Steve Jobs: Customers Don't Seem Interested in Music Subscriptions

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Reuters reports (http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN2546496120070426) on comments by Apple's Steve Jobs about the possibility of subscription-based music sales for iTunes.

According to Jobs "never say never, but customers don't seem to be interested in it". The article suggests that he is unlikely to give into pressure from record labels to offer a subscription model for music on iTunes.

The news comes as Apple begins re-negotiating contracts with the major record labels for the music content on iTunes. Despite recent rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/04/11/apple-to-launch-subscription-itunes/) that Apple was seriously considering a subscription based model, Jobs insists that "people want to own their music." This has been a consistent stance for Apple since the launch of the iTunes store.

Meanwhile, Apple is expected to push for the elimination of digital rights management protections (DRM) on more songs. EMI and Apple first announced that EMI's catalog would become available (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/04/02/emi-apple-press-conference-coverage/) on iTunes without DRM in May. According to Jobs the other music companies are "thinking very hard about it right now."

"We've said by the end of this year, over half of the songs we offer on iTunes we believe will be in DRM-free versions," Jobs said. "I think we're going to achieve that."

[AoWolf]

I want to own my songs. to me a subscription is throwing money away.Maybe if I downloaded more then a new song every day but I suspect most people don't.

Edit: it got fixed.

[pederg]

i agree, i want to own my own music...

[Lixivial]

What's interesting, too, is that a subscription method flies in the face of DRM-free music. Pretty counter to what Steve would like. If Apple were to go the subscription route, I could see the iTunes offering being as follows:

1. Lower quality, DRM'd "rented music."
2. DRM-free, higher price, higher bitrate music.

To me, I like iTunes just the way it is, and being able to keep my music is quite preferable to "renting it." Movies on the other hand...

EDIT: Need to clarify. Not my music, but the music which I choose to purchase.

[donlphi]

I agree with all the first two comments I read. I want to OWN my music. I'll listen to a song countless times. Movies on the other hand would be better off rented. I don't like the BUYING movie concept. You are going to watch a movie a few times max, and that MIGHT be in a 3 year time span.

MUSIC = BUY
MOVIES = RENT

Blockbuster got it right years ago. No need to try and reinvent the wheel.

[Darkroom]

people who subscribe to online music stores don't own the music they download? i was under the impression that you pay a monthly fee and you could download as many tracks/albums as you wanted... :confused:

[JNB]

people who subscribe to online music stores don't own the music they download? i was under the impression that you pay a monthly fee and you could download as many tracks/albums as you wanted... :confused:


Most of 'em require that you continue your subscription to keep your music alive. Quit paying, music goes bye-bye.

[Darkroom]

Most of 'em require that you continue your subscription to keep your music alive. Quit paying, music goes bye-bye.

that's awful... i would never sign up for that... i'm surprised this is the way of online music subscription, and i'm surprised people actually subscribe... but i suppose that "Audio Hijack Pro" would come in handy with subscriptions...;)

[bdj21ya]

that's awful... i would never sign up for that... i'm surprised this is the way of online music subscription, and i'm surprised people actually subscribe... but i suppose that "Audio Hijack Pro" would come in handy with subscriptions...;)

I think that if they made subscription a part of iTunes, you would certainly see at least some upward shift in the number of people learning to use such programs/making similar free programs available that would better streamline the process of recording ("stealing") the "rented" songs.

This process is actually really easy to do on most Windows XP computers without special software, you simply select the stereo mix as the source (checkbox in the XP recording volume control panel) and record away. I thought it was interesting to see that this feature is not available in OS X, and even more interesting that you can't do it on a Mac running Windows either, at least using the audio driver provided by Apple.

[TomSmithMacEd]

I don't understand this forum's writers utter disliking of the subscription model.

Sure, it doesn't make sense for the masses, but it wouldn't harm anything having more choices for the consumer.

I'd maybe sign up for a subscription service if Apple did so. It'd be great to be able to download all these new albums that come out without any risk. Sure once I stop paying I don't have the music anymore but I also would have access to 3 million + songs at any time.

[Will_reed]

I agree with all the first two comments I read. I want to OWN my music. I'll listen to a song countless times. Movies on the other hand would be better off rented. I don't like the BUYING movie concept. You are going to watch a movie a few times max, and that MIGHT be in a 3 year time span.

MUSIC = BUY
MOVIES = RENT

Blockbuster got it right years ago. No need to try and reinvent the wheel.

This is only because this is the type of person YOU are.

Remember this it's important. I prefer to own my movies If I suddenly feel like watching a movie 2 months from now I have to pay out cash again to see it full price for a rental when I maybe only want to see a clip of it like 15 mins worth.

I will rent movies but I much prefer to own them.

[D3LM3L]

This only means that iTunes will have a subscription-based service!

Prior to the video iPod's launch, Steve said the same thing about watching videos on a mobile device- pointless and hard to do.

And the Leopard delay? It was firmly denied just weeks before they announced it. I highly doubt it was that sudden.

You heard it here first! :rolleyes:

[killr_b]

Screw subscription service.

People that dumb should be using Vista… bwahahahaha!

No, seriously, think about it. If you can't pay just one month, you can't listen to any tunes that month. :eek:


MUSIC = BUY
MOVIES = RENT

Blockbuster got it right years ago. No need to try and reinvent the wheel.

That's what I'm talkin' about…

[aristotle]

I don't understand this forum's writers utter disliking of the subscription model.

Sure, it doesn't make sense for the masses, but it wouldn't harm anything having more choices for the consumer.

I'd maybe sign up for a subscription service if Apple did so. It'd be great to be able to download all these new albums that come out without any risk. Sure once I stop paying I don't have the music anymore but I also would have access to 3 million + songs at any time.
Renting would require draconian DRM and limits on how many iPods you could sync.

Subscriptions are incompatible with the following:
-DRM free music
-Being able to use songs in your iLife projects.

[Quu]

I really would like a subscription model. If it was £9.99 a month for unlimited music downloads I would sign up instantly. Sure you don't "own" the music but I only play them via iTunes and my iPod so I wouldn't mind and I love to download so much music that buying it all just costs to much.

I would really like a Subscription, I don't see why Apple wont give users choice it's not like by giving Subscriptions they automatically take away purchasing they could have both and give consumers what they always want, choice.

[Lixivial]

... I don't see why Apple wont give users choice ...

The article covers this. Apple don't see any financial gain or overwhelming interest in subscription models. And let's face it, the poster boys for this method haven't exactly been having their wallets explode with income.

Choice is great, choice is wonderful, and choice is desirable, but if Apple don't see the financial gain they won't implement it. Remember that Apple likely have to invest money into expanding their DRM scheme to accommodate subscription models, and if there is no overwhelming interest, then they will not do so.

And, again, there's the Steve Jobs factor. He doesn't want DRM'd music, and implementing this would be going opposite to his direction. Not an effective way of getting things done at Apple.

[siurpeeman]

having a subscription wouldn't stop me from buying music. it would just allow me to sample a lot more music, and i would buy things that i really liked. could it really hurt to have a subscription model in addition to the pay per song/album model?

[twoodcc]

yes, i want to own my music as well

[iJawn108]

I like to own my obscure tracks.

Music is timeless(well good music is).

[rlreif]

I don't understand this forum's writers utter disliking of the subscription model.

Sure, it doesn't make sense for the masses, but it wouldn't harm anything having more choices for the consumer.

I'd maybe sign up for a subscription service if Apple did so. It'd be great to be able to download all these new albums that come out without any risk. Sure once I stop paying I don't have the music anymore but I also would have access to 3 million + songs at any time.

im with you dude
im coming around to the subscription model... at first i wasnt when it was only mainstream crap online, but if i can have access to everything at once, its worth $10/month... thats like buying one new album per month, or 2 beers and a chintsy tip at a bar... i think its actually 4 million songs on itunes now

with a 3g phone with zero storage, you could carry around every song on itunes (on demand)

Screw subscription service.

People that dumb should be using Vista… bwahahahaha!

No, seriously, think about it. If you can't pay just one month, you can't listen to any tunes that month. :eek:



That's what I'm talkin' about…

are you really that poor??
you use a mac and live in thousand oaks!!!
how much is rhapsody? $10/month? $15?? come on!
for the price of one new album per month you can access to all of it... i dont believe you buy music if you are that poor

[synth3tik]

I personally like the way it is nw. I like having it simple. Subscriptions never seem to be simple.

[ChrisA]

If I suddenly feel like watching a movie 2 months from now I have to pay out cash again to see it full price for a rental

We are talking about subscription not rental. With a subscription you pay a flat monthly fee and after that you could watch any film they had as many times as you want. It is just as if you owned the entire iTune catalog, until you cancel the subscription. If would work just as you describe except you would not need to have a pie of disk in your house. Which is best them depend on price and how many you currently buy I never watch movies or TV so I'd not be a potential customer.

[FelixGV]

Just offer DRM-free subscription already! :p

[Peace]

Having a subscription service that causes music to be unplayable upon ending service only promotes stealing music.

I see nothing wrong with charging more for higher quality DRM-free music that one buys from online services.

[mustard]

Just offer DRM-free subscription already! :p

HaHa - bet we can dream.

[peestandingup]

"people want to own their music."

True, but he didnt say anything about videos. Hopefully, they will introduce a streaming movie rental service with iTunes movies. Perfect for the AppleTV & for those who dont wanna own every single movie they wanna watch.

Maybe thats what the rumor points to??

[Marx55]

"Customers Don't Seem Interested in Music Subscriptions"

Really, Steve? Just because you do not like it it doesn't mean we do not like it. Just try it and you will see!

[Carniphage]

"people want to own their music."

True, but he didnt say anything about videos. Hopefully, they will introduce a streaming movie rental service with iTunes movies. Perfect for the AppleTV & for those who dont wanna own every single movie they wanna watch.

Maybe thats what the rumor points to??

I hope so.
While I have no interest in subscription music - I really do want subscription movies.

C

[koobcamuk]

im with you dude
im coming around to the subscription model... at first i wasnt when it was only mainstream crap online, but if i can have access to everything at once, its worth $10/month... thats like buying one new album per month, or 2 beers and a chintsy tip at a bar... i think its actually 4 million songs on itunes now

OK, so $10 a month = £10 a month going by most US companies. That is insane. £120 a year? I own pretty much all the music I want anyway.

If I had just been born, and wanted lots of new music, this *might* be a cheaper way to do it... but you have to keep paying... forever. Those costs add up. I don't spend that much on music in a year. But that's just me. I have Tool and NIN and many classical tracks. I have a 30GB library and only about 100 iTunes songs. Mainly bacuse it's £0.79 here. That is not $0.99. £0.79 is more like $1.58 - so they can get stuffed.

[Creamer]

This surprises me, but I guess it's in line with many of the responses so far.

I subscribe to Rhapsody and love it. When people come over I ask them what they want to hear. They say "what do you have?" and I say "everything". It's really amazing. I am willing to pay $100/year to have ALL MUSIC. New album just came out? Have it. Old song I haven't heard in a while? Have it. Album I have never heard from a favorite band? Have it. It's a different way of thinking about things, but it's great. I stopped buying from iTunes, and I was looking forward to considering it again if they added a subscription model.

[Evangelion]

This is a case where people need to be protected from their own stupidity.

[peestandingup]

This is a case where people need to be protected from their own stupidity.
EXACTLY! Oh, subscription music sounds nice...until the day your car gets wrecked & has to be fixed, then the rents due the next day, plus your dog gets sick & has to go to the vet. You would like to eat that month, so WOOPS, there goes all my music.

[bmb012]

The subscription model is something that definitely sounds good in theory, but with something like iTunes, Apple isn't going to make a 'prosumer' and 'consumer' package like they do with their computers.

Really, think about it, can you imagine the PR nightmare of having to explain to some internet n00b that they can't access ANY of their music ever again because they've decided that they haven't been downloading enough songs in the past few months to make it worth the monthly fee?

[em500]

What I don't understand is why so many people here act as if subscriptions are substitutes, rather than complements to buying. Services like Yahoo and Real also offer downloads for keeps with lower prices as Apple ($0.89 or $0.79). You can listen to the entire catalog as long as you keep paying, which is great to discover new music, and buy what you really like to keep. The main reason that they're not more popular is that they don't play on iPods.

Let's face it, if one or two years from now Steve suddenly changes his mind and does offer subscriptions --not instead but in addition to buying, just like Yahoo and Real--, everybody would think it's the best thing since sliced bread. Just like with video downloads.

[Lewisham]

The nay-sayers either don't listen to much music, have a hell of a lot of money, or have some knee-jerk reaction to DRM.

I love music. I want to hear as much as I can all the time. I want to hear NEW music, not the same songs over and over again. I don't want the radio to pick it for me (I only trust a couple of DJs to do that). A subscription model is perfect for me, and it's perfect for the vast majority of Under 25s for whom music is something to be consumed for a couple of weeks, and then you move onto the next set of new songs.

The pitch is simple: Buy an iPod, pay $10 a month, and listen to whatever you want, whenever you want. It's easy money, and, from most reports, exactly what the record companies want.

If you want to "own" (I put it in quotes because I don't entirely agree that you do own your music with iTMS DRM) your music, go ahead. The subscription model would just add another string to the bow.

Why Steve is putting up a smokescreen is anyone's guess. There is a definite market for it, it's an easy contract to sign and it's easily implemented. I think he may just be out of touch, or his thinking is entirely railroaded into getting DRM off music, and that by accepting the model, is actually validating it (which, to be honest, is a very GOOD use for DRM).

[Lewisham]

OK, so $10 a month = £10 a month going by most US companies. That is insane. £120 a year? I own pretty much all the music I want anyway.


Dude, what? That's an album a month from the high street, as opposed to as many albums as you want all the time. Your maths is crazy.

[Angsty]

So, after paying all this money, at the end, I've got nothing tangible to show for it - I just get to 'listen' to the music?

Um... isn't that called a 'radio'?? :confused:

Ang

[bertpalmer]

I would be interested in a subscription service simply because it allows you to sample as much music as you want for very little money.

It would also be great as (at least on a PC) you could copy the music whilst it was playing and keep it! A bit time consuming, but a lot less than buying all the music you can copy.

However, as previously stated there would be minimal financial gain for Apple as any money gained would probably go back in to maintaining issues in synching and DRM.

Bit of a shame really!

[MacVault]

1) Subscriptions? for Movies, yes, since I usually watch once or twice then forget about it. For Music....
2) ....if there are DRM-free versions then I'd rather "buy" those and "own" them because I listen to a good song many times over. However, I don't consider that I "own" anything that has DRM, so until iTunes is free of DRM I consider it more of a subscription model anyway.

[iAlan]

Not sure if I am going to explain my thought correctly and clearly but here goes...

What is in for the record companies? And more importantly what is in it for hte artists? A physical CD gives them a revenue stream so does a digital download. Now, if I pay $20 a month for a subscription service and I have 300 or so songs on my computer from 5 different labels how is this divided amongst the labels? Now let's say I add another 70 songs all from one label - all the U2 tracks for example - would the other labels now get less from me as a percentage of my total subscription? This is what I don't get? Sure the labels would continue to get revenue from me every month I keep their songs as opposed to a one off purchase, but I would swap and change what I have on my computer and listen to on a regular basis. So a song that is stuck in my head 'cause someone was whistling it would be on my computer for a few days till I ended up hating it ( 'Bad Day' is a good example). I may have downloaded it for 99c previously but now it is on and off my computer in an instant - what does the label and/or artist get? Of course, if I currently spend $30 - 40 a month on avergae on music a rental service would be cheaper for me, but not the labels.

Now here is the kicker (for me anyway) I live in Japan and will probably do so for a few more years. Once I leave the country all my investment in a subscription service will be down the plug-hole if i cannot take it with me. All that money and nothing to show for it?
Don't know if it is clear but I don't think this is a good business model for a record label?

[Curtis72]

I agree with all the first two comments I read. I want to OWN my music. I'll listen to a song countless times. Movies on the other hand would be better off rented. I don't like the BUYING movie concept. You are going to watch a movie a few times max, and that MIGHT be in a 3 year time span.

MUSIC = BUY
MOVIES = RENT

Blockbuster got it right years ago. No need to try and reinvent the wheel.

Pretty much agree with that....
My only concern is that do you really want to movie files on your system that doesn't work after a period of time (x days, x weeks, x months)? Who would be responsible for deleting them? I am Apple fan, but I don't want iTunes flagging the WRONG files for deletion and doing so!

[em500]

So, after paying all this money, at the end, I've got nothing tangible to show for it - I just get to 'listen' to the music?

Yes. Economists call this a service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service), specifically, an entertainment service, and people are paying money for it. In fact, in most developed countries, services make up the majority of economic activity. Crazy, isn't it?


Um... isn't that called a 'radio'?? :confused:

Ang
No, it isn't. Radio's don't give you access to their entire catalog on demand, and are normally funded through ads or taxes.

[BenRoethig]

Music subscriptions I'm not interested in at all. Video subscriptions on the other hand, I'm very interested in. I hope Steve is able to tell the difference between the two.

[siurpeeman]

Pretty much agree with that....
My only concern is that do you really want to movie files on your system that doesn't work after a period of time (x days, x weeks, x months)? Who would be responsible for deleting them? I am Apple fan, but I don't want iTunes flagging the WRONG files for deletion and doing so!

i'm sure apple could implement a method of deleting songs you don't actually own.

[xjebbx]

i agree i want to own my music.

BUT, i would love to rent movies and tv shows!

look at blockbuster/netflix, the rental game is where its at.

[AlmostThere]

And let's face it, the poster boys for this method haven't exactly been having their wallets explode with income.


People would probably be saying the same thing about online music sales if it wasn't for iTMS.

Online music subscription options are extremely limited right now and any conclusions about demand seem very spurious while it is not available through the 80% (ish) market share holder and on the 80% (ish) market share portable device.

[BenRoethig]

i agree i want to own my music.

BUT, i would love to rent movies and tv shows!

look at blockbuster/netflix, the rental game is where its at.

Especially with video files as large as they are.

[wildmannz]

No thanks.
Subscriptions look good from a companies perspective - a great way to keep a steady income stream that is easily quantified.

Apple could do this for the Record companies quite easily - but I won't be signing up for it.
I don't want a subscription set-up for Music.
I don't want a subscription setup for Movies either.

I AM very keen for better quality and DRM free music.
Bring THAT on!

[stadidas]

What no-one seems to have pointed out yet is that if you have a subscription with a company, and that company goes bust, or no longer supports that service anymore (iTunes will not last forever), then what are you going to do? You'll have spent years paying a subscription, only for all of your music to disappear. Buying your music gives you the security that it is yours and you have control over it.

[ictiosapiens]

This is probably a stupid question, but can you burn the songs onto cds? I guess not, because the drm would be unusable, but this presents another issue, I would be efectively limited to playing my music on my ipod or computer... At least with itunes drm'ed music you can still burn it and play it on regular cd players...

I don't know in the US, but I'm sure the EU would have some serious beef with that model...

[Digital Skunk]

I agree with all the first two comments I read. I want to OWN my music. I'll listen to a song countless times. Movies on the other hand would be better off rented. I don't like the BUYING movie concept. You are going to watch a movie a few times max, and that MIGHT be in a 3 year time span.

MUSIC = BUY
MOVIES = RENT

Blockbuster got it right years ago. No need to try and reinvent the wheel.


Yes! We should be able to just rent movies and buy the music. Let me rent them for $2 and you have the industry beat. Let me rent them for a $1 and Apple will rule the multimedia world and Red Box will be out of business.

[Digital Skunk]

"Customers Don't Seem Interested in Music Subscriptions"

Really, Steve? Just because you do not like it it doesn't mean we do not like it. Just try it and you will see!

Trying something and failing at it usually means a backlash of MS fanboys and media. It will most likely give negative comments from the computer world and maybe even cost millions of dollars to setup, then millions more to shut down.

[Nym]

Humm, I like owning the music, however, I can't see why Apple doesn't offer a subscription model too, it gives customers the choice of having their music one or both ways.

My only question is that subscription model is like "pirate's heaven", after two days of opening the service to customers a mini-app called iDownloadSubscriptionSongs will appear and that way you'd own all of the iTunes library for 9,99, well, that's the reality.

And BTW, I never bought anything from the iTMS (mainly because I don't actually own a VISA and the iTMS doesn't accept generated virtual VISA cards), still, when you buy an album from the store and you burn it to cd, if you import the songs again will they keep the DRM? Just a curiosity.

[Digital Skunk]

This surprises me, but I guess it's in line with many of the responses so far.

I subscribe to Rhapsody and love it. When people come over I ask them what they want to hear. They say "what do you have?" and I say "everything". It's really amazing. I am willing to pay $100/year to have ALL MUSIC. New album just came out? Have it. Old song I haven't heard in a while? Have it. Album I have never heard from a favorite band? Have it. It's a different way of thinking about things, but it's great. I stopped buying from iTunes, and I was looking forward to considering it again if they added a subscription model.

That's a good way to look at it. But the one thing I have learned as a former college student is that you don't want too many subscription services if you do not have a steady stream of income, or if you won't be using the full capabilities of the service. Cell phones get used everyday and keep you in contact when you need someone or someone needs you. Car insurance makes sure you can pay to have your car fixed and you can pay the guy you hit. Music subscription....:confused: ... it does help that you can get this song and that song whenever you want but you are paying for songs you may never listen to, and once you cancel the subscription you have NOTHING.

[Digital Skunk]

Humm, I like owning the music, however, I can't see why Apple doesn't offer a subscription model too, it gives customers the choice of having their music one or both ways.

My only question is that subscription model is like "pirate's heaven", after two days of opening the service to customers a mini-app called iDownloadSubscriptionSongs will appear and that way you'd own all of the iTunes library for 9,99, well, that's the reality.

And BTW, I never bought anything from the iTMS (mainly because I don't actually own a VISA and the iTMS doesn't accept generated virtual VISA cards), still, when you buy an album from the store and you burn it to cd, if you import the songs again will they keep the DRM? Just a curiosity.

Funny thing is that it will NOT keep the DRM. That was the way I did it before all the software came out that stripped the songs of DRM. I don't know any anymore since I just authorized all the Macs in my family so they can play each others libraries. But once you burn the Audio CD and rip it back you your computer the DRM isn't there.

[Wildhack]

I can't say that my tastes and listening habits lend themselves to a subscription model, but everybody has different tastes and needs. I have to believe that there is a significant section of the market that wants to have temporary access to the entire catalog. Some combination of subscribe-keep might be tempting too. I like the emusic model of paying a set amount each month for a number of downloads. Maybe a set fee for downloading all you want each month and keeping some would be attractive.

That being said, the subscription model for movies would be a great deal for the consumer and would sell a lot more Apple TV's for Apple.

[DaveTheGrey]

when you buy an album from the store and you burn it to cd, if you import the songs again will they keep the DRM? Just a curiosity.

no

[Digital Skunk]

2) ....if there are DRM-free versions then I'd rather "buy" those and "own" them because I listen to a good song many times over. However, I don't consider that I "own" anything that has DRM, so until iTunes is free of DRM I consider it more of a subscription model anyway.

No no no I am sorry... there is nothing subscription about ITS right now even with the evil DRM. If you buy the song I can copy it as many times as I want authorize up to 5 computers and play them there anytime, anywhere (with iPod) and let anyone listen to it when I am near WiFi or in a cave.

Plus... once you burn a CD of the music it strips the DRM

SupeMediaStore.com 100CDs for like $25 on a good deal day. :D

[Digital Skunk]

Pretty much agree with that....
My only concern is that do you really want to movie files on your system that doesn't work after a period of time (x days, x weeks, x months)? Who would be responsible for deleting them? I am Apple fan, but I don't want iTunes flagging the WRONG files for deletion and doing so!

I think the renting movie thing would be like a streaming thing. They would give you a passcode or something you would punch it in then stream the music to your computer then you can stream it over your Apple TV.

Or you will download the movie and get a certain number of watches or days to keep it, then once you play it again it won't let you play it. Tell you that your time is up and ask if you want the file deleted.

Maybe :)

[BenRoethig]

Yes! We should be able to just rent movies and buy the music. Let me rent them for $2 and you have the industry beat. Let me rent them for a $1 and Apple will rule the multimedia world and Red Box will be out of business.

Give me a rental scheme similar to vongo at $10 a month and the AppleTV will take off.

[Digital Skunk]

I can't say that my tastes and listening habits lend themselves to a subscription model, but everybody has different tastes and needs. I have to believe that there is a significant section of the market that wants to have temporary access to the entire catalog. Some combination of subscribe-keep might be tempting too. I like the emusic model of paying a set amount each month for a number of downloads. Maybe a set fee for downloading all you want each month and keeping some would be attractive.

That being said, the subscription model for movies would be a great deal for the consumer and would sell a lot more Apple TV's for Apple.

That's a good point. Subscribe then if you want a certain song you can pay a discounted amount to actually keep it once you subscription is over.

[RRK]

Sorry I didn't read the other three pages but Im glad Jobs made a clarification after that analyst said Apple was eyeing subscription services. So now I think we are nearly guaranteed subscription movie service or tv service. With subscription tv Apple TV will actually be a cable tv alternative which is huge.

[csimmons]

No no no I am sorry... there is nothing subscription about ITS right now even with the evil DRM. If you buy the song I can copy it as many times as I want authorize up to 5 computers and play them there anytime, anywhere (with iPod) and let anyone listen to it when I am near WiFi or in a cave.

Plus... once you burn a CD of the music it strips the DRM

SupeMediaStore.com 100CDs for like $25 on a good deal day. :D

The labels only want Apple to offer music subscriptions because they see Apple as the only one who can generate enough interest in that model due to their market dominance.

The music subscription model has been kicked around by the labels since the mid Nineties. Everyone who has tried it has failed or is failing, so the industry looks to Apple so save their recurring revenue dreams.

Don't think for a second that the artists, producers and publishers would get a fairer share from a successful subscription model. They won't. Trust me.

NOTE: Before I get criticized by subscription model fanboys for my take on the whole subscription service model, know that I current work for Sony / BMG here in Europe, so I know what I'm talking about. :eek:

[justflie]

Someone might have already said this, but I'm trying to finish a project and don't have to read all the comments (so why am i posting this anyways?!:p ). The key to this article is that Steve is only saying no subscription to MUSIC. Well, at least from reading the Macrumors summary, there's no mention of video. I think they will move to a subscription and/or renting option for video for those with AppleTV and the like. This (hopefully) wouldn't replace the pay-to-own model, but would rather be complimentary to the current model. If you want to watch a movie one night but probably never again, rent it for $4 and have it be playable for 3 days or something. That would work in my book.

[grahamtriggs]

MUSIC = BUY
MOVIES = RENT

This assumes a number of things - the amount of times you want to watch a film vs. the amount of times you might listen to an album, that with a rental you have to give it back after a brief period of time, that the rental costs are unit based and much lower than buying.

None of which is necessarily true. Download music subscriptions are a great additional service that let's you pick and try things as you want, all at a fixed cost. It's not a complete replacement for owning music, but given all the associated problems with downloads (DRM, backing up content, etc.) - I think it's a great move for downloads.

For owning music, I'll stick to buying true high quality products (ie. CD, SACD, etc.)

[lmalave]

I love subscriptions and I love my Sansa Connect. Sure, the elegance of the hardware and interface can't compare to the iPod, but Apple would do well to copy Sansa's and Yahoo Music's features that aid consumers in Music Discovery.

Examples:
- Being able to listen to internet radio stations (the iPhone may eventually add this when it gets updated to 3G or WiMax)
- Being able to listen to *custom* radio stations (it'll dynamically create playlists based on songs you've rated). This is a killer feature that Yahoo, Rhapsody, etc. have, but iTunes has yet to add
- Being able to immediately download a song you hear on the internet radio (or, for that matter, the whole album that the song is on). This is *the* killer feature, in my opinon. Granted, this feature is much more useful with a subscription model, since there is no additional incremental cost to downloading more songs, so you are more likely to download the song since it's not going to cost you $1 a pop.
- For any song you hear on the radio (or even one you're playing from your own library), you can select "make a mix like this song" and hear (supposedly) similar music.

But yes, there's the whole "not owning your music" bit. In my opinion most people just have a reflexive resistance to not "owning" their music. just because it's not what they're used to. The way to think of it is this: you get enjoyment out of *listening* to music, not owning it. Before subscriptions, the value you got from owning a song was that it was the *only* way to listen to a song whenever you wanted (rather than waiting for it to come back on the radio or something). But subscriptions give you another way to have a local copy of that song (or just a bookmark the stream if you prefer) so that you can play it whenever you want.

Yes, you would "lose" the song when you quit the subscription service, but you can always download/bookmark the song again at whatever subscription service you are switching to. It's just the chance you take. Basically you have to weigh the annoyance of having to download all your music again (though at no additional cost if you're just switching to another subscription), versus the tremendous value provided by unlimited downloads. For me the decision was easy - I'm downloading maybe 100 songs a week (through the music discovery features. If I hear a song I like I just select "download entire album", and I'll do that maybe 10 times a week).

The value provided by the unlimited downloads is just so extremely compelling that the "switching cost" of changing to another music provider is just not a big deal. Especially considering that that switching cost is non-monetary, it's just the annoyance of having to download all of your music again. And I'm sure if the subscription model becomes more popular, people will come up with a solution to the "switching" problem. For example: software that allows you to save your library as a huge playlist text file, and then when you join the new service it goes down that list of songs and automatically downloads them all....

Anyway, people that keep ripping the subscription model but haven't tried it are really missing out. You really won't know until you've tried it for yourself...

[CommodityFetish]

If you're going to have a subscription model, make it so that you don't lose everything if you stop subscribing. ie - let the equivalent of half (or some percentage) of the money I've spent on the subscription become credit towards buying and owning whatever songs I want.

That sounds like what "customers would want" - the best of both worlds. Of course it's not really about the customers is it?

[gnasher729]

That's a good point. Subscribe then if you want a certain song you can pay a discounted amount to actually keep it once you subscription is over.

That would be my idea: Pay $15 a month for a subscription, and it allows you to buy up to $30 a month at half price. So if you spend $30 a month anyway then the subscription is basically free.

[Evangelion]

Yes. Economists call this a service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service), specifically, an entertainment service, and people are paying money for it. In fact, in most developed countries, services make up the majority of economic activity. Crazy, isn't it?

In those economic calculations, retail is also considered a "service". And are you saying that renting music is a good idea because we are moving towards service-economy? By that logic, it's a good idea to stop eating, since we are moving away from agriculture.

[kzin]

I agree with all the first two comments I read. I want to OWN my music. I'll listen to a song countless times. Movies on the other hand would be better off rented. I don't like the BUYING movie concept. You are going to watch a movie a few times max, and that MIGHT be in a 3 year time span.

MUSIC = BUY
MOVIES = RENT

Blockbuster got it right years ago. No need to try and reinvent the wheel.

And clearly, if you and Blockbuster think it should be a certain way, then that's how it should be. People don't need choices, they need corporations and random individuals to lock them in to particular modes that might satisfy most people, even if they don't satisfy all people.


Frankly, as a film buff, I _DO_ want to buy certain films. The idea that I shouldn't have that option is absolutely asinine.

I want the option to rent most movies, and buy the ones that I might want to keep. And, honestly, NO current vendor has the right model for this. I can subscribe to netflix and tell them I "lost" a movie, but then I don't get the full set of a box set, the nice box for the disk, nor the booklet that goes with it. I just get one disk at a time. That's stupid. I can't just easily convert my rental from blockbuster into a purchase (and if I just forget to return the rental, I also don't get the box, the booklet, etc.). That's also stupid (but practical, considering the inventory realities of blockbuster's rental model).

I should be able to subscribe and sample what I want without owning it, and then choose to keep/own longer term copies of things that I decide are worth owning. This is true for both movies and music.

And, ideally, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between "owned from the start" and "converted from subscription/rental to owned". Buying it would immediately get you all of the extra stuff (booklet, bonus disks, cover art, etc.).


So, no, Steve Jobs doesn't have it right. I would immediately sign up for a subscription to iTunes, and if the songs I download that way aren't going to be permanently available in my library, then I would ALSO buy songs from iTunes when I came across something that I know I want to keep in my collection forever. And I might ALSO buy CD's (I still do that, too).

iTunes ought to give you:

a) an option for subscriptions to all of their data (all types: movies, tv shows, songs), but that you wont keep indefinitely (stop being able to play it if your subscription lapses or can't be verified for some reason?)
b) an option for "renting" data (like a subscription but with a one time watch/listen, something like $.10 to listen to a song once ... and it may or may not count as a discount if you buy the song) (or, instead of "one time", it would be "unlimited times in 24 hours" or something).
c) an option for the current model of buying copies of data, that will stay in your library even if your subscription lapses, or you're in a situation where the device can't verify your subscription, etc.
d) an option to buy PDFs and similar material that duplicates the box-art and booklets that go with the other data if you had bought physical versions of it.
e) an option for buying non-DRM data, based upon the policy of the individual IP owner, instead of based upon a store-wide policy.


If iTunes did all of that, I can imagine iTunes eventually being my only source of this music/movies/tv. Though, that somewhat depends on how easy it is to access old/classic movies, which is a bit easier to do with netflix. But if the netflix and itunes catalogs were identical, and iTunes offered all of the above choices, I wouldn't want/need netflix at all. I'd probably drop DirecTV too.

[kerryn]

I like the subscription (rental) model. I have been using it for nearly 2 years now in the Windows world.

The ability to pay $9.99 per month and have access to 2 million songs is far more valuable to me than paying 99c per track.

In the time I have subscribed I may have bought a couple of hundred songs, which I might typically get bored with quite quickly. Instead I have about 14,000 subscription songs that I can access so I do not get bored with the music and I am finding constant variety and new artists all the time. This is where subscription music excels the ability to explore new artists and genres without feeling that you are wasting money on a song of unknown quality (if you were to buy).

Do I own the music? No. I do not care. The way I look at it, to purchase 14,000 songs via itunes would cost around $14,000. I do not have that much to spend on music. However, even if I did, $14,000 would buy 116 years of subscription music at $10/ month - so I am not going to worry about the fact that I am paying per month for the right to listen to music.

Plus in 116 years - apart from being 6 feed under, I would have listened to a whole lot more that 14,000 songs.

I believe subscription has a future, I am surprised that people here are so hostile to it. The solution is simple. iTunes should offer two models for music delivery. Purchase and subscription.

People can purchase their music if they want (though I would only do it if it were lossless and DRM free) and others can subscribe - explore their music and still buy if they want. The two models models are not mutually exclusive.

I use Yahoo! for my subscriptions. Now Yahoo! kind of sucks but the subscription service is excellent with good quality 196kbps WMA tracks.

Do not bash what you do not know, until you have tried it.

[Rocketman]

It is my understanding there are already subscription services out there. Use them if you like that paradigm.

As for movies I think the fact that many more people are wiling to consider renting is "bad", but a matter of enculturalization via services like Blockbuster and Netflix that reduce the cost to watch many movies in a series without buying each and every one of them, thus reducing total cost. So maybe with movies BOTH a rental model and a purchase model is the way to go.

Plenty of folks buy a DVD or VHS of a movie they have viewed and LIKE. Heck, maybe even a trial viewing scheme of movies of say two trials per movie purchased and a "viewing fee" beyond that. So it is a hybrid between purchase and rent using a purchase software model.

I am in favor of a buy paradigm for both, but some form of "trial or reduced cost review" is needed as some movies are loosers and no way do I want to purchase that *&&^% and support the moron who made it :)

Rocketman

[mrthieme]

Sorry I didn't read the other three pages but Im glad Jobs made a clarification after that analyst said Apple was eyeing subscription services. So now I think we are nearly guaranteed subscription movie service or tv service. With subscription tv Apple TV will actually be a cable tv alternative which is huge.
You hit the nail on the head with the cable tv alternative, Apple seems to want iTunes to be the pipe through which we consume all our media. The only problem to me it seems is that for 50 bucks a month I can watch a ton of cable progamming if I choose, but could only buy 25 tv shows through iTunes as it stands right now, and for the most part I am not interested in owning tv programs.

Where iTunes could easily better cable subscriptions is in the diverse variety of niche programming that can be provided instead of the broad market fluff Comcast pipes into my house each month. If Apple can strike the right pricing model with video on iTunes, working in conjunction with the :apple: TV I will gladly cancel cable.

[lifeboy001]

This surprises me, but I guess it's in line with many of the responses so far.

I subscribe to Rhapsody and love it. When people come over I ask them what they want to hear. They say "what do you have?" and I say "everything". It's really amazing. I am willing to pay $100/year to have ALL MUSIC. New album just came out? Have it. Old song I haven't heard in a while? Have it. Album I have never heard from a favorite band? Have it. It's a different way of thinking about things, but it's great. I stopped buying from iTunes, and I was looking forward to considering it again if they added a subscription model.

Eh, I say the same thing to everybody I know. Meanwhile, I don't have to spend an extra $120-$180 per year to retain my 10000+ tracks. How many people here have already spent 15 or more years of their life collecting music? Maybe the little kids that post here find this a worthwhile transaction, but if you've already invested any more than a thousand dollars or so into a collection, it just doesn't make sense economically.

[PlaceofDis]

i will not subscribe to music.
movies i would though. i'm finding myself re-watching movies less and less. depends on the flick though. so a subscription movie service would rock (especially with a discount to own/purchase) and i would be using it all the time.

[mrthieme]

I like the subscription (rental) model. I have been using it for nearly 2 years now in the Windows world.

The ability to pay $9.99 per month and have access to 2 million songs is far more valuable to me than paying 99c per track.

In the time I have subscribed I may have bought a couple of hundred songs, which I might typically get bored with quite quickly. Instead I have about 14,000 subscription songs that I can access so I do not get bored with the music and I am finding constant variety and new artists all the time. This is where subscription music excels the ability to explore new artists and genres without feeling that you are wasting money on a song of unknown quality (if you were to buy).

Do I own the music? No. I do not care. The way I look at it, to purchase 14,000 songs via itunes would cost around $14,000. I do not have that much to spend on music. However, even if I did, $14,000 would buy 116 years of subscription music at $10/ month - so I am not going to worry about the fact that I am paying per month for the right to listen to music.

Plus in 116 years - apart from being 6 feed under, I would have listened to a whole lot more that 14,000 songs.

I believe subscription has a future, I am surprised that people here are so hostile to it. The solution is simple. iTunes should offer two models for music delivery. Purchase and subscription.

People can purchase their music if they want (though I would only do it if it were lossless and DRM free) and others can subscribe - explore their music and still buy if they want. The two models models are not mutually exclusive.

I use Yahoo! for my subscriptions. Now Yahoo! kind of sucks but the subscription service is excellent with good quality 196kbps WMA tracks.

Do not bash what you do not know, until you have tried it.
Well said. The ability to enjoy the entire iTunes catalog for a small monthly fee would be a great addition to the ability to buy albums you really want at a higher bitrate and without drm.

[Yvan256]

I know I'm only repeating the same thing a lot of people already said, but I'm also in the "buy music, rent movies/tv shows" camp.

Of course, some movies I do want to own (The Fifth Element, Terminator 2, Spaceballs, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Army of Darkness, etc), but most of the time I only watch them once (anything recent). ;)

[guzhogi]

I feel the same as most of you. Music subscriptions are bad. I tend to listen to some songs frequently and don't want to pay over & over for it. On the other hand, I've bought a few songs on iTunes I didn't like so I wasted 99 cents. After a while, that adds up. Also, I've accidently deleted tracks I wanted. Would be nice if Apple would let people redownload for free or maybe a small 1-2 cent charge to cover bandwidth charges.

Movies, I can see on a subscription plan, with an option to buy like Blockbuster. Don't really know what the best subscription type is (if there is one): Netflix/Blockbuster where you get X number of movies at a time and you'll get more when you return them, or an unlimited amount of movies/month or whatever.

The thing I don't like about subscriptions is the music/movies are already made when you get them. The company doesn't have to do anything to keep them working after you get them. Only thing you'll have to pay for is the electricity to power your computer/iPod/whatever.

[john7jr]

Here's my beef:

I like some pretty obscure music. If I pay $120 a year for all of iTunes, only to find that one day that record company bailed out and my favorites are gone, I'd be pissed.

It's about controlling your own destiny. I'd rather know what I have and know that I have it indefinitely, than to worry about what some sleazy, money hungry record company is going to do to screw me tomorrow.

[Xenious]

Music subscriptions, no way. Movie subscriptions...now we're talking, replace my netflix and i'm interested.

[richard4339]

Personally, I'm all for the subscription method, I think it'd be great, especially with a library as extensive as iTunes. I hope Jobs reconsiders, because I'll be the first person in line to subscribe =)

[mkmcfr]

Geez... Haven't you ever dreamed of being able to turn on your music player and listen to any kind of music you happen to be in the mood for at that moment??? For $6 a month on Yahoo! Unlimited, you can listen to anything in the library as many times as you want. It's especially good for listening to new stuff that you're not sure you want to buy and you won't find on the P2Ps yet. On iTunes, all you get is a 30 sec sample (thanks a lot, Steve). But even an Arrowsmith freak might want to play some Josh Groban for a romantic evening at home (I suppose some of you have girlfriends?). Of course, you can record the stuff if you are a little bit resourceful, but it takes time, just as it takes time to sort through all the fake and poorly recorded files on the P2Ps. I hope Steve will change his mind, cause I'm tired of running two computer all the time...

[xenotaku]

I seem to be missing something. I LOVE my subscription service to Emusic, and I own everything I download there. Steve, sorry, but you are dead wrong on this one. I haven't downloaded a song from iTunes since I started to use Emusic. And most of my friends have drifted towards Emusic as well.

[DeaconGraves]

I used napster's subscription service about 3 years ago before taking the plunge to iTunes. While I agree with some of the positives mentioned already (its great when you need a few songs for a party or special ocassion and don't really want to throw down the extra cash to get them) it became a real pain when new releases came out. A lot of files were unable to be rented (buy only) and this seemed to me to just be another way to slowly milk me of my cash.

Not sure if its still the same these days (or if other services are similar) but I'd rather just pay up front for everything and own it forever.

[johnmcboston]

I seem to be missing something. I LOVE my subscription service to Emusic, and I own everything I download there. Steve, sorry, but you are dead wrong on this one. I haven't downloaded a song from iTunes since I started to use Emusic. And most of my friends have drifted towards Emusic as well.

?? While you pay monthly to be a part of emusic, you download mp3s and own them forever. This is not a subscription service model as this topic relates to. I think this is about the subscription services where you stop paying and your songs stop working...

[SiliconAddict]

The high and mighty Steve has spoken so it must be so. Are these the same customers who weren't interested in watching video on such a small screen? :rolleyes: The man if full of it. There ARE people out there interested in subscriptions. Maybe not the traditional type of subscriptions but some type. Heck I wouldn't mind spending $10 a month for say 30 temp songs.

[TheBobcat]

I agree with everyone about the own music, subscribe to video ideas, but I can't put my finger on why. I guess because I listen to different types of music all the time and enjoy owning it since I use it frequently, where a movie or TV show usually one-time entertainment. Of course, still offering movies and TV shows for purchase would be important too.

But yeah, the Apple TV is made for things like subscription HD Video, whereas I think the iPod is more for owning stuff. But the labels would love to have a constant source of revenue, and their wishes are paramount.

[mdntcallr]

I don't think Steve here is right.

I don't mind DRM at all, i think if they remove it, people will just share songs with friends and it will lead to lower record sales, thus harming the artists.

also, i think PPV movie rentals would be awesome, i really don't need to own movies on ITunes. its a way lower quality format than DVD or HD. so i would love to watch and have it expire later, then free up the space on my hard drive.

also subscriptions to music? hell yeah, it's a great way to load up a full music collection without purchasing everything. if i want to burn something to CD, i can always buy some songs. i wouldnt mind having the option between the two. its good thing

[Maccus Aurelius]

I don't think Steve here is right.

I don't mind DRM at all, i think if they remove it, people will just share songs with friends and it will lead to lower record sales, thus harming the artists.

also, i think PPV movie rentals would be awesome, i really don't need to own movies on ITunes. its a way lower quality format than DVD or HD. so i would love to watch and have it expire later, then free up the space on my hard drive.

also subscriptions to music? hell yeah, it's a great way to load up a full music collection without purchasing everything. if i want to burn something to CD, i can always buy some songs. i wouldnt mind having the option between the two. its good thing

I think you're wrong. DRM free music will probably not result in a rise in file sharing. The very fact that CD's are not equipped with digital rights management is proof of this. What would be the main difference between a DRM free album from iTunes and a physical CD that would make any difference at all regarding file sharing? I can still rip the CD's, and into any bit rate and codec I wish, and still share them with everyone.

But I agree about PPV movies. This would be a big step up for the ATV, since there would be no worries about video files eating hard drive space.

[johnmcboston]

I don't mind DRM at all, i think if they remove it, people will just share songs with friends and it will lead to lower record sales, thus harming the artists.

Depends on the person. A friend shares a song/album with me. If I don't like it I'll trash it. If I like it I'll buy more from that artist. Or I'll go see the band when they're in town. It's called free publicity. Not everyone is mean and evil. :)

[Maccus Aurelius]

Exactly. Not all freebies here and there is some horrible act of piracy. Would you tell your friends "Sorry dude, I can't lend you my CD, it takes food out of the artists' mouths"?

I've had friends give me CD's copied from their own, and have had others email me songs and I've done likewise, which also resulted in them either deleting the files or looking for more stuff from those artists and purchasing them. Sharing music here and there isn't wrong...if anything, it's builds the market for the artists' work in general.

[PetMac]

Wow, the record companies would love this. What if the subscription model became the prevailing method of music delivery? Can you imagine how incrediblly *****TY the music would become! The record companies would have guaranteed recurring income and no incentive to sign and develop new artists especially artist in niche markets. Pay your fee and you get what the record companies decide you want!:eek:

[PostTribber]

I like iTunes. buy the song I want without having to buy the rest of the CD I don't want, @ $17 a pop. most 'artists' at best have only 1-3 songs per album even worth listening to, let alone buying. it's not my fault that Record Company's sign these guy's & girls to unwarranted 'bookoo' contracts. I'm too selective, and a 'subscription' would be useless to me. I'll go back to Borders if I have too. at least I can look at the College Girls Gone Caffeine!

[LethalWolfe]

Wow, the record companies would love this. What if the subscription model became the prevailing method of music delivery? Can you imagine how incrediblly *****TY the music would become! The record companies would have guaranteed recurring income and no incentive to sign and develop new artists especially artist in niche markets. Pay your fee and you get what the record companies decide you want!:eek:

Or since the record companies have a more consistent/predictable flow of income the need for a superstar cash cow is diminished thus it's less of a financial risk to sign artists that wouldn't necessarily have mainstream appeal. ;)


Lethal

[WhiteShadow]

Personally I won't use a subscription, but I do prefer the option. My largest (only) complaint about apple, but it is getting better, is consumer choice. Athough, I believe jobs can do no wrong.

[xenotaku]

why does a subscription service according to Jobs have to be only that way. Have any of you ever heard of Emusic? Ya know? The number 2 online music store in the world? I pay 9.99 a month for 90 songs. If I don't download them all, they carry over for the next month. I SUBSCRIBE and I OWN everything, and it's ALL DRM free. iTunes need to copy the Emusic model. For 9.99, I get the same ammount of music I would have to pay 99.00 on iTunes. Jobs is plain wrong on this. There is a reason why more and more people are switching to Emusic. iTunes keeps seeing its growth decline (but still growing of course) while Emusic is gaining ground every quarter.

Of course Emusic only works with indy lables, but thats fine by me, the big lables are ***** anyways.

[mozmac]

Personally I won't use a subscription, but I do prefer the option. My largest (only) complaint about apple, but it is getting better, is consumer choice. Athough, I believe jobs can do no wrong.

I agree. Jobs has a proven track record so far, so I trust his judgment when it comes to renegotiations. If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't even have an iTunes store.

However, I am excited to see other stores opening up with DRM-free tracks. I love iTunes, but I welcome competition. Imagine if back in the day Tower Records was the only record store and then people got mad when The Wherehouse started selling music. We can't get mad at other stores for opening. The more the merrier, because Apple will be forced to continually innovate, and we will all benefit.

[DeaconGraves]

why does a subscription service according to Jobs have to be only that way. Have any of you ever heard of Emusic? Ya know? The number 2 online music store in the world? I pay 9.99 a month for 90 songs. If I don't download them all, they carry over for the next month. I SUBSCRIBE and I OWN everything, and it's ALL DRM free. iTunes need to copy the Emusic model. For 9.99, I get the same ammount of music I would have to pay 99.00 on iTunes. Jobs is plain wrong on this. There is a reason why more and more people are switching to Emusic. iTunes keeps seeing its growth decline (but still growing of course) while Emusic is gaining ground every quarter.

I don't think its subscription according to Jobs more than subscription according to the labels. If they went by the Emusic plan the labels would be losing even more money (or at least hoping that enough people buy subs and just let them sit without every buying anything to make up for the $.10 a song that package generates). If Jobs could pull that off though, bless him.

Of course Emusic only works with indy lables, but thats fine by me, the big lables are ***** anyways.

A valid point, but you have shot your argument in the foot :p

[w00master]

I think some of you nay-sayers of subscription based services are missing the point:

"You have to keep paying for the songs you listen to over and over again."

Not true, if you want that then most of these subscription services allow you to purchase the songs to own.


"If you stop paying, then the songs go away!"

Yes, this is true. However, for most people who utilize subscription services this is not a problem at all. Why? Because, those tracks are typically "throw away" tracks anyway to bolster their existing OWNED tracks. Think of this tier idea:

1. Lowest level --> Subscribed songs
2. High Level --> Owned songs

The idea that your entire library will go away if you stop paying is implying that people who use subscription based services don't own any songs of their own. Not true at all. If they want the tracks permenantly, then they BUY them and own them. Why is this such a big problem?

Utlimately, I feel that subscription music is a great idea of discovering new music. You can try them out, discover new music. If you don't like the song, then no biggie if it goes away. If you love the song, then you PURCHASE the song (at a discounted rate) and you own it forever.

Why is this a big problem? I think it's an amazing idea and wish iTunes/iPods could do this.

w00master

[goosnarrggh]

?? While you pay monthly to be a part of emusic, you download mp3s and own them forever. This is not a subscription service model as this topic relates to. I think this is about the subscription services where you stop paying and your songs stop working...

The argument could be made that either model could meet the requirements of matching the broad term, "subscription".

Essentially, I look at an eMusic subscription in much the same way as I'd look at newspaper subscriptions. If I cancel my newspaper subscription, the papers that have been delivered to my house up to this point don't all suddenly disappear.

Then there's the Rhapsody subscription model, which is like a subscription to the IEEE standards library... While the subscription is in good standing, you can access anything in the library without any additional per-unit fees. Once the subscription runs out, you lose the legal right to use any material you'd amassed during the period of the subscription.

Finally there's the rental model (ala Blockbuster), which many readers here seem to have confused with either of the two subscription models above. In a rental model, you pay on a per-song basis, just like you would for purchases, except for two big differences: (1) The per-song fee is typically smaller than a purchase, and (2) You can only listen to the song a limited number of times, or for a limited timeframe, before the song becomes unusable and would have to be re-rented.

I personally think a subscription in the eMusic sense would be a very valuable addition to iTunes. I also think a rental model in the Blockbuster sense would be nice for movies. I'm not convinced that a subscription in the Rhapsody sense would be good for anybody.

[Maccus Aurelius]

I agree with those that believe a subscription model is harmless. While it may still impose DRM, you're under a clearer understanding that by subscribing you have certain limitations imposed upon the music you listen to, such as no CD burning and then the usual account authorization for current protected tracks. The biggest hurdle I can imagine in all of this is the studios' cooperation with this business model. If too many songs are out of reach of subscribers it would be a huge negative. This is also a problem with the Zune Marketplace, in which many albums are not available for the "all you can eat" model, and some are not even allowed to transfer wirelessly. I believe that to make this truly work, the entire iTunes library will have to be on board. Not a single album should be out of reach for people who paid good money to access the entire library.

[rmhop81]

i think the music subscription would be awesome. what's really the difference in saying that you OWN the music as opposed to the subscription plan? I have all my music on my imac and i constantly play it daily. So to me, something like paying $20 a month to have unlimited downloads would be great. Why would i want to pay $1.07 for each song to say i personally OWN it when i can get unlimited ones for $20 a month? What's the difference, it's all on my imac regardless.

i don't know the exact details of the itunes subscription model, but i tried out the napster one and it was pretty cool. But i'm not a big fan of their software etc. If it worked just like the napster one i'd be all over it from apple for sure.

[cparker]

I think it's important to point out a direct quote from Jobs in reference to the original Reuters article:

"People want to own their music," he said.

Since Jobs said that specifically, I believe that it's clear that he's not thinking of "subscription" in the eMusic sense, but in the Rhapsody/Napster/Yahoo sense. It's pretty clear that's where he's coming from regarding his stance on music subscriptions for iTunes.

[JPark]

Subscription is a good thing. Here's why:

The subscription model is inherently a flat-rate rental model. The same technology that would allow people to subscribe to music would also allow for renting movies. Granted, just because apple offers the one doesn't necessarily mean they'll offer the other, but the technology would be in place. At that point it would be a matter of hammering out the details with the movie distributors.

Rentals would be a good thing because (obviously) most everyone wants to be able to rent movies, but also because it would allow me to finally use my iPod to borrow audio books from the eLibrary. More and more audio books are being offered in a digital only, downloadable format. And of course these are all protected wma's because aac's and iPods don't do rentals (ie. subscriptions).

So...bring on the subscriptions already!!!

[kerryn]

I think some of you nay-sayers of subscription based services are missing the point:

"You have to keep paying for the songs you listen to over and over again."

Not true, if you want that then most of these subscription services allow you to purchase the songs to own.


"If you stop paying, then the songs go away!"

Yes, this is true. However, for most people who utilize subscription services this is not a problem at all. Why? Because, those tracks are typically "throw away" tracks anyway to bolster their existing OWNED tracks. Think of this tier idea:

1. Lowest level --> Subscribed songs
2. High Level --> Owned songs

The idea that your entire library will go away if you stop paying is implying that people who use subscription based services don't own any songs of their own. Not true at all. If they want the tracks permenantly, then they BUY them and own them. Why is this such a big problem?

Utlimately, I feel that subscription music is a great idea of discovering new music. You can try them out, discover new music. If you don't like the song, then no biggie if it goes away. If you love the song, then you PURCHASE the song (at a discounted rate) and you own it forever.

Why is this a big problem? I think it's an amazing idea and wish iTunes/iPods could do this.

w00master

Finally! One of the few people on the forum that GETS IT! :)

Subscription services are excellent for discovering music and bolstering your existing collection of music that you might light to listen to from time to time, but which you would not actually want to spend hard earned cash on.

When you find music on the subscription service that you absolutelly must own, then there is nothing to stop you from buying that track or going out and getting the CD.

Currently I use Yahoo! Unlimited and I use a Nano in the car (as it interfaces nicely with my car systems and my Creative Zen broke) but the two are incompatible. Its takes a bit of effort to get the subscribed WMA tracks onto the Nano but it can be done. I'd rather not do this and give my subscription money to Apple instead to Yahoo! (Who I hate as a company), but Jobs currently doesn't think I want to do this.

Shame on him. I have never spent money in iTunes and will not until they have a subscription service.

[BWhaler]

He's right. I certainly have my fair share of disagreements with Jobs, but this is one area where he is correct.

And the fact that all of the subscription businesses have failed is the ultimate proof.

[papadopolis1024]

I think for movies they sould rent them at like 1.99 for 3 watches. I dont see steve doing this though.

[JPark]

And the fact that all of the subscription businesses have failed is the ultimate proof.

Just like mp3 players were largely a failure before the iPod? Just like legal music downloads were a failure before iTunes?

Perhaps it's the implementation that is flawed and not the concept.

[jbernie]

Instead of going with subscriptions, maybe Apple could consider offering drm music that has an expiration date, ie you can download it and itunes will keep it in the playlist so you know what it is you downloaded but you cant play it again until you purchase the track.

[johnee]

that's awful... i would never sign up for that... i'm surprised this is the way of online music subscription, and i'm surprised people actually subscribe... but i suppose that "Audio Hijack Pro" would come in handy with subscriptions...;)

I don't want to have to learn a tool or keep a monthly subscription to keep my music alive. I'll just buy the damn things.

[Teddy's]

Really, iTunes is doing fine.
So why is all the conmotion? Steve said NO.

I don't know why there are people that hate so much iTunes. Many of them for the wrong reasons.

In the future, it will be just like today's CDs: "oh I prefer to buy this album from HNV or Well-mort, its cheaper... oh, I just saw Firgin Megastore is selling that for $5.99 I will go today!"

[johnee]

I think for movies they sould rent them at like 1.99 for 3 watches. I dont see steve doing this though.

I actually wouldn't mind that, as long as they don't limit the time in which I have to view the movie 3 times. I would like to watch the movie for the 3rd time 5 years after I rent it. After I watched it the third time, it would just disappear from my library.

[w00master]

I don't want to have to learn a tool to keep my music alive. I'll just buy the damn things.

What the heck does this mean? If iTunes had subscriptions, you'd use iTunes. How hard can this be? Is it so hard to use iTunes as a *tool* to organize your music (both owned and subscribed)? This makes absolutely no sense.

Again, no one has *yet* addressed my points that I posted above. People here are just saying "subscriptions are bad, end of story" without really examining the real benefits of them. Ultimately, I am *strongly* against DRM. However, I believe a two-tiered model: DRM'd *subscribed music* and DRM-free OWNED music would be a HUGE benefit for consumers.

Why does it have to be *one* or the *other*? Why can't it be both? Think about it, having both options gives consumers *more* choice, better opportunites to *explore* new music. At the same time, giving Apple and music companies *both* a constant source of revenue *and* people buying individual tracks/albums?

I still don't get this "one or the other" mentality that everyone has on this issue. It *doesn't* have to be one or the other.

w00master

[JPark]

Ultimately, I am *strongly* against DRM. However, I believe a two-tiered model: DRM'd *subscribed music* and DRM-free OWNED music would be a HUGE benefit for consumers.

Why does it have to be *one* or the *other*? Why can't it be both? Think about it, having both options gives consumers *more* choice, better opportunites to *explore* new music.

I still don't get this "one or the other" mentality that everyone has on this issue. It *doesn't* have to be one or the other.
w00master

Amen to that. You've got my vote. Again, I don't even want to use the subscription service, I just want iTunes to have the ability so that libraries can offer iPod-compatible audio books.

[k2k koos]

I agree with an earlier post albeit with a twist:

Here's mine.

Music: buy
Movies: Buy + Rent

:apple:

[richard4339]

I used to own a Zen Touch, and strictly used Windows. I subscribed to Yahoo!'s subscription music service, and it completely kicked ass. I could listen to a full song to see if I liked it. I downloaded well over 300 songs within the first three days of subscribing. I probably didn't even download another 100 songs within the year that I used the subscription, but do the math. 400 x $0.99 = $396. $12.99 x 12 = $155 (I rounded). My Zen broke and I bought an iPod. On iTunes, I have spent $40 in 4 years. When I'm getting unlimited all I can get downloads, I can download everything new and old, stuff I want to listen to regularly, and stuff I don't. If I'm buying each song for $0.99, I'm not going to do that. I also discovered a lot of music I really liked through this, stuff I wouldn't have ever listened to before because I wouldn't have wanted to buy it individually. I mean, who would have though that Franz Ferdinand actually had good music on their two CDs besides the main ones played on the radio?

Granted, one thing Yahoo! did right (IMO) is give a discount on buying the music if you have the subscription. Hell, with non-DRM music coming out, maybe if you pay $9.99 a month for unlimited downloads with transfers to your iPOD, maybe you could then be eligble for the non-DRM higher-quality version for only $0.99, or the DRMed version for $0.80.

I understand all the arguments behind why people don't like the subscriptions, but its just plain wrong when I'm reading people say the subscription services never worked on other services, because they're obviously still in place for a reason...

[Edmar]

I don't think is a bad idea to offer a subscription service as long as every song available at iTunes is available in the all you can consume model. I personally like to own my music and like to share with friends and relatives, I still buy a lof of cd's as well as iTunes singles. I would love to have a similar service for their tv shows and movies content.

[Digital Skunk]

The labels only want Apple to offer music subscriptions because they see Apple as the only one who can generate enough interest in that model due to their market dominance.

The music subscription model has been kicked around by the labels since the mid Nineties. Everyone who has tried it has failed or is failing, so the industry looks to Apple so save their recurring revenue dreams.

Don't think for a second that the artists, producers and publishers would get a fairer share from a successful subscription model. They won't. Trust me.

NOTE: Before I get criticized by subscription model fanboys for my take on the whole subscription service model, know that I current work for Sony / BMG here in Europe, so I know what I'm talking about. :eek:

I didn't really consider the subscription music business as failing until you mentioned Sony/BMG which kept sending me annoying letters telling me to sign up for their service. I agree with you on the "Apple bringing life" to the business thing. If it happens then I hope Apple does a good job at it. If it fails everyone and their grandmothers will be commenting on it. As for the subscription fanboys, I still think that subscription music is just not going to fly too well with the Masses it is simply renting music, and if you are going to do that then get a subscription to XM or Sirius or listen to the radio.

Steve just seems to understand that there isn't a real demanding market for it.

[rlreif]

OK, so $10 a month = £10 a month going by most US companies. That is insane. £120 a year? I own pretty much all the music I want anyway.

If I had just been born, and wanted lots of new music, this *might* be a cheaper way to do it... but you have to keep paying... forever. Those costs add up. I don't spend that much on music in a year. But that's just me. I have Tool and NIN and many classical tracks. I have a 30GB library and only about 100 iTunes songs. Mainly bacuse it's £0.79 here. That is not $0.99. £0.79 is more like $1.58 - so they can get stuffed.

well... if you dont spend 10 quid ( i dont have a pound symbol on my keyboard) per month on music then you arent really a target customer and your opinion on this matter is moot... no offense, i dont mean to come off as harsh, but thats really not very much money... how did you amass a 30GB collection spending less than 10 quid a month?? how old are you?? either you are exptremely old or you have pirated the majority of your collecion... either way you arent the target market

[Digital Skunk]

I think some of you nay-sayers of subscription based services are missing the point:

"You have to keep paying for the songs you listen to over and over again."

Not true, if you want that then most of these subscription services allow you to purchase the songs to own.


"If you stop paying, then the songs go away!"

Yes, this is true. However, for most people who utilize subscription services this is not a problem at all. Why? Because, those tracks are typically "throw away" tracks anyway to bolster their existing OWNED tracks. Think of this tier idea:

1. Lowest level --> Subscribed songs
2. High Level --> Owned songs

The idea that your entire library will go away if you stop paying is implying that people who use subscription based services don't own any songs of their own. Not true at all. If they want the tracks permenantly, then they BUY them and own them. Why is this such a big problem?

Utlimately, I feel that subscription music is a great idea of discovering new music. You can try them out, discover new music. If you don't like the song, then no biggie if it goes away. If you love the song, then you PURCHASE the song (at a discounted rate) and you own it forever.

Why is this a big problem? I think it's an amazing idea and wish iTunes/iPods could do this.

w00master

Ummm.... if you wanted to discover new music why pay for it? Just listen to the radio. Listen to your friends iPod or the preview songs in iTS for free. So what your saying in essence is pay for the subscription, then pay for any of the songs you want to keep again and then keep paying for the subscription which is actually making you pay for the song you just bought over and over again....

If you are going to buy the song just buy the song... what's wrong with that?

[rlreif]

EXACTLY! Oh, subscription music sounds nice...until the day your car gets wrecked & has to be fixed, then the rents due the next day, plus your dog gets sick & has to go to the vet. You would like to eat that month, so WOOPS, there goes all my music.

thats the dubmest argumet ive ever heard... if you are so poor that you barely make your $10/month payment every month then get off this forum and go get another/a better job! and music should be the least of your worries! again you arent the target market....

besides whats to say that if you miss a month your music is gone forever? you miss a month, no music that month, next month, make a payment, you have all the music in the world again

[Digital Skunk]

because they're obviously still in place for a reason...

Like Microsoft?

[w00master]

Ummm.... if you wanted to discover new music why pay for it? Just listen to the radio. Listen to your friends iPod or the preview songs in iTS for free. So what your saying in essence is pay for the subscription, then pay for any of the songs you want to keep again and then keep paying for the subscription which is actually making you pay for the song you just bought over and over again....

If you are going to buy the song just buy the song... what's wrong with that?

Again, you're missing the point. Subscriptions provide *many* people with the ability to do more *indepth* searching and discovering of the music that they may (or may not) enjoy. Again, if you don't *want* to subscribe, then *don't.* Why limit *my* choice because you simply don't want to subscribe to music?

And again, the songs you want to keep forever and ever, you BUY them. It's a simple as that.

Again, why limit choices? Why does it have to be one or the other?

w00master

[w00master]

Like Microsoft?

And here is what I think the *real* reason why people on this board are "so against subscriptions." Honestly, I think it has nothing to do with subscriptions itself, I think people hate them simply because APPLE DOES NOT DO IT. People are subconciously making this an Apple vs. MS battle, when in reality it shouldn't be.

Get this out of your head, this is *not* about Apple vs. MS. This is about OPTIONS. This is about more tools to explore music.

w00master

[MacConvert]

I _am_ interested in subscription music - however, I don't want the downloaded music to be DRM protected or have any kind of sharing/expiration limitations.

If you give me that, and trust me that I won't pass it further than my wife's or brother's iPod - then I will pay you your 20 or 30 a months for a good long time to come to get some fresh new music.

I believe in paying for things, but I also believe in being able to afford those things I like. At .99/song, I can only support my first belief but not the second one (will pay, but can't afford).

[mrthieme]

Ummm.... if you wanted to discover new music why pay for it? Just listen to the radio. Listen to your friends iPod or the preview songs in iTS for free. So what your saying in essence is pay for the subscription, then pay for any of the songs you want to keep again and then keep paying for the subscription which is actually making you pay for the song you just bought over and over again....

If you are going to buy the song just buy the song... what's wrong with that?

The beauty of a subscription to iTunes would be the sheer volume of material available to you, and it could be tailored to your tastes and preferences. Much more useful than your local radio station. I understand your point here, but I think there is room for both approaches in iTunes.

[Digital Skunk]

thats the dubmest argumet ive ever heard... if you are so poor that you barely make your $10/month payment every month then get off this forum and go get another/a better job! and music should be the least of your worries! again you arent the target market....

besides whats to say that if you miss a month your music is gone forever? you miss a month, no music that month, next month, make a payment, you have all the music in the world again

Now you know it doesn't work like that. You would have to pay for the previous month and the current month. And the whole poor comment thing is just silly:p There are more college students buying iPods and listening to music than 30+ and 40+ year olds typing behind cubicles.

The reason Jobs doesn't want to do subscriptions is because he is looking at all markets. Not just people with indespensible budgets. People barely want to pay an extra $50-$100 to get a Mac so why pay for music they won't listen to?

[w00master]

Now you know it doesn't work like that. You would have to pay for the previous month and the current month. And the whole poor comment thing is just silly:p There are more college students buying iPods and listening to music than 30+ and 40+ year olds typing behind cubicles.

The reason Jobs doesn't want to do subscriptions is because he is looking at all markets. Not just people with indespensible budgets. People barely want to pay an extra $50-$100 to get a Mac so why pay for music they won't listen to?

And again you're missing the point. If you *want* that song/album, then you *buy* it. It becomes yours forever.

Subscriptions (for me at least) are used as a tool to discover music. The difference here is that I have access to the ENTIRE LIBRARY and listen to them as much as I want to. If however, I really *do* love that song/album, then I buy it and it stays in my library forever.

w00master

[Digital Skunk]

The beauty of a subscription to iTunes would be the sheer volume of material available to you, and it could be tailored to your tastes and preferences. Much more useful than your local radio station. I understand your point here, but I think there is room for both approaches in iTunes.

Agreed there is room for the approach, personally it sounds great to have the option of buying and renting both music and movies, but is it right for Jobs to suggest that no one will buy the subscription? Some say yes and some say no. Personally, I think he has the right idea. I hate the fact that Apple is a business out to make money on their products so to Jobs nothing matters but the bottom line, but he has to eat too.

Sorry...I'm rambling.

I just think Jobs has a better chance NOT investing in subscription music and investing it into subscription movies. I don't know how Redbox is doing but I get my movies from their all the time. The only draw back is their limited selection. Blockbuster (all here in the US I think) is going to hurt Netflix. The point is more people are used to renting movies and buying music. So the subscription approach is nice, but will it make Apple (and the evil music companies:mad: ) any money. And better still, will people be attracted to the idea. And can Apple overcome any technical problems (if any) that plague the subscription music industry now that would prevent the impatient consumer from cancelling their service. I just think it is a bit risky and that Jobs may have the right idea about not venturing into that arena... like the whole Tablet PC thing.

[rlreif]

And clearly, if you and Blockbuster think it should be a certain way, then that's how it should be. People don't need choices, they need corporations and random individuals to lock them in to particular modes that might satisfy most people, even if they don't satisfy all people.


Frankly, as a film buff, I _DO_ want to buy certain films. The idea that I shouldn't have that option is absolutely asinine.

I want the option to rent most movies, and buy the ones that I might want to keep. And, honestly, NO current vendor has the right model for this. I can subscribe to netflix and tell them I "lost" a movie, but then I don't get the full set of a box set, the nice box for the disk, nor the booklet that goes with it. I just get one disk at a time. That's stupid. I can't just easily convert my rental from blockbuster into a purchase (and if I just forget to return the rental, I also don't get the box, the booklet, etc.). That's also stupid (but practical, considering the inventory realities of blockbuster's rental model).

I should be able to subscribe and sample what I want without owning it, and then choose to keep/own longer term copies of things that I decide are worth owning. This is true for both movies and music.

And, ideally, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between "owned from the start" and "converted from subscription/rental to owned". Buying it would immediately get you all of the extra stuff (booklet, bonus disks, cover art, etc.).


So, no, Steve Jobs doesn't have it right. I would immediately sign up for a subscription to iTunes, and if the songs I download that way aren't going to be permanently available in my library, then I would ALSO buy songs from iTunes when I came across something that I know I want to keep in my collection forever. And I might ALSO buy CD's (I still do that, too).

iTunes ought to give you:

a) an option for subscriptions to all of their data (all types: movies, tv shows, songs), but that you wont keep indefinitely (stop being able to play it if your subscription lapses or can't be verified for some reason?)
b) an option for "renting" data (like a subscription but with a one time watch/listen, something like $.10 to listen to a song once ... and it may or may not count as a discount if you buy the song) (or, instead of "one time", it would be "unlimited times in 24 hours" or something).
c) an option for the current model of buying copies of data, that will stay in your library even if your subscription lapses, or you're in a situation where the device can't verify your subscription, etc.
d) an option to buy PDFs and similar material that duplicates the box-art and booklets that go with the other data if you had bought physical versions of it.
e) an option for buying non-DRM data, based upon the policy of the individual IP owner, instead of based upon a store-wide policy.


If iTunes did all of that, I can imagine iTunes eventually being my only source of this music/movies/tv. Though, that somewhat depends on how easy it is to access old/classic movies, which is a bit easier to do with netflix. But if the netflix and itunes catalogs were identical, and iTunes offered all of the above choices, I wouldn't want/need netflix at all. I'd probably drop DirecTV too.

HERE HERE!
you are the smartest person in this discussion

[Digital Skunk]

And again you're missing the point. If you *want* that song/album, then you *buy* it. It becomes yours forever.

Subscriptions (for me at least) are used as a tool to discover music. The difference here is that I have access to the ENTIRE LIBRARY and listen to them as much as I want to. If however, I really *do* love that song/album, then I buy it and it stays in my library forever.

w00master

I understand you. I just see it as being a tad bit redundant and cause for concern. If I can listen to the whole 2mil+ iTunes songs and I buy an album I better get a pretty good discount, otherwise I am just paying for it twice. Especially if I go into the deal with the mindset that I will always have the $10 a month (if it's not more) to pay Apple. Most people are cheapskates (Imma cheapskate) they won't pay for the subscription every month then pay for the song to keep.

The discovering music thing is a good point. But can people justify spending $10+ a month to discover music, then buy it... or just buy the stuff they know they will like and find a friend that has a particular album to listen to. Music listeners have been doing that since before digital was in the dictionary. And usually, once I find the friend that has the actual CD or even the DRMed iTunes songs i can just rip the CD, or burn the DRMed music to CD then rip that CD and save $10 for dinner or another album that no one has yet.

Here's a question: Will Apple make you sign a contract for the service? Do others make you sign a contract like :mad: EVIL:mad: cell phone companies?

If so then it won't happen with Apple.

[Nym]

Funny thing is that it will NOT keep the DRM. That was the way I did it before all the software came out that stripped the songs of DRM. I don't know any anymore since I just authorized all the Macs in my family so they can play each others libraries. But once you burn the Audio CD and rip it back you your computer the DRM isn't there.

Then what the hell is DRM for? :D

I mean, if all I need to do to get the songs DRM Free is to burn the CD and rip them again, what is the difference between that and no DRM at all?

By the way, a lot of argument is being made here about whether the artists are hurt or not by DRM free music, my best guess is.. NO. And I say this because no one will ever stop piracy, one way or the other, everything can be cracked, patched, hacked .. etc.. the music industry needs to realize that they have to offer a price that people find that "it's worth buying" instead of downloading the album for free from a million available places.

I live in Portugal, here a CD costs about 20€, minimum wage is 400€, it's not fair :D

[Lewisham]

What no-one seems to have pointed out yet is that if you have a subscription with a company, and that company goes bust, or no longer supports that service anymore (iTunes will not last forever), then what are you going to do? You'll have spent years paying a subscription, only for all of your music to disappear. Buying your music gives you the security that it is yours and you have control over it.

Guess what happens to your current iTMS songs when you need to reauthorise them?

And you even thought you owned those!

[rlreif]

Eh, I say the same thing to everybody I know. Meanwhile, I don't have to spend an extra $120-$180 per year to retain my 10000+ tracks. How many people here have already spent 15 or more years of their life collecting music? Maybe the little kids that post here find this a worthwhile transaction, but if you've already invested any more than a thousand dollars or so into a collection, it just doesn't make sense economically.

uh... NO
you payed a lot more than $10 per month on 10000 tracks, or you stole them... plain and simple

[JPark]

And here is what I think the *real* reason why people on this board are "so against subscriptions." Honestly, I think it has nothing to do with subscriptions itself, I think people hate them simply because APPLE DOES NOT DO IT. People are subconciously making this an Apple vs. MS battle, when in reality it shouldn't be.

Get this out of your head, this is *not* about Apple vs. MS. This is about OPTIONS. This is about more tools to explore music.

w00master

Hmm... I had noticed a strong "If Apple isn't currently doing it, then I'm automatically against it" mentality on this forum. I hadn't realized the "If Microsoft is doing it, it must be evil" maxim applied as well. Good call.

[Digital Skunk]

HERE HERE!
you are the smartest person in this discussion

Hmm Kzin.. a perfect movie buff but not quite hitting it on the business side of the fence. Corporations need to make money. The reason things are heading to digital is because it saves them money. My grandfather didn't like LPs when they first came out. He said that the radio was much clearer and gave a better listening experience. Besides... LPs put radio workers out of business. Of course he didn't make much sense but that is the same thing radio tycoons said about satelite radio and the iPod. Hold the box set in your hand and having a booklet to read is a mute point to corporations. If they can save $3 on every movie that is distributed then they will save in the millions per year... and I wouldn't care about a few individual feelings if I am saving millions per year and the vast majority of the market is still buying my stuff.

Basically, buying movies with box sets and booklets has become the niche market that makes a few bucks here and there for the corporations they will keep them their for as long as some person can justify it, but just like vinyl, it will be out the door as soon as people start caring about the trees that are killed to make the booklet you are holding.

Other examples... Newspaper are printed on dead trees/toilet paper... going to the web and readership has been going down ever since. Convert or go out of business.

The Soda companies put High Fructose Corn Syrup in their drinks instead of sugar... that stuffs kills you slowly, why do they do it. They save $0.01 (One Cent) for every can they make. They make 15+ billion cans a year. That's Millions Per Year... I don't think they will start putting sugar back in their sodas.

Movie distributers are doing the Netflix, RedBox thing to save money. Have you ever though about people like me that actually like going to the movie theaters? Sitting in front of a big screen with good audio and popcorn. The home movie business has shut plenty of theaters down. I could go out and start giving reasons why you should see a film in the theater and stop renting and watching movies at home. Won't change the industry. People aren't going to pay rent songs then go out and pay to keep them. Corps wont give you anything for free.

Subscription music service is a great idea, but it won't fly until the music company changes their perspective and Apple makes real money off of it.

[rlreif]

Now you know it doesn't work like that. You would have to pay for the previous month and the current month. And the whole poor comment thing is just silly:p There are more college students buying iPods and listening to music than 30+ and 40+ year olds typing behind cubicles.

The reason Jobs doesn't want to do subscriptions is because he is looking at all markets. Not just people with indespensible budgets. People barely want to pay an extra $50-$100 to get a Mac so why pay for music they won't listen to?

you make no sense
so you all these people can afford to buy $400 ipods, and can afford to fill them up with thousands of dollars worth of owned music, but they cant afford $10 per month for unlimited music.... the only way that makes sense is if these people are pirating the music, and even then the ipod is still expensive unless you go mugg someone for it... either way you arent a paying customer and those in the biz of selling music could care less what you think

and whats this about having to pay for the previous month and the current one?? i have a lot of things i pay for monthly, and never have i had to pay any month twice!!

[Digital Skunk]

Then what the hell is DRM for? :D

I mean, if all I need to do to get the songs DRM Free is to burn the CD and rip them again, what is the difference between that and no DRM at all?

By the way, a lot of argument is being made here about whether the artists are hurt or not by DRM free music, my best guess is.. NO. And I say this because no one will ever stop piracy, one way or the other, everything can be cracked, patched, hacked .. etc.. the music industry needs to realize that they have to offer a price that people find that "it's worth buying" instead of downloading the album for free from a million available places.

I live in Portugal, here a CD costs about 20€, minimum wage is 400€, it's not fair :D

That was the argument made when DRM was introducted. In the early days, people bought CDs and made copies for their friends or let their friends borrow them. When computers came people just copied the music to their HDDs and made copies or put them on their iPods.

The music company likes complaining.

[Digital Skunk]

you make no sense
so you all these people can afford to buy $400 ipods, and can afford to fill them up with thousands of dollars worth of owned music, but they cant afford $10 per month for unlimited music.... the only way that makes sense is if these people are pirating the music, and even then the ipod is still expensive unless you go mugg someone for it... either way you arent a paying customer and those in the biz of selling music could care less what you think

and whats this about having to pay for the previous month and the current one?? i have a lot of things i pay for monthly, and never have i had to pay any month twice!!

Um... if you have a cell phone you first pay for the first and second month. It's called having prorated bills, you are always paying for the next month, not the actual month of service. If you miss a month, then the month you haven't paid for and the next month are on your bill. I make sense... you don't understand.

And the iPod hasn't been $400 for a while. The 80GB is $350 and it is the most expensive. The best selling iPod is $199 (guess which one) and yes... you pay for the iPod once and the music once. With subscription service... just like any subscription service... you have to keep paying, and as said... if you have a budget to live by $10 a month is something you can do without. Not that no one will pay it... just not enough for it to be a lucrative business for Apple.

[JPark]

It isn't about "owning" or "not owning" your music. When you subscribe you're not committing to paying $10 / month for the rest of your life so that you can listen to your music. You're paying ten bucks to be able to listen to anything you want to for an entire month. There's a big difference.

For those saying "I've already invested thousands into my music collection. Why would I want to throw that investment away and subscribe?" If you can't figure out why, maybe this isn't for you. But there are lots of people who, even though they already have lots of music, try out and buy new music. I have a good 50 years left in me. I may get to the point where I'm done listening to new stuff, but I'm not there yet.

[xenotaku]

I _am_ interested in subscription music - however, I don't want the downloaded music to be DRM protected or have any kind of sharing/expiration limitations.

If you give me that, and trust me that I won't pass it further than my wife's or brother's iPod - then I will pay you your 20 or 30 a months for a good long time to come to get some fresh new music.

I believe in paying for things, but I also believe in being able to afford those things I like. At .99/song, I can only support my first belief but not the second one (will pay, but can't afford).

Ever heard of eMusic? For 9.99 a month, you get 90 songs, you own them, they are DRM free, and better quality than iTunes. I haven't purchased a song from iTunes since I started using eMusic. I have downloaded about 2700 songs from eMusic since the last time I bought a song on iTunes. Best online music store by a long shot. Unless you listen to the crap that is played on the radio. Plus, you get 50 free songs every friend you sign up, plus on the homepage there are lists by artists and daily dozens to help you find new music every single day. eMusic is the best store on the net for real lovers of music.

[rlreif]

Hmm Kzin.. a perfect movie buff but not quite hitting it on the business side of the fence. Corporations need to make money. The reason things are heading to digital is because it saves them money. My grandfather didn't like LPs when they first came out. He said that the radio was much clearer and gave a better listening experience. Besides... LPs put radio workers out of business. Of course he didn't make much sense but that is the same thing radio tycoons said about satelite radio and the iPod. Hold the box set in your hand and having a booklet to read is a mute point to corporations. If they can save $3 on every movie that is distributed then they will save in the millions per year... and I wouldn't care about a few individual feelings if I am saving millions per year and the vast majority of the market is still buying my stuff.

Basically, buying movies with box sets and booklets has become the niche market that makes a few bucks here and there for the corporations they will keep them their for as long as some person can justify it, but just like vinyl, it will be out the door as soon as people start caring about the trees that are killed to make the booklet you are holding.

Other examples... Newspaper are printed on dead trees/toilet paper... going to the web and readership has been going down ever since. Convert or go out of business.

The Soda companies put High Fructose Corn Syrup in their drinks instead of sugar... that stuffs kills you slowly, why do they do it. They save $0.01 (One Cent) for every can they make. They make 15+ billion cans a year. That's Millions Per Year... I don't think they will start putting sugar back in their sodas.

Movie distributers are doing the Netflix, RedBox thing to save money. Have you ever though about people like me that actually like going to the movie theaters? Sitting in front of a big screen with good audio and popcorn. The home movie business has shut plenty of theaters down. I could go out and start giving reasons why you should see a film in the theater and stop renting and watching movies at home. Won't change the industry. People aren't going to pay rent songs then go out and pay to keep them. Corps wont give you anything for free.

Subscription music service is a great idea, but it won't fly until the music company changes their perspective and Apple makes real money off of it.

im sure the business people in that business will continue to make money, and know a little mroe about how to do so than you me or anyone else on this forum, we are talking about choice... if you dont want subscription dont get it, i will..

[JPark]

With subscription service... just like any subscription service... you have to keep paying...

Wrong. You don't have to keep paying. The $10 I payed last month to listen to anything I wanted to listen to last month was (obviously) for last month. If I'd like to do the same this month, I can. But if I want to buy 20 of the 500 new songs I listened to, I can do that too.

[rlreif]

Um... if you have a cell phone you first pay for the first and second month. It's called having prorated bills, you are always paying for the next month, not the actual month of service. If you miss a month, then the month you haven't paid for and the next month are on your bill. I make sense... you don't understand.

And the iPod hasn't been $400 for a while. The 80GB is $350 and it is the most expensive. The best selling iPod is $199 (guess which one) and yes... you pay for the iPod once and the music once. With subscription service... just like any subscription service... you have to keep paying, and as said... if you have a budget to live by $10 a month is something you can do without. Not that no one will pay it... just not enough for it to be a lucrative business for Apple.

dude, you still only pay for each month once... yes, in some subscriptions you prepay for the month, that means that if you stop paying your service gets turned off in a month... you never pay twice...

so the most popular ipod is 199... and how much space is that? 4gb? now apple claims that 4gb is "1000 songs in your pocket" so thats $1000 plus tax to fill it up... so we are talking about $1200 total before tax, that would be 120 months of subscription, or 10 years!

bet you a nickle you wont still be using that same ipod in 10 years

and also go look up in the dictionary what 'prorated' means, you are off track on that one

[Digital Skunk]

Wrong. You don't have to keep paying. The $10 I payed last month to listen to anything I wanted to listen to last month was (obviously) for last month. If I'd like to do the same this month, I can. But if I want to buy 20 of the 500 new songs I listened to, I can do that too.

God help me! You didn't prove that I was wrong. You actually proved that I was right and what I said was a fact. If you want to keep using the service you have to keep paying just like with any subscription service. Does anybody have a cell phone here are is everyone NOT paying any current bills? Real bills like car insurance that you have to keep paying, or the car note.... how about a mortgage?

And who said Apple will charge you $10...?

Real music lovers use eMusic...? :confused:

Yeah okay... real music lovers hated the iPod and online music downloads at first... last time I check real music lover was an opinion and what device are you listening to eMusic on. Sign up my friends for 50 free songs? :confused: why... just give me the songs for using your service... why do I have to be your own advertiser... oh yeah, because eMusic doesn't have a marketing department and I am pretty sure they have ads out the wazoo to make ends meet. ... just came back from their site... music is $0.33 a song and I am pretty sure it isn't as easy to those who are not technically inclinded as iTunes is.

Not saying subscription isn't good, just that it won't make as much money as everyone seems to speculate.

[Digital Skunk]

dude, you still only pay for each month once... yes, in some subscriptions you prepay for the month, that means that if you stop paying your service gets turned off in a month... you never pay twice...

so the most popular ipod is 199... and how much space is that? 4gb? now apple claims that 4gb is "1000 songs in your pocket" so thats $1000 plus tax to fill it up... so we are talking about $1200 total before tax, that would be 120 months of subscription, or 10 years!

bet you a nickle you wont still be using that same ipod in 10 years

and also go look up in the dictionary what 'prorated' means, you are off track on that one

Dude... no one buys an iPod with no music of their own... and the iTunes Store has 2million+ songs so that's what a petabyte of info... how will you fill your 80GB iPod let alone listen to all of those songs...

Subscriptions are running on hype... it won't make any money... people rather own their music, not rent it. And as said before.. you pay once for the rentals, again if you want to keep a song, and again for the rentals next month regardless of what you own. And you will still pay twice for the intial month... got a cell phone?

Who said it would cost $10?
Who said it would be $10 forever? Bet you a quarter the price of the subscription goes up.

And your calculations make no sense at all, not too many people buy the iPod then all that they can hold at one time... that scenario is way off track. Not trying to get your panties in a bunch, Jobs can't justify subscriptions.

[JPark]

God help me! You didn't prove that I was wrong. You actually proved that I was right and what I said was a fact. If you want to keep using the service you have to keep paying just like with any subscription service. Does anybody have a cell phone here are is everyone NOT paying any current bills? Real bills like car insurance that you have to keep paying, or the car note.... how about a mortgage?

And who said Apple will charge you $10...?


Okay there's a big problem with most of your analogies: Mortgage: you actually end up owning it in the end. Renting an apartment would be a better example. Of course, people choose to rent instead of to own all the time.

Car insurance: you're legally compelled to pay insurance in order to use what you already own. That would be like requiring all users who have purchased iTunes songs a monthly fee in order to actually listen to those songs. Not a good example.

Cell phones: this would be an okay example if you modified it a bit. Imagine a cell phone where you pay a monthly fee but you aren't locked into a 2 year agreement. For a reasonable, flat rate, you can make as many calls as you want. There are still some problems with this example, but it's better.

My point isn't that you don't have to keep paying if you want to continue to have unlimited music. That much is obvious and I think everyone understands that. My point is that if you want to try out a whole bunch of music, a subscription service is the only affordable, enjoyable way to do that. Radio doesn't count--too many commercials, you don't get to pick what you listen to, and they don't play much indie music.

Woops, forgot to address the "Who said $10" thing. Good point, that's just a number I threw out there that I'd be willing to pay for the service. $15 might also be reasonable, but I wouldn't stick around as long. Also, I'm assuming they wouldn't lock you in to a year or 2 year contract. That might be a bad assumption.

[tk421]

God help me! You didn't prove that I was wrong. You actually proved that I was right and what I said was a fact. If you want to keep using the service you have to keep paying just like with any subscription service. Does anybody have a cell phone here are is everyone NOT paying any current bills? Real bills like car insurance that you have to keep paying, or the car note.... how about a mortgage?

Other people have made many valid points and you aren't really addressing them. That doesn't make your arguments look very good.

...and what device are you listening to eMusic on. Sign up my friends for 50 free songs? :confused: why... just give me the songs for using your service... why do I have to be your own advertiser... oh yeah, because eMusic doesn't have a marketing department and I am pretty sure they have ads out the wazoo to make ends meet. ... just came back from their site... music is $0.33 a song and I am pretty sure it isn't as easy to those who are not technically inclinded as iTunes is.

Do a little research. eMusic works fine on an iPod. There's nothing wrong with their referral system, either.

Personally, I use iTunes and eMusic. There's room for both.

Not saying subscription isn't good, just that it won't make as much money as everyone seems to speculate.

People aren't discussing how much money it will make. They are expressing their personal interest in it.

I am not interested in music subscription (I find new music through friends, eMusic and iTunes, and at the public library). But I can easily understand that other people are interested.

[tk421]

And you will still pay twice for the intial month... got a cell phone?

First, you didn't pay twice for the first month. You paid in advance. Secondly, if you think iTunes will operate like a cell phone plan (i.e. a contract) that is just speculation. It makes no sense for iTunes to operate like that. eMusic didn't charge me twice for the first month. Neither did many other monthly services I have had.

I'm starting to wonder if you are really interested in the debate or just in raising your post count. You're not interested in subscriptions. Others are. What else can you say?

[richard4339]

Hmm... I had noticed a strong "If Apple isn't currently doing it, then I'm automatically against it" mentality on this forum. I hadn't realized the "If Microsoft is doing it, it must be evil" maxim applied as well. Good call.

So the question is, if Apple is doing it and Microsoft is doing it, is it good or bad?

[Digital Skunk]

First, you didn't pay twice for the first month. You paid in advance. Secondly, if you think iTunes will operate like a cell phone plan (i.e. a contract) that is just speculation. It makes no sense for iTunes to operate like that. eMusic didn't charge me twice for the first month. Neither did many other monthly services I have had.

I'm starting to wonder if you are really interested in the debate or just in raising your post count. You're not interested in subscriptions. Others are. What else can you say?

A little of both... no one else is making any valid argument either... and the subscription model that people are using is also speculation based on what already exists. Who is to say Apple won't go the cell phone route? It made no sense for Apple to make the Apple TV when the quality of media on iTunes isn't even close to TV quality. I am interested in the debate but like many rumor debates it is based on opinion and speculation... I like this I want that.. but no one takes actual facts into consideration. The guy that works for Sony BMG has more experience than any of us and he says subscription sites are failing. eMusic may be great but I don't hear the masses screaming about it, that's why they need incentives to get current customers to sign friends up... .Mac did that a few times and it never worked for them.

Bottom line. Everyone wants businesses to lose money to give them what they want... when you think about it based on what works for both you and Apple you are a lot happier when Apple give you what you want, and you have more reason to get upset when Apple doesn't do what they should have. Most people in support of subscription music with iTunes are really thinking of themselves. When someone comes along and disagrees since it won't work economically, they get confused and try to shoot down their reasons with speculation and rumor, while the others use the current failing businesses as support.

Fact is. Subscription isn't working that great for eMusic, Zune users and the rest, it's a niche market, and it won't put a dent in the already top noche iTunes Store system, so why bother.

[Swift]

I agree, I want to own the music. But Jobs is also downplaying something the labels want so they'll go along with DRM-free 256 bit music -- then I'll bet that he'll offer them a subscription plan to sweeten the deal. So iTunes would have every kind of access.

To switch iTunes over to subscription as a whole? Are you nuts? Some people want this, of course. The same percent who want a radio on their iPod, or, as they say, t*ts on their bulls.

[donlphi]

This is only because this is the type of person YOU are.

Remember this it's important. I prefer to own my movies If I suddenly feel like watching a movie 2 months from now I have to pay out cash again to see it full price for a rental when I maybe only want to see a clip of it like 15 mins worth.

I will rent movies but I much prefer to own them.

I guess if the movies were going to be sold at a lower price, I wouldn't mind owning them, but considering the fact that I can rent countless movies in one month on a subscription without caring if it is good or bad. If I buy a movie, I'm stuck with it.

I know it is possible to have a NETFLIX or BLOCKBUSTER subscription while at the same time, buying movies I really like, but I honestly don't see anybody saying, "I'm gonna watch 'Something about Mary' 5-6 times."

Let's say I spend $17 on a DVD I purchase from a store. That is the same price I could pay for a month of rentals from Netflix. Now... if you are a "slow swapper", like me, you are not getting your money's worth.

Anyway, you don't get those movies IMMEDIATELY, but you COULD with the online service. This is where Apple TV and/or iTUNES comes in. Even at $9 a pop, you are getting ripped off (unless I watch it 4 times). I love "SCHOOL OF ROCK", but the movie is going to be dated in about 5 years. It isn't some movie that is going to become a classic. A lot of movies just don't make any sense to see twice (if you watch every movie twice, congratulations, you have no life... ha). There are classics like Star Wars, Godfather, and other movies that are timeless, but they are few and far between, and not your typical movie watching experience on a Friday evening or Saturday afternoon. I don't feel so bad when I rent a "box office bomb", but when I'm stuck with it, man that sucks.

MUSIC on the other hand, you tend to BUY what you want to listen to more than once. I hear people say, "I wanna SAMPLE my music before buying", but I really think you want to sample it before using some software to rip it. There are much better ways out there to "sample" music. iTunes gives you a 30 second clip of everything. I think if you heard 30 seconds of "SHE BANGS" by Ricky Martin, you would have enough information to say yes or HOPEFULLY no in this case.

There have got to be several people on this site that have XM or Sirius. I am a Sirius subscriber, and if you are not, maybe you would see some benefits to RENTING music from iTUNES. Sirius has a station for every interest... If you want Jazz, there are 3-4 different stations - ex. Smooth Jazz, Big Band, Jazz combos, Latin jazz, etc. etc. or... If you want Techno, you have a few of those too. It has some very SPECIFIC stations - Rolling Stones and some really interesting ones like Coffee House (acoustic versions of popular songs mixed with other things).

It plays in the car without setting up a playlist, it is just there. If I really like it, I look up the artist when I get home. For the price, it's worth every penny.

If that is too costly, there is another great music invention that still works well, the RADIO. Give it a try.

Anyway, no matter what I think, the ball is in Apple's court. I don't think we're going to see a subscription for music. I'll eat my words when they do, but don't bank on it. I could see them letting you listen to an entire song once, but no subscriptions are on the way. TRUST ME. I KNOW. :rolleyes:

[JPark]

So the question is, if Apple is doing it and Microsoft is doing it, is it good or bad?

It means that Microsoft must have stolen it. :D

[kerryn]

Ummm.... if you wanted to discover new music why pay for it? Just listen to the radio. Listen to your friends iPod or the preview songs in iTS for free. So what your saying in essence is pay for the subscription, then pay for any of the songs you want to keep again and then keep paying for the subscription which is actually making you pay for the song you just bought over and over again....

If you are going to buy the song just buy the song... what's wrong with that?

Er, radio? You have got to be kidding me. The radio in the Milwaukee area just totally sucks. You can listen to the same 100 songs on any radio station for about 6 months straights. Seriously, for a period of about six months, it did not matter when I got in my car, the same song would crop up on my commute.

So I quit radio and I have not listened to it in two years now. Instead I use subscription music from Yahoo!. I randomly select albums from genres I like or the top 100 or from recommendations based upon my interests. Gradually over time I have been discovering a lot of artists that I would never have found otherwise - certainly they would never have been played on the radio.

Instead of paying $14/month (or whatever it is) for satellite radio I pay the $100 or so per year for Yahoo! and take the music with me. I consider it much better value. Is every every song available via subscription? No, you will not find the Beatles (but you won't on itunes either) but you will find enough. On the whole I have found 98% of the music I was looking for. That's not a bad hit rate.

One thing that is apparant by you post is that you have never tried the subscription service. Is it for everyone? No probably not, but then most of the people on this forum who are nay sayers have never tried it. Those who have are mostly positive about it and say it "kicks ass".

[JPark]

One thing that is apparant by you post is that you have never tried the subscription service. Is it for everyone? No probably not, but then most of the people on this forum who are nay sayers have never tried it. Those who have are mostly positive about it and say it "kicks ass".

Almost thou persuadest me to be a subscriber. :eek:

[tk421]

Fact is. Subscription isn't working that great for eMusic, Zune users and the rest, it's a niche market, and it won't put a dent in the already top noche iTunes Store system, so why bother.

Actually, eMusic is doing quite well. They are the second-largest online music store and are making a profit. (you should find out about things before you post facts about them)

Meanwhile, Wal-mart's online music store isn't doing that well. And guess what? It isn't subscription. You pay for songs and you own them! You also seem to forget that Rhapsody, Napster, and others are not exclusively subscription. They also offer purchases.

It seems to me that success is not simply defined by whether a music store sells monthly subscriptions or not. iTunes is excellent, but not only because they don't offer subscriptions.

I will admit that one thing that sets eMusic apart from other subscription services is that eMusic works on an iPod. Why? Because it's DRM free. Secondly, once you download from eMusic, you own it forever. It does not disappear when you quit the service.

I like the iTunes model a lot. But it isn't the only possible way for success.

[D*I*S_Frontman]

I have a band on iTunes, Rhapsody, etc.

As things stand right now, I get paid $.01 per listen from all of the subscription services. I get $.59 for every downloaded song and $5.99 for every downloaded album.

Artists do get directly paid by subscription services as well as downloads. The only time they don't is when they have signed over all rights to a label--but then they are pretty much screwed out of everything anyway, except for what they specifically work out with the label. Independent artists who use CDBaby get it all.

I personally would have no use for a subscription service, but I am not really against it as a potential revenue stream. It is really no different that subscribing to XM Radio. If people want to pay $10/month for unlimited listens to an entire catalog, fine. They can just go out and BUY what they really want to keep permanently.

IMHO, Steve's "never say never" comment means that they will indeed implement it, but not hype it. All it will end up being is a $10/month "sampler" service, akin to listening to the song fragments in the iTunes Store, except that the song will play completely through. If it is marketed like that, I think it fits into the whole iTunes scheme quite well, actually.

How the DRM element of it works, however, is the real kicker. No DRM means no effective subscription service model. To Steve, crucifying Micro$oft to the DRM tree is probably more strategically advantageous than what little would be gained from a subscription service, but ultimately serving the needs of the customer elegantly wins no matter what.

[Angsty]

Yes. Economists call this a service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service), specifically, an entertainment service, and people are paying money for it. In fact, in most developed countries, services make up the majority of economic activity. Crazy, isn't it?


Oh well, I guess I must be one of those crazy people who wants to own the music that I fork out money for... I view music as a 'good', not a 'service'; buying and selling of goods: another type of economic activity :D

Ang

[g3ski]

Buying music is great for the limited number of songs you know you want.

Subscription is a great and legal way to explore music, try new songs, new groups, new genres, without having to pay lots of money for (or steal) music you might not like. $15/mo to listen and try hundreds of songs....that would be just 11-15 songs purchased.

Not everyone has access to roommate/friends with thousands of songs to trade and try. There is a reason that tens of thousands of people have subscriptions.

[kzin]

MUSIC on the other hand, you tend to BUY what you want to listen to more than once. I hear people say, "I wanna SAMPLE my music before buying", but I really think you want to sample it before using some software to rip it. There are much better ways out there to "sample" music. iTunes gives you a 30 second clip of everything. I think if you heard 30 seconds of "SHE BANGS" by Ricky Martin, you would have enough information to say yes or HOPEFULLY no in this case.


Sorry, but no. The 30 second clip is NOT useful in determining the quality of a song, or if it's part of a genre you like. So many songs these days are cross-overs that change gears mid-song, or have a different paced section of the song, that you can't really be sure what the 30 second clip represents in terms of the overall genre of the song. And it's absolutely terrible for figuring out if you're going to like the song as a whole ... unless the song itself is only 30-40 seconds long.

The value of the 30 second clip is: "is this the song I heard somewhere else, or a different song?" or "is this the right remix of the song I know I'm looking for?" In other words: for the 30 second clip to be useful, you must already know the song you want.

Using the 30 second clip to figure out whether or not this is the song you want to buy is like buying a DVD based on the trailer. You use the trailer to decide what to (see in the theatre/watch on TV/rent from blockbuster/queue from netflix). You don't decide to BUY the DVD until you've seen the movie and decided if it's something you honestly want to keep forever ... unless it's a bargain basement sale on the DVD, in which case you're paying the "rent from blockbuster" price (ie. it's the low-risk environment of rentals, and not the higher price/risk of buying it unseen at full price).

Same with the 30 second clip. It's useful in identifying a song, not in deciding whether or not to buy it. A subscription service or much cheaper rental service WOULD be useful in deciding what to buy, however.


There have got to be several people on this site that have XM or Sirius. I am a Sirius subscriber, and if you are not, maybe you would see some benefits to RENTING music from iTUNES.

...

If that is too costly, there is another great music invention that still works well, the RADIO. Give it a try.

What you're missing here is that:

iTunes music subscription == Sirius/XM radio subscription. Only iTunes music subscription is a better idea because you actually pick the song you want to listen to right now, whereas with Sirus/XM you only get to pick the genre you want to listen to right now. Sirius/XM lets you pick a channel that fits a genre ... but you still aren't picking what songs are going to played at any given time, or even on any given day.

But my point is: it's the same concept. Subscription iTunes replaces "listening to the Radio". What has been done so far with "internet radio" is not "The Internet version of Radio". iTunes with a subscription is "The Internet version of Radio". You browse it yourself instead of waiting for someone to broadcast it to you serendipitously; you discuss what's new with other people who are interested in the same genres and then go listen to it yourself, instead of being fed a playlist by a DJ. "Internet radio", and over the air radio, really, is driving a model T on the autobahn: trying to make a dinosaur function in an environment that is far beyond the technology that you're using.

And, by bringing up XM and Sirius, you've already contradicted your earlier assertion that people don't want to pay for the music and then not own it (when you said "music -> own, movies -> rent", unless I confused you with someone else). XM and Sirius show exactly that people will pay for temporary access to music. Doing the same thing with iTunes just goes one better by giving you a finer grain of selection than what XM and Sirius give you.


If you want to compare the options I presented with other models in the same category:

iTunes data subscription -> subscription radio/movie/tv services, or on demand tv that is not pay per view
(XM/Sirius on the music side, Netflix on the movie side, cable/satellite TV on the tvshow side)

iTunes data rental -> blockbuster style movie rental, pay-per-view tv, on demand pay per view tv

iTunes data purchase -> DVD and CD


_ALL_ of these are proven market concepts for entertainment delivery. And, in my opinion, doing it through an online service (preferably iTunes, but also with the Yahoo music service, etc.) goes one better than the ones I list.

iTunes data subscription is better than satellite radio or cable/satellite TV because you pick the content from the entire library of choices, instead of only being able to pick a channel and then having to watch according to someone else's schedule for that channel. It's better than Netflix, because there's no turn around time. It is directly comparable to having an "on demand TV" service that is paid for by the month instead of by the show because you pick and view from the catalog as often as you want with as many repeats or changes as you want while you maintain your subscription.

iTunes data rental is better than blockbuster for the same reason iTunes data subscription is better than Netflix. And it's better than pay-per-view TV for the same reason it's better than cable/satellite tv. It is most directly comparable to "on demand TV" where you can pick any show from the library, view it one time for a fee, and then it's gone.

iTunes data purchase is just the on-line version of buying CDs and DVDs.

None of those markets is going away any time soon. Having iTunes offer data subscriptions and data rental _IN_ADDITION_ to the current data purchase model doesn't mean iTunes is entering in to unproven markets. It means that it is using its current strengths and popularity to compete in proven markets.

It's the right thing to do. Too bad Steve doesn't see it.

[rlreif]

Dude... no one buys an iPod with no music of their own... and the iTunes Store has 2million+ songs so that's what a petabyte of info... how will you fill your 80GB iPod let alone listen to all of those songs...

Subscriptions are running on hype... it won't make any money... people rather own their music, not rent it. And as said before.. you pay once for the rentals, again if you want to keep a song, and again for the rentals next month regardless of what you own. And you will still pay twice for the intial month... got a cell phone?

Who said it would cost $10?
Who said it would be $10 forever? Bet you a quarter the price of the subscription goes up.

And your calculations make no sense at all, not too many people buy the iPod then all that they can hold at one time... that scenario is way off track. Not trying to get your panties in a bunch, Jobs can't justify subscriptions.

first off my calculations make all the sense in the world... why dont you go and find out for yourself.. they are all under $12, many under $10...

you say that arent willing to spend $10/month and that everyone already has music when they buy an ipod... i say you pirated it if you didnt spend more than $10/month to get it before you got an ipod! there is no way in hell you acquired 4gb of music legally in your lifetime spending less than $10 per month...

[xenotaku]

Fact is. Subscription isn't working that great for eMusic, Zune users and the rest, it's a niche market, and it won't put a dent in the already top noche iTunes Store system, so why bother.



Fact is, you are dead wrong. eMusic is second to only iTunes, and has amazing rates of growth. While both iTunes and eMusic are growing, eMusic is actually growing faster now. eMusic is also not like the rest of the subscription models. When you download a song from eMusic, you OWN it forever, in DRM free format, and better quality than iTunes. I haven't downloaded a song from iTunes since I began using eMusic, it's so much better. I download 90 songs a month for 9.99 and I own them forever.

[gothiquegirrl]

that's awful... i would never sign up for that... i'm surprised this is the way of online music subscription, and i'm surprised people actually subscribe... but i suppose that "Audio Hijack Pro" would come in handy with subscriptions...;)


I subscribe to rhapsody.. and I love it. I NEVER have bought a single song on iTunes and probably never will.

I like being able to listen to whatever i want when i want. I don't own a radio or an ipod.. so if someone tell me to check out an artist or a song.. I like to be able to "pop" on over and listen with no hassle. (In many cases the artist / song is available.. but not always) If i want to purchase and burn a song I have the option to do that as well... but it's nice to be able to listen to streaming music all day.

AND.. not saying that *i* do it..but it's not really that hard to capture the streamed music and burn it on a CD for no additional costs.

[kzin]

None of those markets is going away any time soon. Having iTunes offer data subscriptions and data rental _IN_ADDITION_ to the current data purchase model doesn't mean iTunes is entering in to unproven markets. It means that it is using its current strengths and popularity to compete in proven markets.

It's the right thing to do. Too bad Steve doesn't see it.


I just realized that a slightly different reading of Steve Jobs' statement might make a world of difference. The general thread of discussion here has been "should iTunes _ADD_ a subscription option". But what if that's not what Steve was addressing?

What if, instead, Steve is being pressured by the entertainment companies to _replace_ the purchase model with ONLY a subscription model?

In that case, I agree whole heartedly with Steve saying "no". If iTunes is only going to offer _one_ model, it should be the purchase model. Steve is absolutely right if what he's really saying is: ultimately people want the option to own their music. They may also want the option to rent it or subscribe to it, but ultimately, the option to _own_ it is a _MUST_HAVE_ option.

The ideal would be to offer all 3 models I mentioned across all of the data types that iTunes sells. But if we can't have multiple models, and can only have one model ... go with what we have now: you purchase everything.

[Cult Follower]

I'm more of a buy to own person especially with DRM free tacks.

[aristotle]

Subscriptions necessitate heavy handed DRM combined with limits on the number of music players that are "authorized" to play back the songs. Subscriptions would also preclude use of those songs in personal media projects.

I use my purchased songs in my home videos.

Subscriptions are a bad idea and I cannot fathom why you people want Apple to copy a broken idea from MSFT.

Have you all forgotten about the KISS principle?

[Lewisham]

Subscriptions necessitate heavy handed DRM combined with limits on the number of music players that are "authorized" to play back the songs. Subscriptions would also preclude use of those songs in personal media projects.

I use my purchased songs in my home videos.

Subscriptions are a bad idea and I cannot fathom why you people want Apple to copy a broken idea from MSFT.

Have you all forgotten about the KISS principle?

Hang on, so you have a completely different need to what a subscription-based service offers, and then you complain it's useless because of it?

"Cars drive on roads. I need to go on water. I don't know why you would want a car."

This thread is just crazy.

[mkmcfr]

Ok, so if I understand correctly, some of us would like to have a subscription service, others would not... so, why not offer us the CHOICE? No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to subscribe.

[kerryn]

Subscriptions necessitate heavy handed DRM combined with limits on the number of music players that are "authorized" to play back the songs. Subscriptions would also preclude use of those songs in personal media projects.

I use my purchased songs in my home videos.

Subscriptions are a bad idea and I cannot fathom why you people want Apple to copy a broken idea from MSFT.

Have you all forgotten about the KISS principle?

I don't like microsoft, but subscriptions are a brilliant idea and it is anything but a broken idea - but I am sure Apple could do it better.

If you want to use songs in personal media projects you can still do that. Know how? You buy the track! It is not like someone is forcing you into *only* subscriptions with a gun to your head.

Some people really need to get a clue before they post....

[donlphi]

Sorry, but no. The 30 second clip is NOT useful in determining the quality of a song, or if it's part of a genre you like. So many songs these days are cross-overs that change gears mid-song, or have a different paced section of the song, that you can't really be sure what the 30 second clip represents in terms of the overall genre of the song. And it's absolutely terrible for figuring out if you're going to like the song as a whole ... unless the song itself is only 30-40 seconds long.


Do people really sit on iTUNES and try to find songs they like? Like I said, I buy things I've already heard (as do most people). More than likely you:

**Buy it because you own something by the artist already

**Buy it because a friend or family member recommended it to you (here the 30 second clip comes in handy for me... if it takes that long to do something interesting, it's probably not going to do much for me any time soon. Certainly longer songs are different).

**Buy it because you heard it on the radio or saw the video on TV

I just don't think people sit on their computer contemplating which music to buy, sifting through a specific genre trying to find that ONE SONG that touches them. A lot of people are searching for something specific when they go on iTUNES. If John Mayer comes out with a new CD, I don't mind spending the money on it, even if EVERY SONG isn't a grammy winner.

More than likely, if you want a larger sound clip, bands have websites with more elaborate recordings, or check out websites like PURE VOLUME or MYSPACE, which tend to have longer clips. The resourses are out there if you are worried about losing 99 cents on a song.

I was merely saying in my previous message (in a very drawn out manner) that I think music is something you can come back to time after time. It would suck if I was renting music from NAPSTER and all of a sudden they went belly up. Now my library is gone, and I have to start all over. You might as well set fire to your record collection. Sure you have Insurance for those records, but you still have to go and purchase them all again.


The value of the 30 second clip is: "is this the song I heard somewhere else, or a different song?" or "is this the right remix of the song I know I'm looking for?" In other words: for the 30 second clip to be useful, you must already know the song you want.

Using the 30 second clip to figure out whether or not this is the song you want to buy is like buying a DVD based on the trailer.

Isn't that what the trailer or for? People spend nearly $50 these days going to a movie with a loved one or family every all the time (including treats and beverages - more if you include dinner).

You use the trailer to decide what to (see in the theatre/watch on TV/rent from blockbuster/queue from netflix). You don't decide to BUY the DVD until you've seen the movie and decided if it's something you honestly want to keep forever ... unless it's a bargain basement sale on the DVD, in which case you're paying the "rent from blockbuster" price (ie. it's the low-risk environment of rentals, and not the higher price/risk of buying it unseen at full price).

Same with the 30 second clip. It's useful in identifying a song, not in deciding whether or not to buy it. A subscription service or much cheaper rental service WOULD be useful in deciding what to buy, however.


It's $1... This is why I said you BUY MUSIC and RENT MOVIES. I am pretty sure I mentioned it.

And, by bringing up XM and Sirius, you've already contradicted your earlier assertion that people don't want to pay for the music and then not own it (when you said "music -> own, movies -> rent", unless I confused you with someone else). XM and Sirius show exactly that people will pay for temporary access to music. Doing the same thing with iTunes just goes one better by giving you a finer grain of selection than what XM and Sirius give you.


I said XM/Sirius gives you a better way to "SAMPLE" music than iTUNES could or would.

An iTUNES subscription is SORT OF like XM RADIO except who the heck wants to spend HOURS digging through music they have never heard before and then putting them in some sort of order. WHO HAS THAT KIND OF TIME?

Everybody has their "playlists" on their iPOD, I'm sure you want to make changes. You aren't going to have that option (ON THE GO) to listen to something else if you get tired, so it's not REALLY the same at all.

XM/SIRIUS = Listening to new things (potentially) while driving, cleaning the house, doing taxes, hanging out at the beach, etc.

iTUNES "SUBSCRIPTION" = sitting at your desk or on your laptop trying to sort out every song you want to listen to... which is fine if you have that sort of time.


If you want to compare the options I presented with other models in the same category:

iTunes data subscription -> subscription radio/movie/tv services, or on demand tv that is not pay per view
(XM/Sirius on the music side, Netflix on the movie side, cable/satellite TV on the tvshow side)

iTunes data rental -> blockbuster style movie rental, pay-per-view tv, on demand pay per view tv

iTunes data purchase -> DVD and CD


_ALL_ of these are proven market concepts for entertainment delivery. And, in my opinion, doing it through an online service (preferably iTunes, but also with the Yahoo music service, etc.) goes one better than the ones I list.


APPLE will NEVER have a "DATA" plan. Too nerdy for them. I'm a geek, and the word "DATA" is not in Apple's vocabulary (particularly when describing something sold on iTUNES). Perhaps media or something(and that's pushing it), but DATA, never.

So yes. I agree with you. Movies are expensive to buy.

I do not think subscription services are the best way to Sample music.

We agree to disagree. :D

[solafide]

Up to now I have agreed with Steve Jobs in wanting to own music - when Apple introduced the iTunes model, I think it was exactly right, and the correct move for the mindset of most music buyers up to now.

I have begun to rethink the attractiveness of the subscription model, because of movies. It comes down to storage - my choices right now are lots and lots of shelf space for all my DVDs, or lots and lots of hard drive space for downloaded/purchased movies and TV shows. The more I think about it, it would be nice to have someone else store all these massive files, but give me unlimited access to the library (assuming good streaming). This way I could search for and watch whatever I want, including hard-to-find movies. If there was a download model to the video iPod (even if it disappeared if I suspended subscription), would make this even more attractive.

This could provide a completely new model as compared to the current TV subscription model. It would put all choice into my hands.

If we are just talking about music, I prefer to own. If we add in movies, the subscription model becomes more interesting for me for music as well - as long as I could choose final ownership as well.

I wonder whether or not the market "mass mind" is moving in this direction (openness to subscription, at least for movies), as we are already used to subscribing to video (via TV). Like all new concepts, it takes a while for the benefits to be understood. Once we have true media hubs like future versions of AppleTV, people will come face to face with the storage problem inherent in the buy only model.

[BenRoethig]

Up to now I have agreed with Steve Jobs in wanting to own music - when Apple introduced the iTunes model, I think it was exactly right, and the correct move for the mindset of most music buyers up to now.

I have begun to rethink the attractiveness of the subscription model, because of movies. It comes down to storage - my choices right now are lots and lots of shelf space for all my DVDs, or lots and lots of hard drive space for downloaded/purchased movies and TV shows. The more I think about it, it would be nice to have someone else store all these massive files, but give me unlimited access to the library (assuming good streaming). This way I could search for and watch whatever I want, including hard-to-find movies. If there was a download model to the video iPod (even if it disappeared if I suspended subscription), would make this even more attractive.

This could provide a completely new model as compared to the current TV subscription model. It would put all choice into my hands.

If we are just talking about music, I prefer to own. If we add in movies, the subscription model becomes more interesting for me for music as well - as long as I could choose final ownership as well.

I wonder whether or not the market "mass mind" is moving in this direction (openness to subscription, at least for movies), as we are already used to subscribing to video (via TV). Like all new concepts, it takes a while for the benefits to be understood. Once we have true media hubs like future versions of AppleTV, people will come face to face with the storage problem inherent in the buy only model.

I agree. What I'd really want is a 24/7/365 version of blockbuster.

[PCMacUser]

Hmm, I know it's an old complaint from the non-USA users out there, but ANY movie content would be nice Apple!! We don't even get trailers...

[gnasher729]

Fact is. Subscription isn't working that great for eMusic, Zune users and the rest, it's a niche market, and it won't put a dent in the already top noche iTunes Store system, so why bother.

If you look at a company like Napster, their software doesn't work with 80 percent of the players sold (iPods), and that is unlikely to change since they worked really, really hard on ****ing off Steve Jobs.

Apple is in a much better position. They could actually make money off this.

[mrshermanoaks]

I used to think subscription based music was stupid. Then I signed up for MusicNow and was in heaven. New album out that I read about? Listen to the whole thing. Not just clips, the whole thing. If I really like it, I can buy it. If not, no harm done. But even if I didn't buy it, I could still put it on my portable player (Treo 650). For the cost of one album, I could listen to all the ones I wanted.

MusicNow was bought by BestBuy, then AOL, and now Napster - and unfortunately Napster doesn't have as good a selection of artists and some tracks can't be listened to without purchasing them. But subscription music done right is a beautiful thing, don't knock it before you try it.

[adamj]

I think they should make it an option. Why no have the choice so that everyone can be pleased?

[netdog]

Here is a vote of "not interested" regarding music subscription. Now rental downloadable movies, that's another story.

[pnyc]

Music subscription just seams like such a bad deal to me I'm glad Steve isn't into it.