Hands-on with the Zune Pass subscription music service
by Ed Bott | November 24, 2008 6:22am PST | Image 1 of 11
Previous | Next
This Zune collection is partly rented
Click image to display full-size.
The new Zune software, released earlier this week, offers a gorgeous user interface and an impressively smooth end-to-end experience. And unlike Apple's iTunes store, you can build a library of unlimited size for a flat monthly fee.
For the full story, see: Why the new Zune Pass should be irresistible
The new Zune software, released earlier this week, offers a gorgeous user interface and an impressively smooth end-to-end experience. And unlike Apple's iTunes store, you can build a library of unlimited size for a flat monthly fee.
For the full story, see: Why the new Zune Pass should be irresistible
Just In
Where are the iPeople that usually crawl out of the woodwork when anything MS-related are posted? Why are they not doing the usual brain-dead knee-jerk MS bashing we constantly see around here?
'Coz even all those crazy iPeople know when something is really too good.
Atleast, they have the brains to figure out that its better to keep your shut when there is nothing that your daddy [Apple] can do to help you!
Atleast, they have the brains to figure out that its better to keep your shut when there is nothing that your daddy [Apple] can do to help you!
I'm hooked into not only music but all the podcasts, tv
shows, movies, etc. I don't buy music all the time since I
already own over 6300 songs. I also use Apple TV and my
kids love to watch their tv shows on it. I use an iPhone so it
all works together beautifully. Your not going to get people
to switch just to save a little on music. It's not all about
music. I recently bought Enya's new album without even
listening to the samples so sometimes you know what you
want.
shows, movies, etc. I don't buy music all the time since I
already own over 6300 songs. I also use Apple TV and my
kids love to watch their tv shows on it. I use an iPhone so it
all works together beautifully. Your not going to get people
to switch just to save a little on music. It's not all about
music. I recently bought Enya's new album without even
listening to the samples so sometimes you know what you
want.
A clear example of uninformed bashing.... It is quite apparent that you haven't even tried the Zune software because if you have, it will be very clear that its implementation of podcatching is outstanding compared to iTunes. It has its own tab/section specifically for podcasts, and it is flawless. If the iPod and/or iTunes work for you, then by all means go for it; but please spare us rational people of your ignorant rants & mindless bashing of anything without that fruity logo. If you choose to be a blind follower of the pompous, egoist/egotist Steve Jobs, do not expect us to do the same.
I'm a Zune supporter and absolutely love it. I don't think the OP was bashing MS at all. He was just stating that the has an Apple ecosystem and he sees no reason to mess with it. I to have my Zune, my Vista PC, and will soon get an XBox 360 to complete my MS ecosystem. I too see no reason to switch to Apple because what I have works very well for me.
Let me be clear: I do not want to rent music. Let me repeat: I
do not want to rent music.
Thank you
do not want to rent music.
Thank you
[Warning: This post contains non-flattering references to Steve Jobs. Sensitive iPuds might want to avoid reading further]
I have some sad news for you: You don't "own" the music you paid for. Go read your license agreement. If you really owned the music you paid for you will be able to turn around and legally sell it again as if it was your own, which you can't, since you never really owned it to begin with. Just because His Steveness tells you "own" it doesn't mean you actually do. Psych. The only thing you "own" is the right to listen to the music. So how exactly is that different then?
And I guess you missed the part about the 10 songs you get to "own" each month. So for $15 a month, you not only get to "own" 10 songs, but you also get to listen to as many songs as you can, for as long as you can, in full quality and full length. With a Zune pass, when you browse the online music catalog and decide to listen to any of the online songs, you stream the full length, full quality song, not the 30 second, mono, low quality junk His Highness allows you to hear. I don't understand how you can pay for a song when all you have to go on initially is a 30 second, low quality mono clip. It is things like this that people just don't realize. Kinda like people that don't have TiVo. No matter how many times you explain it to them, the only time they finally get it is when they get a TiVo themselves.
So, can you explain to me what exactly it is about "owning" a song that is so much better than a subscription song? What exactly can you do with that song that I can't with my songs? Oh yea, burning to a CD. Uhm, the last time I wanted to do that was, let's see, years ago.
I have some sad news for you: You don't "own" the music you paid for. Go read your license agreement. If you really owned the music you paid for you will be able to turn around and legally sell it again as if it was your own, which you can't, since you never really owned it to begin with. Just because His Steveness tells you "own" it doesn't mean you actually do. Psych. The only thing you "own" is the right to listen to the music. So how exactly is that different then?
And I guess you missed the part about the 10 songs you get to "own" each month. So for $15 a month, you not only get to "own" 10 songs, but you also get to listen to as many songs as you can, for as long as you can, in full quality and full length. With a Zune pass, when you browse the online music catalog and decide to listen to any of the online songs, you stream the full length, full quality song, not the 30 second, mono, low quality junk His Highness allows you to hear. I don't understand how you can pay for a song when all you have to go on initially is a 30 second, low quality mono clip. It is things like this that people just don't realize. Kinda like people that don't have TiVo. No matter how many times you explain it to them, the only time they finally get it is when they get a TiVo themselves.
So, can you explain to me what exactly it is about "owning" a song that is so much better than a subscription song? What exactly can you do with that song that I can't with my songs? Oh yea, burning to a CD. Uhm, the last time I wanted to do that was, let's see, years ago.
If you really owned the music you paid for you will be able to turn around and legally sell it again as if it was your own, which you can't, since you never really owned it to begin with.
You can sell the music you bought, just like you can with CDs. The thing you can't do is keep a copy for yourself.
The problem with subscription services is that if the service folds, you don't have anything to show for it. The only difference between that and paying for radio is that you get to determine what you play.
You can sell the music you bought, just like you can with CDs. The thing you can't do is keep a copy for yourself.
The problem with subscription services is that if the service folds, you don't have anything to show for it. The only difference between that and paying for radio is that you get to determine what you play.
Why exactly would it be a problem if the service folds? If it does I can find a different subscription service and once again download all the songs I want, all the while still paying the same flat rate. What, won't they have the same songs? Since the whole premise of a subscription service is that I don't pretend (like you do with a pay-per-song model) to own anything to begin with, I also can't lose anything. What I do have to "show" for the time I subscribe to the service is the endless amount of music I got to listen to during that time, with very little out-of-pocket money. How is that a bad thing? If I ended up listening to more music than someone else that has to pay for each song in order to "own" it, but I also paid less, then how am I worse off?
I think the problem is that people are either not thinking this through, or they are so brainwashed by His Steveness telling them they really do want to "own" the music that they can't tell a good deal from a bad deal anymore.
I suspect people are just dissing this because they are stuck with all the music they invested in with their iPods and can't get themselves to admit that this is a better deal.
I think the problem is that people are either not thinking this through, or they are so brainwashed by His Steveness telling them they really do want to "own" the music that they can't tell a good deal from a bad deal anymore.
I suspect people are just dissing this because they are stuck with all the music they invested in with their iPods and can't get themselves to admit that this is a better deal.
Why exactly would it be a problem if the service folds? If it does I can find a different subscription service and once again download all the songs I want, all the while still paying the same flat rate. What, won't they have the same songs?
Well, in fact, they may not have the same songs. Not every label is on board with every service. And some artists individually sign deals with certain services. (Guns 'n Roses, for example, did this with Best Buy releasing "Chinese Democracy".)
And the other problem with a subscription service is that you keep paying for music, rather than paying for it once. That means that if the price suddenly shoots up, or if the cost of a minimum subscription shoots up, you're on the hook for that increase. If you buy your music outright, you pay for it once and keep it forever.
[iIf I ended up listening to more music than someone else that has to pay for each song in order to "own" it, but I also paid less, then how am I worse off?
If you don't care about keeping the music long-term, then you're not any worse off, I suppose. But the point of buying music, rather than renting it, is that you're not committing yourself to a device or a platform. That way, if the device or the platform goes down, you don't lose anything.
I've personally never owned an iPod. I didn't really like the iTunes file format, or the idea of it, and iPods always seemed to be a little bit behind the curve in anything but user interface. (Even now, there's still no iPod with a built-in FM radio, or a built-in recorder.) But that doesn't mean that everything about the iPod is wrong. Owning your music is still better than renting it, where you have to keep paying for it endlessly.
Well, in fact, they may not have the same songs. Not every label is on board with every service. And some artists individually sign deals with certain services. (Guns 'n Roses, for example, did this with Best Buy releasing "Chinese Democracy".)
And the other problem with a subscription service is that you keep paying for music, rather than paying for it once. That means that if the price suddenly shoots up, or if the cost of a minimum subscription shoots up, you're on the hook for that increase. If you buy your music outright, you pay for it once and keep it forever.
[iIf I ended up listening to more music than someone else that has to pay for each song in order to "own" it, but I also paid less, then how am I worse off?
If you don't care about keeping the music long-term, then you're not any worse off, I suppose. But the point of buying music, rather than renting it, is that you're not committing yourself to a device or a platform. That way, if the device or the platform goes down, you don't lose anything.
I've personally never owned an iPod. I didn't really like the iTunes file format, or the idea of it, and iPods always seemed to be a little bit behind the curve in anything but user interface. (Even now, there's still no iPod with a built-in FM radio, or a built-in recorder.) But that doesn't mean that everything about the iPod is wrong. Owning your music is still better than renting it, where you have to keep paying for it endlessly.
Subscriptions and owning music are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I still buy music even though I have a subscription. But I'm able to be much more selective and dramatically decrease the chances that I will make a purchase I regret. For a net cost of roughly 5 bucks a month, I can listen to a few dozen albums and then choose which if any I want to buy. In a purchase-only world, I would have to listen to samples and make a leap of faith as to which ones I wanted to buy, and I would almost certainly miss some good ones and pay for some turkeys. If you think of it as an extended evaluation period then it does make economic sense.
One point sorely lacking in the ongoing subscription vs. purchase model is the quality of MP3 files. Apple sells 160 kbps mp3 files and MS sells 192 kbps mp3 files. Neither of those are CD quality, or even remotely close. This does not matter if you listen to your music exclusively on most default earbud headphones or on computer speakers, but if you start streaming your music through an xbox and out of a home theater system with dolby pro logic and quality speakers, the sound quality loss can be quite palpable. Ditto if you run a direct line in to a car stereo in lieu of using an FM transmitter.
If you're any sort of audiophile at all, the subscription model is never going to be for you.
I realize I am an outlier, but I'm willing to pay more to have a CD copy of everything that is in my collection.
If you're any sort of audiophile at all, the subscription model is never going to be for you.
I realize I am an outlier, but I'm willing to pay more to have a CD copy of everything that is in my collection.
Hi, Ed.
You said:
Subscriptions and owning music are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I still buy music even though I have a subscription. But I'm able to be much more selective and dramatically decrease the chances that I will make a purchase I regret.
That part does make some sense to me. I think it definitely depends on how much music you buy and how experimental you are. If you're very experimental with your music, you could shield yourself from bad purchases that way.
Personally, I only buy music from artists I know I like, so I'm rarely disappointed with a purchase. I had that experience of disappointment much more with services like Emusic, where I could only find artists "like" the ones that I wanted, than a service like Amazon, where I could find the exact artist. I think the reason for that is because with the a la carte options the music stores have now, I don't have to take a chance on a whole CD if I only want a few songs. For me personally, 30 seconds is usually enough to let me know if I like a song.
But then again, I only discover maybe two or three new bands in a whole year that I want to get CDs from. I don't think that's a function of not listening to enough music. I think it's more a function that there's not enough new stuff out there that I really like.
You said:
Subscriptions and owning music are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I still buy music even though I have a subscription. But I'm able to be much more selective and dramatically decrease the chances that I will make a purchase I regret.
That part does make some sense to me. I think it definitely depends on how much music you buy and how experimental you are. If you're very experimental with your music, you could shield yourself from bad purchases that way.
Personally, I only buy music from artists I know I like, so I'm rarely disappointed with a purchase. I had that experience of disappointment much more with services like Emusic, where I could only find artists "like" the ones that I wanted, than a service like Amazon, where I could find the exact artist. I think the reason for that is because with the a la carte options the music stores have now, I don't have to take a chance on a whole CD if I only want a few songs. For me personally, 30 seconds is usually enough to let me know if I like a song.
But then again, I only discover maybe two or three new bands in a whole year that I want to get CDs from. I don't think that's a function of not listening to enough music. I think it's more a function that there's not enough new stuff out there that I really like.
The great thing about my Zune Pass is that I can try before I buy, so to speak. I can download the entire Pink Floyd collection to my PC and Zune, listen to them all as long as I like, and decide if I want to go ahead and buy any. Or that I don't like Pink Floyd and delete them all. When I was on iTunes, I would end up buying things that I ended up regretting, because I couldn't try them out ahead of time.
And I agree that the Zune software is fun to use. I can get lost for hours just exploring new artists using Mixview.
I don't regret my decision to go with Zune for a second.
And I agree that the Zune software is fun to use. I can get lost for hours just exploring new artists using Mixview.
I don't regret my decision to go with Zune for a second.
license: subscription vs purchase image is somewhat off to me.
I purchased the mp3 (256kbit) using a zune pass credit and the file said DRM: No
perhaps songs that are available in mp3 format are all drm-free as it should be?
I purchased the mp3 (256kbit) using a zune pass credit and the file said DRM: No
perhaps songs that are available in mp3 format are all drm-free as it should be?
The MP3 format is DRM-free by definition, so any track you purchase in MP3 format is automatically DRM-free. I showed the same screen you are talking about here:
http://content.zdnet.com/2346-12354_22-251615-7.html
http://content.zdnet.com/2346-12354_22-251615-7.html
Is if you lose your hard drive to some disaster; all you have to do is download Zune Marketplace when you get your new hard disk; push one button and your entire collection is restored at no additional cost.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
