iTMS To Add Subscription Service?

[spankalee]

There is one reason why Apple should offer a subscription service that is more important than any other reason for or against. Apple is getting completely beat by these college bundles that Napster and Rhapsody are putting together. The reason is simple: Apple has nothing to offer.

Their only nod to this phenomon is a licensing deal which allows organizations to redistribute iTunes which, of course, is already free. If Apple does nothing they will continue to give Napster and Rhapsody a free lifeline which will in turn help Microsoft and the WMA format. It will also influence students using those services.

The RIAA is pushing the subscrition bundles on colleges under the threat of lawsuits. I'm sure most colleges would choose iTMS if given the option. Apple needs to do this quickly to cut off the revenue to their closest competitors.

The problem is that iTunes, iTMS, iPods and FairPlay will all have to be updated. If FairPlay wasn't designed to accomadate subscriptions and expiring rights this could be a headache.

 

[stoid]

There is one reason why Apple should offer a subscription service that is more important than any other reason for or against. Apple is getting completely beat by these college bundles that Napster and Rhapsody are putting together. The reason is simple: Apple has nothing to offer.

I think that this point is moot. Students are forced into these 'deals' that colleges have signed, many times against their will. In some cases students are protesting because they have to pay for a service that doesn't work with their Mac or iPod. Furthermore, to get the colleges to sign these deals, Napster and their ilk are dropping their price so low that they are making extremely little or no profit on the deal. Also, since their music will be taken away from them once they graduate, it doesn't build much brand loyalty. Face it, in this scenario, the schools lose because of extra time spent to maintain and support the service, the students lose because they pay money and get nothing when they graduate or transfer, the music services lose because they make negligible profit, and only the RIAA wins because they make money without actually selling any product.

 

[otter-boy]

The subscription drives media player sales

It just occurred to me that offering a subscription service on the iTMS goes against Apple's design goals. The iTMS, iTunes, iPod triple threat combo is truly amazing the way the all sync together and are mind-numbingly simple to use. If Apple adds a subscription service, they cut the iPod out of the loop. Suddenly Apple's service is little different from the others, just a store and media player.

With Janus technology, portable media players compatible with the MS .WMV media format will be able to play rented music which will expire (even on their player) when the subscription runs out. If someone wants to continue to listen to that music on their player, they will have to renew the subscription and plug the player back into the computer. This is actually seen as the main advantage of MS compatible players over the iPod over the next year or more. Now, with Apple rebuilding the ineternals of the iPod from the ground up with the 4G (which they stated they did), they may be able to add this ability to iPods with merely an update to iTunes and the iPod software. Subscription services in no way cut out portable media players.

 

[macFanDave]

Two different points

There were subscription services before iTMS and Apple came in and handed them their heads! Why would Steve want to glom a failed business model on to the most beautiful jewel in the digital music universe?

That rent/own argument is a joke. Who keeps a TV for three years? If you are such a tech freak that you need to get a new one three years after, you should be able to sell the "old" one for a good price. The house analogy is even more flawed since it ignored the greatest tax dodge of all. When you pay rent, you're covering the landlord's note, insurance, taxes and whatever he wants for profit. You realize no tax benefit for that. However, when you "own" a home, you get to deduct the amount of interest and taxes you pay on your home from your gross income, that is, Uncle Sam is subsidizing your mode of housing. Often, if you live in a house for twenty years, you are going to sell it for far more than you originally paid for it.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

It just occurred to me that offering a subscription service on the iTMS goes against Apple's design goals. The iTMS, iTunes, iPod triple threat combo is truly amazing the way the all sync together and are mind-numbingly simple to use. If Apple adds a subscription service, they cut the iPod out of the loop. Suddenly Apple's service is little different from the others, just a store and media player.

Good point, and very true. I think subscription would be stupid because, not only has Steve Jobbs outlined all the stupid things with it, but it would confuse the objectives of the iTunes store and make the whole iTunes thing less "Mac".

Subscription service is just the music companies (and RIAA etc) getting too greedy.

 

[tristan]

Netflix

What if it was like Netflix? I could rent 120 songs for $10 a month, but then swap those songs out whenever I want? That would be pretty cool. You could then buy the ones you want and keep them forever.

Of course securing a song is pretty much impossible...

 

[balconycollapse]

Has anyone used one of these subscription services? How soon do they have new releases after physical copies are out? If there is a song you really like you could just fire up audiohijack or wiretap. I think this stuff is more like internet radio paid subscription and I don't care for the market research they are certainly getting from your listening habits.

 

[jettredmont]

I'd just like to remind people that you never really own anything, it's all rented.

You buy a TV? You use it for three years and then replace it. You just paid $20 a month to rent it for a while.
You buy a house? You use it for twenty years and then move (or die). You paid $500 a month to rent that place.
Macs, music downloads and everything else on the planet work in exactly the same way. Don't kid yourself that you ever "own something forever".

Matt

Houses are definitely bought and sold. Yes, you use it for an indefinite period of time, at which time you sell it. Therein lies the fundamental difference between a sale and a rent or lease: the time of "selling", and, thus, the appreciated per-time cost of use of the item, is determined by you, the buyer, as opposed to either pre-determined or determined by the seller. Plus, to belabor the obvious point, the "cost" of the home is largely offset by the "profit" of selling the house (which, as a renter, of course you don't get). Fundamentally, a "buyer" has significantly more rights than a "renter", and generally also tends to pay less over the life of the equipment than the renter. That's the way life is.

As for music, fundamentally the way I view music, and I don't think I'm alone here, doesn't gel with a renter model. Music is one of the barometers of life. It's a great way to bring back memories, hearing a random song that hearkens back to when you were a kid. The memories trickle in, or they flood in, making life all that much richer. If I "own" my music (technically, if I own the rights to play my music), then I know that I'll be able to listen to the song I'm listening to right now, when I'm 80 years old, and it will bring back memories the same way the Chattanooga Choo Choo brings back memories for my grandparents. If I "rent" the music, my access to that music is far from certain. In fact, as a renter, I know there are processes in place specifically to keep me from listening to that music when I'm older -- both intentional, in the case that I stop paying the rental bills, and unintentional in the case that the rental outfit closes shop or there is a legal snafu which forces them to stop broadcasting a certain song or whatever. Chances that I'll have access to the songs I know and love today, when I'm older? Not so great.

Fundamentally, it's a bad idea to rent music. I've known five people who have tried music rental services, and they've all stopped their subscriptions after only a few months because they realized they'd never be able to "have" that music, and that they were severely limitted in how they could use that music *today*.

The rental outfits aren't making a profit today. Their losses are "narrowing", which may have been good enough in the dot-com bubble, but it doesn't sail a ship of cheese today. Narrowing losses are still losses, and projections of losses narrowing for years into the future means they won't be making a profit any time soon, if ever. Plus, from a trends perspective, I see a whole lot more future growth in music ownership; storage space has a lot of head room, in all areas from ultra-portable to ultra-non-portable, while network transmission bandwidth has been relatively stagnant for many years and looks to remain that way for a good amount of time to come. Finally, historically, rental schemes tend to have a greatly-increased probability of success with "young" technologies than with "old" technologies (would you rent a phone today?); if it hasn't taken off yet, it's chances are diminishing with each passing day.

 

[jwhitnah]

Not Really

I'd just like to remind people that you never really own anything, it's all rented.

You buy a TV? You use it for three years and then replace it. You just paid $20 a month to rent it for a while.
You buy a house? You use it for twenty years and then move (or die). You paid $500 a month to rent that place.
Macs, music downloads and everything else on the planet work in exactly the same way. Don't kid yourself that you ever "own something forever".

Matt

It is NOT exactly the same. The digital relm actually allows me to pass my OWN crappy music to endless future generations without any loss of quality. The media of the future may/will change but we will probably be able to pass our music archives on to it.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

It just occurred to me that offering a subscription service on the iTMS goes against Apple's design goals. The iTMS, iTunes, iPod triple threat combo is truly amazing the way the all sync together and are mind-numbingly simple to use. If Apple adds a subscription service, they cut the iPod out of the loop. Suddenly Apple's service is little different from the others, just a store and media player.

That isn't necessarily true if Apple implements a system like MS's "Janus" that allows subscription content to be played on portable devices. If that piece also falls into place at the same time as the addition of a subscription service, the ballgame becomes completely different. Without this extra piece, Apple's triple threat becomes only a double threat (because the iPod is cut out). With the extra piece, though - what we have is a quadruple threat - iTMS download, iTMS subscription, iTunes, iPod.

 

[jwhitnah]

According to MacWorld UK, the launch of digital-music subscription service VirginDigital in the US has sparked a debate about the future of the subscription model for music distribution, with Apple admitting it may consider a subscription service in the future. Speaking to the International Herald Tribune Apple's Eddy Cue explained his conviction that there will always be a preference for the a la carte model, saying: "Consumers have been buying music for 50 years and want to replicate that experience online." Cue then added: "Apple might consider a subscription service in the future but it had no plans to do so now."

The subscription model is less expensive for the online stores to put in place, costing them only 50% of the revenue off each track sale, instead of the 65 - 70% of the sale for a la carte downloads. According to Zack Zalon, President of Virgin Digital: "Two or three years out, subscriptions will overtake à la carte because it is a much more interesting proposition. It has just been difficult to articulate to consumers what it is."

Of course Zolan is excited about Virgin's subscription service; if he were not, he would be fired. The wild assertion that subcriptions will surpass a la carte is not surprising. The were logical flaws in this article. I seem to remember a quote comparing movie rentals and music rentals. Besides kids (and a few adults, but a smaller fraction) how many times do you watch the same movie? Once is enough for most; there are always more to see. Music is the opposite experience. I listen to albums/songs over and over within a month or 2, then I move on to something else. On the other hand, if I listened to it that much I want to own it so I can listen to it when I am in the mood, whenever.

Subscriptions will only supplement the download market. I think it has merit, especially if I think I might want to buy it; like a test drive.

 

[jwhitnah]

There is one reason why Apple should offer a subscription service that is more important than any other reason for or against. Apple is getting completely beat by these college bundles that Napster and Rhapsody are putting together. The reason is simple: Apple has nothing to offer.

Their only nod to this phenomon is a licensing deal which allows organizations to redistribute iTunes which, of course, is already free. If Apple does nothing they will continue to give Napster and Rhapsody a free lifeline which will in turn help Microsoft and the WMA format. It will also influence students using those services.

The RIAA is pushing the subscrition bundles on colleges under the threat of lawsuits. I'm sure most colleges would choose iTMS if given the option. Apple needs to do this quickly to cut off the revenue to their closest competitors.

The problem is that iTunes, iTMS, iPods and FairPlay will all have to be updated. If FairPlay wasn't designed to accomadate subscriptions and expiring rights this could be a headache.

Well said. Subscriptions are not in my future, but they seem to appeal to a significant minority. Moreover, the profit margin is much greater than a la carte. Offering this service on iTMS would head 'em off at the pass.

 

[jwhitnah]

If you would have been renting your music for $10 a month for the past 10 years, that would have cost you $1,200, and you would have jack sh*t in your music library. You'd have a huge stinking hole in your wallet and nothing whatsoever at all but memories. Since you've bought your music, you now have an extensive collection that you and many other people can enjoy for years to come.

So true. Part of the fun in OWNING is the ability to flip through old purchases. "Hey, I remember that one, put it on!" If you don't own it, you will not remember it.

 

[zim]

Apple already has a "subscription" service.... it is dubbed monthly allowances. I know what the subscription service is and why that the two are not the same but, it is nice that apple offers different ways to spend your money.

 

[swissmann]

I see people like my little sister preferring the subscription service. She wants all the latest songs and then in a couple of months asks herself. Why did I ever listen to that because the fad has changed. I would never go for it. I don't like music until it has proven its worth to me. Then if I dig it I want to own it because I know I will dig it 20 years from now.

 

[Thanatoast]

I don't know why so many people are dead-set against subscription. I played with Rhapsody the other night, and lemme tell you, having their entire catalog at my fingertips for $10 a month is a great deal. Who cares if you don't own it? You still get to listen, don't you? And you get to listen to a lot more for a lot less. The only trade off is you are tied to a computer. Unless, of course, iTunes implements this and you go buy an Airport Express. No one says you can't buy the tunes. You're just renting the right to listen to *400,000* of them for ten bucks a month!

 

[junior]

If you would have been renting your music for $10 a month for the past 10 years, that would have cost you $1,200, and you would have jack sh*t in your music library. You'd have a huge stinking hole in your wallet and nothing whatsoever at all but memories. Since you've bought your music, you now have an extensive collection that you and many other people can enjoy for years to come.

But he's got 2000 CDs, and at $12 each that would amount to $24000 .
So under your theory he might be left with nothing under his ownership but would have saved $22800 and would have enjoyed listening to the stuff he liked on the day, and getting rid of songs he got tired of. Of course he could always download those songs he grew tired of again if he felt like listening to them.

Just making this point for arguments' sake.

 

[iMeowbot]

Now, with Apple rebuilding the ineternals of the iPod from the ground up with the 4G (which they stated they did), they may be able to add this ability to iPods with merely an update to iTunes and the iPod software.

They could update all Fair Play-capable models to use expiring tracks. That's why there's a clock.

 

[macumus]

iTMS subcription and .Mac sub.

Apple already has a revenue stream with the dot.mac subscriptions. at $99/year, thats $21 cheaper than other subscription models at $9.95-$20/month. And far less than cable, phone or cable modem (which can be $40-$80). If they were to add Apple Lossless Subscription to the .Mac system they could have several pricing layers. Something like this:

Annually
Standard .Mac (same features as today plus PC compatablity for sync of addresses, bookmarks, mail, virus software, etc.) (can buy movies through iTMS on PC/MAC without subscription (pending windowz security fixes)) $60

.Mac with iTMS-S (music subscription) $120
this is mac only (will windows ever be secure enough?)

later next year (also mac only)
.Mac with iTMS-S plus iTV on .Mac Subscription $240
.Mac with iTMS-S plus Feature Film Subscription $240

and the .Mac ultimate package
.Mac with iTMS-S plus iTV on .Mac + Movie Subscription $340


along with the new subscription system they introduce the video component to iTMS. Purchase movies individually or buy the subscription with .Mac.

You see the brilliance is that the .Mac subscription is the base for each level. At $60 (down from $99) more current mac users will want it's current features. At $120 the extra $20 is easy to swallow for current .Mac users when you can listen away. You can still buy all the songs you really like. And some artists can keep some songs as album only or singles only and out of the subscription system except that you link to iTMS and can buy it. PC users can't use the Music Subscription part. Not initially at least. This would be good incentive for PC users to switch to a Mac. Security heaven and totally awesome features and immense media options all in one fell swoop. Buy a Mac!

As they work with Motorola they can make the whole system mobile with a high speed phone able serve up the music and link to wi-fi systems and sync to iPod. With .Mac being only for the Mac OS this is good reason to buy a mac. Of course it can't be PC compatible at introduction and time will tell if Microsoft can secure their Windows OS well enough to include PC compatibility. "Windows is not secure enough to allow the operating system to have access" would be powerful and well founded press fodder for Apple.

the movie and tv subscriptions parts will be coming soon. the price I'm guessing at, but if they can beat cable on price and offer more than NetFlix with near instant gratification and more content and just the content you want. With Music, TV, Movies, and Library of Congress access, and Physical Collection Management.

The consumer Mac is becoming all 64bit. Wintels are behind on this, and they may not be able to handle the compression tehcnologies for the video stuff until they get there.

Moving movies to iPod/phones with mobile high speed internet access providing your TV/Movie feeds, and you could see $1200/year (same as basic cable with cable modem internet) and maybe more if they offer the iPhonePod and all the internet bandwidth and Music and TV and Movies (and dare I say an interactive library that could pull from the library of congress and include audio (also audio conversion for all text) and Video and Links to other good online resources) Of course you plug into an Apple Cinema Display or TV (through an adapter) to watch the video in all its high definition glory.

Apple needs to merge iTunes with a system for keeping track of and managing your physical collection. Use the iSight to scan the UPC Bar Codes of your store bought items to enter them into the library. Or sell a rechargeable bluetooth laser scanner (with 200 item memory for when the computer isn't near) for added speed and convenience (maybe this is bulit into the iPod). Could work for books, VHS, DVD, CD's, LP's, Etc... Could expand into total home inventory. And tie it to a Personal Finance Application while your at it. You're house burns down while your on vacation...no problem, you have a complete inventory stored on your iPod (and dot.mac) you just beam it to your insurance agent and... boom ... there is your check. But you gotta get a mac!

 

[johnnowak]

Well, in that sense do we really own the music we "buy" from iTMS?

No, you don't. Hell, you switch to Linux and your files are worthless.
No idea why you people buy from there...

 

[fracai]

No, you don't. Hell, you switch to Linux and your files are worthless.
No idea why you people buy from there...

And when I switched from tapes to CDs all my music was worthless. Oh wait, I recorded them into CDs. Can't do that with iTunes but you can burn them to CD and they're DRMless. rerip and they're portable again. or cut out that step and use software to remove the drm. illegal? yeah, but it's an option and I don't think the RIAA would like knowing that I didn't buy a new copy of my Ghostbusters soundtrack because I was able to rip it from the tape.

I made a choice with buying from iTMS because I have no intention of switching to Linux. No idea why you, johnnowak, don't switch to Windows and start buying from their store. What? You don't like Windows and prefer to use Linux? Oh, ok, then don't take my advice.

That old cliche about "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it"? There's another line that should become equally cliched: "And when you're done saying what you will, I defend to the death my right to not follow your advice."

iTMS doesn't work for you, but it does for me. Rental services don't work for me, but they do for others. Let people have their choice and see if you can figure out why people don't make the same choices that you do.

 

[inkswamp]

Corporate speak

It has just been difficult to articulate to consumers what it is.

Gawd... I hate it when business folks talk down to people like that. "Articulate" what it means to subscribe? Nobody needs anything articulated to them. The preference is non-subscription models. Why? Simple. A majority of the people out there already know what music they like and what they want to buy; they also likely don't have time to sit in front of the computer exploring new music. It's that simple. I'd love to devote several hours a week just playing new music, but it isn't going to happen. And like most people, I don't want to be stuck paying for something I may not end up having time to use. When I want something, I'll pay for it, but I don't need a subscription service hanging over my head like some kind of chore.

It's like this. When you need something from the grocery store, you go and buy it. Would you shop at a store that required you to fork over $100 a month prior to any shopping at all? Regardless of the benefits, there is always the chance that you're going to lose your money because you can't use it at some point. Nothing needs to be articulated here. Subscription models benefit teenagers who have lots of time to explore music, but for most of us, it's a waste.

There, did I articulate that properly?

 

[Trekkie]

I've got a few Windows friends that would drop Napster in a heartbeat if this happened.

They both work from a desk all day coding listening to music on headphones. Buying the tracks isn't as important to them as listening to random stuff throughout the day depending on their whim of the day.

Me, I buy my music and listen to it on the iPod, so I wouldn't use it as much, I think

 

[Trekkie]

No, you don't. Hell, you switch to Linux and your files are worthless.
No idea why you people buy from there...

Yeah, and we know so many people are doing to do that.

Come on. If Linux actually accounted for enough business to release a product Apple could. But when you have a smaller desktop market share than Apple themselves it's not on the top ten list of things to do.

If things change in the next year however, and real demand with people who will actually pay for something happens I'm sure things could change.

 

[SeaFox]

There is a service out there that is subscription and you get to keep the songs. www.emusic.com will allow to spend as little as 9.95 a month for forty downloads. (I don't work for them, just to let you know). I just signed up for a trial version, which you must do in order to browse the selection,

Uh, no you don't. I browsed the site after reading about it the first day they launched on a Slashdot story. I saw a lot of artists I like, but never signed up for a trial. I'm on dialup and since eMusic seems to be all web browser based I should be able to "shop" from any internet connection (unlike having to be on my computer with the iTunes Music Store). I'm going to get a USB flash drive and use high spped connections at cybercafes, ect to download the tunes to the drive. Wiating for 12-15 tracks to download oer dialup would be annoying to say the least.

and found a lot of jazz and electronia that I like. The only problem is that there really aren't too many "big" name artists on there, mostly independent labels and artists. If you like that type of music, this a good way to get some music you wouldn't normally be able to find.

Did you see they have like the entire catalog of Creedance Clearwater Revival? I'll be able to replace my old tapes for a song. [pun intended] There's also early Moby.