Apple: Deaf to the Rent-a-Tunes Beat


Yvan256

macrumors 603
Jul 5, 2004
5,032
886
Canada
Market: Deaf to the fact that nobody wants to rent music

Just read the article, even their own numbers says that almost no one is interested in renting music. This isn't movies, it's music. It's not used in the same way.
 

iDM

macrumors 6502a
I can not stand the idea of having to pay X amount to listen to say a Hendrix song in Y years because i dropped my subscription! I want to have access at whatever point in the future i desire, not when I stop paying the bill. :mad:
 

2GMario

macrumors regular
Mar 11, 2004
184
0
its so hard to say thow

im definately not for renting my music
i think its a waste. ultimately, you want people to pay for a subscription - its reoccuring fee's. everyone is trying for this now adays

but not music. i love doing random searches in my list and listening to music i havent listened to in months. to loose all of them because i havent paid my subscription is crap.

if apple did both rent and buy, then you could see, side by side, which business plan works best, but they dont, and the view is scewed because apple, for the most part, has the best music player on the market, both the iPod and iTunes.

my view
-Mario
 

iindigo

macrumors 6502a
Jul 22, 2002
719
10
San Francisco, CA
Well it's no wonder, people actually want to own their music. I don't want to lose all my music just because the money for the napster bill is needed elsewhere that month, for example.

I'll stick to CDs and iTMS thank you very much.
 

Fender2112

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2002
1,077
268
Charlotte, NC
I think the headline is a bit off. I think Apple is listening very closely. What they hear is that customers want to own their music. I am pretty sure Apple keeps an ear tuned in to market trends and fads. Analysts of all sorts are saying Apple should offer a subscription service or open Fair Tunes or do this and do that. The reality it that Apple controls the market with it's service and products. Their business model is working very well. So why change? There's and old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Should Apple need to fix something, I'm pretty sure they have all the tools they need.

I'm sure Apple pays close attention to it's competion and should things change, Apple will take appropriate action. I think in the end the record companies will have to come to an agreement as to which standards and formats to support. I also feel that there is room for both subscription and purchase services. Each model has it's pros and cons and appeal to different people. But, for now it's a dog fight and Apple happens to be the Big Dog.
 

iDM

macrumors 6502a
Fender2112 said:
I think the headline is a bit off. I think Apple is listening very closely. What they hear is that customers want to own their music. I am pretty sure Apple keeps an ear tuned in to market trends and fads. Analysts of all sorts are saying Apple should offer a subscription service or open Fair Tunes or do this and do that. The reality it that Apple controls the market with it's service and products. Their business model is working very well. So why change? There's and old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Should Apple need to fix something, I'm pretty sure they have all the tools they need.

I'm sure Apple pays close attention to it's competion and should things change, Apple will take appropriate action. I think in the end the record companies will have to come to an agreement as to which standards and formats to support. I also feel that there is room for both subscription and purchase services. Each model has it's pros and cons and appeal to different people. But, for now it's a dog fight and Apple happens to be the Big Dog.
Just wondering while i agree with the previous post that I want to maintain ownership in the future, do we maintain rights to the song even say 5 years down the road if Apple were to crumble :eek: and the iTunes music store were to digitally burn to the ground?

And by the way Fender who is that in your avatar she appears to be an angel i once saw in one of my dreams but i can't be sure?!
 

wdlove

macrumors P6
Oct 20, 2002
16,570
0
That is a good thing for Apple to be deaf about. I wouldn't be interested in renting either.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
I am completely convinced that iTunes would be a better product if it had a subscription offering.

But not ENOUGH better to be worth Apple's time/money to support such a system. I am equally convinced that relatively few people would use it, and even fewer would keep at it long-term.

I myself might subscribe for a single month every year or two--IF it were cheap, like <$10--just to do a bunch of previewing of full songs which I'd then buy. They wouldn't make much from me

I can see it happening someday, when the overall online music market is large enough that this small sub-market is worth Apple's attention. I'd hate to be one of the companies offering subscriptions BEFORE that's the case/
 

Lacero

macrumors 604
Jan 20, 2005
6,639
2
Let me say this once and for all... songs are too cheap to be rented. Even if you subscribe to 1 million songs, you ever going to listen to even 0.1% of it?
 

njmac

macrumors 68000
Jan 6, 2004
1,759
2
Lacero said:
Let me say this once and for all... songs are too cheap to be rented. Even if you subscribe to 1 million songs, you ever going to listen to even 0.1% of it?
Well said. I just deleted my response, you nailed it.
 

sjk

macrumors 6502a
May 2, 2003
826
0
Eugene
Sorry, Lacero, music is generally still too expensive to be purchased. If that weren't true how do you explain the popularity of illegal P2P sharing? And you seem be overlooking the opportunity of choosing which 0.1% of the million songs you can listen to.

Actually, nagromme nailed it. As I've said before, I'd welcome a pay-as-you-go (i.e. non-contract) iTMS subscription service for the ability to fully preview a wider variety of songs that I may or may not want to eventually purchase. I'd be listening to much more music (from iTMS) if I didn't have to pay for all of it. And iTMS iMixes would have the potential to be interesting instead of something I currently ignore.

Seriously, what percentage of a person's total purchased music collection do they listen to enough to justify what they've paid for it? Sure, there's stuff worth owning (for many reasons) but I'd be satisfied with a smaller collection in combination with the ability to create and stream playlists from a fairly-priced real-time on-line jukebox.

I wish more people stopped thinking about this like it needs to be a black-and-white, one-or-the-other alternative. I'd rather see effort put into creating a viable iTMS purchase and subscription business model instead of wasting time on tired purchase vs. subscription arguments. If you're an all-purchase person, fine. If you're an all-subscription person, fine. But, please, don't selfishly exclude those who see value in the middle ground and a peaceful coexistence. :)
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
sjk said:
Sorry, Lacero, music is generally still too expensive to be purchased. If that weren't true how do you explain the popularity of illegal P2P sharing?
To be fair, piracy will ALWAYS be cheaper than ANY price. And dishonest people will always exist. Piracy isn't proof of unfair pricing.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,366
119
Los Angeles
sjk said:
Sorry, Lacero, music is generally still too expensive to be purchased. If that weren't true how do you explain the popularity of illegal P2P sharing?
Because there are a lot of lazy b*tches out there that get hard from P2P 'cause it makes'em feel like Billy Badass for getting something w/o paying for it?


Lethal
 

AtHomeBoy_2000

macrumors 6502a
Feb 3, 2005
880
0
My version of Music Renting.....
Go to Library
Check out CDs
Rip to Computer
Return CD

Total Cost.... $0
 

shamino

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2004
3,386
130
Purcellville, VA
sjk said:
Sorry, Lacero, music is generally still too expensive to be purchased. If that weren't true how do you explain the popularity of illegal P2P sharing?
A lot of this is from people (especially students and children) who won't be buying much music, no matter what the price.

WRT Apple's plans, I'm pretty certain that they are developing a subscription service, which they will keep waiting in the wings, ready to be deployed on short notice.

You may remember a few months ago when someone stumbled across a URL for an iTunes subscription page. I think the link may have even been posted to MacBytes. Within an hour, Apple eliminated the page. Which tells me that they have something, even if it's only in a prototype form.

As for when it might be deployed, that's anybody's guess. My gut feeling is that Apple won't deploy such a system until/unless it becomes clear that they need to in order to maintain their lock on the music-download market. As long as they are trouncing the competition without subscriptions, they have no need to roll them out.

If Real or Yahoo or someone else starts taking away market share using subscriptions, Apple can flip a switch, make a press release, and take that market share right back again. But until that happens, it's best to keep that ace in the hole.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
AtHomeBoy_2000 said:
My version of Music Renting.....
Go to Library
Check out CDs
Rip to Computer
Return CD

Total Cost.... $0
Which is piracy. Not an option if you care about right and wrong.

If you like an artist enough to listen to them, then don't steal from them. Even if you don't like the companies they've chosen to sign contracts with, you don't have that right.

I don't like the big labels one bit, but I like music piracy even less.
 

Loge

macrumors 68030
Jun 24, 2004
2,679
1,147
England
shamino said:
WRT Apple's plans, I'm pretty certain that they are developing a subscription service, which they will keep waiting in the wings, ready to be deployed on short notice.
So as well as OS X leading a double life, iTunes is leading a double life. :p

While I don't have a problem with a subscription service as an alternative, the problem is that the record companies are more likely to push one or other as the dominant business model. The subscription model is very tempting for them because it creates the possibility of a stable revenue stream that does not require the consistent creation of new music to support it.
 

autrefois

macrumors 65816
Oct 22, 2003
1,376
1,089
Somewhere in the USA
shamino said:
You may remember a few months ago when someone stumbled across a URL for an iTunes subscription page. I think the link may have even been posted to MacBytes. Within an hour, Apple eliminated the page.
That is interesting. As much as Steve has spoken out against subscriptions and as much as I agree with him, they're apparently hedging their bets.

Does anyone have a link to a post or website that has details about this? I've been searching now for quite a while on the forum and google, and keep coming up empty...
 

thequicksilver

macrumors 6502a
Sep 19, 2004
769
0
Birmingham
I wouldn't like music rental as my only form of new music, but I'd love to be able to just rent an album digitally for a month or so to see if it's actually any good. I'll buy an iTMS album I know I'm going to like, but if I'm not sure, a 30 second preview just doesn't cut it.

Conversely, if I can pay a £10 or so a month fee to "try as much music as I want before I buy" it's a great way of separating the wheat from the chaff. I would welcome it into the iTunes stable alongside music purchase, but certainly not instead of.
 

shamino

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2004
3,386
130
Purcellville, VA
thequicksilver said:
I would welcome it into the iTunes stable alongside music purchase, but certainly not instead of.
Fortunately, I don't think anybody is talking about subscriptions instead of purchases. Real and Yahoo both allow purchases (subject to various annoying DRM restrictions), and offer a (slight) discount to those who have subscriptions.