma has an iPod. And has put music on it herself.
All I'm saying is dont assume people want to be completely free with their music. As long as they can do with it what they need, they'll be happy, buy it, listen to it on the go, burn it.
ALot of you people on here get all randy at having something thats "different" from what the masses use, while you are kidding yourselves that being different is being easier/better. It is in alot of cases in life, but i'm not so sure it is when it comes to mp3 players.
#48 --- Maybe because people don't usually watch movies over and over agin like music,, You only watch a movie once or twice unless it's really really good; otherwise, it's a waste to buy. Not the same for music
#52 (SlammaJamma) Dude... once you have installed iTunes you have already made it more difficult that using almost any other MP3 player... If you run windows (like 95% of the people in the world) you can plug almost ANY MP3 player into and Sync it with WMP... PERIOD... No installations... no nothing... Don't kid yourself... there is nothing simple about the iPod... you may think it is "simple" because it really is only made to work with one service but again... that is your fault that you are not smart enough to realize that you do have a choice when it comes to this kind of stuff. Apple makes it hard to use your iPod with anything but iTunes... don't confuse that with "ease of use"... Don't try to tell other people that it is hard to use other MP3 players because it isn't... it's actually easier. Oh and I bet your grandma has a iPod because you told her to get one or bought one for her...
Oh and to the guy who was talking about managing your album art, etc... dude... have you used a computer this decade? If you really BUY your CDs and rip them it pulls album art and track info from CDDB... you don't have to manage that... unless of course your downloading your songs illegally and need to go though them and take out all the crap in them that the "pirates" put into the ID3 tags.
To me, there is nothing really exciting or innovative about URGE.
No way am I going back to spending $10-18 for a CD that has, maybe, 3-4 decent songs on it (there are always exceptions to this rule, sometimes the whole CD is good, sometimes there is only one good song). The record companies ripped us all off for years and if they had it their way, we would all still be buying CD's. Like it or not, iTunes legitimized pay for play music and forced the record companies to offer digital download alternatives.
Personally, I think it is great that we have freedom of choice and selection. For those of you who hate Apple/iPod, then don't buy it. For those of you who hate Windows/subscription services, then don't buy them. There will NEVER be a service/player that satisfies all consumers needs. It is called choice. I own both types of players (iPod/WMA) and they both have their strengths and weaknesses (although I do favor Apple since I use a Windows PC only when I have to).
Whateverrrr....URGE my ass! man this is another copy of iTunes. Crapp does M$ got better things to do do then copying business models and whatnot. I mean its all b.s they just wanna dominate everything. Google do this they throw LIVE. Fuck i hate Evil Empire like M$. O.S is crapp never throw a good products. shit whats with with M$. If Apple selling secondhand shoes here they come M.S gonna do it too! Bloody hell. I dont own iPod and not a mac fan boy. Just hate M$ for their greed!
RE Eric, ccunning, and James, Andrew, and SlammaJamma:
The itunes music stores offers downloads in aac format OR lossless format, which is half the size of a wav file but uses some kind of technology to keep all the data in tact. You can choose which format to download when you buy and they both cost the same $.99
You?d need broadband though because the files are a lot bigger. The lossless format is also supported by the ipod, and you can use itunes to re-encode a lossless format song into a high bitrate AAC or MP3 track to save space on your ipod or whatever. But what this means is that you can buy a full album on the itunes music store in lossless format, burn it to an audio CD that has exactly the same quality as a store bought cd would, and end up saving money in the process. Granted you don?t get fullsized album art which is a bummer, but when it?s in your car?s glove compartment on a hot day you don?t usually care. Or you could just buy the CD and rip it into the lossless format anyways?
I use limewire for most of my music listening pleasures, but the itunes store is helpful when there?s a song I want that is too obscure to show up on the filesharing networks. I like being able to find and download a song in less than a minute and stop worrying about it. It becomes part of my library and that?s that. If I really like a band I?ll buy the physical CD for myself or for a friend.
IMPO I think MS should stop futzing about with music and worry about getting vista up to snuff. And seriously, does MS have some aversion to proper user interfaces? Look at how little of the screen is actually used for the music store area.
Here's info on the lossless format:
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless
Article by an audiophile: http://aroundcny.com/Technofile/texts/mac060204.html
I purchase music via CDs primarily for quality and ownership of music that does not evaporate if I chose to stop a subscription service. And considering online services don't offer most the music I listen to, it's a moot point.
If you're listening to music on a portable player with tiny bud headphones, the difference between 128 and AIFF won't be noticeable. But I listen to a good deal of jazz played through my stereo at home. And in this case the difference is clearly noticeable, even considering I'm not an audiophile.
Of course the time will come when nearly all music is available online at higher quality. On that day the trumpets shall echo forth in the name of subscription.
#56 & 57 (UGE and Max A.) It is simple minded to think that MS is taking time away from Vista to work on URGE... come on... they are the largest and most successful software company in the world... I'm sure they are not pulling programmers off of the Vista coding to work on URGE... Please...
Oh and the size of the store has nothing to do with Microsoft... in the web world you have to design for the lowest common denominator... URGE is just a web page being displayed through WMP... you can change the default service to Napster or any other online music service... except iTunes...
And Max A... that is called stealing... Why would you even bother reading this article if you just steal all your music?
I second what James said in #30: DRM is so bloody easy to get around that it's a non-issue. It may as well not exist.
So, that being out of the way, I prefer a single-purchase model to a subscription model for one very obvious reason:
The second your subscription runs out, your music is *gone*. You've suddenly lost the right to listen to it (unless you've taken the couple minutes to circumvent the DRM), which is ridiculous; the multibillion-dollar record industry was built on decades sales of single albums with *no* DRM whatsoever attached and certainly no threats of suddenly taking your music away for not continuing to pay.
And as for the person who argued that iTunes and similar music stores encourages sales of only the most popular music: that's only true if you restrict yourself to the very front few pages. It takes maybe a few clicks to get to some comparatively obscure and often really intriguing and good music that you otherwise wouldn't have known about. Your argument proves nothing but your own lack of effort.
Apple has indeed dominated the market for digital music and MP3 players, but IMHO they did so by creating products that appealed to a large number of consumers. If the closed iPod-iTunes scheme feels too restrictive for you, the market is literally flooded with alternatives for you to choose from. Vote with your dollar. Do whatever you want, because nobody is stopping you. There's no reason to complain when choice is precisely what brought the major players in digital music (pun intended) where they are now.
"Services like these are great for discovering and keeping up with music. (Judging from the many who think most albums are 90% filler, there's a lot of good music out there to be discovered. If you're listening to filler, you're listening to the wrong bands. It's that simple.) For active music purchasers -- and that's really who this service is for, let's be honest here -- I don't think this service is a substitute for buying music (CDs, vinyl)."
So you're going to pay twice to listen to music? I'm an "active music purchaser," who (used to) enjoy listening to lots of music and searching for new groups, etc. However, as much of a pain the music industry is making the act of "enjoying" music, I've mostly stopped listening to music altogether and I'll be damned if they're going to make money off of me monthly just so I can listen to decent stuff and STILL have to go out and buy a CD that might also be DRM'ed up the *** and tries to prevent me from ripping it or making a backup copy (which is crucial for rare/imported discs).
Personally, I'd rather (and DO) spend the $10/mo supporting my local public radio station where I still have the chance of listening to some good/interesting stuff while not feeding more money than necessary to the music industry's attempt to continue to sticking it to my backside. When it comes to discovering new artists otherwise, I now depend on Amazon's suggestions and "...also bought..." lists or other music networking/relationship sites for clues. I'll then find a free preview of the album and but if I like it.
The music industry is trying soooo unbelievably hard to make listening to music an (even more) expensive pain in the ass. Don't even get me started on Ticketmaster...$7 ticket, $15 in fees...OMFG.
Personally I can't stand the MP3 player revolution... Seeing kids walking around in groups with other kids and seeing a little pair of white headphones in each kids ears makes me wonder... do kids even socialize with each other anymore???? What happended to talking to your friends on the bus and walking thru the hall like we did when we were kids? Not to mention kids that text each other all the time... I know people who have kids who text there friends from their cell phones ALL the time... what ever happened to calling them and talking to them on the phone? If you both have cell phones just CALL each other... I'm sure kids in this generation are really going to lack certain people skills...
I URGE you do buy this...
The points being made are getting a bit out of control (big surprise, I know). It seems that there is this idea that only morons who don't have the facts buy iPods. Well, I have the facts and I still voted iPod. Why? It is an elegant, attractive, and fully-integrated solution. Coming to this conclusion requires you keep a few points in mind:
1) iPod and iTunes are not separate in Apple's eyes. You can't really talk about one without the other. iPod+iTunes IS the whole product. Yes, you technically can use one without the other but this is NOT what Apple ever intended. This will naturally mean that trying to use one without the other is a pain in the ass. So saying that it's easier to use a non-Apple player with non-apple software is equivalent to telling me the sun will come up tomorrow. It's just like Apple operating systems vs. Apple hardware. You get both at the same time, not one or the other.
2) iTunes and the iTunes Music Store ARE separable entities. For example, I use iTunes exclusively but I do NOT buy tracks from the iTunes Music Store (because of the DRM). However, you cannot fool yourself into thinking the iTunes Music Store is anything other than LANDMARK. It is completely responsible for the extended online purchase options we have to today. It showed the music industry that a profit could be made while not inflating piracy beyond it's current state.
3) I, in fact, am very well aware of competing mp3 players to the iPod. But my main issue is integration between the player and the software used to manage my music library on my computer. I want to put a CD in my computer have *magic* happen. I never want to have to even think about music management. I want my music to show up on my player automatically. I want to open my music software and type what I'm looking for, and have it show up. If I want to send somebody a track I want to be able to pull it straight from the playlist to the desktop. iPod+iTunes does this wonderfully. Until recently such integration has been absent or severely lacking in the non-iPod+iTunes world.
4) I appreciate design and elegance. I want my music player to be as small as possible and as intuitive as possible. I don't want it to feel clunky. I don't want it to do a bunch of things I don't need or want.
5) I will never pay for a music subscription. Ever. I like owning things. (Thus no DRM tracks either, as I said before). Many people feel this way, usually try music enthusiasts. Now iTunes does not currently offer a subscription, but does anyone really think that if the demand seems to call for it that Apple won't simply "flick a switch" and offer subscriptions? Right now *most* people want to buy, not rent, so Apple is concentrating on that.
So, iPod+iTunes meets these criteria well. REALLY well. Maybe now some player+WMP 11 combination matches this, but I fail to see how finally doing something as WELL as the MARKET LEADER is anything to get excited about.
You can hate because you only like one half of the iPod+iTunes puzzle. If you like iPods but hate iTunes or like iTunes and hate iPods you are probably frustrated at the inability of one half of the equation to play well with non-Apple products. That's fine, but it's not really a reason iPods or iTunes "suck". Again, there is only one product here: iPod+iTunes. Hating iPods because of this is like hating your car because you can't get the back half to be a Camry and the front half to be an Accord.
However, bitching because Apple has put together a completely integrated solution (elegant software that goes with the elegant hardware) is just plain ignorant. If you don't like iTunes OR the iPod, get a different player+software combo. Simple.
This is my idea of DRM: the G in Urge is the perfect copy of the QuickTime logo.
For everyone who does appreciate their iPod+iTunes, and is interested in a subscription model, checkout pandora.com which works on both Windows and Mac... for FREE!
Does what subscription sites do best (find new music based on your tastes) with the same lossy output, but doesn't actually download to your harddrive (so no you can't put it on your iPod)
For owners of Apple's Airport Express wireless product, you can use Airfoil (for Mac and now in beta for Windows) to transmit Pandora's output from your browser of choice, to any place in your wireless network (or multiple airport's).
Tell me this isn't way better than just downloading subscriptions for $15/month... Essentially like having XM at home for now't!
The URGE website says it will launch on May 17th. What is this posting about and what are all these comments about? Who saw the damn interface to say it is better than itunes or not ?
-Go Open or stay Apple
I work at home, and as such I'm rarely in the car for long periods of time.
I have a subscription to Napster To Go.
I get to listen to pretty much any music I want, whenever I want, and if I'm out, either for walking the dog, working out, working in the yard, whatever, I can still listen to that same music.
It would take me about 10 years at $15/month in order to get even close to the amount of music I'm able to listen to. Then while I'd own it forever, I wouldn't be able to listen to anything else...
If I really like something and find myself listening to it over and over, I'll either buy the cd or purchase it.
$15 is so(only 10 for no mobile solution) small and meaningless over the course of a month that it's effectively free.
$0.50/day, to always have something new on that I'd never be able to find in a million years.
The biggest downfall to me in Napster is no really good recommendation system, at least not one that doesn't get me caught in a cycle.
So if Urge has a pretty good system, I'll simply switch over to their system. All the napster songs i've bought (maybe 2 or 3 albums worth in the past two years) will still work fine, and i'll be able to continue my habits.
If you're not at a computer most of the day, or you're taste in music isn't varied much, or you purchased an ipod, then the subscription model isn't for you.
But for me it's beyond perfect.
I don't like DRM and never buy singles. However, there comes a time when one wants to quickly download a song - the pre-release of Dani California and Speed of Sound are examples that spring to mind. However, I like to own the music and not just own the rights to a digital file - I like a physical CD with the album booklet. Music is an experience - it's about putting the vinyl in your record player or CD in the CD player and I think digitally downloading loses some of the preciousness of this. You don't have to care for a download in the same way.
The quality is also too low for these files to justify the price when it's so close to the price of the physical CDs at higher quality. There is also the matter of corruption of - if this happens there is no way to download again - you have to have backed up.
The convenience and price of these services and excellent but for me no service will ever replace a physical CD. I believe the subscription model will not work for me. I want to own my music - not rent it.
why do they even try to go up against iTunes.. but i do like that blue-ish black-ish face
Windows Media Player was leaked in beta form yesterday.
You can get it now!
Google it.
This whole discussion gives me the Urge to Wii - thanks #39 that rant was priceless!
I am so happy to see MS & MTV in bed together! Good things will come of this I am sure.
I only buy music from allofmp3.com take that RIAA. I bought my girlfriend a Creative Muvo TX FM. She likes it and I thought it would work with subscription services but apparently it doesn't. That is apparently a hardware issue. If these subscription services had no limits on the devices they'd work on, meaning subscribe to Urge and it works on EVERYTHING BUT IPODS, it could take off. Someone will sync their player to their computer at some point right? So why make the management of these files hardware based. Once you sync it up the songs phone home and if the subscription is cancelled the songs get removed.
OK, to all the ppl who are like "what does MTV know about music". You're stupid. Sorry, but this Viacom. Not just MTV, but ALL OF VIACOM. And they have access to just about every song and music video ever made. And they have TONS of music specific television programs as well as other special interest programming, and they have a pricing plan that allows 99c per song selling (anyone who thinks that they're not going to stick with 99c/song while Apple still has market dominance is out of their mind) as well as subscription service. And it's got a catchy name and VERY slick integration into WMP11 (I've been testing out the beta all day and I'm very impressed with it). So anyone who doesn't see this as a very serious bid of competition for the iTMS and doesn't welcome it (whether you've been waiting for a REAL windows music service or you're an iTunes user and finally see something that will force Apple to actually compete with someone and drop prices/increase service/etc) is on crack.
And this my personal opinion, but I've also always thought that WMP10 was better than iTunes 5/6 for various reasons (I've used both extensively for a time). WMP11 looks even better (fixes almost all of my problems with WMP10 so far). So I'm excited for it.
And really, nothing is going to be the death of anything. Both of the services/brands/solutions will exist in the market and they will compete, and somehow the world will go on.
Wow, Aqua-like interface !
Well well. We will see whether this goes or not. Too me it looks like Songbird. The subscribtion-model, hum... I don't know. It may be good but do they support song purchase? I don't know, but for me MTV feels just so 90's, so outdated. Everything they do get a touch of boringness. Maybe it's just me. Anyhow, MTV and Microsoft got a high hill to climb with this one.
...#77
iTunes it a REAL Windows Music service... URGE to me looks like any other NapsterClone out there. We well see if it flys :)
This is the first thing Microsoft has done in this area which makes any kind of sense. Took 'em long enough. How many meetings, I wonder, did it take to realize that integration is important, and then how many more to plan to prepare to get ready to do something? It will be interesting to see how it fares.
Jason, you need to get a life and let people choose what they like for themselves. No one answers to you, no one asks you, and your self-important attitude indicates it should stay that way. Do you think people enjoy it when you relate to them in this fashion? It's not going to get you anywhere. It's really quite sad. Worse than the "fanboys" you seem to be insane over.
Go on Microsoft - This WMP11 just shows all those MS haters that MS can come out with something that rips Apple limb from limb, functionality and style all in this perfectly designed peice of software, its a masterpiece, the holy grail of media players (ok, i think i'm going a bit too far with this, but u get the point)
subscription services are what they are. it's not as if anyone is going to completely replace their music buying habits with Urge or Rhapsody or any of the others. at the end of the day, it is better to own the CD. however, at 9.99 or 14.99 or whatever a month, it's about like saying for the price of one CD a month (a low number for me) you can preview 85% of the whole world of music you might think about buying. it's not a rip off, it's not a panacea. in this light, Urge is a perfectly fine offering.
I am trying out the free trial now and I must say that I am at least impressed that they are offering downloads at 192kbps.... sure beats 128kbps. Yes, I agree DRM sux, but it is slowly becoming a fact of life. The interface is a little sluggish, but I expect that may change as the software exits beta. The one neat thing is you can watch music videos without even joining the service...
You know, the thing that bugs me about people disagreeing with the subscription model is that purchasing/downloading is available with every subscription service. If you purchase and cancel your subcription, you can still listen to your WMVs. It works the exact same way as iTunes except you have a greater opportunity to explore more bands.
I've already test-driven the new URGE integrated with Windows Media Player. I was excited, but now I'm far from impressed. I've only been able to download one song so far without the player gettin frozen. And, it's almost impossible to download an album simultaneously. Not a fan.
am i the only one that hates Itunes? lol
This interface is pretty slick. Could be faster but its beta. It already kicks YME & Napsters ass tho. those clients REALLY suck. imho
the thing is that people will gladly fork over $12.95 a month to XM or sirus for satellite radio subscription but then complain that URGE or Rhapsody are pointless and you lose the music when you cancel. So what's the difference between that and satellite radio? if there's music you truly love, then you can buy that for keeps on a CD. but a subscription music service just opens up a whole wide world of music that you could never afford before. for example, i transfered a 145 song playlist of music specifically from 1989-1997 alternative. it's so great to hear all that awesome music again that i remember from high school and college. but i didn't have to buy literally 60 albums to get those 145 songs. heck, i didn't even have to spend $145 to buy each track from itunes. there are a couple of artists in that playlist that i would like to buy their CDs for keeps, but not nearly all of them. so i'll buy those 2-3 CDs and continue to subscribe so i can listen to anything i want for about 50 cents a day.
i just don't see what is so wrong with a subscription service. i have never liked pop music and hate top 40 music so i also don't see that subscription only offers "crap". there's probably 85% of all music in circulation right now on these subscription services including very obscure tracks.