Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Considering Subsidizing Zune Sales

Posted by Zonk on from the nothing-else-has-worked-why-not dept.

grouchomarxist writes "Microsoft is considering selling the Zune subsidized like a cellphone, according to an excerpt on MarketWatch from a PC World magazine interview with Microsoft's Zune marketing director, Jason Reindorp. According to the article: 'The spokesman said that Microsoft first considered the cellphone-like distribution plan after seeing interest in its Zune Pass subscription service, which offers monthly paid access to songs on the Zune Marketplace, a competitor to Apple's iTunes store. Though he declined to say how many subscribers currently use Zune Pass, the spokesman said subscriptions rose 65% during January.'"

11 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    "the spokesman said subscriptions rose 65% during January."

    So... that's 165 people?

    1. Re:So... by peragrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even if it is 165,000 people it's not that big of a deal. Apple is selling millions of ipods.

      The fact is the subscription music plan just sucks. It's like paying for radio. XM and sirus have a good idea, but very few people are willing to shell out money for music that stops playing when they stop paying.

      It is a nice market, and always will be.

      The best part of itunes is that it has more than just songs. I don't own an ipod. I just don't like any of the models and I am not impressed with any other music player either. But I still shop at iTunes. I grab the Battlestar galactica or Hero's episodes I missed and forgot to tivo.

      I then unplug my monitor's dvi connector, and plug in my tv's dvi cable.

      Even the simple 640x480 resolution they sell looks good on a 23" HDTV. not spectacular but better than the regular tv reception I get.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:So... by encoderer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. Music subscription services are pretty popular. Perhaps you don't like it, but I've turned many people on to it and I've gotten a lot of positive feedback from friends and family. You're not paying for music thats stops playing when you stop paying. You're paying to listen to HUGE, GIGANTIC libraries of ANY SONG YOU WANT, whenever you want, wherever you want.

      Your comment like saying "Nobody would PAY for Cable Television. It makes no sense. Few people are willing to shell out money for television that stops playing when they stop paying"

      2. Your comment about iTMS having TV & movies is funny. Are you actually suggesting that a subscription model wouldn't work well for TV shows? I mean, what makes you think that MSFT couldn't offer TV as part of their subscription price in the future? When iTMS launched they didn't have TV in the beginning, either. You do realize that people have been buying into the subscription-model for TV for, oh, 30 years now?

      3. I love my iPod and I love iTMS. But as soon as I realized that I couldn't burn my TV purchases and that there was no "PlayFair" for video DRM I refused to give them another cent. Their video DRM is hideous and unacceptable. Imagine if FairPlay refused to let you burn them to CD. Well, THATS the kind of service you're paying for. $2 for 22 minutes of video that is crippled beyond all usefulness.

    3. Re:So... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're paying to listen to HUGE, GIGANTIC libraries of ANY SONG YOU WANT, whenever you want, wherever you want. Agreed. And one of the biggest mistakes is that it hasn't been marketed that way.

      Subscription services are trying to compete with stores. Stores basically say, "Come here and buy your favorite music." That's great. I want to buy my favorite music. But how do I know if I like a song?

      So how do you sell a subscription service? To me, the answer is the second part of the name: Service

      Suppose I pay $15 per month to have access to any songs I want. But what songs do I want? I'm not going to go through a catalog of 2 or 3 million songs and figure out what's good and what sucks! I have better things to do with my day! And I already own my favorite songs on CD, so I'm certainly not going to rent them again. So what do I get from the subscription model? Absolutely nothing. I still have to do all the work.

      So make it a real service. Do some research. Use other people's research. Come up with genre playlists and let people subscribe to them. Find worthwhile podcasts and hire/pay people to make them daily/weekly and let people subscribe to them. Promote hot DJs at hot clubs by letting them come up with weekly playlists and let people subscribe to them. Build playlists from Billboard, Radio & Records, etc. and let people subscribe to them. And, of course, let "regular people" build lists of music and let people subscribe to them. Heck, build playlists based upon my ripped CDs and let me subscribe to them.

      Then let me build my own playlists of music and playlists. I might want to build a playlist of Billboard's Top 40 along with this song from your collection, this song from my CD, and Club DJ Wugmeister's mix. I might build another playlist of Radio & Record's Adult Contemporary listings, along with my Barry Manilow collection (from CD), the latest ABC News podcast, and WJAZ's Smooth Jazz playlist.

      The "Here's our whole catalog--you figure it out" model isn't bringing them in droves because it's too much work. I'm not going to pay $15 per month for access to a mind-numbingly large collection of music. But I might pay that much if the subscription service actually provides a service where I automatically get new music that I might actually want to listen to!
    4. Re:So... by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So make it a real service. Do some research. Use other people's research. Come up with genre playlists and let people subscribe to them. Find worthwhile podcasts and hire/pay people to make them daily/weekly and let people subscribe to them. Promote hot DJs at hot clubs by letting them come up with weekly playlists and let people subscribe to them. Build playlists from Billboard, Radio & Records, etc. and let people subscribe to them. And, of course, let "regular people" build lists of music and let people subscribe to them. Heck, build playlists based upon my ripped CDs and let me subscribe to them.

      This is so right that I just want to scream at the morons in the music business for not getting a system like this set up. The really revolutionary part is that each user can manage sets of subscriptions on their own personal device and they are not limited by a fixed number of "channels" or any other holdovers from the radio days and since each user is paying the same subscriber fee there is more of an incentive to cater to all of the various niches out there since the real cost is in setting up and running the service, but once it is all set up and going there is almost no cost to add additional niche programs, eclectic playlists, and off-beat selections ala the Amazon.com com and Craigslist list based systems. The system would not even need to have only human DJs, it could use AI and have intelligent agent programs making playlists and selections based upon live user feedback, random, shuffle, etc...it is really wide open possibilities. The only explanation that I can think of is that the music execs are either too greedy, too stupid, or both to get this type of system up and running.

      In the meantime you might want to check out Digitally Imported and A State of Trance w/Armin Van Buurenfor some of the features that I have described above.

      The "Here's our whole catalog--you figure it out" model isn't bringing them in droves because it's too much work. I'm not going to pay $15 per month for access to a mind-numbingly large collection of music. But I might pay that much if the subscription service actually provides a service where I automatically get new music that I might actually want to listen to!

      Yes, Yes, Yes! If there are any music industry people reading this then PAY ATTENTION...THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. Sigh, they just don't get it.

  2. Zune Meme Prediction (From October) by broward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As predicted in October, 2006, based on keyword rate-of-change, Zune is a flop.

    http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme/?entr y=zune_meme_rerun

    I believe the Microsoft attempted a viral marketing / meme manipulation scheme over the Internet, but I can't prove it. It's getting harder and harder to "advertise", partly because of the flood of information from the IT age, partly due to increasing resistence to memetic propagation.

    http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme/?entr y=zune_meme_successful_prediction_so

  3. Worked great for the XBox by ObligatoryUserName · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Subsidising the cost of hardware in the hopes of making up the money on content has worked wonders for the profits of the XBox division...

    I know, this is a different business model, but it looks like J Allard just trying to do what's "worked" in the past.

  4. On the contrary! by parvenu74 · · Score: 4, Funny

    With MS dropping the price, and with Apple/EMI selling non-DRM AAC tracks (which the Zune supports), MS should be able to sell literally DOZENS more of these bad boys!

  5. Check out Google Trends for "zune" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.google.com/trends?q=zune&ctab=0&geo=all &date=all

    The news items that have been picked out are priceless (in chronological order):
            -Microsoft Confirms Zune
            -Microsoft Unveils Zune
            -Microsoft launches Zune
            -Zune misses top-10 sales list
            -Zune Executive to Leave Microsoft

    1. Re:Check out Google Trends for "zune" by Steve--Balllmer · · Score: 4, Funny
      you forgot the last one...

      -Zune Executive found dead due to acute "deceleration of chair to head"

  6. Isn't this illegal? by Fross · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A company using money gained from another field in order to price something artificially low so as to stifle competition - i thought that was monopolistic and anti-competitive. Certainly supermarkets (here in the Uk at least) are prohibited from selling things artificially lower than cost in order to force out small businesses - why doesn't the same apply here?

    If Apple happened to ONLY make iPods, and Microsoft subsidised the Zune's sales, wouldn't they be trying to force Apple out of the market, by using their huge capital gained from software? That sounds illegal to me.