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

hughdogg

macrumors member
petej said:
Subscription service for movies perhaps?
I think this is where this is going. Anyone remember the rumors a few weeks/months ago about Apple buying iFlix?

Lets add up the pieces: Mac Mini + Executive with experience in subscription services for a device that sits in the living room + iFlix software to manage the service = ?

Cheers,
hughdogg
 

mrgreen4242

macrumors 601
Feb 10, 2004
4,377
9
Here's my theory... Apple doesn't really make any money with iTunes, they just do it to sell iPods (so no reason to license Fairplay to anyone else). The record industry probably makes the best chunk of profit on the sales of music from the iTMS, no?

It is clear that they like the idea of a subscription based sales model (Napster, Rhapsody, to name a couple big ones), and if they want to sell music that way Appl ewill let them, they don't care.

I foresee a service for maybe $12.99-14.99/month for unlimited playback of music on one computer and one iPod. IF you are a subscriber you can purchase songs at a discount, say $0.79 or so instead of $.99. Other users can still buy individual tracks for $.99, but the price will soon rise to $1.19 or so.. I'd say by end of the year, MAYBE early next year.

Personally, I'd welcome it. Alot of times there is a new song I like a little and would want to hear it, but not to pay for it, or an older song I get a hankerin' to hear once a year. With my computer and iPod being pretty much the only way I listen to music, it would be pretty good for me.

Also, to the above poster who asks who would pay for music that you never actually own, well, I'd guess the ~1million+ satellite radio subscribers would be a start. On that though, if Apple can get some kind of deal to let you get NPR content in the subscription, and maybe some sports leagues and other news programs, that would be a HUGE bonus. As would some sort of deal for audio books, although I am sure that would have to add substantially to the cost or be limited to how many you can download per month.

Rob
 

mrgreen4242

macrumors 601
Feb 10, 2004
4,377
9
freddiecable said:
hey - why not. as an alternative at least - that would not be that bad! I would rather own my songs though.

Do you shop at iTMS? If you do, you don't really own any thing you have bought there. You own a license to play that song on up to 5 computers and an unlimited number of iPods. That could change though. With the DRM system Apple uses you don't have much ownership of the actual song, as you would have to break the law (DMCA) in order to use it should Apple go under or decide to stop making iPods/iTunes, etc.

You're really renting it for 99cents for a "lifetime" of use.
 

settledown

macrumors regular
Feb 28, 2003
246
0
pittsburgh
i can see why Apple's hire of the girl from Xbox live, might be seen as a hint of a subscription based iTunes.....I see it different

Xbox uses a PPC right?....Apple uses PPC right?....maybe an Apple branded game console?????

it stands to reason that microsoft and apple would be the eventual makers of COMPUTER game consoles...once games got sophisticated enough to use similar hardware

wouldnt a game console/media server fit nice into apples lineup?
 

the_mole1314

macrumors 6502a
Sep 16, 2003
774
0
Akron, OH
Here's my idea...

Joe goes onto iTunes wanting to sign up for the new iTunes Rentals service. He goes to the normal iTunes page, with a new rentals button on top. He clicks it and signs up. There are three plans. For $9.99 a month he can have as many songs on as many iPods, but only 2 computers. For $14.99 he can have the same as before, but up to 5 computers. And for $29.9 he can get all the stuff for $14.99, but also be able to burn 20 songs to CD per month.

Joe signs up for the $20 plan. The button next to his log-in information now says instead of "By Song" it says "Monthly Plan". Joe now downloads as many songs as he wants and puts it on his comptuer and iPod. He can download whole clebrity playlists and iTunes Essentials. Now, Joe can burn CDs too, while he never could burn 20 songs a month, but it gives him the option.

When he decides to cancel his subscription 18 months later, he now has the choice of keeping all his songs, or some of the, for a set price per. He downloaded 2,300 tracks over the last year and a half, and he wants to keep 1,001 of them. Apple offers to let him keep the rights for the songs at $.65 per song if under 50 songs he wants to keep, $.50 for each song over 50 he wants to keep but under 100, $.40 for each song over 100 songs but under 500, and $.30 for each one over 500 but under 1,000, and finally $.20 for over 1,000. So now Joe buys the rights to these songs for $200 dollars.

Now, as Napster says, do the math.

$20 * 18 = $360
$.20 * 1,001 = $200.2
$360 + $200.2 = $560.2
 

synergy

macrumors regular
Jun 12, 2002
248
0
mrgreen4242 said:
Do you shop at iTMS? If you do, you don't really own any thing you have bought there. You own a license to play that song on up to 5 computers and an unlimited number of iPods. That could change though. With the DRM system Apple uses you don't have much ownership of the actual song, as you would have to break the law (DMCA) in order to use it should Apple go under or decide to stop making iPods/iTunes, etc.

You're really renting it for 99cents for a "lifetime" of use.

Funny. When I burned iTunes songs I bought onto a CD I take them anywhere they want. If Apple changes the DRM on the song on my computer, then fine. I still have the CD. The license is more expansive then you suggest.
 

cubist

macrumors 68020
Jul 4, 2002
2,075
0
Muncie, Indiana
Veldek said:
I find it a little far fetched, that only because someone is hired who had to do with a subscription model before, it is speculated about an iTunes subscription model.

I agree with you there. More likely she's been hired to make improvements in .Mac, wouldn't you think?
 

coolfactor

macrumors 604
Jul 29, 2002
6,993
9,587
Vancouver, BC
pilzbury said:
I hope it doesnt go all subscription based. I think that would stink. Maybe a option between both. Or something like that. But I think its stupid paying $10+ a month for music you will never actually own. I think thats what makes iTMS unique. You actually get something for your money. Your not throwing money down the tubes for music you will never get to keep if you ever decide to cancel your account. Like Napster. Hence probably why Napster hasn't done as well as iTMS.

If you cancel your Apple ID account, your music will no longer play, yet you'll own it. It's a free account, but still cancellable.
 

coolfactor

macrumors 604
Jul 29, 2002
6,993
9,587
Vancouver, BC
the_mole1314 said:
Here's my idea...

...

Now, as Napster says, do the math.

$20 * 18 = $360
$.20 * 1,001 = $200.2
$360 + $200.2 = $560.2


Yes, but you're missing one crucial factor... simplicity. That's the Apple difference, and your plan only makes people think.
 

tdewey

macrumors regular
Jul 7, 2003
139
0
fpnc said:
However, I think one of the main advantages of a subscription-based service is that it allows you to preview COMPLETE selections or CDs. This is one of the main shortcomings with the current iTunes, sometimes you can't tell exactly what you're getting based upon the 30-second preview (that's particularly true if you've never heard the song before, because you start to wonder what the entire song sounds like). Subscriptions would also allow you to preview a wider range of music (i.e. you can "discover" new songs or performers). Thus, I would actually like to see Apple offer a subscription service.

I like the current model. But I agree the 30-sec preview is so short as to be annoying.
 

wdlove

macrumors P6
Oct 20, 2002
16,568
0
I wouldn't like the idea of paying $10 a month for a service and then not own the music. If they offer this service, it should be optional.
 

Lacero

macrumors 604
Jan 20, 2005
6,637
3
~loserman~ said:
Not so sure about the Fairplay licensing. Apple doesn't make much off of thier iTUNES Music Store. Peter Oppenheimer told us when we were in Cupertino that Apple only makes a few cents profit per song sold. He said that the iTunes store was there to promote iPod sells.

The most important aspect is to license Fairplay as a means get vendor support and make it easier for non-ipod consumers to adopt AAC and Apple's DRM. There is no money to be made currently, but it will become important in keeping Apple's dominance in the music space.
 

benoda

macrumors member
Apr 25, 2003
40
0
wdlove said:
I wouldn't like the idea of paying $10 a month for a service and then not own the music. If they offer this service, it should be optional.

Of course it would be optional. Even with Napster is optional - if you want to buy the songs forever you can, if you want to lease the songs, you can. I really like the idea of more options. $10-15/month for unlimited songs sounds great to me. Then I get to sample everything and buy what I really like!
 

Lacero

macrumors 604
Jan 20, 2005
6,637
3
Perhaps $10 a month of unlimited songs, but at half-bitrate so it discourages wholesale copying. If you want to own a high-quality version, say 192Kbps or 256Kbps version for burning and actual ownage, they you pay 50 cents or 99 cents.
 

RHutch

macrumors 6502
May 21, 2003
311
76
Amsterdam, OH
coolfactor said:
If you cancel your Apple ID account, your music will no longer play, yet you'll own it. It's a free account, but still cancellable.

What music are you talking about? And what Apple ID account? Perhaps I've missed something that you were responding to but didn't quote in your reply. (I've read the entire thread, but I might have missed something.)
 

fpnc

macrumors 68000
Oct 30, 2002
1,979
134
San Diego, CA
tdewey said:
I like the current model. But I agree the 30-sec preview is so short as to be annoying.

Yes, that was my main point and the reason I would like to see a subscription service on iTunes. In that sense, a subscription service is more like a preview for as long as you like until you decide to buy or not. And, as I said before it also opens up the possibility of "discovery" since you can listen to a lot of music before you even consider an individual purchase.

The current 30-second previews can be almost useless. Some of the previews contain a long introduction so that you never hear the actual melody and/or lyrics. That's fine if you already know what you want to buy (but in that case why do you even need the preview?), but it often prevents you from knowing what the song is really like if you've never heard it before (like the "B" side of a hit song, or the CD contents that never get any radio play).

However, I think the real issue here is whether the music industry is going to tolerate the massive opportunity for illegal sharing and copying that subscription-based PC systems allow. If anyone ever breaks the DRM on the subscription-based content then there is going to be a huge backlash from the music companies. Can you imagine if someone found a way to unlock the DRM with one click of the mouse (using a true DRM-breaking utility, not with the analog or real-time methods that already exist). In only a few minutes someone could potentially unlock their entire subscription collection that might consist of literally thousands and thousands of songs. And such a "crack" would only have to happen once (for anyone willing to use it), since the DRM'd content would already be on each user's PC.

For the above reason, I think subscription-based services will eventually be limited to running on dedicated devices (and not on the PC). What will happen is that the DRM content will only be allowed to exist on the non-PC playback device (the DRM will thus be locked into the embedded hardware). Thus in a situation like this your iPod-like device would actually connect directly to the subscription service and the music would never physically reside on your PC's hard disk. Then, the only way to get the music off of the playback device would be though the analog output (headphone/speaker out). In that sense, it would be almost like a programable radio (but be a completely "closed" system as far as digital duplication).

One could imagine a set-top box that offered both subscription-based audio and video. It would not be a "normal" PC and thus couldn't run software to "crack" and transfer the digital content. Then you could devise a custom hardware interface that would allow you to transfer the media to a portable playback device (which would once again be "closed" to a normal PC).

That's the future as I see it. Those most likely to bring such a system to consumers? I'd say Sony with the Playstation 3 or Microsoft with the XBox 2 or perhaps Apple with a new set-top media system (and the latter wouldn't actually be a Mac).
 

Fender2112

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2002
1,135
374
Charlotte, NC
Lacero said:
In the long run, about 10 years out, most of Apple's music profits will come from the online music store and not the iPod. Why? Eventually, the iPod coolness will wear off and the market will catch up and probably exceed the iPod in terms of ease of use, features and pricing.

Since when has Apple's coolness ever fallen behind the rest of the market. Sure, styles and designs will change along with peoples taste. But Apple has always been ahead of the market in these areas.

Back to the subject I think it will be a wise move for Apple to offer a subscription service. While it's not my preference, there is a demand for. Apple's offering will put a few more nails in the coffin for folks like Napster and Rhapsody. Or at least make it that much harder for them to gain market share.
 

balconycollapse

Cancelled
Aug 7, 2003
213
98
i doubt i would subscribe to such a service, but it certainly works for some people and would take any wind out of napsters sails when they talk about having someting itunes doesn't. it gives people a choice that own an ipod, and people that don't own an ipod who might be enticed by a subscription offer of napster may get an ipod instead if apple offered a subscription. I'm curious what bandwidth and costs of that nature are when offering a subscription.

if your going on vacation...subscribe for a month and fill the pod up with stuff you've never heard for a road trip.

collegs might be more willing to choose itunes system over napster for dorm listening libraries.

all sortsa stuff. plus you know apple would do it right and with the h.264 codec imminent it woudl be a good experiment in the content market for future video rental services etc. Maybe they shoudl buy netflix :)
 

applebum

macrumors 6502
Jul 10, 2003
307
0
SC
I am torn on this issue. I am perfectly happy buying the music I want at 99 cents a pop. So, why would I need a subscription model. But, I do have a ton of music in my shopping cart that I just haven't pulled the trigger on yet because I am just not sure if I want it or not. Being able to listen to those songs for more than just a 30 second preview would help. However, the price point would have to be right and I would love to see a discount for buying songs if you are paying for the subscription. I am certainly not going to napster for their subscription although I would consider it if Apple did one.
 

Doctor Q

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 19, 2002
39,777
7,498
Los Angeles
Steve Jobs doesn't change his mind very often. Since he still hasn't given in to demands for Apple-branded multi-button mice, I don't think he'll change his opinion about owning music either.
 

applebum

macrumors 6502
Jul 10, 2003
307
0
SC
Doctor Q said:
Steve Jobs doesn't change his mind very often. Since he still hasn't given in to demands for Apple-branded multi-button mice, I don't think he'll change his opinion about owning music either.

Hey Doctor Q - seen the latest rumor on the front page yet? :D
 

pithy

macrumors newbie
Mar 1, 2005
21
1
Charlotte
Combination

pilzbury said:
I hope it doesnt go all subscription based. I think that would stink. Maybe a option between both. Or something like that. But I think its stupid paying $10+ a month for music you will never actually own. I think thats what makes iTMS unique. You actually get something for your money. Your not throwing money down the tubes for music you will never get to keep if you ever decide to cancel your account. Like Napster. Hence probably why Napster hasn't done as well as iTMS.

It seems inevitable to me that there will be both subscription and purchase options. The argument that a subscription model is like "throwing money down the tubes," is skewed by the fact that few people actually pay for the music they listen to. If more people actually bought all the cds they listen to, the subsciption model would seem like a great deal.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.