Apple: Deaf to the Rent-a-Tunes Beat

[MacBytes]

http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Apple: Deaf to the Rent-a-Tunes Beat (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050815075652)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

[Yvan256]

Just read the article, even their own numbers says that almost no one is interested in renting music. This isn't movies, it's music. It's not used in the same way.

[iDM]

I can not stand the idea of having to pay X amount to listen to say a Hendrix song in Y years because i dropped my subscription! I want to have access at whatever point in the future i desire, not when I stop paying the bill. :mad:

[autrefois]

Apple doesn't hear the Rent-a-Tunes beat? Ha. No wonder, since the patient doesn't even have a pulse.

[2GMario]

its so hard to say thow

im definately not for renting my music
i think its a waste. ultimately, you want people to pay for a subscription - its reoccuring fee's. everyone is trying for this now adays

but not music. i love doing random searches in my list and listening to music i havent listened to in months. to loose all of them because i havent paid my subscription is crap.

if apple did both rent and buy, then you could see, side by side, which business plan works best, but they dont, and the view is scewed because apple, for the most part, has the best music player on the market, both the iPod and iTunes.

my view
-Mario

[iindigo]

Well it's no wonder, people actually want to own their music. I don't want to lose all my music just because the money for the napster bill is needed elsewhere that month, for example.

I'll stick to CDs and iTMS thank you very much.

[Fender2112]

I think the headline is a bit off. I think Apple is listening very closely. What they hear is that customers want to own their music. I am pretty sure Apple keeps an ear tuned in to market trends and fads. Analysts of all sorts are saying Apple should offer a subscription service or open Fair Tunes or do this and do that. The reality it that Apple controls the market with it's service and products. Their business model is working very well. So why change? There's and old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Should Apple need to fix something, I'm pretty sure they have all the tools they need.

I'm sure Apple pays close attention to it's competion and should things change, Apple will take appropriate action. I think in the end the record companies will have to come to an agreement as to which standards and formats to support. I also feel that there is room for both subscription and purchase services. Each model has it's pros and cons and appeal to different people. But, for now it's a dog fight and Apple happens to be the Big Dog.

[iDM]

I think the headline is a bit off. I think Apple is listening very closely. What they hear is that customers want to own their music. I am pretty sure Apple keeps an ear tuned in to market trends and fads. Analysts of all sorts are saying Apple should offer a subscription service or open Fair Tunes or do this and do that. The reality it that Apple controls the market with it's service and products. Their business model is working very well. So why change? There's and old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Should Apple need to fix something, I'm pretty sure they have all the tools they need.

I'm sure Apple pays close attention to it's competion and should things change, Apple will take appropriate action. I think in the end the record companies will have to come to an agreement as to which standards and formats to support. I also feel that there is room for both subscription and purchase services. Each model has it's pros and cons and appeal to different people. But, for now it's a dog fight and Apple happens to be the Big Dog.

Just wondering while i agree with the previous post that I want to maintain ownership in the future, do we maintain rights to the song even say 5 years down the road if Apple were to crumble :eek: and the iTunes music store were to digitally burn to the ground?

And by the way Fender who is that in your avatar she appears to be an angel i once saw in one of my dreams but i can't be sure?!

[Fender2112]

And by the way Fender who is that in your avatar she appears to be an angel i once saw in one of my dreams but i can't be sure?!

Her name is Miranda Lambert (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=48845165). Nice music if you're into country. If you're not maybe you soon will be. ;)

[iDM]

I would be into self inflicted pain if she wanted me to be. I'll check her out.

[wdlove]

That is a good thing for Apple to be deaf about. I wouldn't be interested in renting either.

[nagromme]

I am completely convinced that iTunes would be a better product if it had a subscription offering.

But not ENOUGH better to be worth Apple's time/money to support such a system. I am equally convinced that relatively few people would use it, and even fewer would keep at it long-term.

I myself might subscribe for a single month every year or two--IF it were cheap, like <$10--just to do a bunch of previewing of full songs which I'd then buy. They wouldn't make much from me

I can see it happening someday, when the overall online music market is large enough that this small sub-market is worth Apple's attention. I'd hate to be one of the companies offering subscriptions BEFORE that's the case/

[Lacero]

Let me say this once and for all... songs are too cheap to be rented. Even if you subscribe to 1 million songs, you ever going to listen to even 0.1% of it?

[njmac]

Let me say this once and for all... songs are too cheap to be rented. Even if you subscribe to 1 million songs, you ever going to listen to even 0.1% of it?

Well said. I just deleted my response, you nailed it.

[sjk]

Sorry, Lacero, music is generally still too expensive to be purchased. If that weren't true how do you explain the popularity of illegal P2P sharing? And you seem be overlooking the opportunity of choosing which 0.1% of the million songs you can listen to.

Actually, nagromme nailed it. As I've said before, I'd welcome a pay-as-you-go (i.e. non-contract) iTMS subscription service for the ability to fully preview a wider variety of songs that I may or may not want to eventually purchase. I'd be listening to much more music (from iTMS) if I didn't have to pay for all of it. And iTMS iMixes would have the potential to be interesting instead of something I currently ignore.

Seriously, what percentage of a person's total purchased music collection do they listen to enough to justify what they've paid for it? Sure, there's stuff worth owning (for many reasons) but I'd be satisfied with a smaller collection in combination with the ability to create and stream playlists from a fairly-priced real-time on-line jukebox.

I wish more people stopped thinking about this like it needs to be a black-and-white, one-or-the-other alternative. I'd rather see effort put into creating a viable iTMS purchase and subscription business model instead of wasting time on tired purchase vs. subscription arguments. If you're an all-purchase person, fine. If you're an all-subscription person, fine. But, please, don't selfishly exclude those who see value in the middle ground and a peaceful coexistence. :)

[looklost]

F subscriptions <EOM>

[nagromme]

Sorry, Lacero, music is generally still too expensive to be purchased. If that weren't true how do you explain the popularity of illegal P2P sharing?

To be fair, piracy will ALWAYS be cheaper than ANY price. And dishonest people will always exist. Piracy isn't proof of unfair pricing.

[LethalWolfe]

Sorry, Lacero, music is generally still too expensive to be purchased. If that weren't true how do you explain the popularity of illegal P2P sharing?

Because there are a lot of lazy b*tches out there that get hard from P2P 'cause it makes'em feel like Billy Badass for getting something w/o paying for it?


Lethal

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

My version of Music Renting.....
Go to Library
Check out CDs
Rip to Computer
Return CD

Total Cost.... $0

[shamino]

Sorry, Lacero, music is generally still too expensive to be purchased. If that weren't true how do you explain the popularity of illegal P2P sharing?
A lot of this is from people (especially students and children) who won't be buying much music, no matter what the price.

WRT Apple's plans, I'm pretty certain that they are developing a subscription service, which they will keep waiting in the wings, ready to be deployed on short notice.

You may remember a few months ago when someone stumbled across a URL for an iTunes subscription page. I think the link may have even been posted to MacBytes. Within an hour, Apple eliminated the page. Which tells me that they have something, even if it's only in a prototype form.

As for when it might be deployed, that's anybody's guess. My gut feeling is that Apple won't deploy such a system until/unless it becomes clear that they need to in order to maintain their lock on the music-download market. As long as they are trouncing the competition without subscriptions, they have no need to roll them out.

If Real or Yahoo or someone else starts taking away market share using subscriptions, Apple can flip a switch, make a press release, and take that market share right back again. But until that happens, it's best to keep that ace in the hole.

[nagromme]

My version of Music Renting.....
Go to Library
Check out CDs
Rip to Computer
Return CD

Total Cost.... $0
Which is piracy. Not an option if you care about right and wrong.

If you like an artist enough to listen to them, then don't steal from them. Even if you don't like the companies they've chosen to sign contracts with, you don't have that right.

I don't like the big labels one bit, but I like music piracy even less.

[Loge]

WRT Apple's plans, I'm pretty certain that they are developing a subscription service, which they will keep waiting in the wings, ready to be deployed on short notice.


So as well as OS X leading a double life, iTunes is leading a double life. :p

While I don't have a problem with a subscription service as an alternative, the problem is that the record companies are more likely to push one or other as the dominant business model. The subscription model is very tempting for them because it creates the possibility of a stable revenue stream that does not require the consistent creation of new music to support it.

[autrefois]

You may remember a few months ago when someone stumbled across a URL for an iTunes subscription page. I think the link may have even been posted to MacBytes. Within an hour, Apple eliminated the page.

That is interesting. As much as Steve has spoken out against subscriptions and as much as I agree with him, they're apparently hedging their bets.

Does anyone have a link to a post or website that has details about this? I've been searching now for quite a while on the forum and google, and keep coming up empty...

[thequicksilver]

I wouldn't like music rental as my only form of new music, but I'd love to be able to just rent an album digitally for a month or so to see if it's actually any good. I'll buy an iTMS album I know I'm going to like, but if I'm not sure, a 30 second preview just doesn't cut it.

Conversely, if I can pay a £10 or so a month fee to "try as much music as I want before I buy" it's a great way of separating the wheat from the chaff. I would welcome it into the iTunes stable alongside music purchase, but certainly not instead of.

[shamino]

I would welcome it into the iTunes stable alongside music purchase, but certainly not instead of.
Fortunately, I don't think anybody is talking about subscriptions instead of purchases. Real and Yahoo both allow purchases (subject to various annoying DRM restrictions), and offer a (slight) discount to those who have subscriptions.

[Loge]

Fortunately, I don't think anybody is talking about subscriptions instead of purchases. Real and Yahoo both allow purchases (subject to various annoying DRM restrictions), and offer a (slight) discount to those who have subscriptions.

No one may be talking about it, but I don't see them co-exsiting. One or other will emerge as the preferred business model and pushed heavily, and the other will become marginal. Currently it's purchases that are winning and subscriptions are marginal. But it may not stay that way.

[drumpat01]

I also would like to see a co-existance of a subscription based and a pay per download services. I do believe that they can and will eventualy happen together in iTMS because i think that the appeal will be to good to have a steady stream of money coming in. Lets face it, as amazing and trust worthy as Apple is, its still a buisness who wants to make as much money as possible. Subscriptions would be another way of making money simply for the fact that its so much like P2P. You can listen to any song you want, you just cant take it with you. If you like it that much, you can buy it. This is really only a good idea for those of us who want to check out a whole album and think that 30 seconds just isn't enough to figure out a song. Although, if they were to up the preview to maybe 1min instead of 30sec, then I dont think there would ever be any need for a subcription service to start with.

[mrgreen4242]

I'm kind of torn on the rental music scheme... on one hand you can get unlimited music for a fixed price, which is noce, but of course as you all point out you can't go back and listen to it again if you opt out of the service.

I think I would like to see a plan where you can check out unlimited songs to your iPod/one authorized computer, and you also get a pre-set number of "free" downloads monthly. Maybe $13/month and you get 3 song downloads included in that. That way you can amass a collection while still being able to try new music, listed to something that you like a little but get tired of quickly, etc.

Don't know how feasible that is, from an economic standpoint, though.

[sjk]

To be fair, piracy will ALWAYS be cheaper than ANY price. And dishonest people will always exist. Piracy isn't proof of unfair pricing.Because there are a lot of lazy b*tches out there that get hard from P2P 'cause it makes'em feel like Billy Badass for getting something w/o paying for it?A lot of this is from people (especially students and children) who won't be buying much music, no matter what the price.No disagreement with any of those comments.

I intentionally exaggerated about pricing and piracy specifically in response to Lacero's comment. As nagromme says, piracy's not proof of unfair pricing although it's hard not to see that as a contributing factor, in some indeterminate way and amount. And how "unfair" pricing could be defined would vary with time and circumstances. Obviously the acceleration of technology plays a major role, too.

I wouldn't like music rental as my only form of new music, but I'd love to be able to just rent an album digitally for a month or so to see if it's actually any good. I'll buy an iTMS album I know I'm going to like, but if I'm not sure, a 30 second preview just doesn't cut it.

Conversely, if I can pay a £10 or so a month fee to "try as much music as I want before I buy" it's a great way of separating the wheat from the chaff. I would welcome it into the iTunes stable alongside music purchase, but certainly not instead of.Nice summary of my feelings and interest about this.

The arguments about "losing" music you've listened to during a subscription seem ridiculous to me. No one's saying you wouldn't still have the choice to purchase whatever you want to! But right now iTMS offers no alternative but to buy everything you want to listen to -- whether just once or a thousand times. And you unselfishly think that's a good thing?

Ignoring other details and concerns for the moment (e.g. the "preferred business model" Loge mentioned), from an informed consumer-choice perspective the coexistence of music purchases and subscriptions, done "right", sure seems to make sense. But pathetic incidents like the one yesterday in Henrico County are enough to make one wonder whether some people can be that kind of consumer or have much sense and intelligence at all.

[sjk]

I think I would like to see a plan where you can check out unlimited songs to your iPod/one authorized computer, and you also get a pre-set number of "free" downloads monthly. Maybe $13/month and you get 3 song downloads included in that. That way you can amass a collection while still being able to try new music, listed to something that you like a little but get tired of quickly, etc.I'd go for that. And $13/mo. is more than Apple/iTMS gets from me now.

Don't know how feasible that is, from an economic standpoint, though.Seems a bit generous, especially for Apple.

Another idea that's been kicked around is integrating iTMS subscriptions with .Mac subscriptions. That's less appealing to me although I can imagine it might be to a certain percentage and type of .Mac subscriber.

[sjk]

Fortunately, I don't think anybody is talking about subscriptions instead of purchases.But some people are quite vehement against subscriptions simply because they don't personally have any interest in them.

Real and Yahoo both allow purchases (subject to various annoying DRM restrictions), and offer a (slight) discount to those who have subscriptions.Regardless of how well or poorly they're doing (I haven't kept track) it's temptingly easy to think Apple's success with iTMS up to now would position them well for a subscription service launch, and be able to sustain them in addition to purchases. Like you and others have mentioned, they have the luxury of subscriptions remaining an ace in the hole for now. Obviously I hope they'll eventually play it.

One, two, three posts today and I'm out. :)

[shamino]

No one may be talking about it, but I don't see them co-exsiting. One or other will emerge as the preferred business model and pushed heavily, and the other will become marginal. Currently it's purchases that are winning and subscriptions are marginal. But it may not stay that way.
Companies will sell what their customers want to buy. They may yell and scream about wanting one option, but ultimately, it all comes down to money.

Look at DivX. It started out as a pay-per-view DVD system. Everyone in the movie industry was hoping for it to replace normal DVDs. But nobody bought the players or the discs. The format died and no longer exists (except in the form of a CODEC that has nothing to do with pay-per-view DRM.)

As for co-existance, why not? You've been able to both buy and rent video content for decades. Neither model has driven the other out of business.

The record industry may spend a fortune in marketing to try and convince everybody to make subscriptions their only source of music, but ultimately, if the public doesn't pay up, the system is going to die.

[Loge]

Hopefully you will be right. I agree that a fundamentally flawed model such as the DivX rentals was bound to fail in the end. Also the video rental market grew before companies really understood the important drivers behind subscriptions. The thing about subscriptions is that it is a fundamentally different business model with the key metric being revenue per subscriber. If this becomes the dominant distribution channel then it would change the music industry significantly; it would become more in common to the cable/satellite TV companies or cell phone networks.

My expectation is that rather than a flexible co-existence, the record companies would play these off against each other, for example some content only available on subscription (so that you always keep that going) alongside special content for purchase only.

Whatever happens it will be interesting, and keep us busy in debate.

Finally I suggest that a profitable subscription rate for the music industry will be much higher than the $13/£10 mentioned in other posts here. Of course, initially the rates will be low, to generate a subscriber base; but just watch them take off from there.

[Sun Baked]

This is how well the subscription services are working on campus, where the big fight to give people a "free" subsription alternative is being waged.

File-Sharing Continues on Campus Despite Legal Music Services (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1124442310915)

Seems the "doesn't work with iPod" is a big sticking point to use of the free subscription services on campus ... :p