iTMS To Add Subscription Service?

[MacRumors]

According to MacWorld UK, 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]

Originally Posted by Macrumors

... 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.

[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.

[Apmonia]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

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]

Originally Posted by slightly

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by slightly

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]

Originally Posted by stoid

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]

Originally Posted by 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....

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 sh*t 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.