Slashdot Mirror
New RIM Streaming Music: $5 For 50 Songs?
jfruhlinger writes with news that Research In Motion will soon jump into the music service market. The service will be available through BlackBerry Messenger, and will offer users 50 songs for $5/month, which they can then share with other people who own BlackBerries.
"So why would anyone pay $5 a month to get 50 songs on their phone, when they can pay $10 a month and get an unlimited number of songs, that work on lots of different devices, from services like Rdio and Rhapsody? Reasonable question! But RIM seems to be assuming that its subscribers won’t ask. Instead it is playing up the notion that BBM Music will be about 'personalizing' your phone, in the same way that ringtones supposedly did a decade ago. Ringtones, as you’ll recall, let buyers play a few seconds of a song, and sold for a couple bucks, while full songs from Apple’s iTunes went for 99 cents. And for a few years, the music companies and the wireless carriers sold lots and lots of ringtones."
Or you can wait a few months and buy 50 shares of RIM for $5. How much does a deathknell ringtone cost?
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
This is exactly what I need! More DRM'd music stores which most likely won't even have many of the bands I listen to! And not only are these DRM'd in the fact I have to listen to them in a cross-platform player but instead I have to stick to the same brand of phone! Sounds like one great deal to me!
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Are you nuts? We used to buy songs on plastic discs, called RECORDS, in the 1970's for 99c!!!
Before going down the 3rd time, a drowning man thrashes harder than ever.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
It is all just how people market music. It used to be that bands recorded albums and you generally bought albums. There really weren't many distinct "tracks" you put it on your record player and listened to it all the way through (and then played it backwards and listened to satanic messages). Things have slowly changed to track-oriented albums and now to the single. When it first came out, of course paying 99 cents for a song was a deal because music was usually offered only as a full CD, but there were only 1 or 2 songs worth listening to on that CD. Today, everything is a single online.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Don't know why you were downvoted. Your tone was awful but your point was very accurate. Music is overpriced and has been for a while.
"What about this."
"We're RIM. You want this."
"No. Seriously. What about this?
"We're RIM. You want this."
Newsflash RIM. You've been resting on the fact that you were a big dog in the early professional mobile market. That's not going to save you. It's the only reason you haven't bailed from the market already. It's not going to slow your plummet anymore.
So get back to work and FOR FUCK'S SAKE...INNOVATE. Otherwise, take your place along other relics such as Microsoft Bob. The Lisa. The Osborne 2. Get the picture?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
That isn't Apple's model. That is the normal way of buying music that Apple only adopted after facing pressure from the community and competition from Amazon and others.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
This isn't aimed at the corporate blackberry users. BBM is the new pager (remember those?) - the messaging of choice for low class drug dealers and their customers. Think the London Rioters. They loooove them some BBM, and might go for $5/mo for 50 songs, which is 10 more than you need for the top 40 regurgitated R&B hits.
This is a very bad deal for anyone who would actually read slashdot, but I can't say it's completely a horrible idea for RIM.
So evil Apple constructing a mechanism that allowed users to legally license songs for a buck, instead of simply using the music for free. Many complained that Apple users were still stealing music even though they were paying instead of just taking.
Then evil Apple created a phone that ultimately allowed users to bypass the phone companies and load music and trivially create and load custom ringtones at no charge and browse the web without telco interference.
RIM is the last major party playing the game in which the Telco is held above the end user. The $5 is to be billed by the telco and serves as a bribe to the telco. Apple does not share revenue for music. Due to certain corporate features, RIM may have some success.
MS ans Android is somewhere in between the user centered Apple and the telco centered RIM. MS does not have the power to give user what they want in spite of the telcos, and therefore even though they provide a more user centered expereince, they do not provide enough value to the cell companies. Android could, but the OEM still play in the world where volume matters, and therefor must keep the cell companies happy, even if the end user does not gain maximum value. So we have RIM, which provides corporate value, and Apple which focuses on the end user. I hope both continue to prosper, while Android and MS fight it up.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
99 cents for a song isn't extortion. At worst, it's a price somewhat higher than you'd like it to be. The fact that you have the ability to take something without paying doesn't mean that someone is extorting you by asking that you give them a dollar as a reward for their hard work.
Subscribe to *music*? I don't think so.
It's audio-on-demand. There are definitely times where that is pretty slick.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
But why not just go to YouTube and stream it from there? Surely there has to be a decent YouTube viewer that lets you run the app and the audio in the background.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I prefer having a playlist.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
So now 10 cents is too much to pay for a song? What's outrageous is being charged 20 cents for a freaking text message.
Let's do some math, based on my personal collection. I have 7,677 songs, only a small minority of which (~400) are Creative Commons or public domain. If I were to rent those from RIM, that would be... $770 per month. Even by RIAA standards, that's extortionate.
But, you say, I don't actually listen to all those songs. You're probably right. Let's trim out the ones I gave 1 or 2 star ratings (my entire collection is methodically tagged), the ones I only have because they came on an album with other songs, or even just to complete an artist's collection. That cuts things down to 6254 songs, or $630. Still way too high.
Again, you repeat, I probably don't listen to all of those in one month. In fact, so far this month I have listened to a mere 727 songs. Adjust for the length of the month, and that comes out to 1090 songs/month, or $110. Which is still too much for me to pay, but maybe someone will. Sucker born every minute and all that.
So let's say I only rent my very favorite songs, the one's I've given the full five-star rating. That's 70 songs (I'm very conservative with that rating), two of which are CC-licensed, and one more that is copyrighted but not available for sale. Still, that would be $10 a month, for my favorite songs and a few variations each month. Which isn't competitive with other streaming services, and isn't even really competitive with buying permanently from any popular store - those 70 songs would cost ~$70-100 to own forever, or a few month's worth of streaming.
Why would anyone willing choose a Lackberry, let alone an overpriced service through RIM, unless they'd been required by their employer or conditioned by previous experience?
#!/bin/bash
echo RIM are confused by the market
echo RIM don't know what to produce
echo RIM think that everybody likes Blackberry's
echo RIM can't accept that you would prefer another mobile
#!C
#include "staff.h"
#include "key.h"
#include "tempo.h"
#define poem RIMisRIM
a poem() {
RIM is RIM not Rim nor rim
tis why we stick them in
but
so where to put-it do we
}
#!/bin/bash
echo Can you guess what's in the headers??
-- The Grand Teddy Bear has Spoken: "Windows 8 Source Code Available NOW! more disgusting than your pr..."
Except that Steve Jobs publicly said that Apple would use non-DRM'ed music in February 6, 2007 and Apple offered EMI tracks in non-DRM'ed format starting May 29, 2007. Amazon didn't launch the public beta of their store until September 25, 2007 and it went live January 2008. I can't see how at least several months before Amazon == after.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
For some of us, $.99 for 12 albums - with the obligation to buy just one more during the following year (at a much higher price, of course). I wonder if, or how that model might fly today? Maybe 50 albums for 99c, & buy two more?
It really is too hard to say "tell me more", isn't it?
That's funny in light of the accusation that I'm incapable of good social interaction.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I would consider buying this as long as the selection is good enough. There are plenty of times I have wanted to listen to a certain song and was away from my pc or it was a song I did not have. 10 cents is not a bad price for this.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
It's almost as if he was exaggerating the point by using a simile! The nerve of some people.
There is nothing for me to apologize for. You, however, are fighting to maintain your ignorance. That's not something to wear with pride.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
That isn't Apple's model. That is the normal way of buying music that Apple only adopted after facing pressure from the community and competition from Amazon and others.
Spin history any way you want. The truth is, Jobs penned his famous "Open Letter" a full year before Amazon opened Amazon MP3. It just took Jobs a little longer to work out the details and hammer out the details, since they had a lot more deals with a lot more labels, already in place.
RIM is laying off a fair amount of their workforce. Coming up with the worst ideas possible. The tablet is crap, the phones are old tech and horrible. This is their newest idea? The future for RIM looks bleak. Hell I can use subsonic and stream my whole music library to my phone or any web browser for nothing.
How much of that $770 would get passed on to the performers or writers? With some operations (mostly ring tones) that answer was $0 and assuming this bunch are going to be honest it's probably still going to be a single digit. There's a very good reason why the music industry looks a lot like organised crime and that's due to some of the same players being involved in both. Buy those CDs at the merch table after the show or off the performers web sites, it's the only way performers are going to get a decent cut.
You might want to look into Rhapsody or Napster. I have accounts with both and they each have their pros and cons. I think Rhapsody's player, iPhone support, and search engine are better, but I like that Napster also gives you MP3 credits so you get song downloads, too.
To be honest, the most appealing thing about the music subscription for me (besides the instant access to virtually everything) is that I don't have to maintain a multi-gig collection of files anywhere. That's not for everybody but I fly around so many different machines it's worth it to me.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
It was almost pure profit since in nearly every case the performers/composers got nothing. Only a few dozen suckers and they'd got all their money back from sampling or doing it in midi. It's like spam, the cost of getting it out there is low so they only need to find a few suckers to make it worth it.
If it where anyone else putting this out, it would be heralded as the second coming of the music generation. Since it is RIM, the knee-jerk reaction is to slam it, without understanding what it is.
Critical analysis is lost when it comes to RIM
-- I care not for your foolish signatures.
and how long is a 'song' ?
Some artists have different ideas about that.
In the days of vinyl and also cassette tapes, a song could be around 22 and a half minutes. (and an album would be divided into 2 parts, (eg Hergest Ridge) or a double album could be 4 parts (Incantations)
Then CD's came along and a 'song' could be up to 74 minutes (something to do with one of Beethovens symphonies)
I don't have any songs that long, but I do have one nearly an hour long (Amarok)
So I don't mind paying just under $10 per hour of music as long as I can move it to other devices, and listen to it as many times as I want. But I won't pay to just 'rent' music.
Probably because it was arrogant and ignorant. 99 cents in 1970 comes out to a lot more than 99 cents does today. Plus that was before most of the income redistribution occurred, when folks had a pension waiting for them at retirement.
Maybe because $10 is twice $5, and you don't have the right to share?
Sheesh. For people for whom this matters, I think they'll do one of two things:
1. Look at RIM's offerings, and look at spotify (which isn't available for BB phones). A spotify phone is going to win out.
2. Buy a BB, without knowing about spotify. Eventually, they'll run into someone with a spotify-capable phone, at which point they'll probably feel like a ginormous "L" has been stamped on their forehead. That should help future BB sales. Not.
Wow, after I do the Princess Bride line, you're going to set me up so perfectly with that blatant misuse of the word "simile"? It's too easy...
So you listen constantly to music you don't like? Maybe you should just turn the speakers off and save yourself the money(if you're actually paying anthing int the first place). Car analogy time. Imagine renting Yugos over and over again, just hoping that you will accidentally get a DB Vanquish. Save your time and just buy music you like and if you just think you like music but in reality do not then stop listening to music.
Someone wrote, performed, and recorded a song. If you would like to be able to listen to their work whenever you want, pay $0.99 for it (which is 1/2 of the cost of a fricking cup of coffee these days, and that will last you about an hour until you pee it out).
Did they force you to download it and now demand money or they will break your fingers? No? Then it's not extortion.
I don't get why people complain about this stuff so much. It's a completely elective entertainment expense, you decide if it's worth it and either buy it or don't...
So what question did you want him to ask?
One reply could have been "Did you know YouTube has playlists? If so, why isn't their solution good enough for you?"
If he had said "Are you aware that youtube has a playlist?" instead of calling you a noob, would you still have said "I'm aware of it. My answer is the same."?
Nope. I really am tired of the know-it-all attitude around here on Slashdot. Nobody ever really asks questions anymore, they just make statements. This means we have arguments instead of discussions. It's tiresome and quite obviously a ploy to get the word 'Insightful' to appear next to their posts.
Nobody is going to play 20 questions with you to figure out what the fuck you want us to ask you...
Uh huh. Given that you've already quoted the bit where he called me a n00b, this statement here makes me question who I'm really talking to.
"what's wrong with youtube's playlist?"
Thank you!
Youtube's "playlist" is just a list of videos. You can play with the order and that's about it. A music playlist, like one you use with Rhapsody, has tags for who made the song, where it came from, the genre, and all that jazz. It affects your music selection. Rhapsody, in particular, is nice in that you can mark songs you like with your own personal star rating. This makes it easier to, say, find a whole cache of music you might want to listen to, let it run through a few times, then tick them with a few stars to indicate that you like them.
The reason to use music-on-demand is not to maintain the library you have, but to find new stuff to make your library grow. YouTube is terrible for it and it's idea of a 'playlist' is a major inhibitor.
Thanks for asking, have a nice weekend.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
99 cents is over priced.
If an album has 15 songs. That is $15 for the album.... when I can go out and buy the physical cd for $12. So why is it more expensive to buy something that doesn't require shipping, packaging, manufacturing, distribution, no liner notes, or a physical case and disc?
Songs should be no more than 50 cents each.
I guess that's why buying the full album is usually couple bucks cheaper than it would be to buy each song individually. (I'm checking ITMS for this; not sure about other stores.) I agree, though--it feels like prices should be lower, since there's no physical media involved. Unlike many here, however, I don't mind companies having profit margins. Making songs cost 1c would be unprofitable--which means a lot less would be made (okay, that might actually be a good thing, but I digress).
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Back in the 1970s, 99 cents is closer to $6 now. $6 was a decent chunk of change back then.
But if you don't buy enough songs, you get on the list where they sue you and accuse you publicly of possessing child pornography. And that is extortion.
"95% of all Slashdot
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because albums always have a few crap songs on them as filler.
Whoo-doggie! A knockdown, dragout, 3-page nerd slap-fight about semantics! Never change, Slashdot.
Sleep is futile.
It's almost as if he was exaggerating the point by using a simile! The nerve of some people.
It's pretty obvious you need to go to Simile School.
#DeleteChrome
asking that you give them a dollar for distributing someone else's work
There, fixed that for ya.
Don't be too harsh; at least he tried to use the right word, instead of calling everything a metaphor, like most people.
It warms an old grammar nazi's heart, doesn't it?
How does he "keep" using that word - he used it only once?
But you got not just one, but two songs for those 99 cents. Unless I get a B-side with my MP3, I think it is still less value, even for 99 1975-cents.
unless demand falls outside of that 50 songs...
Erm yeah, I was unclear. I haven't tried RIM's service. I'm a Rhapsody subscriber, their service is unlimited. Napster is like that, too. I can't imagine preferring the 50 song approach.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Dude, you were wrong. No big deal. He was kinda a douche with the noob retort, but you don't need to get so defensive.
-- Flame me and I will happily flame you back. Bring it!
Check my post here.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
$12 for the physical CD was almost always way too much. With *some* exceptions (The Beatles and a few other big bands), you couldn't get them, but the vast vast majority of my 300+ CDs were from CD clubs, and I averaged under $6 apiece, including the ridiculous "shipping" charge. (Other big bands, like U2, weren't exceptions, and I got them through CD clubs.)
Unfortunately, BMG closed down and sort of turned into yourmusic.com, which also just closed down. Though I have I think around 200 free song codes from the "pepsi loot" phone app, as I happen to be within range of a restaurant when at work, so get 20 free songs a month for doing almost nothing.
When I can get spotify?
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
...for anything related to Blackberry?
When I had a Blackberry, I was astounded at how there were almost no apps, how terrible the browser was, the low build quality (three clit transplants in two years? really?), and how horribly obtuse configuring just about anything with it was.
The only thing it had over the iPhone and Android? The bill went to my employer. When policy changed and that was no longer the case, there was no possibility I'd ever touch RIM again.
Wouldn't it have been better if you had have instead asked: "Is there some way to get more functionality out of a youtube playlist that I don't know about?" Or even "Youtube playlists do not offer the functionality that I want". Both would have indicated that you knew that Youtube had playlists, unlike your actual comment. The first would have the added benefit of keeping with your statement that people on slashdot should ask more questions instead of making statement trying to get insightful mods. You are correct though; simply posing that statement in the form of a question or more informatively would have avoided that whole argument.
Except that the copyright law gives copyright holders the ability to add DRM if they wish. In the case of music companies, that is what they wanted having been caught off guard by the rise of Napster. Apple wanting to sell digital music had to come up with a system to their liking. It wasn't until that the music companies realized Apple had become powerful because of the DRM that they relinquished.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Yep, you're right. I've just had my fill of combative statements. "Im going to assume you're a clueless moron, make a statement built on that premise, and even if you prove yourself I'll stick with it until the end."
It gets old. Im no saint, either.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Apple didn't sell the first non-DRMed music. Apple didn't even exist when the first non-DRMed music was sold. In point of fact, non-DRM music was sold for nearly a hundred years before there even was such a thing as digital encoded music, much less the digital rights management to protect it.
Selling music dates back to Edison's recorded cylinders in the late 1800s and there was certainly no digital rights management embedded in the wax cylinders. Selling non-DRMed music is not a new thing.
In addition, your assertion that copyright law gives copyright holders the ability to add DRM is ridiculous and completely wrong (in addition to being completely irrelevant to the discussion).
Copyright law doesn't give the ability to add DRM. No law ever prevented adding DRM to music, so copyright owners have had the ability to do so since DRM was invented. No law had to be added to 'give' them that ability.
tl;dr: You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop making a fool of yourself in public.
Apple didn't sell the first non-DRMed music. Apple didn't even exist when the first non-DRMed music was sold. In point of fact, non-DRM music was sold for nearly a hundred years before there even was such a thing as digital encoded music, much less the digital rights management to protect it.
My point if it wasn't clear is if you want to sell digital downloadable music is that you have to get permission of the copyright holders. See In this case, the music companies would not allow Apple nor anyone to do so without DRM. Copyright Law says the copyright holder controls the distribution of their works and DRM was their stipulation. It was the same requirement for MS in their PlaysForSure, Apple in FairPlay, etc. Now if Apple wanted to sell physical CDs online then they didn't need to any DRM but that's not what they wanted to do.
Selling music dates back to Edison's recorded cylinders in the late 1800s and there was certainly no digital rights management embedded in the wax cylinders. Selling non-DRMed music is not a new thing.
I never said DRM was always in music since the time of Edison so your point is rather irrelevant.
In addition, your assertion that copyright law gives copyright holders the ability to add DRM is ridiculous and completely wrong (in addition to being completely irrelevant to the discussion).
Copyright law doesn't give the ability to add DRM. No law ever prevented adding DRM to music, so copyright owners have had the ability to do so since DRM was invented. No law had to be added to 'give' them that ability.
See US copyright law Title 17, Chapter 10 and Chapter 12. Yes it is up to the copyright owners to choose to add DRM and trust me, they wanted to add it.
tl;dr: You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Please stop making a fool of yourself in public.
I suggest you do some basic research before calling other people names.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.