Apple to Offer Unlimited Music Plan?

[MacRumors]

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

Financial Times reports (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b55a0d64-f523-11dc-a21b-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1) that Apple is currently in discussions with music companies to allow customers to have unlimited access to the entire iTunes music library in exchange for paying a premium for its iPod and iPhone devices. (presumably for the lifetime of the device)

The plan sounds similar to Universal's Total Music plan (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/11/27/universal-music-groups-view-of-the-digital-world/) in which the cost of music is embedded into the music player itself. Based on the wording of this article, it seems Apple's version of the plan adds the cost on top of the iPod or iPhone.

The negotiations are currently being held up due to disagreements in pricing. Apple is reportedly only offering $20 per device, while Nokia is playing almost $80/handset for a similar plan. Other possibilities appear to include a subscription based service for iPhone users ($7-8/month, for example) with the capability to keep up to 40-50 tracks/year even after the subscription lapses.

Historically, the Financial Times has been a reliable source of information with early details (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/26/apple-in-online-film-rental-deal-with-fox-studio/) of Apple's plans to introduce iTunes Movie rentals well ahead of its release,

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/03/18/apple-to-offer-unlimited-music-plan/)

[gusapple]

Huh, sounds kinda interesting. Hope that it will work out!

[EricNau]

In other words, a unlimited subscription based music service for a one time fee?

I don't see that working out.

[ebel3003]

In other words, a unlimited subscription based music service for a one time fee?

I don't see that working out.

I think access to the entire iTunes Store library of music is in exchange for the premium that Apple charges on the iPod and iPhone devices. Not a subscription based plan.

I for one welcome this idea.

[Koodauw]

I love the option to be able to keep some of the music after the subscription ends. Count me in for this!

[iPoodOverZune]

well. that should shut up some who always keep asking for music rentals -all you can eat plans - as well.
would blanket cover the whole consumer base, perhaps.

[Ryox]

I don't see this working out sounds interesting.

[gonyr]

When would it be considered too soon to get in line to purchase a new ipod with the unlimited music plan? Tonight? This weekend?

[mr.stinki]

I really don't get this?

If I'm reading right, you pay a monthly/yearly/onetime fee, and you have unlimited music downloads?

Can someone explain, Please?

[SirOmega]

I really only see this working as a subscription - a normal subscription $9.99/mo for all the songs you can fill your iPod with.

The hardest part would be splitting the revenue with the labels - you'd have to apportion the $10/mo based on what exactly?

[ebel3003]

I really don't get this?

If I'm reading right, you pay a monthly/yearly/onetime fee, and you have unlimited music downloads?

Can someone explain, Please?

When you purchase an iPod, you are paying a premium to Apple. From the article, I believe that the idea is when you buy an iPod, you have access to the entire iTunes Store library.

[cthomet]

how would they keep you from just keeping the music downloaded during the subscription time or whatever?

[rosalindavenue]

I have to think that the labels will put the kibosh on this; they seem to be doing everything they can to slow Apple's lead as a music & video retailer, aside from jerking all content from them completely.

[DTphonehome]

Whaaaaat? Oh please, who wouldn't pay an extra $20 to have unlimited music that they get to keep? No way, no how. The record companies would NEVER agree to that.

[mr.stinki]

But wouldn't apple loose money? How are they going to get money from iTunes?

Sorry for being kinda noob-ish =D

[aswitcher]

I think Apple are working on the theory its tied to the device...so its not on your Mac as such, and its gone when the device is superseded...

[Zwhaler]

I can't really see a one time fee happening, unless it is upwards of 1000$ dollars. Maybe a subscription but I think that Apple should stick with song by song pay, it has worked flawlessly for all these years.

[christopher3071]

As a consumer I would definitely be willing to pay more for a device if I knew I was getting unlimited access to the worlds largest (in terms of individual songs for sale, correct me if I'm wrong) music seller. I would even be willing to pay $9.99/month for this. And the ability to keep the songs would be a nice plus.. Maybe they will settle on terms and this could happen by June?! I love experimenting and listening to new groups which is why I use pandora.com but I'd love to take some songs I find from Pandora and take them on the road with me. How cool would it be to be using your iPhone at wifi hotspot and just think, man this calls for a song, and just download it right there on the spot without paying and having the entire high quality song pumping into your ears within seconds, this sounds like a great idea that I'd be willing to pay a premium for. Music = Life (For this computer geek anyway)

[twoodcc]

i don't know about this. i mean, it could be good i guess, but i don't think i want to take part in it.

[christopher3071]

I think Apple are working on the theory its tied to the device...so its not on your Mac as such, and its gone when the device is superseded...

This would make more sense for the record labels. Otherwise no one would keep paying and they'd just keep downloading more songs. But what's to stop customers from using the songs on iTunes after the iPod breaks or is lost.. Perhaps its an iPhone/iPod touch only kinda deal?

[mikeinternet]

does unlimited access mean unlimited downloads or unlimited streaming?

[Frisco]

Great idea! Will be a huge hit!

[DTphonehome]

Presumably the lifetime iTunes would be tied to the lifetime of the iPod. The most similar thing I can think of like this would be when Sirius offered lifetime on their radios for about $500. Now, if Sirius offered it for $500, for streaming satellite service, how could Apple POSSIBLY offer unlimited downloads that you can pick and choose, for the life of your iPod, for a measly 20 bucks. Come on, I'm not buying it. I mean, I would it if were for sale, but you know what I mean ;)

[MattInOz]

The second option sounds like it could be a winner.
I like the idea of paying a monthly fee to be able to hunt and test new music but as you go you build up credits to pick track that are then yours.
Sounds like a prefect gift for a young relative starting to become interested in music.

Still it does it is a subscription model that just like CD encourage the production of a whole lot of filler. Where the current iTunes model encourages every track to be worthy.

Hey why don't bands do a real subscription system, you pay us a fixed fee each week/month/year we deliver a new track each week/month could be live, studio demo, b-side, rarity, even a good interview anything they feel like.

[EricNau]

does unlimited access mean unlimited downloads or unlimited streaming?
Streaming. ...Access is really an inaccurate term in my opinion; we already have access to the iTunes Store, we just don't get to hear or download the songs for free.

[jettredmont]

Whaaaaat? Oh please, who wouldn't pay an extra $20 to have unlimited music that they get to keep? No way, no how. The record companies would NEVER agree to that.

I agree. I mean, put this in line with current schemes:

1. $1 per song, keep forever, play wherever.
2. $10+ per month, keep for one month, play wherever.
3. $80 per device, keep forever, play on one device.

Seems like $20 in the last option puts you in the "subscription model" price range without having to pay for any more than two months.

The fact that a subscription will play on multiple (currently non-iPod) devices seems a bit arcane, as most folks only have one device to begin with (although my family has several, all of which sync up the same account's music).

Seems like the record companies are giving away the store here, quite literally. Given their general level of greed, I can not see this as being anywhere near acceptable to them.

[arn]

It's probably unlimited access on the device itself. Not sure if you are allowed to play the music on your desktop or not.

arn

[HaGG]

Apple, if your reading. Id buy this ;)

[notjustjay]

Maybe this is for future Wifi enabled devices. Now that the iPhone and iPod can download tracks directly from an iTunes Wifi store... the next step would be to make it "free" but disable the ability to sync it all back to your Mac.

That would also make the $20 offer a little more reasonable. $20 to fill a 160-gig iPod? That saves you thousands upon thousands. But $20 to fill a 16-gig iPhone seems slightly more reasonable. :) Still, $20 sounds too good to be true.

Would love it if it happened, though.

[actcochise]

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

Financial Times reports (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b55a0d64-f523-11dc-a21b-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1) that Apple is currently in discussions with music companies to allow customers to have unlimited access to the entire iTunes music library in exchange for paying a premium for its iPod and iPhone devices.

The plan sounds similar to Universal's Total Music plan (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/11/27/universal-music-groups-view-of-the-digital-world/) in which the cost of music is embedded into the music player itself. Based on the wording of this article, it seems Apple's version of the plan adds the cost on top of the iPod or iPhone.

The negotiations are currently being held up due to disagreements in pricing. Apple is reportedly only offering $20 per device, while Nokia is playing almost $80/handset for a similar plan. Other possibilities appear to include a subscription based service for iPhone users ($7-8/month, for example) with the capability to keep up to 40-50 tracks/year even after the subscription lapses.

Historically, the Financial Times has been a reliable source of information with early details (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/26/apple-in-online-film-rental-deal-with-fox-studio/) of Apple's plans to introduce iTunes Movie rentals well ahead of its release,

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/03/18/apple-to-offer-unlimited-music-plan/)

Being in artist management, I cannot overestimate my rage at these corporations going for plans to give music away for a percentage of their goddamn hardware or - even worse (as in the case of the Universal plan) - to force music fans to watch their stupid advertisements. Yeah, that's right. You have to watch a Mazda add playing "Zoom Zoom" for you before you can listen to Miles Davis Kind Of Blue, and probably also a viagra add between the tracks. And Apple - So you think your iPod is more important than the music that's being played on it? Don't give us any crap about "not being able" to protect the artist any other way. This is the most outrageous grab there is out there, and does not serve the interest of the musicians or the music lovers.

[overanalyzer]

It's probably unlimited access on the device itself. Not sure if you are allowed to play the music on your desktop or not.

arn

I don't know about everyone else, but I play music on my Mac a lot. If I could only play it on my iPhone or iPods I don't think that'd be enough for me. But if it's a premium per device, and you can pay the premium for your Mac too, then I guess I might choose to pay the premium for my Mac and my iPhone and potentially an iPod and would be perfectly happy.

[christopher3071]

Being in artist management, I cannot overestimate my rage at these corporations going for plans to give music away for a percentage of their goddamn hardware or - even worse (as in the case of the Universal plan) - to force music fans to watch their stupid advertisements. Yeah, that's right. You have to watch a Mazda add playing "Zoom Zoom" for you before you can listen to Miles Davis Kind Of Blue, and probably also a viagra add between the tracks. And Apple - So you think your iPod is more important than the music that's being played on it? Don't give us any crap about "not being able" to protect the artist any other way. This is the most outrageous grab there is out there, and does not serve the interest of the musicians or the music lovers.

Please tell me where in what you quoted it says anything about advertisements? It says, "In exchange for paying a premium for its iPod and iPhone devices"

[arn]

Being in artist management, I cannot overestimate my rage at these corporations going for plans to give music away

You're right... but interestingly this seems to be Universal's idea to start. But in the end, it will devalue music altogether. People will feel like music is simply "free".

arn

[christopher3071]

I don't know about everyone else, but I play music on my Mac a lot. If I could only play it on my iPhone or iPods I don't think that'd be enough for me. But if it's a premium per device, and you can pay the premium for your Mac too, then I guess I might choose to pay the premium for my Mac and my iPhone and potentially an iPod and would be perfectly happy.

I suggest using an audio cable for the audio-in port in your computer, problem solved. Pain in the ass that it is, it's more of a band-aid.

[El Guapo]

I bought a zune 80 for the sole reason of using the subscription service. If this turns out true I might consider getting a classic iPod.

It is $15.00 a month with the Microsoft service and if you really feel like beating the system you can just run your download through TuneBite and it will strip the DRM. But alas I am too lazy and just pay the $15.00 every month.

edit: Why do I find it hard to side with some dude ranting about ads when his profession is "artist management"?

[lever]

However, the price will not be $20. It might be something like $50 or maybe even $80. Ask yourself this: How often does the average teenager actually pay even $1 a year for the music he listens to? He torrents all of it or grabs it from his buddies. He is NEVER going to be buying CDs, or even downloading for pay. But, he does buy a new ipod every two years. So, you won't get him to buy the 5-10 CD's a year he might have bought 15 years ago, but you can get him to pay the itunes ipod access fee every other year, because it's built in when he replaces his ipod. Sure, your gross revenue is less, but your production cost is FAR less, you're just sticking bits on a server. You are still raking in huge net profits and you have a business model than now works again for you, and it's one that most people can't, or just won't, try to get around because they want an ipod and, hey, now they get a bunch of "free" music with it.

This also becomes a way to thwart piracy (or pay for it) in pirate happy lands such as China IF the ipod can establish traction in such a place, and, I think it can, the branding is good enough if the pricing is right. Obviously, it would be a cheaper, stripped down ipod with a lower royalty fee to fit that market. But it would be a lot more income than they are getting from such a market now, which is close enough to zero to be zero.

I for one, would have no issue paying $20, 50, or even, maybe, 80 bucks extra for my ipod if it meant I could get unlimited access to all the labels stuff on Itunes and keep 30 songs a year DRM free that I could move anywhere I wanted. I know I'll cycle my ipod every two or three years, so that puts my "music usage fee" at 2-3 bucks a month. I can dig that. I can support that. That's what it SHOULD be costing. And, the labels will still ROLL in money - money they would never have expected to see from most of those users. And, they can still sell CDs and online singles, and etc and derive profits from those things. At some price point, a fairly low one, this makes TREMENDOUS sense for the labels. If they can't see that, they are foolish. Oh...wait...maybe it won't work. :confused:

[bennypod]

Did they say when this would happen because look at the iTunes store.

[christopher3071]

Did they say when this would happen because look at the iTunes store.

What am I missing here? All I see is the weekly free song.. Is there something more that I can't see?

[EagerDragon]

I would not be interested.

[jackc]

It sounds pretty crazy but it'll be interesting to see if anything comes out of it. I can only imagine the record companies holding out for a price that no one will want to pay.

[quantumbits]

I rather pay $1 per track and not put up with any advertising. I'm quite happy with the current arrangement.

[cthomet]

i think unlimited streaming would make more sense than anything.

[bennypod]

What am I missing here? All I see is the weekly free song.. Is there something more that I can't see?

What i mean is i think they are doing maintenance because the broken chain things are all over the store. I dunno can u see them?

[ltldrummerboy]

This sounds overly complicated, something Apple has never been about. Didn't Steve say something about people wanting to own their music?

[mikeinternet]

You're right... but interestingly this seems to be Universal's idea to start. But in the end, it will devalue music altogether. People will feel like music is simply "free".

arn

i think music should be free. and 'artists' should be happy people want to listen to them. and 'artist management' should stop what they are doing and find other people to leech onto.

[viperguy]

I don`t understand why there are so many people not interested in something that is just a rumor yet... (*cough cough*, remembers me of all the flaming on the "fat pod" before apple actually launched the latest nano line. and when it did, guess what? It`s the best selling mp3 player)
I just think people should wait and see.
Actually... people should think different :rolleyes:

[Xenious]

I want unlimited movies and TV shows please! Things I tend to really only view once.

[christopher3071]

What i mean is i think they are doing maintenance because the broken chain things are all over the store. I dunno can u see them?

Oh yea, I get that all the time because sometimes iTunes freaks out or my school connection freaks out. I just overlooked it, as I see it everyday at one point in time.

[sandau]

i'd love this on the Apple TV...would be fabulous.

[kuebby]

Sounds like a great idea to me. For a low flat rate I'd pay to be able to refill my iPhone over and over again from the iTunes store.

This would be even better if they offered an Audio option and a Video option. With music I like to own it and listen to it forever but I'd be less concerned with that if I was just dealing with TV shows or short films.

[gwangung]

i think music should be free. and 'artists' should be happy people want to listen to them. and 'artist management' should stop what they are doing and find other people to leech onto.

Not being a selfish prick, eh.....

[epanov]

This is great.

I currently am forced to have Windows via bootcamp simply to use Real Rhapsody service.

It's cheap and has great collection of music always available. If Apple decides to do something like this I would definitely switch simply because the iTunes library is so much larger than the one of Rhapsody (in the Classical/Baroque music category at least)

[Sir Hobos]

According to the wikipedia section on iTunes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Store#Market_share_and_milestones), on January 15, 2008 Apple has sold 4 billion songs to date. And according to the wikipedia section on iPods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod), on January 22, 2008 Apple has sold 140 million iPods to date.

If we divide 4 billion by 140 million we get 28.57. That means that Apple is selling less than 29 songs per iPod, if they charge a $80 surcharge for unlimited access to all iTunes songs, they are still making a killing with $51 profit per iPod. And that is not even taking into account the deals on albums.

Unfortunately I can not find the data for the estimated number of cds that are transfered to itunes, then we might be able to see a more accurate price table. But whatever way you look at it, this would push people to buy new iPods, good for Apple and the record companies.

[xenotaku]

can't they just replicate the emusic monthly charge for a certain amount of songs? That would be amazing. While they are at it, can they please replicate the netflix model for renting movies too, which is essentially the same model as emusic.

[avigalante]

i'd love this on the Apple TV...would be fabulous.

Add me to that list; porting this type of model to tv would seriously make it an instant hit.

[KingYaba]

Amazon has my business when it comes to purchasing digital copies of music and/or the physical CD itself. Should Apple offer a DRM free subscription service I would switch back to the iTunes store.

[username7410]

Amazon has my business when it comes to purchasing digital copies of music and/or the physical CD itself. Should Apple offer a DRM free subscription service I would switch back to the iTunes store.

You can't have subscribed music and NOT have DRM.

[MacTheSpoon]

This doesn't interest me personally, but I am glad for the people who want it. I think it's good to offer both options.

[epanov]

You can't have subscribed music and NOT have DRM.

I think what he meant was DRM-free purchases.

[actcochise]

However, the price will not be $20. It might be something like $50 or maybe even $80. Ask yourself this: How often does the average teenager actually pay even $1 a year for the music he listens to? He torrents all of it or grabs it from his buddies. He is NEVER going to be buying CDs, or even downloading for pay. But, he does buy a new ipod every two years. So, you won't get him to buy the 5-10 CD's a year he might have bought 15 years ago, but you can get him to pay the itunes ipod access fee every other year, because it's built in when he replaces his ipod. Sure, your gross revenue is less, but your production cost is FAR less, you're just sticking bits on a server. You are still raking in huge net profits and you have a business model than now works again for you, and it's one that most people can't, or just won't, try to get around because they want an ipod and, hey, now they get a bunch of "free" music with it.

This also becomes a way to thwart piracy (or pay for it) in pirate happy lands such as China IF the ipod can establish traction in such a place, and, I think it can, the branding is good enough if the pricing is right. Obviously, it would be a cheaper, stripped down ipod with a lower royalty fee to fit that market. But it would be a lot more income than they are getting from such a market now, which is close enough to zero to be zero.

I for one, would have no issue paying $20, 50, or even, maybe, 80 bucks extra for my ipod if it meant I could get unlimited access to all the labels stuff on Itunes and keep 30 songs a year DRM free that I could move anywhere I wanted. I know I'll cycle my ipod every two or three years, so that puts my "music usage fee" at 2-3 bucks a month. I can dig that. I can support that. That's what it SHOULD be costing. And, the labels will still ROLL in money - money they would never have expected to see from most of those users. And, they can still sell CDs and online singles, and etc and derive profits from those things. At some price point, a fairly low one, this makes TREMENDOUS sense for the labels. If they can't see that, they are foolish. Oh...wait...maybe it won't work. :confused:

Actually the production costs are not so much lower as you suggest, and will in no way offset the much lower income that artists in general would make from this model.

Manufacturing cd's are kind of expensive, true, and those could and will eventually (in some years, probably 4-6) be almost eliminated (manufacturing cd's is less expensive than manufacturing vinyl was), but by far the biggest cost of making music is the actual cost of paying sidemen, studios, transportation to/from where the music is recorded (not all music can be made by sending tracks around the world digitally to be overdubbed on) etc etc. Yeah, it costs real money to make quality music believe it or not. Sgt. Peppers would not have gotten made in it's day without access to really cutting edge studio techniques, nor would most of todays hip-hop or even acoustic jazz be made without top quality gear.

We know that the business model has to change - and we are all eager to make the transition. But you know what - pricing music all the way down to nothing is not the way to do it. We have just released music by a well known client of ours (in the jazz world), and guess what - people are happy to pay $20 per cd (it's a double album with over 120 min of music) at the gigs, and while the album is being offered as a 320 kbps download as well as a double cd, the ratio of downloads is only 45% even though this artist has a very young fanbase. That download to CD ratio is on the high side of what's still normal.

But the bottom line is that people are willing to pay what they consider a fair price for great music. At present they can buy this album for 3 lattes at Starbucks, and I think the artists fans feel that's a good deal considering the countless hours of enjoyment they are going to get from it.

Apple would not make 1/100 the amount of sales of iPod's if it wasn't for the music of great artists that could be played on it. Yeah, I also love the Podcasts, movies, audiobooks and what not..heck, I love my iPod and iPhone. But don't start a new scheme of ripping off artists - because you know what would happen if it was all subscription based fees to be passed on to the artists? Then only U2, Britney Spears and the rest of top 100 on Billboard would see any money - the rest of the artists would not mean much to this model, and they would not have the funds to see if the books are being cooked once they get their meager part of the funds being distributed.

A music-business re-write of Dante's hell if you ask me.

[actcochise]

i think music should be free. and 'artists' should be happy people want to listen to them. and 'artist management' should stop what they are doing and find other people to leech onto.

Mikeinternet you live in la-la land. Artists would not be able to commit themselves so deeply as it takes to make the incredible music that they make if they could not make any money from it. Nor could they do so if they did not have people to support them - i.e artist management.

Why do you think almost every single successful artist out there has a manager? Because it's a model that doesn't work for them? Even if they don't have a manager, per se, then they got to pay for assistants and support staff. Artists don't have the time in the day to organize their own travel, their publicity etc, and many of them do not have the inclination to do so either. If an artist doesn't get on a plane, he or she can't play a gig - simple as that.

An artist manager is often times an entrepreneur who takes a chance on an artist, and helps the artist on all levels - including the creative level. And artist managers live precarious lives too, because their income flows are tied entirely to the artists they represent. There's a consistency of interest there, which is one reason why you will see artist managers such as myself defend artists rights to make money from their creativity - just like people at Apple and everybody else does.

[cuestakid]

if apple can do this, and depending on how it is implimented, this may be the start of the end of piracy-but thats just me

[Small White Car]

You're right... but interestingly this seems to be Universal's idea to start.

Right!

God, talk about short-term memory. Maybe the article should have STARTED with this! I can't believe all the comments about how the labels wouldn't do this when it was THEIR idea last year!

Maybe a refresher article is in order for everyone that is apparently new here?

Not to mention the fact that there are currently music-rental services out there like, oh, I dunno...Napster! How can there be people saying this couldn't work? (Not that Apple won't do it, but that it COULDN'T work.) How can there be so many people who haven't heard about Napster and how it works now?

[actcochise]

Right!

God, talk about short-term memory. Maybe the article should have STARTED with this! I can't believe all the comments about how the labels wouldn't do this when it was THEIR idea last year!

Maybe a refresher article is in order for everyone that is apparently new here?

Not to mention the fact that there are currently music-rental services out there like, oh, I dunno...Napster! How can there be people saying this couldn't work? (Not that Apple won't do it, but that it COULDN'T work.) How can there be so many people who haven't heard about Napster and how it works now?

I have yet to hear of an artist that paid for a ham and cheese sandwich with income derived from Napster or any other subscription service.

[Analog Kid]

The recording industry would be fools not to take this. $20 x 40million iPods/yr is $800 million a year. Just can't pass that up. Their alternative is for Jobs to say, "fine, we'll leave it how it is" to be left staring at the revenue curve going down and to the right...

$20 from your iPod, $20 from your phone, desktop, car... Doesn't take many $20 revenue streams to break even.

I won't buy into a monthly subscription. I might drop $20 for a few years access to the catalog, but not $80. I just don't listen to enough big-label music to care. Roll $80 into the price of all iPods and Apple's shooting themselves in the foot.

What I dread is that once everyone has bought in for years at a time, there's no need to draw them in with higher quality product. I'm afraid new acts and back catalog will both suffer-- the only thing they do is cut into the profit margins.

[lever]

We know that the business model has to change - and we are all eager to make the transition. But you know what - pricing music all the way down to nothing is not the way to do it. We have just released music by a well known client of ours (in the jazz world), and guess what - people are happy to pay $20 per cd (it's a double album with over 120 min of music) at the gigs, and while the album is being offered as a 320 kbps download as well as a double cd, the ratio of downloads is only 45% even though this artist has a very young fanbase. That download to CD ratio is on the high side of what's still normal.

But the bottom line is that people are willing to pay what they consider a fair price for great music. At present they can buy this album for 3 lattes at Starbucks, and I think the artists fans feel that's a good deal considering the countless hours of enjoyment they are going to get from it.

Apple would not make 1/100 the amount of sales of iPod's if it wasn't for the music of great artists that could be played on it. Yeah, I also love the Podcasts, movies, audiobooks and what not..heck, I love my iPod and iPhone. But don't start a new scheme of ripping off artists - because you know what would happen if it was all subscription based fees to be passed on to the artists? Then only U2, Britney Spears and the rest of top 100 on Billboard would see any money - the rest of the artists would not mean much to this model, and they would not have the funds to see if the books are being cooked once they get their meager part of the funds being distributed.

A music-business re-write of Dante's hell if you ask me.

Sounds like we aren't so far from that today, though, if you listen to artists.

Actually, really, where I'm at is: I am for the market deciding where this will go. And, it already is. The market is SCREAMING at the record companies. And the labels are pushing their fingers so far into their ears they are lobotomizing themselves.

In reality, there will be several models that will work based on what the artist wants and needs. For recordings, there has never been more direct, open, and cheap distribution technology than artists have today. David Byrne wrote a good piece on this subject last year. It's worth a read: http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne. What will not survive is the labels selling goods at a price FAR in excess of what the market (on average) is willing to pay. There are many reasons for the drop in music sales over the last decade, but this is a key and seminal part of it. If the labels had started selling music at $.50 a track in 2000, they would have had PILES of money to jump around in and millions more happy listeners. Of course, that wouldn't have necessarily left the artists any better off. However, the technology would have still, inexorably, brought us to the point we are at today, where artists, if principled, can control nearly all aspects of their music. So, if you don't like your label screwing you, do what Aimee Mann does. If you aren't willing, then you don't really want it that much, and you can try and get as much as possible in your deal with the devil instead.

My personal favorite model is the one where I buy the music from the artist, the artist gets all the money, and can give me a much better deal on their music because they get most of the gross, and all of the net, with no music industry leeches sucking off of their talent. However, if that artist managed model is what it takes for the artists to get the bulk of the profits from their talent, then I expect the artists to figure that out, that's not part of my job as a music buyer. My job is to say, here's what I'm willing to pay, you figure out if you can make it profitable. If not, and if enough of the market agrees with me, then you need to find another way to put bread on the table.

[fwynecoop]

This sounds like a good idea but, will apple automatically start charging a fee on every iPod sold? What if I don't download songs off of the internet. I don't want to be charged an extra $80 for a service that i won't use.

[lever]

This sounds like a good idea but, will apple automatically start charging a fee on every iPod sold? What if I don't download songs off of the internet. I don't want to be charged an extra $80 for a service that i won't use.

Then, if it is included in future ipods, don't buy the ipod. Vote with your dollars. Tell Steve you won't pay for it by not buying it.

[iTeen]

bring it on apple!!!
i would really love this....

[babyj]

The only reason something like this hasn't happened already is because Apple have never wanted to do it - the major labels would of signed up for it a long time ago. They already have similar schemes in place, the per device fee with Nokia and the monthly subscription with Napster for example.

They'd obviously use DRM to ensure the music was only played on the relevant device and / or that you couldn't play them once the subscription lapses.

Remember that Apple make their money from hardware and that the iTunes store runs at not much better than break even for them. So I can't see how Apple would lose out though it makes you wonder why they wouldn't of done this sooner.

Not sure whether it would work for me but I'm sure it would for plenty of people and that iPod sales would rocket skywards.

[actcochise]

Sounds like we aren't so far from that today, though, if you listen to artists.

Actually, really, where I'm at is: I am for the market deciding where this will go. And, it already is. The market is SCREAMING at the record companies. And the labels are pushing their fingers so far into their ears they are lobotomizing themselves.

In reality, there will be several models that will work based on what the artist wants and needs. For recordings, there has never been more direct, open, and cheap distribution technology than artists have today. David Byrne wrote a good piece on this subject last year. It's worth a read: http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne. What will not survive is the labels selling goods at a price FAR in excess of what the market (on average) is willing to pay. There are many reasons for the drop in music sales over the last decade, but this is a key and seminal part of it. If the labels had started selling music at $.50 a track in 2000, they would have had PILES of money to jump around in and millions more happy listeners. Of course, that wouldn't have necessarily left the artists any better off. However, the technology would have still, inexorably, brought us to the point we are at today, where artists, if principled, can control nearly all aspects of their music. So, if you don't like your label screwing you, do what Aimee Mann does. If you aren't willing, then you don't really want it that much, and you can try and get as much as possible in your deal with the devil instead.

My personal favorite model is the one where I buy the music from the artist, the artist gets all the money, and can give me a much better deal on their music because they get most of the gross, and all of the net, with no music industry leeches sucking off of their talent. However, if that artist managed model is what it takes for the artists to get the bulk of the profits from their talent, then I expect the artists to figure that out, that's not part of my job as a music buyer. My job is to say, here's what I'm willing to pay, you figure out if you can make it profitable. If not, and if enough of the market agrees with me, then you need to find another way to put bread on the table.

On an individual level, I've seen many totally committed, very hardworking and creative staff members at labels (major or otherwise) - most of whom are underpaid compared to what they could make elsewhere. Most do it for the love of the music.

But the business entities behind them are just that- they don't give a damn about the artist, and have historically tied them up in contracts that would make a credit card company blush with envy.

You are right - it is between the artist and his fans. And this is where we are going with our clients. Their fans are willing to go far in support of their favorite artists, happy to see them do well. They travel thousands of miles just to catch a concert. The artist agree to work 24/7 and be submitted to ridiculous travel, generic hotel rooms and being away from the family so that he/she can be there for the fans.

So that's what we will do - establish direct relationships with the fans. And not be bundled off in some huge garage sale that some label is having just so that it can afford to pay the CEO that severance pay for his years of hitting the middle of the road without fault.

[cthomet]

if apple can do this, and depending on how it is implimented, this may be the start of the end of piracy-but thats just me

no people will still want to keep their music that the download permanently. the way im perceiving all this to work, you just get access, not ownership.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I'd rather see a subscription fee for AppleTV movie rentals (ala Netflix). All the movies you can download/watch a month for a flat rental fee. THAT would be useful (seeing as I just got an AppleTV as a dual AirTunes streamer as part of my new whole house audio system and HD rental solution seeing as Blue-ray discs are very poorly resistant to scratches, which occur constantly with rentals and there are no local places to rent blu-ray anyway (don't want to wait 1-3 days for a Netflix mailing...when I want to watch a movie, I want to watch it the same evening).

I just bought an iPod Touch (as a controller for house music system via Remote Buddy). I guess it would suck to find out if I waited a few more months I could have had unlimited music for it (I doubt they'd offer that backwards for previous sales as they probably want to use it to push all existing iPod owners to buy a NEW iPod and thus make a sizeable fortune for all involved). $20 seems cheap, but not if it means having to buy another iPod (perhaps only be available for larger sizes and may not play on your computer either?)

[sabbath999]

This plan would be the dumbest thing ever considered, right up until Apple actually released it, and then it would be the coolest thing ever.

As usual.

[tk421]

i think music should be free. and 'artists' should be happy people want to listen to them. and 'artist management' should stop what they are doing and find other people to leech onto.

Yep. Artists should be happy spending lots of time and money just so they can express themselves. Who cares if they can't feed their families?

[tk421]

The recording industry would be fools not to take this. $20 x 40million iPods/yr is $800 million a year. Just can't pass that up.

But who gets the $800 million? The record industry is not a single entity.

I listen to a lot of independent music. They aren't part of the major labels. If they don't agree to such an agreement with Apple (and I can't imagine absolutely 100% of musicians will) then Apple has a fragmented system, just like they do now with iTunes Plus.

In this hypothetical example, I as a consumer end up paying more when I buy my iPod, but would get no benefit. The artists I want are not part of the plan, but I am essentially giving money to record labels I don't like.

That doesn't sound too good to me. Let me pay for the iPod, and the iPod alone.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Maybe they'll use a 'checkout' system like a library. If you want to check out more music, you have to 'return' the music you already borrowed. In other words, if the system doesn't let you KEEP music beyond a certain limit you are allowed to check out at any given time (with no due dates), the record industry really isn't in any jeopardy because you won't OWN any of the music and so it will never be part of your archive, as such. It'd be like a radio station that only plays the stuff you want to hear. You can ask it to play whatever you want, but it's still like a radio station and not like a music collection, as such. THAT I could at least believe for $20 onto an iPod. If anything, it would only encourage you to check out more artists, etc. than you normally would take chances with and ultimately BUY the music so it doesn't have to be returned.

[SheriffParker]

This plan would be the dumbest thing ever considered, right up until Apple actually released it, and then it would be the coolest thing ever.

As usual.

Made me laugh, thanks. :)

[Marx55]

Several plans to download as much as you want from the iTunes music store:

- Fee to keep the songs only on your iPod or iPhone wile the device works: $100.

- Fee to keep the songs for ever on any device you want: $1,000.

I want the second.

[johnnyjibbs]

Presumably this works a little like an insurance model. They have calculated a general (average) value of iTunes downloads per customer, added a bit, and then bingo there's your one-time subscription fee. Some people will get more than their money's worth, others will get less. A bit like travel insurance.

The fact that they stick the fee onto the iPod/iPhone price simply makes the plan more accessible. Maybe Apple will not allow a choice (i.e. all iPods have to come with this). Maybe it will lead to a fundamental change in the way the iTunes Store works and music on your iPod. Maybe (and probably) the music will be restricted to the device in question (i.e. can't be transferred to your computer).

[johnmcboston]

This plan would be the dumbest thing ever considered, right up until Apple actually released it, and then it would be the coolest thing ever.

As usual.

Everyone will think it's great - until some of their favorite songs disappear from itunes (for whatever reason), then they'll suddenly realize the difference between renting and owning.

[johnmcboston]

You are right - it is between the artist and his fans. And this is where we are going with our clients. Their fans are willing to go far in support of their favorite artists, happy to see them do well. They travel thousands of miles just to catch a concert. The artist agree to work 24/7 and be submitted to ridiculous travel, generic hotel rooms and being away from the family so that he/she can be there for the fans.

So that's what we will do - establish direct relationships with the fans. And not be bundled off in some huge garage sale that some label is having just so that it can afford to pay the CEO that severance pay for his years of hitting the middle of the road without fault.

I've started doing this in my own way. I've gone heavily into small labels and independent music. Exploring new bands on MS or in 'sampler' podcasts. Buy music direct form the artists sites. Listen to music on places like AMIE street, then buying stuff I like knowing the artist is making the money.

I'm just tired of conglomerate owned radio stations force-feeding me garbage music at high prices. If you have time, there's a lot of great music out there you've never heard of, and buying it supports the artists themselves.

[Phil A.]

Personally I like the freedom the current model gives you and the fact that the music is yours forever. However, it's good to have choice and if people want a subscription service, then why not (as long as they keep the current options too :) )

[gnasher729]

I really don't get this?

If I'm reading right, you pay a monthly/yearly/onetime fee, and you have unlimited music downloads?

Can someone explain, Please?

As I understand it: Your iPod gets more expensive, say $279 instead of $199. In return, you can download anything that is available on iTMS onto that iPod, forever, and play it from that iPod, forever. This does most likely not include playing the music on your Mac, or burning CDs. When your iPod breaks, you have to buy a new one, again for $279 instead of $199.

It would probably be useful if your Mac can _download_ the music and put it into your library, even if it cannot play it, so you don't have to re-download things.

Personally, I think this is an excellent idea.

[gnasher729]

They'd obviously use DRM to ensure the music was only played on the relevant device and / or that you couldn't play them once the subscription lapses.

Two advantages here: The DRM would be simpler to implement and much harder to break, because Apple could let you download music that only that single iPod can possibly play. And they don't have to worry about ending the subscription, because the subscription has been paid in full, and it ends on the day that your iPod breaks.

[skemmuni]

Sounds like a Zune

[gnasher729]

This sounds overly complicated, something Apple has never been about. Didn't Steve say something about people wanting to own their music?

Steve Jobs said that people want to own their music. And that is right, because Steve Jobs said so (actually, many people really want to own their music), and it will stay right until Steve Jobs changes his mind. Steve Jobs usually changes his mind when the time is right to do so, and from that moment on he doesn't give a **** that he said exactly the opposite last week.

But the whole system looks very simple: You buy an iPod. It is a bit more expensive. You can fill it with everything that is on iTMS without paying a penny.

[Popeye206]

Mostly I'm not a fan of the music rental scheme. I think it does have value to some people, but I prefer to own my music and don't mind supporting the artists by paying for it.

Rental gives you more options, but I'm just not sure having any song anytime is really all that valuable for me. Too much to manage and the last thing I want is another monthly subscription. Not saying this is what Apple is proposing, but just a general statement. With that said, I think it would be good for Apple to have this model for it's customers... just not for me.

I'd be more impressed with more features for the iPods. Give me direct radio access with a Tivo like feature. More wireless capabilities to share or broadcast my tunes in a more open manner. These are things I'd like to see more of. ;)

[thestaton]

I think it's a great idea, but I would like the option to apply it to the iPhone I already have.

Regardless I'd still pay 7 dollars a month for unlimited downloads.

[mdntcallr]

i would prefer apple giving the labels the ability to do variable pricing. not just have apple set prices. this way the labels would give better bit rate masters to apple. right now sound quality is pretty low on files sold by apple unless they are apple plus. which is very limited.

so tons of music at a low sound quality on "rental?" no way for me.

also, i don't see the labels agreeing to a flat rate per device fee. even if the statistics show a device will last 2-3 years at most per end user.

[mashinhead]

Yep. Artists should be happy spending lots of time and money just so they can express themselves. Who cares if they can't feed their families?

omg. stop being so dramatic. first of all at this point music really is free and for the past 8 years it's been going in that direction anyway. i don't know why people spend so much time and money fighting things that are naturally happening anyway. People who are smart don't fight it, they adapt and find a different way to make money (see: rcrdlbl.com <---great idea. He 'gets it'; side note: i'm convinced that the world is divided between people who get it and people who don't) second artists have never made a lot of money off cd sales, they barely make a dollar of the sale of a cd. if you want to make an argument say "record executives, who cares if they can't feed their families." they make it off touring or licensing (and no making music free will not make licensing free). and third the artist who really loose money are the big name artists, you know the ones that are starving at all. because their music is much easier to find, it's mainstream. this benefits smaller artists because their music gets heard. and when your small you give your music away for free anyway, So it gets heard. People will always find a way to make money off their music. It will just be a different way. So quit this stupid digressive guilt trip and get with the times, because "the times they are a changin'"

[andiwm2003]

but i almost never listen to music anyway (or so rarely that i certainly won't pay extra for the ipod). so there is no benefit for me. especially the few songs i listen to i want to have on multiple devices and burn on CD.

do that for audiobooks and i could see me doing it as altenative for audible. but that's not gonna happen.

i guess this will either not happen at all or it will end up being a form of subscription like many others.

[ictiosapiens]

The problem I see with this is, that I don't see what incentive the labels would have to create and publish good content, when they would be getting the the bulksums from sold ipods(?) regardless...

[zygo]

I don't see why so many are worried about the future of the music artist.

I myself have spent the last 2 years studying the effects of the internet/mp3 on the music industry.

The biggest issues to artists not making enough money are down to the ridiculous royalties major labels give new artists and also the 'pirating' of files from P2P networks. The first can (and will have to) change-artists will just not sign to majors if the deals don't improve. The second is just going to increase. 'Piracy' is on the rise... and that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The only thing that will slow the increase of 'piracy' is a system which 'feels like free' offering just as wide a range of music. This is exactly what Apple are considering-how can we get all those 'pirates' to start using iTunes for ALL their content.

As for the money.... as someone posted earlier there will be far more revenue generated from a subscription or hardware tax model over the current pay per track model. This will mean a massive pool of money, that if distributed (and I think this is the key part) properly will benefit artist more substantially than they get at present.

The other benefit is that without charges and restrictions on use people are more likely to download more tracks-this will knock on to people having a more diverse interest as they are more likely to download tracks they otherwise wouldn't have-because they felt like they were paying, so wouldn't take so many 'risks'.

On top of that-the thing I think is often forgotten... there are other ways for an artist to make money:

CDs/DVDs containing high quality premium content. [sales would increase under new models]

Merchandising

Concert tickets

Publishing for TV/Film/Games


All of these 'extras' would supplement artists' incomes. Plus due to more people likely to download any one specific artists work (as it costs no extra) they are more likely to receive knock on sales for their premium content/tickets/merchandise etc.

The industry is in transition and anyone who thinks the old model of paying for each product (digitally distributed at least) will survive needs to open their eyes. That is not going to be the case.

[Small White Car]

I have yet to hear of an artist that paid for a ham and cheese sandwich with income derived from Napster or any other subscription service.

Why did you quote me?

I responded to the people who said:

A) The labels woudn't allow it (it was their idea)
B) It's technically difficult (Napster already does it)

Your reply doesn't really have anything to do with either of those points, so I'm wondering if I somehow misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Were you actually responding to one of those points and I somehow didn't get it? Or were you just making a new point and quoted me by accident?

[krye]

Is Jobs selling out? He's always said from the get-go that subscription services don't work. People want to own their music. I for one agree with him.

[hayesk]

This will be either time limited or device limited - I don't see this working. When I buy music I want to play it every where - on my stereo, in the car, on my Macs, and on my iPods.

[zygo]

The problem I see with this is, that I don't see what incentive the labels would have to create and publish good content, when they would be getting the the bulksums from sold ipods(?) regardless...

I think the distribution of the generated money needs to be distributed fairly. That is I think that it should be divided evenly based on number of plays/downloads. So there will still be incentives to produce good quality products.

More and more niche market music may eat into this revenue-but the majority will still find its way to the labels for their 'high quality' [mass market] music.

[4DThinker]

Apple sells iPods to People. Not all people buying iPods go on to buy music from iTunes (Apple). Some already own music. Some buy from Amazon. Some still prefer to buy CDs. If Apple can lock up the music profit in the sale of the device, they steal all that profit from Amazon, CD sales, and wherever else you paid to get your music from. Who would go to Amazon for a song when the price you paid for your iPod gets you the song for "free" at iTunes?

What it means to me is that I'll never buy an iPod if part of the fee is for music. Why? I've already got 32gb of music I've purchased over the last 30 years that I listen to on my iPods. As someone with an existing collection I'd never get my money's worth out of the deal.

It's also a strategy to alleviate the lost profit from illegal downloads and illegal sharing. Apple concedes that it's probably their iPods that motivate people to steal music. You need content to fill them up, right? The "Cure", of course, is to make everyone pay for their pending thefts up front. You can't buy an iPod without paying the "thief" charge. It's socialism. At some point it evolves into a TAX we all pay. Artists become employees of and paid by the government. At first their pay is a variable determined by how many tax payers listen to their music. More likely they will all make a flat fee, a share of the Music Tax less what the government skims off the top.

How do I know? 4D is short for 4th Dimension. The 4th dimension is time. Yes I can see the future when I concentrate. ;)

[Small White Car]

What it means to me is that I'll never buy an iPod if part of the fee is for music.

Well, obviously it would be an optional purchase. There's no way they'd make it apply to EVERY iPod purchase.

It would be like Applecare. You buy the hardware and then they ask if you want to add on the additional service or not.

[zygo]

The "Cure", of course, is to make everyone pay for their pending thefts up front. You can't buy an iPod without paying the "thief" charge. It's socialism. At some point it evolves into a TAX we all pay. Artists become employees of and paid by the government. At first their pay is a variable determined by how many tax payers listen to their music. More likely they will all make a flat fee, a share of the Music Tax less what the government skims off the top.

I agree with this statement-it's worrying times.

Personally I would rather see a monthly subscription model.

Whichever model we end up with the important thing is that the money gets to the ARTISTS who deserve it-and not to the government or to Apple or to the labels.

This should be seen in much the same way as radio royalties work.

[jonnylink]

I for one hate the idea of being squeezed by labels who want money for device sales. Universal music has some pretty big balls to think that it deserves money for any iPod I buy. I can promise you that at most 1% or less of my music comes from Universal and it was legally purchased.

I like picking my own music, I'll never buy a device loaded with crappy music I don't want. And stringing it to a subscription I don't need makes me even less excited. I use eMusic because I get DRM-free files from bands that I am interested in. It isn't for everyone, but it suits me well enough. Better than iTunes with the sporadic iTunes "plus" files.

[jouster]

Is Jobs selling out? He's always said from the get-go that subscription services don't work. People want to own their music. I for one agree with him.

He also said people didn't want video on iPods. Did you agree with him then as well?

[ruckus]

It is great apple is looking at other business models for their music. This will allow them to compete directly with all of the other services out there from other companies head on, as well is give people a choice on how to pay.

I'd imagine they would do it like TiVo, where you have the option of registering the TiVo for life of that device and you don't pay any monthly fee, but you don't have to. So I'd imagine the iPods will remain the same price, but you can register it for a lifetime music plan.

[Klaxons2012]

I chuckle whenever i read comments like "i don't think i'll partake" and the like. When the time comes for this product to be rolled out, it'll be a success. A subscription model for the iTunes Music Store will be the perfect solution to curb piracy. Now I don't have to search for hours for the new Yeasayer album, I can just load it up from iTunes. We're entering the age of the inconvenience of P2P transfers. When faced with taking 30-45 minutes searching for an album or five minutes waiting for a download...i'm going to take the five minutes.

I'm excited for the iTunes subscription and i'd pay upwards to $29.99 a month for this package.

[archer75]

I'm all for a monthly subscription model. Prices from other services are typically $10/month. Most people spend at least that on music every month of the year but only end up with 10 songs.
$10 for unlimited songs ain't half bad.

[slu]

This plan would be the dumbest thing ever considered, right up until Apple actually released it, and then it would be the coolest thing ever.

As usual.

This should be the new tag line for the MacRumors forums.

I don't get the negative comments and ratings for this article.

What kind of crazy person does not think this is a good idea? Choice is good. There is no way Apple would make this required for all iPods. As someone else mentioned, this could be like AppleCare. You buy your iPod, you buy your music plan, the first time you synch your iPod to your Mac, you enter in your music plan id and you are ready to go. If you don't want it, proceed as you did before.

Sure it is not for everyone, but I would probably try it just to check out new music even though I already have 5000 or so songs I purchased over the years. And I like paying the fee upfront and not having to pay a subscription.

[killmoms]

Better than iTunes with the sporadic iTunes "plus" files.

As a point of interest, iTunes Plus files wouldn't BE "sporadic" if the labels weren't trying to punish iTunes for being successful. All the majors are offering DRM-free music through Amazon.com's MP3 service now, there's nothing stopping them from offering that same DRM-free music on iTunes (except that they want to reduce Apple's power in the music-selling business and this is one way they're trying to do it).

[sterlingindigo]

If this is true, why the big change? Is the current iTunes model broken? Is the music industry ready to do this? I can't see how they would benefit. I'm not big on subscriptions myself, prefering the ala carte/pay-as-you-go. Market research rumor? Sources aside, I think this one is off.

[actcochise]

I've started doing this in my own way. I've gone heavily into small labels and independent music. Exploring new bands on MS or in 'sampler' podcasts. Buy music direct form the artists sites. Listen to music on places like AMIE street, then buying stuff I like knowing the artist is making the money.

I'm just tired of conglomerate owned radio stations force-feeding me garbage music at high prices. If you have time, there's a lot of great music out there you've never heard of, and buying it supports the artists themselves.

Thank you very much for this posting. This is what it is all about - direct relationships between the fans and the artists and their music.

I don't think any artist has any problem with fans voting with their pocket books. We work mostly with jazz artists. and while we work with musicians who are very popular in their field, it's all a drop in the bucket next to the big pop/rock acts. We don't complain about that (too much anyway), as long as we do get a chance to make a bit of a living from the fans that are supportive of this music, so that we can keep providing them with the music and live shows that they want.

But we also know how the major corporations will act if given half a chance of throwing our clients in there as part of their huge bundle offers. Namely the same way they've always been acting, by focusing on their top-draws and the rest of us are "lucky to be able to participate". Don't want to go there again for a re-run of the major label slave machine here in the 21st century. Especially now when they do NOT control distribution anymore. If it comes to that we'll take our music straight out of the mainstream and just sell it at our own websites and live performances. Screw them and their ad-supported subscription models. Yeah, that was Universals plan - to force people to watch ads to get access to listen to music. Right on - before checking out that cool Radiohead track, why not remind you that you need a Mazda to zoom-zoom to the gig?

[IxStyleZ]

I chuckle whenever i read comments like "i don't think i'll partake" and the like. When the time comes for this product to be rolled out, it'll be a success. A subscription model for the iTunes Music Store will be the perfect solution to curb piracy. Now I don't have to search for hours for the new Yeasayer album, I can just load it up from iTunes. We're entering the age of the inconvenience of P2P transfers. When faced with taking 30-45 minutes searching for an album or five minutes waiting for a download...i'm going to take the five minutes.

I'm excited for the iTunes subscription and i'd pay upwards to $29.99 a month for this package.

amen to that brother :P

i wouldnt see y they wouldnt be doing that either, i mean other companys are doing it for 15$-20$ a month such as Zune and Rhapsody. This would be a big uprise for Apple.

Im all for it, as long as we can use gift cards :D

[slu]

Thank you very much for this posting. This is what it is all about - direct relationships between the fans and the artists and their music.

I don't think any artist has any problem with fans voting with their pocket books. We work mostly with jazz artists. and while we work with musicians who are very popular in their field, it's all a drop in the bucket next to the big pop/rock acts. We don't complain about that (too much anyway), as long as we do get a chance to make a bit of a living from the fans that are supportive of this music, so that we can keep providing them with the music and live shows that they want.

But we also know how the major corporations will act if given half a chance of throwing our clients in there as part of their huge bundle offers. Namely the same way they've always been acting, by focusing on their top-draws and the rest of us are "lucky to be able to participate". Don't want to go there again for a re-run of the major label slave machine here in the 21st century. Especially now when they do NOT control distribution anymore. If it comes to that we'll take our music straight out of the mainstream and just sell it at our own websites and live performances. Screw them and their ad-supported subscription models. Yeah, that was Universals plan - to force people to watch ads to get access to listen to music. Right on - before checking out that cool Radiohead track, why not remind you that you need a Mazda to zoom-zoom to the gig?

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but artists are not forced to play ball with the majors. As you said, they do not control distribution anymore, and if, as you say, they only market the major acts on their labels, then what is the point of signing on to a major label? Especially as a Jazz artist? It is not like Apple can force independent bands and labels to participate in this.

Basically I agree with you, but I don't understand your vitriol when nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

And I don't have a problem with ad-supported content either, as long as the user knows this upfront. If your main problem is that the labels will make extra revenue that the artists won't see, especially the smaller artists, I don't see how this is any different that the screw job labels have been doing to artists forever...but that doesn't make it right. The only difference now is that you don't need a label anymore.

[damacus]

I would gladly, happily pay $10-15/month ($120-180 a year) to be able to sample all the tracks I wanted from iTunes. This would kill 99% of the reason I ever snag music off the internets, which is to sample new music and catch the current flavor of things. (The other 1% is to acquire rare or out of print music that I couldn't buy regardless of how much I wanted to.)

I would've gotten a Rhapsody or Napster account a LONG time ago, but they refuse to support macs! So, forget them. I want a service I can access from my macs (my laptop and a powermac g5 in my office) and my home gaming computer (a windows xp custom build.) So, the studios and services are missing out on my dollars completely there.

Once music means something to me, I'm much more likely to purchase it. This means I have to be able to appreciate the whole song outside of a shopping experience. Being able to spin the album at work, in my car via iPod a few times, and on my home stereo would be the ultimate try-before-you-buy... so it'd result in more sales (or a perpetually maintained rental account.. like how Netflix has a recurring income of $17/month from me) and artists and studios would benefit from more trackable music exposure.

I would NOT want advertisements in the mix, however, unless I opted for them. eg, if I wanted an album, I want just that album. If they want to offer something, I wouldn't mind something like a Casey's Top 40 style thing where you get the artist title and song name and a small blurb about the song or artist that comes on before the track.

[mrgreen4242]

Whaaaaat? Oh please, who wouldn't pay an extra $20 to have unlimited music that they get to keep? No way, no how. The record companies would NEVER agree to that.

I think the article implies that Nokia already offers something like this.

For the record I'd gladly pay ~$75 extra for an iPod to have unlimited access to the iTMS for the life of the device, even with restrictions that you could only play the music back on that device alone, as long as:

1) You could still store the music on your computer to sync a subset of the music to the iPod without redownloading
2) You could play the music on a computer with a linked iTunes account as long as the device was plugged in (in spirit of keeping playback limited to one place/user at a time)
3) It included access to the iTMS WiFi

I hope this comes through sooner rather than later and they offer it as an option upgrade at time of purchase AND retroactively for current generation iPods.

[Eric S.]

I would not be interested in any arrangement that did not leave me with complete ownership of my music and able to play it on any device I like. I wouldn't care a bit about having access to all the music in the world. I have almost all the music I want in my iTunes database right now, and as I want more I buy it. I'd rather go back to just listening to CDs than have to accept a plan under which I only rented music.

[Palliser]

Great idea! Will be a huge hit!

yep, sign me up... living in nashville I would support this as long as the artists were supported.

[tk421]

omg. stop being so dramatic. first of all at this point music really is free and for the past 8 years it's been going in that direction anyway. i don't know why people spend so much time and money fighting things that are naturally happening anyway. People who are smart don't fight it, they adapt and find a different way to make money (see: rcrdlbl.com <---great idea. He 'gets it'; side note: i'm convinced that the world is divided between people who get it and people who don't) second artists have never made a lot of money off cd sales, they barely make a dollar of the sale of a cd. if you want to make an argument say "record executives, who cares if they can't feed their families." they make it off touring or licensing (and no making music free will not make licensing free). and third the artist who really loose money are the big name artists, you know the ones that are starving at all. because their music is much easier to find, it's mainstream. this benefits smaller artists because their music gets heard. and when your small you give your music away for free anyway, So it gets heard. People will always find a way to make money off their music. It will just be a different way. So quit this stupid digressive guilt trip and get with the times, because "the times they are a changin'"

Did you even read what I was replying to?

Yes, the old model is not working. I agree it needs to change. rcrdlbl.com is great and all, but it's the artist's CHOICE to release their music there for free. That doesn't mean the artist expects to get no money ever for their music.

The post I replied to said that all music should be free, and that artists should just be happy their stuff is heard. But artists have to make money somehow. That was my point.

And I do have some experience. My brother is a musician and a good friend of mine is a musician. Both are small and independent, and both are trying to make money off their honest hard work. And it is NOT true that artists only make money from touring and licensing.

[AnonymousOne]

Surely this cant happen!
Im already pissed at itunes for sticking the last nail in the coffin of vinyl.

[Analog Kid]

But who gets the $800 million? The record industry is not a single entity.

I listen to a lot of independent music. They aren't part of the major labels. If they don't agree to such an agreement with Apple (and I can't imagine absolutely 100% of musicians will) then Apple has a fragmented system, just like they do now with iTunes Plus.

In this hypothetical example, I as a consumer end up paying more when I buy my iPod, but would get no benefit. The artists I want are not part of the plan, but I am essentially giving money to record labels I don't like.

That doesn't sound too good to me. Let me pay for the iPod, and the iPod alone.
Yup. Exactly why the major labels would be foolish not to buy into this, in fact they should insist on it. Apple wants it because it would ensure continued access to major label content. It's also why consumers should be wary of it, as I suggested in my original post and you're calling out here.

The $20 doesn't bother me-- there's a reasonable chance that I'd buy an album or two from a major label over the years I own an iPod. What would worry me is the impact this kind of deal would have on the larger market.

[Domofloge]

I honestly do not see how this will benefit Apple in the slightest way..

Pay one fee and get unlimited downloads???? I'm sure people will download tons of songs, which will total much more than the original fee! :confused:

[tk421]

Don't think this has been posted, but there is also a New York Times article (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/apple-will-listen-to-universals-music-subscription-pitch/?ref=technology).

A couple quotes from it.

...the music industry is suggesting that this right would expire after a year or two and then you would have to pay a fee to continue the music service.

...Apple is offering $20 a handset while the labels have been asking $80.

[nebsta]

I want unlimited movies and TV shows please! Things I tend to really only view once.

Agreed, I think the subscription model suits tv shows more than music. In the UK we have a set top box where tv shows can be rented (either PPV or £6 per month for unlimited viewing) - this would be awesome for the Apple tv!

[Khryz]

If I could download any music I wanted for a low monthly subscription like $9.99/mo I would do it in a heart beat. A one-time fee with the purchase of an iPod would also be intriguing.

But when I hear BS like the music is lost after the subscription then absolutely not. I can still download music for free and keep it forever.

[MattInOz]

Surely this cant happen!
Im already pissed at itunes for sticking the last nail in the coffin of vinyl.

I thought iTunes was killing the CD but bring Vinyl back to life.
I know i've brought more vinyl than CD's this year.

[MacJoe]

I just can't imagine this working if it's like other subscriptions services in which the music becomes unusable if subscription lapses. Apple is singlehandedly responsible for my renewed interest in music as an integral part of my life and the current model for the iTunes store is absolutely ideal for me. As long as Apple maintains the current model in addition to a silly subscription service, I'll keep using it. Otherwise, I'll have to look elsewhere.

[Yvan256]

I chuckle whenever i read comments like "i don't think i'll partake" and the like. When the time comes for this product to be rolled out, it'll be a success. [...] I'm excited for the iTunes subscription and i'd pay upwards to $29.99 a month for this package.

You're right, it could be a success. But how many people want to pay yet another monthly fee? Will it be 10%? 90%? We don't really know yet.

Not everyone listens to new music all the time. I, for one, don't want a monthly fee or a subscription for monthly music. I buy, at the very most, about 25$ worth of music every year, so unless we're talking about a plan for around 2$/month, I'll pass.

TV shows, on the other hand, is another debate. I don't want to buy TV shows, I'd rather pay a monthly fee to download, watch, delete. At 2$/episode it's way too expensive too (we don't have monthly/season passes yet in Canada, AFAIK).


[...] A subscription model for the iTunes Music Store will be the perfect solution to curb piracy. Now I don't have to search for hours for the new Yeasayer album, I can just load it up from iTunes. We're entering the age of the inconvenience of P2P transfers. When faced with taking 30-45 minutes searching for an album or five minutes waiting for a download...i'm going to take the five minutes. [...]

Your arguments already apply to any online media store, rental model or not. What you get from P2P varies so much in quality, too. And good luck trying to find obscure or old things. It's less trouble and faster to simply pay 1$/tune and get back to our lives.

The one thing I'm hoping Apple is fighting for: a world-wide store, with no countries limits. I know it's all about labels and contracts, but I'm hoping Apple is fighting for this. Countries limits, in the era of the 'net, is just plain pointless.

[JML42691]

Unless if this is going to be a subscription based idea, then I don't see it working for a cheap price.

[rockosmodurnlif]

This would be swell. I'd be willing to spend upwards of $9.99/month to have access to the library and browse through as much garbage (and not these barely representative 30 second samples) as I want so I can compile a list of CDs I'll get other places.

It would keep me from illegally downloading albums just to try them out. I'd maybe even think about $19.99/month (just for the simplicity of it all) but above that I'll just fire up my torrent and p2p clients.

And don't forget to integrate it with the wi-fi store. Wi-fi mobile streaming of the entire iTunes catalog?! :eek:

When faced with taking 30-45 minutes searching for an album or five minutes waiting for a download...i'm going to take the five minutes.
30-45 min for 'free'
5 min for 'not free'

Of course 'not free' is going to be quicker. If 'not free' wasn't quicker it wouldn't make sense to use it over 'free'.

[MacJoe]

For the record I'd gladly pay ~$75 extra for an iPod to have unlimited access to the iTMS for the life of the device, even with restrictions that you could only play the music back on that device alone, as long as:

Unless I'm missing something (and I could very well be), this gives Apple no incentive to produce devices with longer lives. It may even give Apple an incentive to produce devices that are designed to have shorter lives! So what if my current iPod dies and I buy a new one. Would the old music work on it or would I have to repurchase everything? This is starting to make old CDs sound good.

[jonnylink]

As a point of interest, iTunes Plus files wouldn't BE "sporadic" if the labels weren't trying to punish iTunes for being successful. All the majors are offering DRM-free music through Amazon.com's MP3 service now, there's nothing stopping them from offering that same DRM-free music on iTunes (except that they want to reduce Apple's power in the music-selling business and this is one way they're trying to do it).

I know, but that doesn't make it any more convenient. I also question why there is music on eMusic that isn't iTunes Plus. eMusic is all small labels so you'd think that labels like 4AD wouldn't care about "punishing" Apple.

[jonnylink]

Unless I'm missing something (and I could very well be), this gives Apple no incentive to produce devices with longer lives. It may even give Apple an incentive to produce devices that are designed to have shorter lives!


...The "Cure", of course, is to make everyone pay for their pending thefts up front. You can't buy an iPod without paying the "thief" charge. It's socialism. At some point it evolves into a TAX we all pay. Artists become employees of and paid by the government.

Interesting, we've already got so many pre-product conspiracy theories. So far my favorite one is where Apple becomes the government! All hail Steve Jobs President of the USA (United States of Apple):D

By the way, the incentive to create iPods that last is that people won't buy them if they have a short life. Or at least people won't buy as many *and* it will give the competition an opening to steal market share.

[MattInOz]

Unless I'm missing something (and I could very well be), this gives Apple no incentive to produce devices with longer lives. It may even give Apple an incentive to produce devices that are designed to have shorter lives! So what if my current iPod dies and I buy a new one. Would the old music work on it or would I have to repurchase everything? This is starting to make old CDs sound good.

I mean if it's device specific then it better well have a warranty time frame.
But happens if the device lasts longer. They take the risk it won't last longer or well balance build to time frame vs time frame overrun costing them.

That is a seriously bad business model if you ask me. It's a no win, no happy campers, no happy suppliers.

You might as well rent or lease the whole device from them if your going to put main usage based on a rental model. Which still doesn't seem like a good model for Apple to get in to.

It's not really a repurchase it's a re-download, the first iPod had firewire which wasn't supported by most computers but was also the only game in town that could load the 5Gb device in reasonable time. sure it moved to usb2.
Can you really see them going to a fill by download.

What was it steve said about focus, focus is choosing not to do a lot stuff that might be cool but does fit right.

[liberty4all]

An $8 billion deficit in California sure makes politicians hungry for new taxes, the latest being a proposal to tax downloads from online stores such as iTunes and Amazon.

The most interesting comments in this article come not from the one proposing the tax hike but by Annette Nellen, a fellow at the New America Foundation: "Our tax base hasn't kept up with how we do business and how we live. The way we consume things have changed, but we still have a 1930s tax base."

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1999326.php

[lever]

Unless I'm missing something (and I could very well be), this gives Apple no incentive to produce devices with longer lives. It may even give Apple an incentive to produce devices that are designed to have shorter lives! So what if my current iPod dies and I buy a new one. Would the old music work on it or would I have to repurchase everything? This is starting to make old CDs sound good.

Well, really, what added incentive does apple have to produce devices with longer lives now? The adder for itunes store unlimited access is not going to make apple a lot of money. Itunes doesn't today. It's the ipod that makes apple a ton of money. And, so, by your reasoning, apple today doesn't have an incentive to make an ipod with a longer life. I mean, if that was really the goal today, the battery would be consumer replaceable. The model Steve is pushing now is that you replace your ipod every 1-2 years as your current one ages, wears, and the new models have a few extra bells and whistles to seal the deal for you adding an itunes content fee won't change that.

[lever]

Yep. Artists should be happy spending lots of time and money just so they can express themselves. Who cares if they can't feed their families?

My, how dramatic. If you are an artist and cannot pay the bills with your art, I'm sorry, but find a new job, or find an audience, or find a more efficient way to produce your art. If you can't feed your family because you're using the food money to produce your art, well, you are irresponsible and that's not the world's fault. The world owes NO ONE a living. I respect the hell out of the guts it takes to be an artist, and if I like your art enough, and your price is right, I want to pay you for your work. But, if you can't make a living at it, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles. If you love it enough, it will be your avocation. If not, you'll dabble and get a serious day job. 'Nuff said.

[JGowan]

I believe this work because I believe it would simply serve as a radio station for the Music labels. There's entirely too much music out their wanting our attention/money. We could never spend the time it would take to listen to all of the new music and certainly not pay for all of it. We only have so much time/money to afford to the pastime of music. Therefore, we rely on the radio to sample songs from any given album. We trust our favorite artists to continue to put out great stuff, album after album. We listen to our friends and critics when they rate the artist in question.

Ultimately, there's only so much time/money that can be devoted to music. Unless it was more mobile and we could sample on-the-go.

For that reason alone, I believe this could work. People MAY download thousands of tracks, but really only groove on mere dozens. But I think that in order to get the Music industry onboard with this, limitations must be set up…

1) I feel that it should only be bundled with the highest priced/best iPod/iPhone Apple makes. It just wouldn't be fair to offer a $50 premium for this service to those buying a $49 Shuffle. Also, Shuffles get their music transfered to them via the computer -- not safe enough for the music execs. More on that below.

Also, by offering it on the most expensive models, Apple would be able to add to the pile of money offered to the music companies ($50 from the customer/$50 from Apple: $100 for every new iPod/iPhone with the plan -- perhaps Apple kicks in even more, music labels all the happier.)

2) You could not play music on your computer with iTunes. You could not create a playlist and burn a CD of the music. In short, you could only listen to the music by the device that has the premium service. You cannot transfer any of the music to another iPod/iPhone you own. One service per device. Period.

3) You can't use any type of dock that will send the music to a home stereo system. You can only listen to the songs from either headphones or out of the iPhones mono speaker. Period.

4) Files are all 128kbps double-wrapped in security. Even EMI iTunesPlus music must be dumbed-down from its 256kbps. No exceptions.

Why all the restrictions? We don't like restrictions. No but without them, the music companies won't go for it… but with them in place…

… With these type of restrictions in place, I think everyone would be happy. Apple is selling lots of high-end players, the Customer is enjoying music that he has never heard nor, in many instances, would ever even consider buying. And the music industry is getting a nice influx of immediate cash plus the bonus of free advertisement of their music…

With all of the restrictions placed on this service, eventually what will happen en masse is that people will WANT to listen to many of the albums they've grown in love with in other ways: their cars, homes, etc. and will also want to have the music in its original uncompressed state. They will go out and buy real copies of their favorite CDs because, lets face it, headphones are ok but it could get a little old. People really want to listen out of their speakers. This simply serves as a try-it before you buy it-type system.

The way to distribute the music would simply be only through the Wi-Fi iTunes music store. A user already has video, photos and his favorite music on his unit already. He can only download so much at a time to sample it. He cannot transfer one note of that music to iTunes when he reconnects to his computer so there's no way to Hi-Jack the music. He simply listens on the device that been approved for the unlimited downloads. Apple creates an easy way to Delete on-the-go so he can grab music when he feels like within the wifi setting he finds himself in. That limitation will allow for a steady flow of new music to the iPod and people having to make real choices about whether they want the actual CD for everyday use in the car, for parties, work etc.

As I've said, people only have so much time/money for music. That's why piracy abounds. Also, I believe people buy the stuff they really want for a really perfect version of their music, but only pirate stuff they're simply curious about. Stuff they would never actually go into a music store and buy. And stuff they really wouldn't listen to that much either unless it was really good. Then they would, many times, go and purchase the unfettered version.

It's very much like Netflix. We rent a movie we're curious about, watch it and send it back when we we're done. However, the movie industry wins when a gem comes to our house in its red sleeve and we end up loving it. We want the ability to watch anytime we like. We want the supplemental discs of the purchased version. Now imagine if was an inferior version we were watching. Low compression and we could only watch it on one TV set. We'd want our very own version that looked and sounded amazing and that would work on any device we wanted. We would go buy that version, right?

Same principle applies here. There's real opportunity here for music companies to let us fall in love with new artists or artists we've never gambled on with our wallets. We fall in love and go buy the CD and the next time the same artist or group releases their next collection, we're standing in line at the store with our wallets open.

[zygo]

surely less restrictions will mean a greater user base?

This would mean increased advertising/promotion and would lead to a greater number of high quality/hard copy sales. Also increased revenue from more subscribers [in what ever form that charge comes].

All these restrictions will not convert the file-sharers ['pirates'] and isn't that half the point? Turn their habit into at least some revenue?

Also is the low quality file type restriction enough?

[zygo]

Would it not be a better system to have it limited to your iTunes store account that allows transfers between your own devices? No hard copies can be made.

They should also incorporate into the store a way to mail order the cd/related products.

And at a lower rate offer the CD quality files + artwork with/without burning rights [limit the number of burns].

Bands/labels could offer high quality[premium rate] subscriptions under this system also.

Wouldn't something similar to this benefit everyone? [apart from other music retailers]

[mikeinternet]

My, how dramatic. If you are an artist and cannot pay the bills with your art, I'm sorry, but find a new job, or find an audience, or find a more efficient way to produce your art. If you can't feed your family because you're using the food money to produce your art, well, you are irresponsible and that's not the world's fault. The world owes NO ONE a living. I respect the hell out of the guts it takes to be an artist, and if I like your art enough, and your price is right, I want to pay you for your work. But, if you can't make a living at it, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles. If you love it enough, it will be your avocation. If not, you'll dabble and get a serious day job. 'Nuff said.

I'm so happy that I didn't need to say this.

[Eric S.]

If you can't feed your family because you're using the food money to produce your art, well, you are irresponsible and that's not the world's fault. The world owes NO ONE a living.

Gee, it's just like my mom was still alive.

[haw-i-ya]

I want monthly subscriptions... could use that!

[TwelfthAG]

iTunes Subscription + iPhone with Mobile iTunes would equal any music at anytime, and that would be cool. :cool:

That could be in addition to the current model, so people can still own the music if they really want it as well. :D

[Anderson3133]

In other words, a unlimited subscription based music service for a one time fee?

I don't see that working out.

I disagree. A lot of Canadians own Apple iPod's and don't bother paying for itunes music because it is not enforced here, and also because itunes can become quite pricey if you want to fill up an iPod full of music. So for places like Canada, it is an excellent idea to get sales boosted, because I am certain itunes music is not huge here.

[azma]

In the recend SDK presentation, I noticed that the itunes logo on the iphone had changed. Did anyone else notice that? (see picture) What is interesting is that the old logo had an arrow pointing downward- this icon doesnt anymore. Perhaps this suggests that there will be an unlimited streaming service- something like that. I thought i'd connect the dots on these two pieces of info... what do you guys think?

[ErnieFrance4]

I think this sounds great. There are many songs I just like to listen to for a few times and then they get old. This would be great for me.

[MacBook-Gal]

I think that it would be really cool. There are lots of songs that I would like to listen to just a few times but maybe not keep forever.

[saxkidsam]

It's been a while since March 18th now so I was just wondering what the
experts opinion on whether or not this will actually happen and if it will, when are some of the most likely times it could be announced. Thanks.

[JML42691]

In the recend SDK presentation, I noticed that the itunes logo on the iphone had changed. Did anyone else notice that? (see picture) What is interesting is that the old logo had an arrow pointing downward- this icon doesnt anymore. Perhaps this suggests that there will be an unlimited streaming service- something like that. I thought i'd connect the dots on these two pieces of info... what do you guys think?
The main reason for this is to make a more noticeable difference between the App Store icon and the iTunes Store icon, because otherwise the only big difference would be the change in color.

[BOSS10L]

People MAY download thousands of tracks, but really only groove on mere dozens.

Agreed. I never understood the whole "Torrent as much as I can as fast as I can" mentality. I've got over 100 DVDs, 50+ Blu-Ray and HDDVD titles, in addition to 200 music CDs and a few hundred iTunes tracks. All purchased legally. I don't have time to watch/listen to them all, yet I know people who have (mostly) ill-gotten collections that would make mine seem insignificant in comparison. I just don't understand people's reasoning of having it just because they can. If a P2P song gets downloaded and never gets listened to, was it ever really pirated? (to play on a popular saying) :D

I'm all for a built-in fee on the iPod, and possibly a subscription-based model if it is reasonably priced. I just don't buy enough music to warrant spending $20 a month. $5 or $10 might be good, but it should offer unlimited downloading capabilities. Most of the stuff I'd get wouldn't be contemporary music anyway, so their Miley Cyrus empire will be safe for another day. ;)

[scialex]

:D that would be awesome

[ianpyst]

Agreed. I never understood the whole "Torrent as much as I can as fast as I can" mentality. I've got over 100 DVDs, 50+ Blu-Ray and HDDVD titles, in addition to 200 music CDs and a few hundred iTunes tracks. All purchased legally. I don't have time to watch/listen to them all, yet I know people who have (mostly) ill-gotten collections that would make mine seem insignificant in comparison. I just don't understand people's reasoning of having it just because they can. If a P2P song gets downloaded and never gets listened to, was it ever really pirated? (to play on a popular saying) :D

I'm all for a built-in fee on the iPod, and possibly a subscription-based model if it is reasonably priced. I just don't buy enough music to warrant spending $20 a month. $5 or $10 might be good, but it should offer unlimited downloading capabilities. Most of the stuff I'd get wouldn't be contemporary music anyway, so their Miley Cyrus empire will be safe for another day. ;)

I second this ^_^