Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple to Offer Unlimited Music Plan?

4DThinker said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement-it's worrying times.

Personally I would rather see a monthly subscription model.

Whichever model we end up with the important thing is that the money gets to the ARTISTS who deserve it-and not to the government or to Apple or to the labels.

This should be seen in much the same way as radio royalties work.
 
I for one hate the idea of being squeezed by labels who want money for device sales. Universal music has some pretty big balls to think that it deserves money for any iPod I buy. I can promise you that at most 1% or less of my music comes from Universal and it was legally purchased.

I like picking my own music, I'll never buy a device loaded with crappy music I don't want. And stringing it to a subscription I don't need makes me even less excited. I use eMusic because I get DRM-free files from bands that I am interested in. It isn't for everyone, but it suits me well enough. Better than iTunes with the sporadic iTunes "plus" files.
 
It is great apple is looking at other business models for their music. This will allow them to compete directly with all of the other services out there from other companies head on, as well is give people a choice on how to pay.

I'd imagine they would do it like TiVo, where you have the option of registering the TiVo for life of that device and you don't pay any monthly fee, but you don't have to. So I'd imagine the iPods will remain the same price, but you can register it for a lifetime music plan.
 
I chuckle whenever i read comments like "i don't think i'll partake" and the like. When the time comes for this product to be rolled out, it'll be a success. A subscription model for the iTunes Music Store will be the perfect solution to curb piracy. Now I don't have to search for hours for the new Yeasayer album, I can just load it up from iTunes. We're entering the age of the inconvenience of P2P transfers. When faced with taking 30-45 minutes searching for an album or five minutes waiting for a download...i'm going to take the five minutes.

I'm excited for the iTunes subscription and i'd pay upwards to $29.99 a month for this package.
 
I'm all for a monthly subscription model. Prices from other services are typically $10/month. Most people spend at least that on music every month of the year but only end up with 10 songs.
$10 for unlimited songs ain't half bad.
 
sabbath999 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This should be the new tag line for the MacRumors forums.

I don't get the negative comments and ratings for this article.

What kind of crazy person does not think this is a good idea? Choice is good. There is no way Apple would make this required for all iPods. As someone else mentioned, this could be like AppleCare. You buy your iPod, you buy your music plan, the first time you synch your iPod to your Mac, you enter in your music plan id and you are ready to go. If you don't want it, proceed as you did before.

Sure it is not for everyone, but I would probably try it just to check out new music even though I already have 5000 or so songs I purchased over the years. And I like paying the fee upfront and not having to pay a subscription.
 
jonnylink said:
Better than iTunes with the sporadic iTunes "plus" files.
Click to expand...

As a point of interest, iTunes Plus files wouldn't BE "sporadic" if the labels weren't trying to punish iTunes for being successful. All the majors are offering DRM-free music through Amazon.com's MP3 service now, there's nothing stopping them from offering that same DRM-free music on iTunes (except that they want to reduce Apple's power in the music-selling business and this is one way they're trying to do it).
 
If this is true, why the big change? Is the current iTunes model broken? Is the music industry ready to do this? I can't see how they would benefit. I'm not big on subscriptions myself, prefering the ala carte/pay-as-you-go. Market research rumor? Sources aside, I think this one is off.
 
thank you - way of the future

johnmcboston said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for this posting. This is what it is all about - direct relationships between the fans and the artists and their music.

I don't think any artist has any problem with fans voting with their pocket books. We work mostly with jazz artists. and while we work with musicians who are very popular in their field, it's all a drop in the bucket next to the big pop/rock acts. We don't complain about that (too much anyway), as long as we do get a chance to make a bit of a living from the fans that are supportive of this music, so that we can keep providing them with the music and live shows that they want.

But we also know how the major corporations will act if given half a chance of throwing our clients in there as part of their huge bundle offers. Namely the same way they've always been acting, by focusing on their top-draws and the rest of us are "lucky to be able to participate". Don't want to go there again for a re-run of the major label slave machine here in the 21st century. Especially now when they do NOT control distribution anymore. If it comes to that we'll take our music straight out of the mainstream and just sell it at our own websites and live performances. Screw them and their ad-supported subscription models. Yeah, that was Universals plan - to force people to watch ads to get access to listen to music. Right on - before checking out that cool Radiohead track, why not remind you that you need a Mazda to zoom-zoom to the gig?
 
Klaxons2012 said:
I chuckle whenever i read comments like "i don't think i'll partake" and the like. When the time comes for this product to be rolled out, it'll be a success. A subscription model for the iTunes Music Store will be the perfect solution to curb piracy. Now I don't have to search for hours for the new Yeasayer album, I can just load it up from iTunes. We're entering the age of the inconvenience of P2P transfers. When faced with taking 30-45 minutes searching for an album or five minutes waiting for a download...i'm going to take the five minutes.

I'm excited for the iTunes subscription and i'd pay upwards to $29.99 a month for this package.
Click to expand...

amen to that brother :p

i wouldnt see y they wouldnt be doing that either, i mean other companys are doing it for 15$-20$ a month such as Zune and Rhapsody. This would be a big uprise for Apple.

Im all for it, as long as we can use gift cards :D
 
actcochise said:
Thank you very much for this posting. This is what it is all about - direct relationships between the fans and the artists and their music.

I don't think any artist has any problem with fans voting with their pocket books. We work mostly with jazz artists. and while we work with musicians who are very popular in their field, it's all a drop in the bucket next to the big pop/rock acts. We don't complain about that (too much anyway), as long as we do get a chance to make a bit of a living from the fans that are supportive of this music, so that we can keep providing them with the music and live shows that they want.

But we also know how the major corporations will act if given half a chance of throwing our clients in there as part of their huge bundle offers. Namely the same way they've always been acting, by focusing on their top-draws and the rest of us are "lucky to be able to participate". Don't want to go there again for a re-run of the major label slave machine here in the 21st century. Especially now when they do NOT control distribution anymore. If it comes to that we'll take our music straight out of the mainstream and just sell it at our own websites and live performances. Screw them and their ad-supported subscription models. Yeah, that was Universals plan - to force people to watch ads to get access to listen to music. Right on - before checking out that cool Radiohead track, why not remind you that you need a Mazda to zoom-zoom to the gig?
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but artists are not forced to play ball with the majors. As you said, they do not control distribution anymore, and if, as you say, they only market the major acts on their labels, then what is the point of signing on to a major label? Especially as a Jazz artist? It is not like Apple can force independent bands and labels to participate in this.

Basically I agree with you, but I don't understand your vitriol when nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

And I don't have a problem with ad-supported content either, as long as the user knows this upfront. If your main problem is that the labels will make extra revenue that the artists won't see, especially the smaller artists, I don't see how this is any different that the screw job labels have been doing to artists forever...but that doesn't make it right. The only difference now is that you don't need a label anymore.
 
I would gladly, happily pay $10-15/month ($120-180 a year) to be able to sample all the tracks I wanted from iTunes. This would kill 99% of the reason I ever snag music off the internets, which is to sample new music and catch the current flavor of things. (The other 1% is to acquire rare or out of print music that I couldn't buy regardless of how much I wanted to.)

I would've gotten a Rhapsody or Napster account a LONG time ago, but they refuse to support macs! So, forget them. I want a service I can access from my macs (my laptop and a powermac g5 in my office) and my home gaming computer (a windows xp custom build.) So, the studios and services are missing out on my dollars completely there.

Once music means something to me, I'm much more likely to purchase it. This means I have to be able to appreciate the whole song outside of a shopping experience. Being able to spin the album at work, in my car via iPod a few times, and on my home stereo would be the ultimate try-before-you-buy... so it'd result in more sales (or a perpetually maintained rental account.. like how Netflix has a recurring income of $17/month from me) and artists and studios would benefit from more trackable music exposure.

I would NOT want advertisements in the mix, however, unless I opted for them. eg, if I wanted an album, I want just that album. If they want to offer something, I wouldn't mind something like a Casey's Top 40 style thing where you get the artist title and song name and a small blurb about the song or artist that comes on before the track.
 
DTphonehome said:
Whaaaaat? Oh please, who wouldn't pay an extra $20 to have unlimited music that they get to keep? No way, no how. The record companies would NEVER agree to that.
Click to expand...

I think the article implies that Nokia already offers something like this.

For the record I'd gladly pay ~$75 extra for an iPod to have unlimited access to the iTMS for the life of the device, even with restrictions that you could only play the music back on that device alone, as long as:

1) You could still store the music on your computer to sync a subset of the music to the iPod without redownloading
2) You could play the music on a computer with a linked iTunes account as long as the device was plugged in (in spirit of keeping playback limited to one place/user at a time)
3) It included access to the iTMS WiFi

I hope this comes through sooner rather than later and they offer it as an option upgrade at time of purchase AND retroactively for current generation iPods.
 
I would not be interested in any arrangement that did not leave me with complete ownership of my music and able to play it on any device I like. I wouldn't care a bit about having access to all the music in the world. I have almost all the music I want in my iTunes database right now, and as I want more I buy it. I'd rather go back to just listening to CDs than have to accept a plan under which I only rented music.
 
mashinhead said:
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'"
Click to expand...

Did you even read what I was replying to?

Yes, the old model is not working. I agree it needs to change. rcrdlbl.com is great and all, but it's the artist's CHOICE to release their music there for free. That doesn't mean the artist expects to get no money ever for their music.

The post I replied to said that all music should be free, and that artists should just be happy their stuff is heard. But artists have to make money somehow. That was my point.

And I do have some experience. My brother is a musician and a good friend of mine is a musician. Both are small and independent, and both are trying to make money off their honest hard work. And it is NOT true that artists only make money from touring and licensing.
 
tk421 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yup. Exactly why the major labels would be foolish not to buy into this, in fact they should insist on it. Apple wants it because it would ensure continued access to major label content. It's also why consumers should be wary of it, as I suggested in my original post and you're calling out here.

The $20 doesn't bother me-- there's a reasonable chance that I'd buy an album or two from a major label over the years I own an iPod. What would worry me is the impact this kind of deal would have on the larger market.
 
I honestly do not see how this will benefit Apple in the slightest way..

Pay one fee and get unlimited downloads???? I'm sure people will download tons of songs, which will total much more than the original fee! :confused:
 
Xenious said:
I want unlimited movies and TV shows please! Things I tend to really only view once.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I think the subscription model suits tv shows more than music. In the UK we have a set top box where tv shows can be rented (either PPV or £6 per month for unlimited viewing) - this would be awesome for the Apple tv!
 
If I could download any music I wanted for a low monthly subscription like $9.99/mo I would do it in a heart beat. A one-time fee with the purchase of an iPod would also be intriguing.

But when I hear BS like the music is lost after the subscription then absolutely not. I can still download music for free and keep it forever.
 
can't imagine this as good

I just can't imagine this working if it's like other subscriptions services in which the music becomes unusable if subscription lapses. Apple is singlehandedly responsible for my renewed interest in music as an integral part of my life and the current model for the iTunes store is absolutely ideal for me. As long as Apple maintains the current model in addition to a silly subscription service, I'll keep using it. Otherwise, I'll have to look elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back