3 ms·
This is "free" as in "pay a fixed fee up front for a license that lasts until the hardware breaks". Interesting dilemma. The labels will want to make it for so
by jws 19y ago
This is "free" as in "pay a fixed fee up front for a license that lasts until the hardware breaks".
Interesting dilemma. The labels will want to make it for some tracks only and make others be pay per track. Apple will probably want "all of the artist's tracks in iTunes". That could make an incentive for the labels to keep material out of iTunes.
- caudicus 19y agoWhich is frankly fine with me. I mean, I use Rhapsody via a web browser on my mac to listen to music because I can just pay a fixed fee per month and listen to a lot of good music. Some tracks are not streamable, yes. In addition, Rhapsody for a while has promoted a service called "Rhapsody To Go" which lets you download music to a compatible MP3 player (no iPods) and listen to it on that as long as you maintain a subscription. My point being this model is well hashed out. It is really only a matter of time until Apple jumps on this. In terms of the hardware pricing, they'll probably set up some kind of a subscription service pricing model (as that is the existing model) and then derive pricing on hardware based on that, if they go that route. But subscription based is the simplest to market and understand.