Apple to Offer Unlimited Music Plan?

[tk421]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

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

 

[SheriffParker]

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

As usual.

Made me laugh, thanks.

 

[Marx55]

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

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

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

I want the second.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

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

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

 

[johnmcboston]

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

As usual.

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

 

[johnmcboston]

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

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

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

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

 

[Phil A.]

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

 

[gnasher729]

I really don't get this?

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

Can someone explain, Please?

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

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

Personally, I think this is an excellent idea.

 

[gnasher729]

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

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

 

[skemmuni]

Sounds like a Zune

 

[gnasher729]

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

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

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

 

[Popeye206]

I'll have to see...

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

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

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

 

[thestaton]

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

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

 

[IlluminatedSage]

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

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

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

 

[mashinhead]

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

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

 

[andiwm2003]

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

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

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

 

[ictiosapiens]

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

 

[zygo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merchandising

Concert tickets

Publishing for TV/Film/Games


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

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

 

[Small White Car]

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

Why did you quote me?

I responded to the people who said:

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

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

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

 

[krye]

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

 

[hayesk]

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

 

[zygo]

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

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

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

 

[4DThinker]

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

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

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

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

 

[Small White Car]

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

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

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