Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New RIM Streaming Music: $5 For 50 Songs?

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the opinions-are-like-music-services dept.

Blackberry 149

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Must...invent...something... (5, Funny)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157588)

Or you can wait a few months and buy 50 shares of RIM for $5. How much does a deathknell ringtone cost?

Re:Must...invent...something... (3, Informative)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158332)

I was going to look it up and sarcastically post a link, but it turns out almost every crappy poseur goth or death metal band on the planet has released a song called "Death Knell", so you'll have to choose for yourself...

Re:Must...invent...something... (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158874)

How many of them have umlauts over the 'e'?

Re:Must...invent...something... (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158998)

Plenty. The real question is how many of them have umlauts over the 'n'. (And if the umlauts look like little '11's.)

99 cents is too much these days (0)

jdpars (1480913) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157602)

When it started, paying 99 cents for a song was great. Now, it's extortion. People need to realize this.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37157622)

Are you nuts? We used to buy songs on plastic discs, called RECORDS, in the 1970's for 99c!!!

Re:99 cents is too much these days (1)

jdpars (1480913) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157648)

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.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37157692)

Who was downvoted? My A/C post was scored 0, and now it's a 2! ;)

Re:99 cents is too much these days (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158150)

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.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (1)

scottrocket (1065416) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157912)

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?

Re:99 cents is too much these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158414)

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)

Some of us just got the 12 for $.99 and then let the company cancel the remaining obligation. There was a simple trick that would get them to cancel your account without making you buy the required full-price item(s). All you had to do is find a valid address in either Africa or South America and then inform them that you were moving there. Since the shipping to those addresses was more than the cost of the items paid by the consumer, they canceled rather than take a bigger loss.

When I was in college, my friends and I got a lot of cheap CDs from BMG and Columbia House.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158694)

Back in the 1970s, 99 cents is closer to $6 now. $6 was a decent chunk of change back then.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37157638)

No doubt, it should be $0.99 an album. However even that isn't great - it's a model I don't even find useful anymore. I'd rather have a subscription for all you can eat. It's rare these days I hear something I actually want to hear again. I listen to various Internet radio streams and most of the time I don't even bother finding out who the artist is.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (2)

chinakow (83588) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158354)

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.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157642)

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.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37157952)

Albums as an atomic entity was a relatively short lived thing. Before that it was also all about the singles (Remember 45s?). The big ratings agencies don't even bother pay attention to a song if it's not a single, even if the DJs play it on the radio all the time.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157698)

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.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37157966)

It's almost as if he was exaggerating the point by using a simile! The nerve of some people.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158270)

I don't think he was exaggerating at all. Some people think having to pay for something constitutes extortion. It's why we have a douchebag for a president today.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158306)

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...

Re:99 cents is too much these days (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#37159172)

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 [youtube.com] .

Re:99 cents is too much these days (0)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158142)

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.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (2)

schnell (163007) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158698)

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.

  1. 1. [Citation needed]
  2. 2. What? I mean, we all dislike DRM on music, but your statement is ... wait, what?
  3. 3. Who was arrested for child pornography as a result of "not buy[ing] enough songs?"
  4. 4. No really, what are you talking about?
  5. 5. While we're at it, that would technically be blackmail, not extortion
  6. 6. Seriously, WTF?

Re:99 cents is too much these days (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158628)

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.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (2)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158676)

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).

Re:99 cents is too much these days (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#37159090)

Because albums always have a few crap songs on them as filler.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (-1, Redundant)

GoJays (1793832) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158632)

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.

Re:99 cents is too much these days (5, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158366)

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...

Exactly what I need! (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157606)

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!

Re:Exactly what I need! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157884)

While I think that this plan is sheer insanity on their part, given how utterly sucky it is compared with ITMS, Amazon, Pandora, etc. it sounds eerily like something that somebody who thinks that the historical success of BlackBerry Messenger is broadly applicable would come up with...

BBM is also BlackBerry only(to send or receive) and is pretty much just another IM service(the encryption helped sell it on the suit side; but the consumer market doesn't much care). I imagine that some of their higher-ups have been sucked into believing that they can, against all reason, build a music distribution mechanism on the same model...

Re:Exactly what I need! (1)

macs4all (973270) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157898)

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!

You do realize, of course, that the two biggest music stores, iTunes and Amazon, have not had DRM for years now, right?

Now, go troll somewhere else.

Re:Exactly what I need! (1, Troll)

IorDMUX (870522) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157916)

As usual, XKCD covered this. [xkcd.com]

Re:Exactly what I need! (3, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157926)

And, as usual, everyone on this entire site is aware of that.

Re:Exactly what I need! (1)

IorDMUX (870522) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158560)

Point taken.

Huh. When did that comic hit everybody-reads-it-now status, anyways?

Re:Exactly what I need! (1)

FrankSchwab (675585) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158680)

After about the 500th reference to it on /.

Re:Exactly what I need! (1)

pegdhcp (1158827) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158894)

Huh. When did that comic hit everybody-reads-it-now status, anyways?

This depends on the definition of everybody I guess.

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158984)

You might want to read his comment again. And this time, try to comprehend what he said, in stead of knee-jerking...

Re:Exactly what I need! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158042)

Not only that, but it's STREAMING! Let's see, my "unlimited" data plan was divided into several limited options recently, so I guess it's time to ante up for a "better" plan as well. Man, this is soooooo much better than radio. Thank God for digital communication.

I prefer Apple's model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37157614)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I prefer the Apple model, where you buy a track and you get a track, and you can do what you want with it; no subscription, no DRM, plays anywhere. Subscribe to *music*? I don't think so.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (1, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157668)

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.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157860)

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.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (4, Informative)

macs4all (973270) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158000)

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 [archive.org] any way you want. The truth is, Jobs penned his famous "Open Letter" a full year before [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157702)

Subscribe to *music*? I don't think so.

It's audio-on-demand. There are definitely times where that is pretty slick.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157708)

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.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157752)

I prefer having a playlist.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37157762)

Youtube has a playlist, noob.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (-1, Offtopic)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157798)

I'm aware of it. My answer is the same. Did you know that use of question marks can lead to a better education?

Re:I prefer Apple's model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37157826)

This is where you need to admit that you were wrong. You need to admit that you were called out. Admit your guilt in this matter. Then apologize to all of us. Apologize to the entire Slashdot community for your transgressions.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157852)

This is where you should have asked for clarification and I would have been happy to have obliged. You would only have come out smarter.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37157934)

I can't decide whether you're an actual troll or if you have really bad social skills. I suppose it could be both. Either way it would seem that your brain functions differently that most. I suspect it is not that part of your brain is under-developed but rather the part responsible for ego is over-developed and 'crowds out' the part responsible for social interaction.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157944)

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.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37157978)

There's nothing more to ask. You were wrong. You were called out. Admit that you were wrong, and then apologize to us.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157994)

There is nothing for me to apologize for. You, however, are fighting to maintain your ignorance. That's not something to wear with pride.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (1)

Zen Punk (785385) | more than 3 years ago | (#37159142)

Whoo-doggie! A knockdown, dragout, 3-page nerd slap-fight about semantics! Never change, Slashdot.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158192)

I'm aware of it. My answer is the same. Did you know that use of question marks can lead to a better education?

So what question did you want him to ask?

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."?

Nobody is going to play 20 questions with you to figure out what the fuck you want us to ask you, but I'll throw out one guess: "what's wrong with youtube's playlist?" Other than the fact that nicovideo's has it beat hands down.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158584)

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.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158034)

Youtube's playlists are more like a list of bookmarks that will play sequentially on some setups. They are not organized by album, genre, artist, song title, rating, etc. Youtube's definition of a playlist is a joke compared to an actual music playlist.

Youtube is also just plain not a very good solution for listening to streaming music. Some videos, assuming they aren't taken down, play adverts in the beginning. The videos aren't cached so they are reloaded every time. The quality is inconsistent. The search engine is good for finding what you already know you want, but it is not a music search engine like most (all?) music subscription services have for finding new stuff.

As a solution your suggestion is pretty ghetto.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157948)

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.

Re:I prefer Apple's model (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158050)

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.

Before going down the 3rd time... (3, Insightful)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157628)

Before going down the 3rd time, a drowning man thrashes harder than ever.

Re:Before going down the 3rd time... (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157670)

Not actually true [wikipedia.org] , but I tend to agree with you that this is a case of the instinctive shark-jumping response.

Typical RIM mentality. (4, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157660)

"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?

This might work given the audience (2)

Sarusa (104047) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157680)

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.

Re:This might work given the audience (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157734)

...Because young people who aren't afraid to break the law in major ways are really terrified of infringing copyright by torrenting a few songs?

Re:This might work given the audience (3, Insightful)

Sarusa (104047) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157788)

It's all about the convenience. Torrenting is far too complex and too much hassle. I've seen some of the interviews, and they're hard pressed to operate their phones, much less uTorrent. This is $5, no hassle.

Re:This might work given the audience (2)

hashbangfoo (852632) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158716)

Torrent? I have had paid accounts with Slacker Radio and Grooveshark for months, and I dont torrent anything. Why bother with managing storage and tagging of music on a device when I can listen to (almost) anything that I ever wanted to for less than $15US per month? RIM is just foolish, and I say that as a (mandatory) BB user... I am just waiting for the day that my company wakes the ____ up and ditches BB for a mobile computing device that I dont have to reboot every 2 days... it sucks. So, forgive the rant, but I really think that RIM's days are numbered...

Re:This might work given the audience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158048)

No, they're just to stupid to know how.

Re:This might work given the audience (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158500)

This could also be a very bad deal for any 3rd party developer who wants to make a music application, or a music-related app, on Blackberry. Will RIM decide to one day block your app because it could tangentially compete with their app?

Re:This might work given the audience (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158602)

This might work given the audience (...) 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.

Actually I was thinking it the other way around, that it could work in the corporate market so that RIM could say that they do have a music service, even if it sucks. I didn't even know BlackBerry had non-corporate customers, I've never seen anyone else with one - ever.

evil Apple, fail RIM (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157694)

"...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."

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.

Re:evil Apple, fail RIM (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158796)

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.

Huh? Try again.

First, if you wanted to add a ringtone to your phone, you had to buy the complete track from the iTunes Store for 99 cents. Then you were allowed to edit that song and send it to your phone as a ringtone for an additional 99 cents. Total charge: $1.98.

Yes, this was certainly cheaper than what the music industry was asking for. But the argument that the music industry deserves money for ringtones of songs you have already purchased is complete rubbish. Of course, Apple doesn't want to offend the music industry, so they go along with the charade.

Once Apple opened their own music store, they became a pawn of the music companies. Remember "Rip, Mix, Burn"? You'll never see anything like that ever again from Apple.

People are so cheap... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37157776)

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.

Re:People are so cheap... (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158188)

Indeed it is, they ought to pay me for listening to that crap.

Let's do some math (3, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157786)

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.

It gets worse (2)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158036)

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.

Re:Let's do some math (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158260)

Cool story. What you are talking about isn't even an OPTION. Furthermore, it sounds like you plan on listening to 7k songs each month, so I don't know why you would be worrying about money at all when you can hang around and listen to multiple songs at once all day every day. $5 a month is very little to pay, especially when you consider that if you aren't a fucking sap you can still download songs you plan on keeping.

Re:Let's do some math (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37159006)

Of course being Slashdot, you've probably paid for only a small percentage of those so why would you bother paying at all. Cos if there is one thing I've learnt around here is that people who make culture that is interesting to us should find some other business model than the one that gets them paid when we consume their work.

Wrong Question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37157810)

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?

Re:Wrong Question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158040)

Because of how damn good a PHONE it is. Great call quality, great reception, the speakerphone is fantastically clear... it's essentially as good as a land-line at making phone calls in terms of audio quality. And the OS doesn't get in the way of the phone functioning as a phone. In fact, it encourages it.

That's actually what some people want. Not everybody wants tonnes of apps and games.

RIM is RIM and RIM is not Rim but Rim might be rim (3, Funny)

GrandTeddyBearOfDoom (1483117) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157822)


#!/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 /* A poem in the key of 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 //the-bin.
    but /bin is where our binaries go
    so where to put-it do we // know?
}
#!/bin/bash

echo Can you guess what's in the headers??

Fagget alert (1)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 3 years ago | (#37157880)

***** Urgent News ******


If you are reading this post, you are a faggot.


***** End of Alert ******
 

ringtones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37157904)

"sold lots and lots of ringtones." ... to stupid people, apparently. Seriously, who was ever dumb enough to buy a bloody ringtone for $1-2? I always wondered that. I know that they must have sold some... but to WHO?

Re:ringtones (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158054)

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.

RIM WTF REALLY? (3, Interesting)

TheCanadianCoward (1973134) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158032)

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.

Re:RIM WTF REALLY? (1)

TheCanadianCoward (1973134) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158052)

Meant to post this as well. They should have been dumping tons of money into R&D instead of pushing the same old products. Now its probably too late.

Re:RIM WTF REALLY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158114)

They have been. Why do you think their profits are down even though sales are actually UP? Because they've been working on the QNX phones. Among other things, like spending the money to develop the keyboard for the 9900/30 which is the best mobile keyboard out there.

Maybe you should do a little more research from sources that aren't on "tech journalist" websites or newspapers. The sources for those are usually crap, the bias against RIM is astounding, and the facts (both positive AND negative) are usually obfuscated by utterly meaningless statistics.

Or just keep letting journalists dictate what you believe and wonder why the world is going to hell.

Amazing the slashdot crowd is so uninformed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158046)

With the app installed, you can choose up to 50 songs of your choice. Apparently the catalog selection is pretty good!
From there, you invite your contacts via BBM, etc. to also download the app if they don't have it and join your music sharing network (invited contacts must pay the $5/mo. also to take part and remain part of the service).
From there, you can listen to not only the 50 songs you've selected), but any of the 50 songs from your music sharing network. So if you have 20 contacts, you'll have access to 1,000 other songs in addition to your 50. We're not sure yet if there's a limit to how many people you can share with, but essentially the more people in your music sharing group the more music you'll have access to.

BTW - BBM is one of the largest mobile social networks in the world with over 45 million user.

Why the hate? (1, Insightful)

Linegod (9952) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158062)

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

Re:Why the hate? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158162)

hate

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re:Why the hate? (1)

Linegod (9952) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158336)

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

You keep using that quote randomly. You are either regurgitating a meme, or just got Netflix.

Re:Why the hate? (1)

JayAEU (33022) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158672)

He probably meant to write "hatred"...

fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158084)

bandwidth caps and on wifi we serve our own music now.

imagine if Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158120)

included this feature in the greateat thing sliced bread: imessage Their copy of BBM. then it would be a huge innovation, but since it's vogue to attack RIM it gets downplayed.

How long is a piece of string (2)

rossdee (243626) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158148)

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.

Re:How long is a piece of string (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37158276)

I think you missed your philosophy class.

Why? (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158240)

Maybe because $10 is twice $5, and you don't have the right to share?

Re:Why? (1)

opportunityisnowhere (1877452) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158308)

One of Spotify's biggest features is how social it is and how easy it is to share your music with you friends. Here's another deal killer, I can share my Spotify stuff with people that don't have a Blackberry. This is another terrible RIM idea, it won't take off beyond a small market of uneducated users that will soon be enlightened by their friends when they try to "show it off". Research in Motion is no longer research in motion.

Spotify (on other phones) (1)

darrylo (97569) | more than 3 years ago | (#37158262)

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.

In other news... (2)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 3 years ago | (#37159022)

Google lets you upload 20,000 songs and play them on any PC and up to 8 different devices.

I almost feel bad for RIM, they are SO sclerotic and hinged to a past that hasn't existed for at least 2 years.

So why would anyone pay $5 a month to get 50 songs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37159028)

Because like me, I'm sure many people tend to listen to a fairly small selection of songs they like at any particular time. I might have 30 albums on my iPod, but I doubt I listen to more than 4 or 5 of them in any given month. So in other words, why pay $10 for something you don't need, when you can get it for $5?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?