This is the only thing I like about the Zune. For 15 bucks a month you have access to the whole music library and rent stuff instead of buying. Ever since I started using Netflix, I've become a fan of renting entertainment. Do you guys like the subscription idea? Will Apple ever bring it to ITUNES? I hope so!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How come there's no ITUNES subscription plan?
- Thread starter froghat
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Subscription Music: Why I LOVE It
Hey froghat, I've often asked the same question myself mate!
I've been a Napster subscriber for a couple of years now and I absolutely love it. Like many people I dismissed the idea of "renting music" and had always been a CD buyer. Then I kept seeing the adverts on the Yahoo! homepage for a 7 day trial and in the end I thought: Why not? Listen to as much music as I can in 7 days and then cancel it. (Looks like advertising works.)
But man, during those 7 days I just couldn't get enough! It was like the feeling when you use the internet for the first time - you were just looking up / listening to EVERYTHING you could think of. All those songs, artists and albums over the years that you'd never got round to buying or had gotten so-so reviews. Now I could check them all out for myself.
Of course after 7 days I was hooked. The amount of music I can now listen to and DO listen to every month would be economically prohibitive under a traditional purchasing system. Only by illegally downloading music would you get a close enough experience and piracy of any kind is something I detest.
I also now enjoy such a wide range of music. One good song is all it takes to explore that artist's back catalogue and then similar sounding artists. It's a great way to expand your musical horizons. And let's not forget how useful it is a virtual jukebox for parties or when your friends come round casually and ask, "Have you got so and so?", and you can reply, "I've got the whole catalogue, including all the different versions of the singles and remixes! What do you want to listen to?"
The thing I love the most about a subscription service is that you can listen to as much or as little music as you want and the cost stays fixed. That means you can "try out" all sorts of albums and artists that you may have had to dismiss in the past. And by doing this you find so many hidden gems. There's countless albums that have been slammed by the critics that I've ended up really liking.
Think about it. When your weekly newspaper / monthly music magazine is reviewing the latest albums and singles you can just go and listen to them for yourself straight away. YOU get to decide whether it's any good or not and more often than not you end up completley disagreeing with the reviewers' verdicts.
Now, I know Steve Jobs has talked about users wanting to "own" their music but I personally feel this is more of an artifical construct put into place to appease our pyschological desire for ownership. More often than not people, I believe, would be far better off from a rental scheme from a financial (in terms of value for money at least), enjoyment and increased diversification of musical taste, point of view.
I'd love for Steve to swallow his pride on this matter and add a subscription option in ADDITION to the traditional model. I know many people would benefit, even if you only subscribed for a month at a time to try out a slew of albums that you're not sure about buying or not. Sure, there are some people who hardly ever buy anything new and like having a static collection of music or musical styles. That's fine. Both systems can exist in harmony. But some of us demand more and modern technology can provide it. So why don't Apple do the right thing and give US the CHOICE?
Yes, services such as Napster haven't been growing recently and their advertising has decreased. But if anyone can truly tap the potential of this market it's gotta be Apple. They made the average user jump on to the MP3 bandwagon with their ingenuity and marketing and I believe they can do the same for subscription music. They've got nothing to lose by offering dual services but they have the potential to increase revenue substantially if done right.
I'd guess that roughly 75-85% of MacRumors users are against the idea of a subscription service, but I ask, if it doesn't hurt you specifically and you're willing to at least try it out, what's the harm in introducing it? In the meantime I'll continue to use my Napster compatible Sony Walkman or my iPhone with the OrbLive app (it supports Windows Media DRM) streaming my downloaded Napster music. But one day I hope to stream on demand any song I want, wherever I am, on my iPhone straight through iTunes! Ah, heaven.
Peace my friends, peace.
Hey froghat, I've often asked the same question myself mate!
I've been a Napster subscriber for a couple of years now and I absolutely love it. Like many people I dismissed the idea of "renting music" and had always been a CD buyer. Then I kept seeing the adverts on the Yahoo! homepage for a 7 day trial and in the end I thought: Why not? Listen to as much music as I can in 7 days and then cancel it. (Looks like advertising works.)
But man, during those 7 days I just couldn't get enough! It was like the feeling when you use the internet for the first time - you were just looking up / listening to EVERYTHING you could think of. All those songs, artists and albums over the years that you'd never got round to buying or had gotten so-so reviews. Now I could check them all out for myself.
Of course after 7 days I was hooked. The amount of music I can now listen to and DO listen to every month would be economically prohibitive under a traditional purchasing system. Only by illegally downloading music would you get a close enough experience and piracy of any kind is something I detest.
I also now enjoy such a wide range of music. One good song is all it takes to explore that artist's back catalogue and then similar sounding artists. It's a great way to expand your musical horizons. And let's not forget how useful it is a virtual jukebox for parties or when your friends come round casually and ask, "Have you got so and so?", and you can reply, "I've got the whole catalogue, including all the different versions of the singles and remixes! What do you want to listen to?"
The thing I love the most about a subscription service is that you can listen to as much or as little music as you want and the cost stays fixed. That means you can "try out" all sorts of albums and artists that you may have had to dismiss in the past. And by doing this you find so many hidden gems. There's countless albums that have been slammed by the critics that I've ended up really liking.
Think about it. When your weekly newspaper / monthly music magazine is reviewing the latest albums and singles you can just go and listen to them for yourself straight away. YOU get to decide whether it's any good or not and more often than not you end up completley disagreeing with the reviewers' verdicts.
Now, I know Steve Jobs has talked about users wanting to "own" their music but I personally feel this is more of an artifical construct put into place to appease our pyschological desire for ownership. More often than not people, I believe, would be far better off from a rental scheme from a financial (in terms of value for money at least), enjoyment and increased diversification of musical taste, point of view.
I'd love for Steve to swallow his pride on this matter and add a subscription option in ADDITION to the traditional model. I know many people would benefit, even if you only subscribed for a month at a time to try out a slew of albums that you're not sure about buying or not. Sure, there are some people who hardly ever buy anything new and like having a static collection of music or musical styles. That's fine. Both systems can exist in harmony. But some of us demand more and modern technology can provide it. So why don't Apple do the right thing and give US the CHOICE?
Yes, services such as Napster haven't been growing recently and their advertising has decreased. But if anyone can truly tap the potential of this market it's gotta be Apple. They made the average user jump on to the MP3 bandwagon with their ingenuity and marketing and I believe they can do the same for subscription music. They've got nothing to lose by offering dual services but they have the potential to increase revenue substantially if done right.
I'd guess that roughly 75-85% of MacRumors users are against the idea of a subscription service, but I ask, if it doesn't hurt you specifically and you're willing to at least try it out, what's the harm in introducing it? In the meantime I'll continue to use my Napster compatible Sony Walkman or my iPhone with the OrbLive app (it supports Windows Media DRM) streaming my downloaded Napster music. But one day I hope to stream on demand any song I want, wherever I am, on my iPhone straight through iTunes! Ah, heaven.
Peace my friends, peace.
For me, the harm in a subscription service, is the fear that iTunes and others will move exclusively to a subscription service someday. I believe most music content providers would much prefer a subscription service where you never own anything, and must constantly pay, pay pay, and then pay.
I don't want this, and hate monthly fees.
If they don't get rid of the current pay-per-song model, then I have no problem with adding a subscription service too. However, I do not trust the music industry. I think most of use don't trust the music industry. Hence, our skepticism over the idea of adding a subscription service. But I understand your position.
Because having to constantly pay month after month to listen to "your" music is stupid.
I don't pay Apple another dime, and I can listen to my music forever.
I don't pay Apple another dime, and I can listen to my music forever.
Amazon.com/MP3
I've been happily using amazon.com/mp3 to download directly to iTunes for the past few months and have been very happy w/ the results (catalog/selction, 256kbps quality, DRM-FREE, etc.)
I've been happily using amazon.com/mp3 to download directly to iTunes for the past few months and have been very happy w/ the results (catalog/selction, 256kbps quality, DRM-FREE, etc.)
I look forward to have a choice with iTunes. I am wondering how this will help the music industry? They make a lot more when I buy music 1 song at a time.n It seems like this would be a losing deal for them.
ain't that the idea of subscription? To get you constantly pay
It's different from, say, a magazine subscription in that your songs will disappear once you stop paying.
Steve Jobs has consistently said that customers have told Apple they prefer to buy music instead of "rent" it. I have to agree with him. I get the rationale behind a subscription, but I'm too attached to knowing I bought something.
You're infinitely more likely to see a DRM-free iTunes music selection than any subscription service.
You're infinitely more likely to see a DRM-free iTunes music selection than any subscription service.