iTMS To Add Subscription Service?

[MacRumors]

According to MacWorld UK (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=9738), the launch of digital-music subscription service VirginDigital in the US has sparked a debate about the future of the subscription model for music distribution, with Apple admitting it may consider a subscription service in the future. Speaking to the International Herald Tribune Apple's Eddy Cue explained his conviction that there will always be a preference for the a la carte model, saying: "Consumers have been buying music for 50 years and want to replicate that experience online." Cue then added: "Apple might consider a subscription service in the future but it had no plans to do so now."

The subscription model is less expensive for the online stores to put in place, costing them only 50% of the revenue off each track sale, instead of the 65 - 70% of the sale for a la carte downloads. According to Zack Zalon, President of Virgin Digital: "Two or three years out, subscriptions will overtake à la carte because it is a much more interesting proposition. It has just been difficult to articulate to consumers what it is."

[stoid]

As soon as any subscription service starts getting anywhere near profitable, maybe Apple should add one. But I think that Steve was right when he said that people want to OWN their music not RENT it. If you know that a subscription service won't work now, but might is 3 years, don't blow the cash on it now, but wait 3 years, and then put one in when it makes sense to.

[Blue Velvet]

... It has just been difficult to articulate to consumers what it is."

Because when they find out what it really means... they prefer somehting else instead, perhaps?

[wordmunger]

The link in the article to the international herald trib didn't work. For those of you who have a NY times reg, here's a link to their story (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/27/technology/27music.html?8dpc).

[howard]

if a subscription always means that you can't keep the music forever then i will NEVER use a subscription service.

the only subscription service i would ever use is one where you got to keep the downloads, but i don't think that kind of service exists

[stoid]

The RIAA must really love this subscription idea that they are trying to make it so easy for online music stores to do it. It's perfect for them really. The get to take the consumer's money, and at the end of the month, the consumer has not one more piece of RIAA product to their name!

It's like renting out the front door of your house to your kids, and making them pay for all the stuff they actually consume. Sure they get a lot of positive things for being able to come inside the house, and can also spend a little extra to get those that they really like (a.k.a. food), but once that month is over you've got their money, and they've got nothing, except what they paid extra for. Maybe not the best analogy though. :o

[Apmonia]

if a subscription always means that you can't keep the music forever then i will NEVER use a subscription service.

the only subscription service i would ever use is one where you got to keep the downloads, but i don't think that kind of service exists

There is a service out there that is subscription and you get to keep the songs. www.emusic.com will allow to spend as little as 9.95 a month for forty downloads. (I don't work for them, just to let you know). I just signed up for a trial version, which you must do in order to browse the selection, and found a lot of jazz and electronia that I like. The only problem is that there really aren't too many "big" name artists on there, mostly independent labels and artists. If you like that type of music, this a good way to get some music you wouldn't normally be able to find.

Apmonia

[the_mole1314]

RIAA loves subscription services because it allows you to listen to all music, but not have the files on the computer.

More options mean more revenue.

[slightly]

I'd just like to remind people that you never really own anything, it's all rented.

You buy a TV? You use it for three years and then replace it. You just paid $20 a month to rent it for a while.
You buy a house? You use it for twenty years and then move (or die). You paid $500 a month to rent that place.
Macs, music downloads and everything else on the planet work in exactly the same way. Don't kid yourself that you ever "own something forever".

Matt

[jbembe]

Because when they find out what it really means... they prefer somehting else instead, perhaps?


Yeah, and with 8400 aac files in my collection I hardly think I need to spend time with a subscription service. Simply give me songs that I can't justify purchasing a whole album with and maybe a couple of new release stuff to preview for a new CD. I don't need radio or anything else.

[stoid]

You buy a house? You use it for twenty years and then move (or die). You paid $500 a month to rent that place.

Difference. You 'rent' a house, and you can get kicked out, and have to answer to someone else about everything you want to change. You 'buy' a house, you can modify it however you want within the physical bounds of the building's construction, you can take out loans on the value of the house. You can't sell a TV or computer or house that you are renting, but you can if you buy them.

[Dave1982]

I'd just like to remind people that you never really own anything, it's all rented.

You buy a TV? You use it for three years and then replace it. You just paid $20 a month to rent it for a while.
You buy a house? You use it for twenty years and then move (or die). You paid $500 a month to rent that place.
Macs, music downloads and everything else on the planet work in exactly the same way. Don't kid yourself that you ever "own something forever".

Matt

It's only that way if you want it to be. Who's to say that you can't keep a TV for more than 3 years or a house for more than 20? Any in either case, you still get more bang for you buck by buying. A nice house for "$500" per month for 20 years is far better than renting a much smaller apartment for $900 per month. Same sort fo thing with a TV.

[Squire]

I'd just like to remind people that you never really own anything, it's all rented.

Interesting point but I don't subscribe to it. (Pun intended.) As Stoid points out, renting stuff doesn't leave you with much freedom. Owning it does. If I want to spray paint a pink stripe down the hood of my new 'Vette, so be it. I don't think the dude at Hertz would understand.

That said, I think, if it's economically viable, Apple should allow that service. It's not what I would want but if they feel enough consumers would be happy, I say go for it.

Squire

[ryanw]

Difference. You 'rent' a house, and you can get kicked out, and have to answer to someone else about everything you want to change. You 'buy' a house, you can modify it however you want within the physical bounds of the building's construction, you can take out loans on the value of the house. You can't sell a TV or computer or house that you are renting, but you can if you buy them.

Well, in that sense do we really own the music we "buy" from iTMS? You can't sell them or else you'd have to turn over your username and password. Never the less, I prefer iTMS over any subscription service because I don't have to worry about the songs on my iPod expiring if I forget to plug it into my computer every month.

[FlamDrag]

Dave1982 - While I'll partially agree about items such as a TV which will die after a short time (especially Today's electronics) - homes and non-electronics are completely different. When I die, all the money I paid for my home doesn't disappear and the home goes back to the bank to sell again. It's equity for me or my heirs.

If you're just trying to say "you can't take it with you when you go" then that's fine.

However, I DO agree that we don't really own downloads from the iTMS. Mainly because we are prevented from selling them or performing certain other modifications. Basically what you're buying from the iTMS is the right to play that music until you're tired of it or the file becomes corrupt / deleted or the format becomes obsolete.

[s10]

I have about 2000 cd's at home and keep buying them..Although I love my (3rd) iPod and use it a lot, I prefer to have the full sound quality version of the songs....but...
So many of those cd's I bought in the past remain on the shelf..and remain on that shelf... dust...I will never listen to them again probably....
So why did I buy that cd/ Because at that time I liked the music, but now I think it's old hat...
So if I would have rented that cd, then I would just stop paying for That cd and save money....mmmh...I don't know how much money I would save..but if it was a rented iTune....then I would have spared the planet from some plastic and energy...

So, in short...if the iTunes sound quality would be like Apple lossless and I would be able to put them on my iPod, I would be interested in a subscription service....so I could listen to the tracks I like...and if I like them even after?????years I can always buy them.

I think subscription IS the future, not just for music, but also for your all kinds of software/hardware (like your car), but the services the currently offer for subscription are not interesting enough...
...but more importantly; the mentality of "I want to OWN" needs a big change... I don't think Virgin Digital can change that.

[stoid]

I have about 2000 cd's at home and keep buying them..Although I love my (3rd) iPod and use it a lot, I prefer to have the full sound quality version of the songs....but...
So many of those cd's I bought in the past remain on the shelf..and remain on that shelf... dust...I will never listen to them again probably....
So why did I buy that cd/ Because at that time I liked the music, but now I think it's old hat...
So if I would have rented that cd, then I would just stop paying for That cd and save money....mmmh...I don't know how much money I would save..but if it was a rented iTune....then I would have spared the planet from some plastic and energy....


If you would have been renting your music for $10 a month for the past 10 years, that would have cost you $1,200, and you would have jack ***** in your music library. You'd have a huge stinking hole in your wallet and nothing whatsoever at all but memories. Since you've bought your music, you now have an extensive collection that you and many other people can enjoy for years to come.

[TopCatz]

NO! This is contrary to what makes the iTMS so great. I hope that is just dodgy hearsay. Apple must not succumb to subscription and I doubt Steve would agree to it. Let's hope he's fully back in charge soon and will put an end to this sort of claptrap!!

[wordmunger]

Personally I wouldn't be interested in a subscription service, but I don't see why Apple couldn't offer the service in addition to the regular iTMS. More choices, more different ways to buy, no big deal, one way or the other. It would be more stupid for Apple if the subscription services took off and left Apple in the dust.

[wrldwzrd89]

Personally I wouldn't be interested in a subscription service, but I don't see why Apple couldn't offer the service in addition to the regular iTMS. More choices, more different ways to buy, no big deal, one way or the other. It would be more stupid for Apple if the subscription services took off and left Apple in the dust.
I agree wordmunger - if subscription services take off, then Apple should consider adding a subscription service. I want to see the a la carte service stay around if a subscription service is added because if Apple does add a subscription service instead of replacing the one they have, Apple will have a killer music store - either the only one that offers both download and subscription or one of very few that do this, which will make Apple's store all the more appealing to consumers.

[nagromme]

A subscription isn't what I want, and isn't what most people want. But it DOES offer something different that a small number of people seem to use sometimes. So if Apple wants to add this as an option for those folks, or even just as a publicity stunt, why not? The regular iTunes model will remain for the rest of us.

[johnnyjibbs]

Steve Jobbs has always slagged off subscription services. Plus, Apple's iTMS was revolution because it was the first a la carte service - there were already some subscription services before that.

The music industry loves subscription because it means you don't have the files on your computer, like others have said, so it's not surprising. I just hope Apple isn't forced into it, and then forced to drop the a la carte service...

Plus, I don't think Virgin will be any more bigger competition than anyone else.

[applekid]

Have any of you read that Washington Post article about the music services? It was in a Sunday issue of the Business section about the tech stuff. Anyways, basically, it said subscription services have shown to be more profitable than buy-one-song-at-a-time method and it the future will take off. It's reasoning didn't make sense. Maybe someone can post a link?

[otter-boy]

I personally have no desire to rent music, because I listen to my albums often and would like to have my music available for years. I buy maybe one CD a month, but I continue to listen to CDs I bought 10+ years ago. THe long-term benefit of owning my music outweighs the short-term benefit of listening to new music. If I want to listen to new/different music, I just turn on the radio.

However, many people, especially kids, teenagers, and college-aged adults, have musical tastes that change rapidly and they would like to be able to change large chunks or their music library (20, 100, 1000 songs) with little effort or cost. To them, renting music would be more cost-effective than buying because the long-term value of having the music would not be as compelling as the short-term value of being able to listen to a wide variety of often changing music.

This short-term vs. long-term benefits principle explains why I rent most videos (I only watch them once) and own my car (I've had it for over 10 years). Buying all videos that I watch would cost me more in terms of dollars and space. Renting (or leasing) my car would have cost me 2-3 times as much for the car itself and nearly twice as much for insurance, and I still wouldn't be able to get anything for it if I decided I wanted another car. Still, if I only wanted a car for a couple of years, leasing would save me money. It's always nice to have the option there.

Apple should offer the choice, if for no other reason than to push forward the AAC standard. If Apple doesn't rent music, everyone that wants to rent music will be forced to buy a WMV compliant device. Even if they want to own a song, they won't be able to use iTMS to put the song onto their music player. Apple shouldn't lose the music/DRM standard war to MS just because they don't want to rent music.

[stoid]

It just occurred to me that offering a subscription service on the iTMS goes against Apple's design goals. The iTMS, iTunes, iPod triple threat combo is truly amazing the way the all sync together and are mind-numbingly simple to use. If Apple adds a subscription service, they cut the iPod out of the loop. Suddenly Apple's service is little different from the others, just a store and media player.

[spankalee]

There is one reason why Apple should offer a subscription service that is more important than any other reason for or against. Apple is getting completely beat by these college bundles that Napster and Rhapsody are putting together. The reason is simple: Apple has nothing to offer.

Their only nod to this phenomon is a licensing deal which allows organizations to redistribute iTunes which, of course, is already free. If Apple does nothing they will continue to give Napster and Rhapsody a free lifeline which will in turn help Microsoft and the WMA format. It will also influence students using those services.

The RIAA is pushing the subscrition bundles on colleges under the threat of lawsuits. I'm sure most colleges would choose iTMS if given the option. Apple needs to do this quickly to cut off the revenue to their closest competitors.

The problem is that iTunes, iTMS, iPods and FairPlay will all have to be updated. If FairPlay wasn't designed to accomadate subscriptions and expiring rights this could be a headache.

[stoid]

There is one reason why Apple should offer a subscription service that is more important than any other reason for or against. Apple is getting completely beat by these college bundles that Napster and Rhapsody are putting together. The reason is simple: Apple has nothing to offer.

I think that this point is moot. Students are forced into these 'deals' that colleges have signed, many times against their will. In some cases students are protesting because they have to pay for a service that doesn't work with their Mac or iPod. Furthermore, to get the colleges to sign these deals, Napster and their ilk are dropping their price so low that they are making extremely little or no profit on the deal. Also, since their music will be taken away from them once they graduate, it doesn't build much brand loyalty. Face it, in this scenario, the schools lose because of extra time spent to maintain and support the service, the students lose because they pay money and get nothing when they graduate or transfer, the music services lose because they make negligible profit, and only the RIAA wins because they make money without actually selling any product. :mad:

[otter-boy]

It just occurred to me that offering a subscription service on the iTMS goes against Apple's design goals. The iTMS, iTunes, iPod triple threat combo is truly amazing the way the all sync together and are mind-numbingly simple to use. If Apple adds a subscription service, they cut the iPod out of the loop. Suddenly Apple's service is little different from the others, just a store and media player.

With Janus technology, portable media players compatible with the MS .WMV media format will be able to play rented music which will expire (even on their player) when the subscription runs out. If someone wants to continue to listen to that music on their player, they will have to renew the subscription and plug the player back into the computer. This is actually seen as the main advantage of MS compatible players over the iPod over the next year or more. Now, with Apple rebuilding the ineternals of the iPod from the ground up with the 4G (which they stated they did), they may be able to add this ability to iPods with merely an update to iTunes and the iPod software. Subscription services in no way cut out portable media players.

[macFanDave]

There were subscription services before iTMS and Apple came in and handed them their heads! Why would Steve want to glom a failed business model on to the most beautiful jewel in the digital music universe?

That rent/own argument is a joke. Who keeps a TV for three years? If you are such a tech freak that you need to get a new one three years after, you should be able to sell the "old" one for a good price. The house analogy is even more flawed since it ignored the greatest tax dodge of all. When you pay rent, you're covering the landlord's note, insurance, taxes and whatever he wants for profit. You realize no tax benefit for that. However, when you "own" a home, you get to deduct the amount of interest and taxes you pay on your home from your gross income, that is, Uncle Sam is subsidizing your mode of housing. Often, if you live in a house for twenty years, you are going to sell it for far more than you originally paid for it.

[johnnyjibbs]

It just occurred to me that offering a subscription service on the iTMS goes against Apple's design goals. The iTMS, iTunes, iPod triple threat combo is truly amazing the way the all sync together and are mind-numbingly simple to use. If Apple adds a subscription service, they cut the iPod out of the loop. Suddenly Apple's service is little different from the others, just a store and media player.
Good point, and very true. I think subscription would be stupid because, not only has Steve Jobbs outlined all the stupid things with it, but it would confuse the objectives of the iTunes store and make the whole iTunes thing less "Mac".

Subscription service is just the music companies (and RIAA etc) getting too greedy.

[tristan]

What if it was like Netflix? I could rent 120 songs for $10 a month, but then swap those songs out whenever I want? That would be pretty cool. You could then buy the ones you want and keep them forever.

Of course securing a song is pretty much impossible...

[balconycollapse]

Has anyone used one of these subscription services? How soon do they have new releases after physical copies are out? If there is a song you really like you could just fire up audiohijack or wiretap. I think this stuff is more like internet radio paid subscription and I don't care for the market research they are certainly getting from your listening habits. :p

[jettredmont]

I'd just like to remind people that you never really own anything, it's all rented.

You buy a TV? You use it for three years and then replace it. You just paid $20 a month to rent it for a while.
You buy a house? You use it for twenty years and then move (or die). You paid $500 a month to rent that place.
Macs, music downloads and everything else on the planet work in exactly the same way. Don't kid yourself that you ever "own something forever".

Matt

Houses are definitely bought and sold. Yes, you use it for an indefinite period of time, at which time you sell it. Therein lies the fundamental difference between a sale and a rent or lease: the time of "selling", and, thus, the appreciated per-time cost of use of the item, is determined by you, the buyer, as opposed to either pre-determined or determined by the seller. Plus, to belabor the obvious point, the "cost" of the home is largely offset by the "profit" of selling the house (which, as a renter, of course you don't get). Fundamentally, a "buyer" has significantly more rights than a "renter", and generally also tends to pay less over the life of the equipment than the renter. That's the way life is.

As for music, fundamentally the way I view music, and I don't think I'm alone here, doesn't gel with a renter model. Music is one of the barometers of life. It's a great way to bring back memories, hearing a random song that hearkens back to when you were a kid. The memories trickle in, or they flood in, making life all that much richer. If I "own" my music (technically, if I own the rights to play my music), then I know that I'll be able to listen to the song I'm listening to right now, when I'm 80 years old, and it will bring back memories the same way the Chattanooga Choo Choo brings back memories for my grandparents. If I "rent" the music, my access to that music is far from certain. In fact, as a renter, I know there are processes in place specifically to keep me from listening to that music when I'm older -- both intentional, in the case that I stop paying the rental bills, and unintentional in the case that the rental outfit closes shop or there is a legal snafu which forces them to stop broadcasting a certain song or whatever. Chances that I'll have access to the songs I know and love today, when I'm older? Not so great.

Fundamentally, it's a bad idea to rent music. I've known five people who have tried music rental services, and they've all stopped their subscriptions after only a few months because they realized they'd never be able to "have" that music, and that they were severely limitted in how they could use that music *today*.

The rental outfits aren't making a profit today. Their losses are "narrowing", which may have been good enough in the dot-com bubble, but it doesn't sail a ship of cheese today. Narrowing losses are still losses, and projections of losses narrowing for years into the future means they won't be making a profit any time soon, if ever. Plus, from a trends perspective, I see a whole lot more future growth in music ownership; storage space has a lot of head room, in all areas from ultra-portable to ultra-non-portable, while network transmission bandwidth has been relatively stagnant for many years and looks to remain that way for a good amount of time to come. Finally, historically, rental schemes tend to have a greatly-increased probability of success with "young" technologies than with "old" technologies (would you rent a phone today?); if it hasn't taken off yet, it's chances are diminishing with each passing day.

[jwhitnah]

I'd just like to remind people that you never really own anything, it's all rented.

You buy a TV? You use it for three years and then replace it. You just paid $20 a month to rent it for a while.
You buy a house? You use it for twenty years and then move (or die). You paid $500 a month to rent that place.
Macs, music downloads and everything else on the planet work in exactly the same way. Don't kid yourself that you ever "own something forever".

Matt
It is NOT exactly the same. The digital relm actually allows me to pass my OWN crappy music to endless future generations without any loss of quality. The media of the future may/will change but we will probably be able to pass our music archives on to it.

[wrldwzrd89]

It just occurred to me that offering a subscription service on the iTMS goes against Apple's design goals. The iTMS, iTunes, iPod triple threat combo is truly amazing the way the all sync together and are mind-numbingly simple to use. If Apple adds a subscription service, they cut the iPod out of the loop. Suddenly Apple's service is little different from the others, just a store and media player.
That isn't necessarily true if Apple implements a system like MS's "Janus" that allows subscription content to be played on portable devices. If that piece also falls into place at the same time as the addition of a subscription service, the ballgame becomes completely different. Without this extra piece, Apple's triple threat becomes only a double threat (because the iPod is cut out). With the extra piece, though - what we have is a quadruple threat - iTMS download, iTMS subscription, iTunes, iPod.

[jwhitnah]

According to MacWorld UK (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=9738), the launch of digital-music subscription service VirginDigital in the US has sparked a debate about the future of the subscription model for music distribution, with Apple admitting it may consider a subscription service in the future. Speaking to the International Herald Tribune Apple's Eddy Cue explained his conviction that there will always be a preference for the a la carte model, saying: "Consumers have been buying music for 50 years and want to replicate that experience online." Cue then added: "Apple might consider a subscription service in the future but it had no plans to do so now."

The subscription model is less expensive for the online stores to put in place, costing them only 50% of the revenue off each track sale, instead of the 65 - 70% of the sale for a la carte downloads. According to Zack Zalon, President of Virgin Digital: "Two or three years out, subscriptions will overtake à la carte because it is a much more interesting proposition. It has just been difficult to articulate to consumers what it is."

Of course Zolan is excited about Virgin's subscription service; if he were not, he would be fired. The wild assertion that subcriptions will surpass a la carte is not surprising. The were logical flaws in this article. I seem to remember a quote comparing movie rentals and music rentals. Besides kids (and a few adults, but a smaller fraction) how many times do you watch the same movie? Once is enough for most; there are always more to see. Music is the opposite experience. I listen to albums/songs over and over within a month or 2, then I move on to something else. On the other hand, if I listened to it that much I want to own it so I can listen to it when I am in the mood, whenever.

Subscriptions will only supplement the download market. I think it has merit, especially if I think I might want to buy it; like a test drive.

[jwhitnah]

There is one reason why Apple should offer a subscription service that is more important than any other reason for or against. Apple is getting completely beat by these college bundles that Napster and Rhapsody are putting together. The reason is simple: Apple has nothing to offer.

Their only nod to this phenomon is a licensing deal which allows organizations to redistribute iTunes which, of course, is already free. If Apple does nothing they will continue to give Napster and Rhapsody a free lifeline which will in turn help Microsoft and the WMA format. It will also influence students using those services.

The RIAA is pushing the subscrition bundles on colleges under the threat of lawsuits. I'm sure most colleges would choose iTMS if given the option. Apple needs to do this quickly to cut off the revenue to their closest competitors.

The problem is that iTunes, iTMS, iPods and FairPlay will all have to be updated. If FairPlay wasn't designed to accomadate subscriptions and expiring rights this could be a headache.

Well said. Subscriptions are not in my future, but they seem to appeal to a significant minority. Moreover, the profit margin is much greater than a la carte. Offering this service on iTMS would head 'em off at the pass.

[jwhitnah]

If you would have been renting your music for $10 a month for the past 10 years, that would have cost you $1,200, and you would have jack ***** in your music library. You'd have a huge stinking hole in your wallet and nothing whatsoever at all but memories. Since you've bought your music, you now have an extensive collection that you and many other people can enjoy for years to come.

So true. Part of the fun in OWNING is the ability to flip through old purchases. "Hey, I remember that one, put it on!" If you don't own it, you will not remember it.

[zim]

Apple already has a "subscription" service.... ;) it is dubbed monthly allowances. I know what the subscription service is and why that the two are not the same but, it is nice that apple offers different ways to spend your money.

[swissmann]

I see people like my little sister preferring the subscription service. She wants all the latest songs and then in a couple of months asks herself. Why did I ever listen to that because the fad has changed. I would never go for it. I don't like music until it has proven its worth to me. Then if I dig it I want to own it because I know I will dig it 20 years from now.

[Thanatoast]

I don't know why so many people are dead-set against subscription. I played with Rhapsody the other night, and lemme tell you, having their entire catalog at my fingertips for $10 a month is a great deal. Who cares if you don't own it? You still get to listen, don't you? And you get to listen to a lot more for a lot less. The only trade off is you are tied to a computer. Unless, of course, iTunes implements this and you go buy an Airport Express. No one says you can't buy the tunes. You're just renting the right to listen to *400,000* of them for ten bucks a month!

[junior]

If you would have been renting your music for $10 a month for the past 10 years, that would have cost you $1,200, and you would have jack ***** in your music library. You'd have a huge stinking hole in your wallet and nothing whatsoever at all but memories. Since you've bought your music, you now have an extensive collection that you and many other people can enjoy for years to come.


But he's got 2000 CDs, and at $12 each that would amount to $24000 :eek: .
So under your theory he might be left with nothing under his ownership but would have saved $22800 and would have enjoyed listening to the stuff he liked on the day, and getting rid of songs he got tired of. Of course he could always download those songs he grew tired of again if he felt like listening to them.

Just making this point for arguments' sake. :)

[iMeowbot]

Now, with Apple rebuilding the ineternals of the iPod from the ground up with the 4G (which they stated they did), they may be able to add this ability to iPods with merely an update to iTunes and the iPod software.
They could update all Fair Play-capable models to use expiring tracks. That's why there's a clock.

[macumus]

Apple already has a revenue stream with the dot.mac subscriptions. at $99/year, thats $21 cheaper than other subscription models at $9.95-$20/month. And far less than cable, phone or cable modem (which can be $40-$80). If they were to add Apple Lossless Subscription to the .Mac system they could have several pricing layers. Something like this:

Annually
Standard .Mac (same features as today plus PC compatablity for sync of addresses, bookmarks, mail, virus software, etc.) (can buy movies through iTMS on PC/MAC without subscription (pending windowz security fixes)) $60

.Mac with iTMS-S (music subscription) $120
this is mac only (will windows ever be secure enough?)

later next year (also mac only)
.Mac with iTMS-S plus iTV on .Mac Subscription $240
.Mac with iTMS-S plus Feature Film Subscription $240

and the .Mac ultimate package
.Mac with iTMS-S plus iTV on .Mac + Movie Subscription $340


along with the new subscription system they introduce the video component to iTMS. Purchase movies individually or buy the subscription with .Mac.

You see the brilliance is that the .Mac subscription is the base for each level. At $60 (down from $99) more current mac users will want it's current features. At $120 the extra $20 is easy to swallow for current .Mac users when you can listen away. You can still buy all the songs you really like. And some artists can keep some songs as album only or singles only and out of the subscription system except that you link to iTMS and can buy it. PC users can't use the Music Subscription part. Not initially at least. This would be good incentive for PC users to switch to a Mac. Security heaven and totally awesome features and immense media options all in one fell swoop. Buy a Mac!

As they work with Motorola they can make the whole system mobile with a high speed phone able serve up the music and link to wi-fi systems and sync to iPod. With .Mac being only for the Mac OS this is good reason to buy a mac. Of course it can't be PC compatible at introduction and time will tell if Microsoft can secure their Windows OS well enough to include PC compatibility. "Windows is not secure enough to allow the operating system to have access" would be powerful and well founded press fodder for Apple.

the movie and tv subscriptions parts will be coming soon. the price I'm guessing at, but if they can beat cable on price and offer more than NetFlix with near instant gratification and more content and just the content you want. With Music, TV, Movies, and Library of Congress access, and Physical Collection Management.

The consumer Mac is becoming all 64bit. Wintels are behind on this, and they may not be able to handle the compression tehcnologies for the video stuff until they get there.

Moving movies to iPod/phones with mobile high speed internet access providing your TV/Movie feeds, and you could see $1200/year (same as basic cable with cable modem internet) and maybe more if they offer the iPhonePod and all the internet bandwidth and Music and TV and Movies (and dare I say an interactive library that could pull from the library of congress and include audio (also audio conversion for all text) and Video and Links to other good online resources) Of course you plug into an Apple Cinema Display or TV (through an adapter) to watch the video in all its high definition glory.

Apple needs to merge iTunes with a system for keeping track of and managing your physical collection. Use the iSight to scan the UPC Bar Codes of your store bought items to enter them into the library. Or sell a rechargeable bluetooth laser scanner (with 200 item memory for when the computer isn't near) for added speed and convenience (maybe this is bulit into the iPod). Could work for books, VHS, DVD, CD's, LP's, Etc... Could expand into total home inventory. And tie it to a Personal Finance Application while your at it. You're house burns down while your on vacation...no problem, you have a complete inventory stored on your iPod (and dot.mac) you just beam it to your insurance agent and... boom ... there is your check. But you gotta get a mac!

[johnnowak]

Well, in that sense do we really own the music we "buy" from iTMS?

No, you don't. Hell, you switch to Linux and your files are worthless.
No idea why you people buy from there...

[fracai]

No, you don't. Hell, you switch to Linux and your files are worthless.
No idea why you people buy from there...
And when I switched from tapes to CDs all my music was worthless. Oh wait, I recorded them into CDs. Can't do that with iTunes but you can burn them to CD and they're DRMless. rerip and they're portable again. or cut out that step and use software to remove the drm. illegal? yeah, but it's an option and I don't think the RIAA would like knowing that I didn't buy a new copy of my Ghostbusters soundtrack because I was able to rip it from the tape.

I made a choice with buying from iTMS because I have no intention of switching to Linux. No idea why you, johnnowak, don't switch to Windows and start buying from their store. What? You don't like Windows and prefer to use Linux? Oh, ok, then don't take my advice.

That old cliche about "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it"? There's another line that should become equally cliched: "And when you're done saying what you will, I defend to the death my right to not follow your advice."

iTMS doesn't work for you, but it does for me. Rental services don't work for me, but they do for others. Let people have their choice and see if you can figure out why people don't make the same choices that you do.

[inkswamp]

It has just been difficult to articulate to consumers what it is.

Gawd... I hate it when business folks talk down to people like that. "Articulate" what it means to subscribe? Nobody needs anything articulated to them. The preference is non-subscription models. Why? Simple. A majority of the people out there already know what music they like and what they want to buy; they also likely don't have time to sit in front of the computer exploring new music. It's that simple. I'd love to devote several hours a week just playing new music, but it isn't going to happen. And like most people, I don't want to be stuck paying for something I may not end up having time to use. When I want something, I'll pay for it, but I don't need a subscription service hanging over my head like some kind of chore.

It's like this. When you need something from the grocery store, you go and buy it. Would you shop at a store that required you to fork over $100 a month prior to any shopping at all? Regardless of the benefits, there is always the chance that you're going to lose your money because you can't use it at some point. Nothing needs to be articulated here. Subscription models benefit teenagers who have lots of time to explore music, but for most of us, it's a waste.

There, did I articulate that properly? :D

[Trekkie]

I've got a few Windows friends that would drop Napster in a heartbeat if this happened.

They both work from a desk all day coding listening to music on headphones. Buying the tracks isn't as important to them as listening to random stuff throughout the day depending on their whim of the day.

Me, I buy my music and listen to it on the iPod, so I wouldn't use it as much, I think

[Trekkie]

No, you don't. Hell, you switch to Linux and your files are worthless.
No idea why you people buy from there...

Yeah, and we know so many people are doing to do that. :rolleyes:

Come on. If Linux actually accounted for enough business to release a product Apple could. But when you have a smaller desktop market share than Apple themselves it's not on the top ten list of things to do.

If things change in the next year however, and real demand with people who will actually pay for something happens I'm sure things could change.

[SeaFox]

There is a service out there that is subscription and you get to keep the songs. www.emusic.com will allow to spend as little as 9.95 a month for forty downloads. (I don't work for them, just to let you know). I just signed up for a trial version, which you must do in order to browse the selection,

Uh, no you don't. I browsed the site after reading about it the first day they launched on a Slashdot story. I saw a lot of artists I like, but never signed up for a trial. I'm on dialup and since eMusic seems to be all web browser based I should be able to "shop" from any internet connection (unlike having to be on my computer with the iTunes Music Store). I'm going to get a USB flash drive and use high spped connections at cybercafes, ect to download the tunes to the drive. Wiating for 12-15 tracks to download oer dialup would be annoying to say the least.

and found a lot of jazz and electronia that I like. The only problem is that there really aren't too many "big" name artists on there, mostly independent labels and artists. If you like that type of music, this a good way to get some music you wouldn't normally be able to find.

Did you see they have like the entire catalog of Creedance Clearwater Revival? I'll be able to replace my old tapes for a song. [pun intended] There's also early Moby.

[katanna]

Two or three years out, subscriptions will overtake a la carte because it is a much more interesting proposition.
I disagree 100% (like most of you).
I have over 2600 songs in my collection. For what you pay a month for subscription, I could own a new CD each month. Plus, with subscription, you have to stream the songs... bad if you have a slow connection.
Overall, there is NOTHING good about subscription except that you have access to more songs (for most of us). Way too many bad things...

Matthew

[Thanatoast]

It's like this. When you need something from the grocery store, you go and buy it. Would you shop at a store that required you to fork over $100 a month prior to any shopping at all? What if that $100 gives you the right to go in and eat any food on the shelves, as long as you do it in the store? Say they have stoves and tables and everything. You can go to any grocery store around the country and eat anything and as much as you want, just show them your card. $100 a month. Would you do that?

[nhmacusr]

There are times when a subscription service might be useful. Anyone know the rules? Say could a bar or restaurant get one? Then they would always have the latest tracks. Any office would probably like it too.

One thing to remember here folks..... Right now they are trying everything in their power to make the subscriptions work. When they become popular, the RIAA will change the rules. They will not live at $9.95 a month listen to as much music as you want for long.

[feature]

You buy a house? You use it for twenty years and then move (or die). You paid $500 a month to rent that place. Don't kid yourself that you ever "own something forever".

Matt

Hmmmm... i bought my house at 26 it will be paid off at 41...no more payments...wait that means i own it....your statement is just silly...

[ariza910]

If you really stop to think about it a subscription service would be a great complament to the iTunes music store. Make the subcription cheap so that poeple get to listen to huge amount of music and then give them the potion of buying what they really want to keep.

Yeah buying music is great since you get to keep it, but a subscription would allow you to listen to over a million iTune songs, many of which you would never listen to.

[kanker]

Subscription services are unbelievably stupid from a business perspective. All I need is a few hours, WireTap or Audio Hijack, and for $10.00 I have all the music that the subscription service offers that I would want. End subscription, maybe re-subscribe for for a month a couple of times a year, repeat the process with whatever new stuff is there that I want - hundreds or even thousands of dollars of music for $30 a year. Stupid.

[johnnyjibbs]

There are times when a subscription service might be useful. Anyone know the rules? Say could a bar or restaurant get one? Then they would always have the latest tracks. Any office would probably like it too.

One thing to remember here folks..... Right now they are trying everything in their power to make the subscriptions work. When they become popular, the RIAA will change the rules. They will not live at $9.95 a month listen to as much music as you want for long.
Because bars and restuarants are publicly broadcasting the music, they will not be legally allowed to just pay $9.95 a month or whatever. They would have to pay public broadcasting rights, which would be somewhere nearer five or ten times that amount.

The same thing happens with pubs and Sky TV. To you and me at home, Sky TV costs a [some would say whopping!] £35 a month. So a pub could just broadcast all the live football matches for that could they? WRONG! They pay a WHOLE lot more because they are broadcasting it (not just home family use).

[johnnyjibbs]

Subscription services are unbelievably stupid from a business perspective. All I need is a few hours, WireTap or Audio Hijack, and for $10.00 I have all the music that the subscription service offers that I would want. End subscription, maybe re-subscribe for for a month a couple of times a year, repeat the process with whatever new stuff is there that I want - hundreds or even thousands of dollars of music for $30 a year. Stupid.
That, my friend, is very true, and a risk they have to take. Of course, by using WireTap or whatever, you end up with a compressed AAC/MP3/WMA file being recorded as an AIFF file (and therefore taking up tonnes more space for the same quality - re-ripping into AAC will reduce quality).

I just think the subscription model is stupid because it's all stuck on your computer and, while it's nice to sample new music, most people have their favourites that they play time and time again, even 40 years later. Imagine renting for all that time!

[wrldwzrd89]

That, my friend, is very true, and a risk they have to take. Of course, by using WireTap or whatever, you end up with a compressed AAC/MP3/WMA file being recorded as an AIFF file (and therefore taking up tonnes more space for the same quality - re-ripping into AAC will reduce quality).

I just think the subscription model is stupid because it's all stuck on your computer and, while it's nice to sample new music, most people have their favourites that they play time and time again, even 40 years later. Imagine renting for all that time!
Don't forget that Audio Hijack Pro isn't limited to making AIFF files. It can also send its output to a WAV, MP3, AAC or Apple Lossless file. However, that doesn't mean you'll gain (or lose) additional quality - it just saves you a step.

I agree with you as far as subscriptions being used for sampling new music goes, but you must keep in mind that subscription models are targeted toward teenagers, the market segment likely to benefit most from them. Only problem is that there are plenty of music store users out there who aren't in that market segment, and would rather use a download service like the iTunes music store. My preference is for downloads because I don't buy music very often, so a subscription would be a total waste to me.

[munkle]

I admit I'm a little bit confused by the heated discussion. If iTunes did implement a subscription model, it would not replace the current a la carte model. They would complement each other. You would still have a choice, a greater choice in how you consume you're music.

I personally buy all my music from CD's because that is the choice I prefer. I am not tempted to buy music from the iTMS for a myriad of reasons, but that does not mean I think Apple shouldn't have a music store. I understand that it fits the need of some, like the subscription model will.

If they did implement a subscription model it still wouldn't interest me but it would be another tool in Apple's music repertoire. I personally think they will offer this option once they've perfected the DRM technology to allow the iPod to play the songs. If you don't like it, don't use it!

[kanker]

That, my friend, is very true, and a risk they have to take. Of course, by using WireTap or whatever, you end up with a compressed AAC/MP3/WMA file being recorded as an AIFF file (and therefore taking up tonnes more space for the same quality - re-ripping into AAC will reduce quality).Also true, but how many audiophiles are buying compressed formats anyway. I'm a music professional, but I do most of my listening in the car or on some other far from audiophile system, as the bulk of consumers do - not to mention the huge numbers of folks who do most of their listening on cheap headphones while working out, riding the bus, etc.... The difference that a second compression will make will be negligible at best in those situations, and as wrldwzrd89 noted, Audio Hijack Pro takes a big step out of the loop. making it that much easier to sack a subscription service.

[wrldwzrd89]

I admit I'm a little bit confused by the heated discussion. If iTunes did implement a subscription model, it would not replace the current a la carte model. They would complement each other. You would still have a choice, a greater choice in how you consume you're music.

I personally buy all my music from CD's because that is the choice I prefer. I am not tempted to buy music from the iTMS for a myriad of reasons, but that does not mean I think Apple shouldn't have a music store. I understand that it fits the need of some, like the subscription model will.

If they did implement a subscription model it still wouldn't interest me but it would be another tool in Apple's music repertoire. I personally think they will offer this option once they've perfected the DRM technology to allow the iPod to play the songs. If you don't like it, don't use it!
That's exactly what I want to see - if a subscription service gets added to iTunes, it must not replace the existing download service, even if you or I have no use for it. I buy iTMS tunes infrequently because most of the music that can be found on CDs and on the iTMS doesn't appeal to me. Check my website in my signature for a breakdown of my iTunes library.

[macumus]

I'm on dialup and since eMusic seems to be all web browser based I should be able to "shop" from any internet connection (unlike having to be on my computer with the iTunes Music Store).


This is not the case. I use iTunes Music Store on more than one computer, in different locations. You have to be signed in under your own User Name and Password. You can't access your home music collection, however. But, this is the fault of the record companies. The ability to stream you music over the internet was present in the iTunes 4.0 release, Apple removed internet streaming with iTunes 4.1 (I think 4.1) due to complaints from the record companies. They felt users would use that to steal music.

[coolsoldier]

I don't have a portable player, so being tied to a computer isn't a problem for me, but what concerns me most about a subscription service is inflation. When I buy a song from iTunes for $1, then 10 years from now, even if iTunes songs cost $5, I will still have paid $1. With a subscription service, I pay $10 a month, and 10 years from now if subscriptions cost $50 a month, I'm stuck either paying five times as much or walking away with nothing for my money.

Buying something is an investment (even something like an iTunes song that you can't sell) that you make, and the return is the value of it's use. If the value of listening to the music goes up (i.e. if prices go up, or the music is no longer available), you came out ahead. With renting models, there is no investment, no chance of gain. If prices go up, you pay more. If the music is no longer available, you can no longer listen to it, and so on.

[johnnyjibbs]

I admit I'm a little bit confused by the heated discussion. If iTunes did implement a subscription model, it would not replace the current a la carte model. They would complement each other. You would still have a choice, a greater choice in how you consume you're music.
Here's one eample. The Times newspaper in the UK is a broadsheet and has many respected readers. Recently, they brought out the Times Compact Edition - a tabloid version of the same paper with the same content but smaller size - to compliment the original broadsheet.

However, careful analysis has shown the mini version to be somewhat dumbed down - shortening headlines to be more catchy and "The Sun"-like and to make them fit. Meanwhile, they are strongly promoting the mini edition, even placing adverts of it in the main broadsheet edition. It already seems like the original broadsheet is now in the process of being phased out.

We don't want to find that in a couple of years from now, the a la carte model is taken away (some excuse about most of the revenues being from subscription or pressure from RIAA, etc) and we're stuck with subscriptions. I'm hoping Apple will never let this happen but it could.

Oh, and I think the current system is simple. Adding subscriptions goes against the Apple philosophy and makes it more complicated and confusing.

[munkle]

Here's one eample. The Times newspaper in the UK is a broadsheet and has many respected readers. Recently, they brought out the Times Compact Edition - a tabloid version of the same paper with the same content but smaller size - to compliment the original broadsheet.

However, careful analysis has shown the mini version to be somewhat dumbed down - shortening headlines to be more catchy and "The Sun"-like and to make them fit. Meanwhile, they are strongly promoting the mini edition, even placing adverts of it in the main broadsheet edition. It already seems like the original broadsheet is now in the process of being phased out.

We don't want to find that in a couple of years from now, the a la carte model is taken away (some excuse about most of the revenues being from subscription or pressure from RIAA, etc) and we're stuck with subscriptions. I'm hoping Apple will never let this happen but it could.

Oh, and I think the current system is simple. Adding subscriptions goes against the Apple philosophy and makes it more complicated and confusing.

OK I'm afraid you're argument is weak. You don't want iTMS to add a subscription model because you don't want it competing against the current a la carte model, which you happen to prefer and thus wouldn't want it to be replaced, saying it's against Apple's philosophy and citing newspapers offering an alternative as an example.

The reason The Times started offering a smaller version of its broadsheet, was because The Independent's version proved to be so succesful, raising readership by 20,000 odd. The reason: it was exactly the same newspaper, just smaller, making it more convenient for commuters in London. I don't understand you're comments of dumbing down, even if the headlines have been shortened, the content remains exactly the same. Nevertheless, your example still perplexes me. Broadsheets shouldn't sell smaller versions of their newspapers because it might replace the larger versions? And this is bad because? As it stands now both are being offered, complementing each other, and if one was to be replaced it would be because consumers stated a distinct preference. It is only because of consumer demand that a tabloid sized version was introduced in the first place.

Your fear seems to be that a subscription model might replace the a la carte model. If Apple does provide a subscription service and it proves to be so overwhelmingly popular that the a la carte model was no longer profitable, then it might be replaced. However I think that this is very unlikely and it would only be replaced if it made sense to Apple.

And I don't understand how a subscription model would go against Apple's philosophy. If they were to offer a simple subscription service and compatible DRM technology, along the lines of something like Microsoft's proposed Janus, making it easy for the user to enjoy his/her music on his/her computer/iPod through his/her method of choosing, how is that against Apple's philosophy? What is this philosphy you speak of which makes the a la carte model so sacrosanct?

The main arguments against the subscription model seem to be based on personal dislike. If you don't like the subscription model don't use it! I am not a fan of the subscription model and would not choose to consume my music that way. And like I have already said, I also choose not to buy music from the iTMS either, preferring CD's. But that being said, I understand that it is a good idea for Apple to have a music store. Much like I can see why some people would choose to consume their music via a subscription model. I do not believe they are mutually exclusive. Offering one does not mean you should not offer the other. Once Apple decides, if ever, that it's makes sound business sense to offer a subscription model then I think they should.

[iPost]

When I buy a song from iTunes for $1, then 10 years from now, even if iTunes songs cost $5, I will still have paid $1. With a subscription service, I pay $10 a month, and 10 years from now if subscriptions cost $50 a month, I'm stuck either paying five times as much or walking away with nothing for my money.

Do you really think you'll still be able to play your iTMS songs ten years from now?

The iTMS (and any other DRM'd content) is the 8-track tape of the new millennium.

Ten years from now, music will be delivered in a much improved format that the idea of listening to a 128kbps AAC file will be laughable. My prediction is that at some point in the future, Apple will pull the plug on their current license server, and when you try to play today's iTMS songs on your 2014 Mac running OS XVII, all you'll hear will be the ubersonic ping from an error message. You can count on it. That's the way the music industry operates (and the way the music execs think).... every 10 years or so they try to get everyone to repurchase their music over again. They do not view the purchase of a single work of music as a once-in-a-lifetime thing, but instead something that they try to get you to do over and over.

[ijimk]

don't fix something that isn't broke. the music store is fine leave as is :)

[johnnyjibbs]

OK I'm afraid you're argument is weak. You don't want iTMS to add a subscription model because you don't want it competing against the current a la carte model, which you happen to prefer and thus wouldn't want it to be replaced, saying it's against Apple's philosophy and citing newspapers offering an alternative as an example....

....The main arguments against the subscription model seem to be based on personal dislike. If you don't like the subscription model don't use it! I am not a fan of the subscription model and would not choose to consume my music that way. And like I have already said, I also choose not to buy music from the iTMS either, preferring CD's. But that being said, I understand that it is a good idea for Apple to have a music store. Much like I can see why some people would choose to consume their music via a subscription model. I do not believe they are mutually exclusive. Offering one does not mean you should not offer the other. Once Apple decides, if ever, that it's makes sound business sense to offer a subscription model then I think they should.
You make some good points, and I can't disagree. Yes, maybe it's my current dislike of subscription models that may bias me (I have a pay-as-you-go phone too!) but there is always this fear that the thing you like will fade away if it becomes the old tech and the 'old-fangled' way of doing things. Ultimately, as you say, the method of delivery (and the size of the Times) will be based on customer demands and profitability but there are plenty of times where I may be in the minority and want to go against the grain (I own a Mac for one thing).

I think my other point about customer confusion was valid though. :)

Do you really think you'll still be able to play your iTMS songs ten years from now?
Don't forget a thing called future lag. In 10 years I have every expectation that I can still play my iTMS songs - and then I could always keep a CD player or two for life with my songs burnt to CDs. I can still read from floppy disks if I so desire and they're getting on now. Even MP3 is looking at being a teenager.


don't fix something that isn't broke. the music store is fine leave as is my thoughts exactly :cool:

[wrldwzrd89]

<snip>
Even MP3 is looking at being a teenager.
<snip>

As proof of this, I did some encoding to MP3 yesterday of various video game soundtracks. I'm not posting the links here - if you want them, go to VGMP3 (http://www.vgmp3.com/). To be honest, I don't know why I'm even posting in this thread anymore, since I hardly ever use the iTMS, and keep it turned off most of the time.

[macnulty]

[QUOTE=slightly]I'd just like to remind people that you never really own anything, it's all rented.

You buy a TV? You use it for three years and then replace it. You just paid $20 a month to rent it for a while.
You buy a house? You use it for twenty years and then move (or die). You paid $500 a month to rent that place.
Macs, music downloads and everything else on the planet work in exactly the same way. Don't kid yourself that you ever "own something forever".
[QUOTE=slightly]

I buy TV I can sell it, I rent a TV I have to return it to Rent-a-Center
I rent an apartment I have nothing, I buy a house I have financial leverage
. . . I cross the Hudson, my vision clears

[Loge]

Do you really think you'll still be able to play your iTMS songs ten years from now?

The iTMS (and any other DRM'd content) is the 8-track tape of the new millennium.

Ten years from now, music will be delivered in a much improved format that the idea of listening to a 128kbps AAC file will be laughable. My prediction is that at some point in the future, Apple will pull the plug on their current license server, and when you try to play today's iTMS songs on your 2014 Mac running OS XVII, all you'll hear will be the ubersonic ping from an error message. You can count on it. That's the way the music industry operates (and the way the music execs think).... every 10 years or so they try to get everyone to repurchase their music over again. They do not view the purchase of a single work of music as a once-in-a-lifetime thing, but instead something that they try to get you to do over and over.

The conditions of the store are quite clear - you own the song for ever. Steve has also said this many times. Of course there will be higher quality formats available in the future and it will be your choice whether to repurchase music in those formats or stay with what you have already.

[iPost]

The conditions of the store are quite clear - you own the song for ever. Steve has also said this many times. Of course there will be higher quality formats available in the future and it will be your choice whether to repurchase music in those formats or stay with what you have already.

You own it forever, but only on your current computer. When you bought the song, a license which allows the song to play was delivered to your computer (you cannot transfer the license to a different computer).

I doubt that you will still be using your current computer within 10 years. When you transfer that song to another computer, the license does not transfer (and even if you did transfer it, the license would be invalid on that computer). When you go to play the song, iTunes will notice that the song does not have a license, and it will then go to the Apple license server to request a new license for the song on that computer. If you don't have any more computers left on your license allocation (the license server will grant a license for up to 5 computers), a license will not be granted, and the song won't play.

This implies that as soon as Apple pulls the plug on that license server, you will be unable to transfer any of the iTMS songs to play on another computer, as iTunes will be unable to obtain a license for that different computer.

By the way, this isn't a slam against Apple. The same situation exists with every other online music store that is selling protected DRM content.

And, this will happen. Support for current formats will eventually die and at some point, and you'll be unable to transfer these songs to newer or different computers. I've been using Apple products for a long, long time and they do stop supporting old stuff after awhile. For example, my Apple eMate 300 is less than 10 years old... I'm pretty much out of luck these days trying to get a replacement battery from Apple. :(

But the point is, the iTMS songs that people are buying are unlikely to be useful for a lifetime. And, if you're someone who is buying a lot of content, would you rather spend, say, $1200 for 1200 songs that will be useless in 10 years, or pay $10 a month for access to hundreds of thousands of songs?

Some may argue that the subscription model is a better bargain. And, it's not like you're throwing money away. For that $10 a month, you're getting the entertainment benefit from listening to that music. If you pay $50 to go to a live concert, do you demand a video recording of that concert so that you can enjoy it over and over? No, you pay the $50 for the enjoyment of that experience of the moment.

Some people don't go to concerts and only buy recordings. Some people do both. The point is, why does there have to be only one way? Selling downloads and offering a subscription service do not have to be mutually exclusive.

[zim]

You own it forever, but only on your current computer. When you bought the song, a license which allows the song to play was delivered to your computer (you cannot transfer the license to a different computer).

I doubt that you will still be using your current computer within 10 years. When you transfer that song to another computer, the license does not transfer (and even if you did transfer it, the license would be invalid on that computer). When you go to play the song, iTunes will notice that the song does not have a license, and it will then go to the Apple license server to request a new license for the song on that computer. If you don't have any more computers left on your license allocation (the license server will grant a license for up to 5 computers), a license will not be granted, and the song won't play.

This implies that as soon as Apple pulls the plug on that license server, you will be unable to transfer any of the iTMS store songs to play on another computer, as iTunes will be unable to obtain a license for that different computer.

By the way, this isn't a slam against Apple. The same situation exists with every other online music store that is selling protected DRM content.

And, this will happen. Support for current formats will eventually die and at some point, you'll be unable to transfer these songs to newer or different computers. I've been using Apple products for a long, long time and they do stop supporting old stuff after awhile. For example, my Apple eMate 300 is less than 10 years old... I'm pretty much out of luck these days trying to get a replacement battery from Apple. :(

But the point is, the iTMS songs that people are buying are unlikely to be useful for a lifetime. And, if you're someone who is buying a lot of content, would you rather spend, say, $1200 for 1200 songs that will be useless in 10 years, or pay $10 a month for access to hundreds of thousands of songs?

Some may argue that the subscription model is a better bargain. And, it's not like you're throwing money away. For that $10 a month, you're getting the entertainment benefit from listening to that music. If you pay $50 to go to a live concert, do you demand a video recording of that concert so that you can enjoy it over and over? No, you pay the $50 for the enjoyment of that experience of the moment.

Some people don't go to concerts and only buy recordings. Some people do both. The point is, why does there have to be only one way? Selling downloads and offering a subscription service do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Have you purchased from iTMS? The license is not assigned to the given computer, you have the ability to authorize and de-authorize which computers can play the tracks. We are given the ability to authorize 5 computers at a time and have the ability to burn an unlimited number of cds and put the songs on as many iPods as you own.

From the apple store: http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/buy.html

"Own It Forever And A Day
With the iTunes Music Store, you don’t have to deal with the hassles of a subscription service or annoying advertisements that have nothing to do with music. For just 99¢ each, you get high-quality AAC music files that won’t disappear at the end of the month, or ever. In all, the iTunes Music Store offers music that’s fair to you, fair to artists and easy to enjoy."

I realize you are not disputing ownership, I just thought it was important to point out that your first point, "but only on your current computer," is incorrect.

[iPost]

I buy TV I can sell it, I rent a TV I have to return it to Rent-a-Center
I rent an apartment I have nothing, I buy a house I have financial leverage

Yes, but you cannot resell iTMS songs. The license that you are given when you "purchase" a song from iTMS is not transferable.

I remember someone trying to challenge this by attempting to sell an iTMS song on eBay awhile back. eBay pulled the auction as it was illegal. See: http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/09/04.8.shtml

[iPost]

Have you purchased from iTMS? The license is not assigned to the given computer, you have the ability to authorize and de-authorize which computers can play the tracks. We are given the ability to authorize 5 computers at a time and have the ability to burn an unlimited number of cds and put the songs on as many iPods as you own.

I realize you are not disputing ownership, I just thought it was important to point out that your first point, "but only on your current computer," is incorrect.

Yes, I have purchased from iTMS and I have activated/deactivated computers too. So, I know what you're talking about.

But, the license IS assigned to a computer. When you deactivate a computer, you just invalidate the licenses on that computer as well as inform the license server of the situation so that it will grant you a license for an additional computer. You can freely activate and deactivate computers -- as long as Apple keeps its license server alive.

My point was, when Apple pulls the plug on that license server, you will no longer be able to transfer songs. And when that happens, you'll only be able to play songs on the computers on which they reside.

Of course, you can argue that Apple will continue to run its license servers forever and this situation will never happen, but I think history shows that companies rarely support a given technology for lengthy periods of time like that (especially a proprietary technology).

By the way, someone mentioned "future lag" and pointed out that you can still play MP3's, which is a pretty old technology. But in my experience, that tends to only apply to widely adopted technologies (like MP3). In contrast, I bought some tracks from Liquid Audio (which used a proprietary format) years ago. Guess what... I cannot play them now on my new computers because they changed the license format (or something... after a few hours of trying to get them to play, I gave up).

This is another reason why Apple should license its FairPlay AAC technology to other companies (so that it could become widely adopted and have a better chance of being supported for a very long time), but that's a completely different debate. ;)

[johnnyjibbs]

Thank goodness you can burn CDs of those tracks from the music store then. And audio CDs will be able to be played in 50 years' time, mark my words.

[rainman::|:|]

let them add it if it's profitable; as long as they still sell music i'm fine. if people have a use for rented music, no skin off my back... to me it just seems like a waste of money, and a lot of music you'll lose eventually.

paul

[Loge]

My point was, when Apple pulls the plug on that license server, you will no longer be able to transfer songs. And when that happens, you'll only be able to play songs on the computers on which they reside.

You're making an assumption that Apple will make it impossible to transfer songs in the future. This goes against the conditions of the store and many statements from Steve. Even if they did so, it would still be possible to burn to CD.

[dekator]

I'd just like to remind people that you never really own anything, it's all rented.

You buy a TV? You use it for three years and then replace it. You just paid $20 a month to rent it for a while.
You buy a house? You use it for twenty years and then move (or die). You paid $500 a month to rent that place.
Macs, music downloads and everything else on the planet work in exactly the same way. Don't kid yourself that you ever "own something forever".
Matt

Excuse me, but that's nonsense. There is a difference in terminology between 'rent' and 'own' and for a reason. Not only does 'owning' give you many more rights, but, to come back to your 'home' example: After 20 years, I can move *and sell the house* or *give it to my children* or or or. Because I own it. If I had just rented it I couldn't do anything with it. See the *big* difference.
A CD I own, when the company that sold it goes down. No problem. Change in price ? No problem, I bought it. Understand the difference? I can give my CDs to everyone, family, friends. Don't be so egocentric. I can even re-sell them, if I like, it's an investment
The point is not 'forever' or not, the point is owning vs renting. I hope your faculty of discrimination will increase over time. What you wrote above, is just hollow sophism.
Still, people have to decide what model they go for. Personally, DRMed downloads aren't right for me. I've got a few songs from iTMS but I still prefer CD quality. A subscription doesn't make sense for me but I do pay rent for my flat :-)

[munkle]

Granted people subscription isn't very clever, doesn't offer very good value etc, etc. most people on this board can see that...doesn't mean Apple shouldn't make money off the suckers, I mean music purveyors who choose to consume music via a more 'interesting' model, as long as they keep on selling music. It's not a case of either/or, it's a simple case of a la carte AND subscription.

[dtp]

If there is genuine demand for a subscription service, I think that it is foolish to rule it out as an option for iTunes - while it's an option that does not suit my needs (I download perhaps one or two tracks a month, and perhaps buy an album once a year - if it's on special offer!), I can imagine that there are people out there who are only interested in listening to a specific track once or twice, but who like to listen to a wide variety of music, and so would benefit from the option to listen to as much different music as they like over the course of a month for £10, rather than only getting to listen to 15 different tracks for that. No, it's not for me, but I imagine that some parents might find it easier on the wallet, especially since there is no option to sell iTunes songs on once their child is bored of the music, or embarrassed that they once enjoyed it!

On the other hand, I think that the assertion that subscription services are a 'much more interesting proposition' is quite ridiculous. Renting is not an interesting proposition in the slightest for anything other than a niche market for the short term, or for vendors. For example, a DVD might be purchased once for £19.99, or it might be rented out to many different customers for £3.50 a night. If you have six people renting that DVD in the course of the lifetime of that DVD you're already in profit - and you've got the hard copy in the end to show for it, which can be sold on for a large discount at the end. It makes good business sense for vendors to rent out, but not for customers who'll want to watch something over and over - or listen to one piece of music over and over. If, though, a consumer only wants to watch the film once, or listen to the track once or twice, then it makes sense for them to rent the film or music. Thus, it should be offered as an option, but certainly not replace the buying option.

[Porchland]

It's like renting out the front door of your house to your kids, and making them pay for all the stuff they actually consume. Sure they get a lot of positive things for being able to come inside the house, and can also spend a little extra to get those that they really like (a.k.a. food), but once that month is over you've got their money, and they've got nothing, except what they paid extra for. Maybe not the best analogy though. :o

No, the best analogy would be a trip to the local cineplex. You pay eight dollars, you watch the movie on a great big screen, then you go home.

Why is the subscription model so offensive to people? If Apple rolled out a subscription model that allowed you to port the track to your iPod -- even if they timed out after 30 days unless you re-synced -- for ten bucks a month, I'm all over it.

[Moxiemike]

I'd just like to remind people that you never really own anything, it's all rented.

You buy a TV? You use it for three years and then replace it. You just paid $20 a month to rent it for a while.
You buy a house? You use it for twenty years and then move (or die). You paid $500 a month to rent that place.
Macs, music downloads and everything else on the planet work in exactly the same way. Don't kid yourself that you ever "own something forever".

Matt

See, here's where you're 110% WRONG. You rent a house, first off, I'll use pittsburgh as an example. You can rent a 3 bedroom townhouse/rowhouse here for about $1000/mo.

If I were to buy that place, I might pay $500-650/mo. So i'm SAVING cash in buy over renting. BUT, we have to figure that home values are always rising (for the most part) so if I plan my purchase correctly, I can MAKE some money when I go to sell that house. If i've added, say, a kitch for $5500 I can probably get $10k extra for my house. Say I've bought a "fixer-upper" cheap and did a lot of work to it? I could double my money.

Can't do that renting. Ever. ;)

[Stewie]

I don't know why so many people are dead-set against subscription. I played with Rhapsody the other night, and lemme tell you, having their entire catalog at my fingertips for $10 a month is a great deal. Who cares if you don't own it? You still get to listen, don't you? And you get to listen to a lot more for a lot less. The only trade off is you are tied to a computer. Unless, of course, iTunes implements this and you go buy an Airport Express. No one says you can't buy the tunes. You're just renting the right to listen to *400,000* of them for ten bucks a month!

By biggest problem with the subscription services is that I simply don't spend that much time at my PC where I can listen to songs. I don't want to be forced to sit at my computer or run cables all over the place for a subscription service through my computer. XM radio would make a better choice for your $$$, then you can at least take in the car and into your home or office providing you get the mobile version of the radio.

[Loge]

Why is the subscription model so offensive to people? If Apple rolled out a subscription model that allowed you to port the track to your iPod -- even if they timed out after 30 days unless you re-synced -- for ten bucks a month, I'm all over it.

Yes, at 10 bucks a month it makes a lot of sense even if you only use it as a deluxe way of previewing tracks. But if it starts to replace CD purchases, you can bet it will cost a lot more than 10 bucks a month, unless for a very limited service.

[nsb3000]

Apple should offer the choice, if for no other reason than to push forward the AAC standard. If Apple doesn't rent music, everyone that wants to rent music will be forced to buy a WMV compliant device. Even if they want to own a song, they won't be able to use iTMS to put the song onto their music player. Apple shouldn't lose the music/DRM standard war to MS just because they don't want to rent music.


Right.. Exactly. There would be nor harm from apple offering the choice of a subscription service...how can any of be against more options for how we get our music? As long as Apple doesn’t abandon the existing system, than everyone is happy.

[onemoof]

I think people can use subscriptions and purchase songs. Subscriptions are more like a radio service that you can customize. You can subscribe to XM, Sirius, or an online music store and get all the music you want.

[fairyliquidizer]

People slave all their lifes to buy stuff, and guess what they have only rented it coz in the end the big man in the sky takes YOU away from all that you own. You may as well have rented!

PS- I once had my entire record collection stolen. 400 albums. Gone. Should have rented!

[Squire]

PS- I once had my entire record collection stolen. 400 albums. Gone. Should have rented!

Should have had insurance!

Squire

[munkle]

People slave all their lifes to buy stuff, and guess what they have only rented it coz in the end the big man in the sky takes YOU away from all that you own. You may as well have rented!

PS- I once had my entire record collection stolen. 400 albums. Gone. Should have rented!

I'm sure somebody has already made this point...if it's yours you can pass it on!!!! So someone else can benefit from your choice to buy rather than rent. Some people really are struggling with this concept!

In the end, whether you rent or buy is up to you, and it is you who decides which option provides YOU with the most value. There is no right or wrong answer. Just don't come up with some flawed argument to say why one is better than the other.

[fairyliquidizer]

Should have had insurance!

Squire

I was a poor student at the time. Got plenty of insurance now!

[fairyliquidizer]

I reckon the best model is Cable TV. You pay your subscription you get to watch all you can stand! You stop your subscription no Cable unless you use an alternative service. You could just buy DVDs instead of course.

[jared_kipe]

I would rather have better quality downloads than a subscription.

[datura]

~*~
I would absolutely love a subscription service for iTunes. I have iTunes, and an iPod, but I rarely use iTunes to buy music. If I want an entire album, I go out and buy the CD - I don't like to pay 10 bucks and not have a physical copy of something.. but that's only for artists I know I love.

For all the radio crap that catches my ear, but I have no desire to own an album of, I'll buy the single songs on iTunes... more often than not, I get sick of these songs in like 3 days though.

So for me, a subscription service would be perfect.. there is a lot of music I would love to listen to if I was suddenly in the mood for it, or to satisfy some guilty pleasure, but is not worth buying, not even at 99 cents a song.

And I'm sure there are hundreds of other people who feel this way, and that's why Apple would be smart to offer both subsription AND individual download programs.

[100plus1]

that would be cool

[iMeowbot]

If Apple adds a subscription service, they cut the iPod out of the loop. Suddenly Apple's service is little different from the others, just a store and media player.
All iPods already have have timers, play counters and the ability to write to disk (or flash). All they need is a relatively small firmware update. They are already able to do subscriptions whenever Apple choose (and, as the Apple spokescritter says, they haven't ruled it out).

[iMeowbot]

There are times when a subscription service might be useful. Anyone know the rules? Say could a bar or restaurant get one? Then they would always have the latest tracks. Any office would probably like it too.
There are already subscription services for those, they've been around for many years. That's what companies like Muzak and DMX do (yes, they offer popular music, not just the stereotypical dreary elevator stuff).

If a businesses were to use a consumer subscription services, they would have to individually deal with cutting checks to the PROs. Those fees would also be more expensive, because when you stream a preprogrammed subscription from the Internet you have to pay royalties to the performers while conventional services only require royalties to the songwriters (that's a US quirk, every country has different rules on who get public performance fees).