Paul Thurrott quotes MacNewsWorld in a recent blurb at Paul Thurrott’s Internet-Nexus, “What if you could pay a flat monthly fee to download as many songs as you want and transfer them to your music player — but they’d only be playable for a certain length of time? In effect, you’d be able to use your subscription to pack your music player as full as it can get — but with rented tunes. Before you dismiss the concept out of hand, consider this: Microsoft is exploring it.”
Thurrott writes, “Microsoft isn’t ‘exploring’ it, they’re rolling it out, as are Microsoft’s partners, such as Napster and Virgin Music. Again, this is an example of a place where Apple is falling behind. If they don’t adopt a subscription model, we’re going to see the Macification of the iTunes Music Store this year.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: If any other service gets even remotely close to iTunes’ success (hasn’t happened, yet), what’s stopping Apple from adding this option if it proved popular with consumers? Songs and music are listened to repeatedly. By contrast, most movies are usually watched once. Movies are more conducive to the rental model (Blockbuster), but music-for-rent doesn’t strike us as a great idea. Do you think “renting” your music will prove more popular than “owning” your own music?