Where Is Apple’s Rental Service for Music?

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Jan 18, 2008.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1
  2. macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #2
    Never going to happen.

    Jobs is right. People want to own their music. They listen to it over and over and don't want it to expire for any reason.

    People watch movies once or twice.
     
  3. Administrator emeritus

    Mudbug

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Location:
    North Central Colorado
    #3
    My immediate reaction when I read the headline was "in the trash bin, where it belongs".

    Rentals work for movies. Rentals don't work for music.
     
  4. Guest

    eric55lv

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Location:
    Las Vegas,NV
    #4
    Thats basically why everyone wantd to own there music not rent it like Steve says
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    #5
    Oh! Apple music rentals.. what a good question; why isn't Apple renting music...? They could use a subscription service modeled on one of the struggling services like Rhapsody or Napster, instead of mucking about and wasting time with that wildly successful little music store of theirs. Makes a lotta frikkin sense to me!

    What else does this article say on the topic?

    Dude, I think you've got this one figured out!

    :cool:
     
  6. TEG
    macrumors 604

    TEG

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Location:
    Langley, Washington
    #6
    NO ONE WITH HALF A BRAIN WANTS TO "RENT" MUSIC they want to own it. Anyone who rents music deserves it when their music diappears.

    TEG
     
  7. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #7
    You people do realize that subscription services like Yahoo and Rhapsody have REGULAR music stores, don't you? There is absolutely nothing wrong with having options. Rhapsody even gives a discount on the price for a purchase if you want to buy an album or a song. 10 cents off for a song, $1 off for an album. As I said, what the hell is wrong with CHOICE? Is this communism? Because that's what it sounds like the way Jobs and all his worshipers try to shout down subscription services. What in the hell would you lose if iTunes added a subscription service? Absolutely nothing! You would still be able to buy songs and albums just like now. I think people don't understand that it's not a "either/or" situation, you can have both. They can co-exist in the same store, just like they already do with Zune, Rhapsody, Yahoo, Napster, and on and on.
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    shamino

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Vienna, VA
    #8
    Especially when it disappears because the company goes out of business, or because they decided to switch DRM service providers.

    Of course, this is a problem with all DRM-protected content, not just subscriptions.
     
  9. macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #9

    Don't think of it as renting music. Think of it as SAMPLING music. I'd love a subscription service that let me sample all the music music I want on my iPod and buy the ones I really live in a no-DRM format (like Rhapsody does, or at least used to do).

    Also, I want TV show rentals! Or better yet, TV show subscription rental.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    #10
    Nobody's trying to shout down the subscriptions services. We'd just like to shut up the idiots who claim that Apple needs to offer music subscriptions. If you want a music subscription service, choose one! Just don't tell us we're wrong for not wanting it, or Apple's wrong for not having it.
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    #11
    Or even renting an entire music library. You get any and all the music you want while you are paying your subscription.

    The half-way house in my view is TV. Plenty of people already rent TV through cable and satellite, but this would make all content available on demand. Personally, I would certainly pay a subscription to have all the series of the Simpsons, BSG, Heroes and other quality content - stuff I have both seen and not seen but would never fork out for - available on demand. I am sure we all have stuff we want to watch. I think it is a small step from there to doing the same with collections of albums.

    Also, this serves to introduce users to a rental service. No other music store has exposed rental services to the size of market that Apple can through iTMS and the iPod.

    Music rental shouldn't be written off until the market has both matured and companies that have a proven record of taking existing ideas and doing them right and at the right time, like Apple, have demonstated what they can offer (if Jobs lets them try and figure it out).
     
  12. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Location:
    Washington State
    #12
    I'm with you on the TV subscription because as you mention, people are already doing that through cable. But the step from TV (or movies in iTunes' case) to music is anything but small.

    I've used Netflix before, but never to watch the same movie twice. When I watch a movie, I'm done. Music on the other hand is enjoyed repeatedly. It's much more economical (for me) to rent the stuff I'm watching once and buy the stuff I'm using hundreds of times.

    Even giving the users a choice between the two is a waste of Apple's time/money/resources in my opinion. Think of the agreements with the labels that would have to be redrafted, to say nothing of the software/hardware changes to support something like that. All for a model that the market has shown isn't popular among the music-buying crowd.
     
  13. macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #13
    There's already plenty of standing arrangements with music studios covering rental/subscription deals. It just a matter of Apple telling the 5 or whatever major music labels "I want the deal they have" and them implementing it. It actually might be a good deal for them, since they currently don't make a whole ton of money on iTMS sales and instead use it to drive iPod sales, while these other services are (trying) to turn a profit on subscriptions Apple should presumably be able to either make money or offer the service cheaper than anyone else and in turn sell even more iPods.

    They obviously have the software side of this more or less figured out (you can rent movies, should be fairly simple to extend this concept to music) and the delivery/sales method (iTunes) is in place. They could get away with onlu supporting "current" models with this, I think, and they wouldn't have to offer EVERY song for the service, just most of them.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Location:
    Washington State
    #14
    You might be right... but if this is the case, why is Amazon selling DRM-free music and Apple isn't? I'm certain that Apple has gone to the labels and said, "I want the deal they [Amazon] have" and the labels have been quiet on the matter.

    Steve has mentioned that the people who use iPods want to play the music they already own. This is the majority of music that people listen to... the stuff they already own. The iTMS simply gives them an easy way purchase new music. Giving these users the ability to subscribe to new music AND rent music they already own is redundant and inefficient from a cost perspective (for the end user). Simply stated, people want to own their music. The market proves this.

    And it also might have been true that at one time Apple didn't make money on iTMS, but I bet they make much more nowadays. Their initial fixed costs have already been recouped, I'm sure. They've sold 4 billion tracks. Even a small percentage of 4 billion is one heck of a number.

    Sure they might have the software side more or less figured out... I have no doubt they can do it. But I'd rather they focus on something they are truly passionate about and believe in. Adding the restrictions that "it only works on these iPods" or for "these songs" would lead to further confusion/frustration on the customer's part.

    And again if they did this the Apple way and it was perfect, I'm not convinced there'd be enough people like you who would jump to make it worthwhile to Apple. Just my opinion.
     
  15. macrumors newbie

    Flail

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2007
    Location:
    Sarasota, FL
    #15
    On one hand I would think Apple would not want to introduce a subscription model because not only have they disparaged the idea repeatedly in the past in addition to essentially designing the model for a profitable download service, but also would they worry about legitimizing competing subscription services? Granted, I understand the appeal subscriptions hold for some people, and I believe it would certainly not harm Apple to offer both plans, but it obviously is not harming them not to.

    And on the other hand, I would think that the LAST thing competing services would want is Apple entering the subscription market. Do these services with their marginal players and their horrible user interfaces really want the customers in their niche of the music download market to look up one day and realize, "Hey, I could have my precious subscription music AND use the best music players and software in the industry?" Perhaps Mr. Cohen, the expert in the linked article, should be careful what he wishes for.

    Also note that he thinks the subscription model would be best for the music industry. No mention of the consumer. As far as I'm concerned, the industry can shrivel up and blow away. Artists will continue to make music if there are no labels and people will continue to discover the types of music that appeals to them. It's a welcome inevitability as far as I'm concerned.
     
  16. macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #16
    Its not coming


    Personally I like to own all my stuff...since I only watch stuff I'm pretty sure I'll love....I rented 300, which was great...wouldn't mind owning, but since I've seen I'll buy it maybe when its really cheap.


    But things like Star Wars, Xmen, SpiderMan, Childern of Men...I need to own those vs rentals of them
     
  17. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    #17
    I never thought of music renting until Jobs brought it up and even then I was like yea Steve I agree I want to own and keep it not have to keep buying it, but while we are also kind of on :apple:TV , about the movies I'd like to see also a "buy" option mainly for the back catalog > the new movies but since they get the new ones 30days after release(so says Jobs in the keynote) I don't see how this option would be a problem for anyone at least for the back catalog but that's my 2 cents on that, btw can't wait to get my :apple:TV which will probably next month
     
  18. macrumors demi-god

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #18
    No, I'm pretty sure it's capitalism.


    Lethal
     
  19. macrumors 6502

    notnek

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    #19
    Dumb.
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    redAPPLE

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Location:
    2 Much Infinite Loops
    #20
    and in your opinion, that is why all the other online music stores are as successful as iTS?
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Lord Sam

    #21
    Who needs it?

    Personally, I would never use a music rental service, as Jobs said "People want to own their music". Having a movie rental system is a positive, but a music one would just stink. Who would use it? You listen to your favorite song tons of times, and imagine going on vacation with your iPod, only to have all your songs gone because your rental period has timed out? :confused: :apple: Forever!
     
  22. macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #22
    The success of a music sales method/format has nothing to do with the format/method itself, but rather with the ability of consumers to play the music back.

    iTMS purchases only work on iPods, and (until recently) the only way to digitally purchase/rent music for the iPod was iTMS. iPods make up somethign like 75%+ of the PMP player market, so of course the store that caters to them, and also locks them into buying (online) only from them will be the most successful. It has nothing to do with iTunes and everything to do with the iPod.

    As to everyone who wants to "own" their music and can't imagine why someone would want to rent it just stop trying to imagine it and accept that fact that there are people who want just that. You may not be one of them, but they're out there and you're lack of interest in the service has no effect on that.

    I don't think anyone is suggesting that iTMS switch to a rental service exclusively, but merely that they, as iPod owners, would like the option to subscribe to a service like that.
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    shamino

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Vienna, VA
    #23
    ... and on computers running the iTunes application, and on any CD player (via CDs burned from the downloads) and any other portable device (also via those CDs)

    (And the DRM-free tracks from iTMS will play on anything that supports AAC - including car stereos from Kenwood, Sony, Alpine, and many others.)
    Also not true. Even before Amazon, there were many sources for non-DRM music. Just not with much from major labels.

    Please don't reinforce the false stereotype that iTunes/iPod is a closed system that forever makes you a slave to Apple. It was never true, and has been repeatedly disproven in countless forums.
     
  24. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    #24
    Yes, people requesting a product they would like to pay for are idiots.

    I completely agree that people often want to own a product and be able to do with it whatever they want. It's why I didn't previously purchase from the itms because I didn't want to pay for something with DRM on it. I like owning my music.

    I also like owning my movies. I buy movies occasionally. You know what? I also like renting my movies. I don't really like renting one by one anymore, but you know what I do love? Netflix.

    You know what I'd really love? Netflix for music. When I get a movie from Netflix I don't expect to own it. If I like it and want to own it I go buy it. Likewise back when I was a PC user I liked music rental. Sure, it was a lower bitrate than I encode to myself. Sure- there were limits on it. But I liked checking out new albums before I went out and bought them. I liked having a back catalog of things I listened to occasionally on hand whenever iI wanted. It was certainly worth the 10-15 bucks a month. Did I still buy CDs during that time? Sure. I have Netflix and still buy movies.

    Why are none of the subscription stores successful? Well, they are just not as successful as the itms. I think the number 1 reason is the ipod. It's the number one player for a number of good reasons- and you can't use it with any of those services. Further itunes is in many regards a much better interface.

    Why don't I choose one of those other products? Well, I like my mac (I could dual boot) but further I like my ipod. If my ipod could use music from subscription services would I? Damn skippy.


    I tunes could easily implement subscription service- but there's really no big economic incentive for them to do so. It's not really needed to drive ipod sales as there aren't really competing products that are truly challenging the ipod (as improved as the zune is- it's market share is still tiny) Further- itms is starting to make apple some cash. And, it's more cash than they would make from a subscription service. There's little incentive for them to change.


    That said, as a customer I will voice my opinion about additional features I want. Mr. Jobs- if you are listening. I'd buy a 160GB classic today if you'd put a higher quality audio chip in it. What's the point of the huge storage if everything sounds like it was a 128 bitrate mp3 regardless of file type and quality? If you were to implement a subscription service able to be used on an ipod I would gladly give you 20 bucks a month for such a service, assuming it provided access to at least 70% of your itms catalog. (and, if there were incentives to buying DRM free albums I'd do that too as long as the cost were less than or equal to buying the CD)
    Oh, and as for movie rentals- Netflix is going to pretty soon have mac compatibility for their streaming movies with their service. If you offered a netflix type of product rather than a rental fee for each movie I'd be onboard with that. I'd buy an apple TV for that.

    But, as is- I will keep using my old ipod nano. (thank you for the nike+ system it is excellent) I will use pndora, last fm, and other various sources on the internet to check out new music before I buy it. I'll buy CDs since they are typically cheaper than unrestricted files from itunes (and even less restricted)
    I will use the mini dvi to s-video cable on my laptop to watch netflix films and continue to receive discs in the mail from them.
    These options certainly aren't as nice as being able to have similar services available through Itunes, but they serve my needs better than any other currently available options. Were I able to get similar products all in itunes on my mac, streamed to an appletv easily I would gladly give you 30-50 bucks a month in subscription fees along with the occasional album purchase as well.

    Thanks,
    Michael
     
  25. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Location:
    El Paso, TX
    #25
    Jobs said he "Went around and asked people if they wanted to rent. They said they wanted their own movies and music, but they don't watch movies over and over again. They watch it once, or twice at most. But they listen to their favorite song more than once. Introducing! Apple iTunes Rentals."

    :apple:
     

Share This Page