With Macworld 2008 just about wrapped-up and put away, we're left to reflect on what we won't be getting from Apple this year (just check out your comments on what the MacBook Air left out)! The New York Times couldn't help but ask if Steve Jobs has abandoned his thought that people want to own their content, as evidenced by his embracing rentals of movies on iTunes for Apple TV. If this is the case then why hasn't he done the same for music?

The article points out that the same technology that enables movie rentals for Apple TV is also found in newer iPods, so why can't we rent songs and albums? Whether it would be unpopular or not, Apple has made the decision for us. I think most of the time, I would want to own my music, especially at just 99 cents a song, but renting music could be a throwback to the days when we borrowed our friends' CDs for a week to test them out. So tell me what you think — Would you rent music or would you rather own it?

Browns Fashion
Marni
Balenciaga
If you want to give the songs a try first, you can always listen to the 30-second clip at the iTunes site. And sometimes that may not be enough, but if you google it, you're certain to find a site that will play the full song(given that it's mainstream music). I would want to keep the songs for forever. I don't see how the price would be any different, so what good would it do?
1I don't even use netflix or blockbusters. The content I purchase may not be watched or listened to right away. If I buy it I have the option of using it when I want. No way would I want to rent music!
2Renting music might be a good way to preview and discover songs, but I think there are just too many other websites out there that already help me check out new music for free (last.fm, seeqpod, pandora).
I use sites like those to hear and discover new music that I like. Then if I find something I want to own, I buy it on itunes.
3I'd rather own my music, but I think they should is when a new album comes out they could let you borrow the album for a first listen for some specified time like, let's say 24 hours so that way you won't have to waste your money on an album when you only like about three or four songs
4no way
5I would. I actually like the "all you can eat" music streaming services like Rhapsody, but the artist gets so little under that arrangement that I kind of feel guilty. (I've heard it's something like one sixtieth of a cent per listen on the streaming services.) Plus they don't have all artists. If iTunes wanted to do video store-style rentals with songs I'd probably use it. Though I do find regular iTunes prices reasonable on a lot of stuff, especially foreign stuff and imports. But I only buy DRM-free.
6Most of the music I buy I hear on Sirius or Internet Radio or Regular radio, so I've already heard the song when I go to iTunes. I wouldn't want to do rental; I want to own my music.
7No way. There's already an option to listen to ~30 seconds of songs on iTunes. I think that's enough time to decide whether or not you like a song. I'd want to keep the music I download.
8nah. movie rentals on itunes - yes, but music? no way. i only get digital music anyway. renting music seems like it would be good if you want to decide whether or not to buy a cd, so it doesn't work for me. hmm...or maybe for someone doing a review of an album or something?! no...can't think of why someone would want to rent music.
9no - i don't want to pay 30-50 cents for a song where if i choose to buy it it's another 99 cents. it seems pointless. you can get that stuff online at places like last fm
10I'd rather have my music and listen to it whenever I want to and never have to go back online and rent it again.
11ummm go on youtube and check out the song...duh
And no-one said u HAD TO USE ITUNES
12I think this is absurd. I can't imagine a market for music rentals... it just seems so strange.
I don't buy music. I really don't care what people think; I download whatever music I like whenever I feel like it.
13Even if I used itunes I would think this was a silly idea.
14For some, this would be a good idea, but for me it's rather useless
15Like other have said they do the 30 second sample. I think "renting" music is stupid. Maybe if the songs were expensive, but come on, they are 99 cents! Itunes is usually very reasonable on the album prices anyway, my boyfriend really like 80's hard metal and most of the cds he wants are $10 or less, in the music stores they run $15 to $20.
16I think this is jumping the gun a little. That technology is on the new iPods because you can now rent movies on your iPod, not just on your computer.
That said, there's no way i'd rent music; that's the whole reason i use iTunes - a lot of online music stores only allow you to listen as long as you use their service, and iTunes doesn't.
17True music lovers want to be able to play their favourite tracks over and over again. The idea of renting music is like renting art - who the hell only wants to be able to look at it once and then return it? Pfft.
18I would never want to rent music, but I think that the previews of the songs should be longer.
19If you really like a song you would want to keep it. And if you wanted to hear it just once go watch the video on youtube or visit the artists website.
20::coughs::limewire::coughs::
21i dont really think its such a good idea. actually, in my opinion its pointless. if the 30 second clip from itunes isnt enough then just look the song up on youtube.com and you can usually find a music video of some sort that will play the whole song. so why rent the song when u can listen to it for free on youtube?
22I have Netfliks, so I am not sure we would need this service as well.
23It would really be nice that way I can make sure I really like the song or that particular version before I buy.
24Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.