No Music Subscription Service Next Week

[DaBrain]

According to CNet sources, Apple will not be introducing an iTunes subscription service next week.According to the article, Apple simply has not acquired such licensing from music labels at this time.

The rumor was revived after a claimed transcript of events was broadcast to several sites. These supposed transcripts are easy to fake, however, and have never been found to be accurate.

Still the possibility of Apple introducing a subscription service has some basis in reality, as the earlier rumors have described that Apple has been in negotiations for this possibility.

Article Link

For what it's worth the last paragraph in the linked article states:

Most people that I talked to connected with digital music are guessing that Apple's announcement will focus on iPods. But again, they don't know for sure.

So how is this a new rumor?

 

[Lesser Evets]

NEWS FLASH:

World will NOT end tomorrow.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

If they are going to have subscription-based services...these should be included in the price of any goods they sell that require using the service.

That would seem very, very unlikely. The monetary driver of a subscription service is much like cable/satt or any other rentals. You get to enjoy the use of something as long as you keep paying, but own nothing after you stop paying.

To do what you are suggesting would be the same as setting a price for a person to rent basically ALL of the content in the itunes store, including future content to be added. In other words, the content owners would still want to get their (subscription) value paid to them. If it was (one time) priced into the product, that ipod would have a high price, probably based on something like how long that ipod would probably remain functional vs. the total value of a monthly subscription rate paid on the fly.

For example, if the content owners wanted a combined- say- $10 per month in subscription fees, they might estimate that the (one time fee) ipod would last about 48 months. 48 * $10 = $480 minus a little since you are paying up front (of course with the music industry mentality, they might think it should have an additional premium due to convenience or something). So let's say $400 to be added to the price of the ipod- say mid-level touch at $399- and you have a $799 ipod with prepaid subscription for the life of the (that ipod) product.

After that ipod dies, you own none of the songs you kept on it via prepaid subscription.

Would a $799 16gb ipod touch be a hit?

 

[scotty96LSC]

Disappointed, but life will go on.

 

[Nicolecat]

That would seem very, very unlikely. The monetary driver of a subscription service is much like cable/satt or any other rentals. You get to enjoy the use of something as long as you keep paying, but own nothing after you stop paying.

To do what you are suggesting would be the same as setting a price for a person to rent basically ALL of the content in the itunes store, including future content to be added. In other words, the content owners would still want to get their (subscription) value paid to them. If it was (one time) priced into the product, that ipod would have a high price, probably based on something like how long that ipod would probably remain functional vs. the total value of a monthly subscription rate paid on the fly.

For example, if the content owners wanted a combined- say- $10 per month in subscription fees, they might estimate that the (one time fee) ipod would last about 48 months. 48 * $10 = $480 minus a little since you are paying up front (of course with the music industry mentality, they might think it should have an additional premium due to convenience or something). So let's say $400 to be added to the price of the ipod- say mid-level touch at $399- and you have a $799 ipod with prepaid subscription for the life of the (that ipod) product.

After that ipod dies, you own none of the songs you kept on it via prepaid subscription.

Would a $799 16gb ipod touch be a hit?

I suppose more along the lines of what I was getting at...is the initial subscription rate. What if an itunes user, doesn't want to use it to 'download' music...but rather to rip all the music they already have? Are we now saying that someone that doesn't want to download stuff will have to pay a subscription just to use itunes services? If so...I'm going to be highly upset.

I could be misreading the idea behind it however...in which case, my bad.

 

[medicstl]

Yeah, totally. An event named "Let's Rock" should absolutely be about a tablet. I guess it could work if the tablet had a subwoofer.

Sweet a Sub-Woofer in a tablet would be...Hawt!/Sarcasm... I was actually hoping they would do something smart and announce the new MB. I'm in total limbo about purchasing one now as a result of rumors

 

[iWesley]

You can't "force" people to buy a subscription by adding the cost to products. The best option may be to offer it to MobileMe subscribers. That upgrade from dot Mac was a huge bust and I have no intention of renewing once the free 90 day extension expires. But if that included an iTunes subscription....

 

[Loge]

Steve also hated the idea of video on iPods...

... only until Apple had the technology ready to produce one. However, with subscriptions, Apple could have done this years ago if they thought it was a good idea.

Apple will only do subscriptions if they can see a huge profit in it for them, this seems very unlikely on the terms the record companies are going to offer, so not surprisingly this is not happening.

And emusic.com is not a subscription service in the way that is discussed here, that is renting an entire catalogue for the duration of your subscription. emusic is simply a purchase model dressed up to look like a subscription.

 

[Eric S.]

You can't "force" people to buy a subscription by adding the cost to products. The best option may be to offer it to MobileMe subscribers. That upgrade from dot Mac was a huge bust and I have no intention of renewing once the free 90 day extension expires. But if that included an iTunes subscription....

I think tying a music subscription to MobileMe is highly unlikely. The subscription price would not be simply going into Apple's pocket; that would have to cover the cost that Apple pays to the record companies from a renegotiated royalty agreement. And the record companies would want plenty to open up their catalogs for unlimited use. I can't see Apple just taking a bath on that in order to get a few more MobileMe customers.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I suppose more along the lines of what I was getting at...is the initial subscription rate. What if an itunes user, doesn't want to use it to 'download' music...but rather to rip all the music they already have? Are we now saying that someone that doesn't want to download stuff will have to pay a subscription just to use itunes services? If so...I'm going to be highly upset.

Yes, that's not going to happen. Your music will be your music. The basic idea behind the subscription rumor is having access to (up to) ALL of the music on iTunes (you don't already own) as long as you keep paying "the rent."

If Apple tried to make just using iTunes (and thus iPods) a subscription-required situation, the backlash- even from the fanboys/girls here- would likely be harsher than any we've ever seen.

 

[Argon4k]

Yes, that's not going to happen. Your music will be your music. The basic idea behind the subscription rumor is having access to (up to) ALL of the music on iTunes (you don't already own) as long as you keep paying "the rent."

So if you decide to cancel your subscription service, you no longer have the music? I don't like this idea. I'd much rather have a subscription fee to own all the music permanently. I'd rather just pay the $0.99 per song if this is the case.

 

[iWesley]

A traditional subscription works like satellite radio. You can listen as much as you want but if you stop paying there's no music. I would do it if the conditions were right because I would have access to music I wouldn't otherwise. I'm not paying .99 cents for a song based on a 30 second sample. But let me listen to anything on the store for a few bucks a month and I'm in. Most of it I wouldn't care to keep anyway.

Any iTunes subscription service would be optional and would not replace purchasing or disable the ability to rip your own tunes. But Apple always does things a bit differently so who knows how an Apple subscription would work.

I like the idea but I would be happy to have a good solution that allows me to listen to my own library on my iPhone.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

So if you decide to cancel your subscription service, you no longer have the music? I don't like this idea. I'd much rather have a subscription fee to own all the music permanently. I'd rather just pay the $0.99 per song if this is the case.

Right. What you want is what iTunes offers now. Buy the songs and keep them for life. The subscription idea is not an either/or idea (meaning the existing iTunes model would stick around too).

What this subscription concept is about is having the ability to have any of the songs in iTunes available to you as long as you keep paying a monthly fee. So instead of owning a few hundred or a few thousand songs, you can tap into a couple of million songs and treat them like you own them, as long as you keep paying for the subscription each month.

I'm very much in the camp of owning songs- not renting them. But for those that want a very broad variety of songs and can't afford to actually buy all of them, I can see some merit in a subscription offering.

 

[Eric S.]

So if you decide to cancel your subscription service, you no longer have the music?

That's correct. You certainly wouldn't have access to the music catalog, although I don't know how they would enforce removing what you have already downloaded to your devices.

I have seen an alternate suggestion that would tie an up-front fee to a single device (iPod) for the life of that device. A newly purchased device would then have to start over and re-download everything.

I don't like this idea. I'd much rather have a subscription fee to own all the music permanently.

But how would that work? What happens if you stop paying the subscription? Or are you saying that you want to pay one fee up front? That would have to be a pretty darn big fee, essentially buying all the music they have or ever will have.

I'd rather just pay the $0.99 per song if this is the case.

So would I. And given that my downloaded music is less than 5% of my collection (the rest ripped from my own CDs), I personally would choose not to deal with the store if it went to subscription-only.

 

[happydude]

so no music subscription, what does "let's rock" or whatever the press release was mean?

 

[gadgetgirl85]

so no music subscription, what does "let's rock" or whatever the press release was mean?

I'm hoping somehow that it's related to the release of notebooks. Unlikely, but I can still wish

 

[bushido]

i expect them to announce nike+ for the iPhone, iPod Touch and new Nano

 

[happydude]

i expect them to announce nike+ for the iPhone, iPod Touch and new Nano

is nike+ really practical for the iphone? when i'm out running, having something huge clanging on my arm isn't exactly what i want to have. i'd get bruised training for any long races with it bouncing and banging into my arm over and over.

 

[RyanGirtler]

is nike+ really practical for the iphone? when i'm out running, having something huge clanging on my arm isn't exactly what i want to have. i'd get bruised training for any long races with it bouncing and banging into my arm over and over.

I would agree with the size of the iphone being awkward, but I would really like to have GPS tracking my run, maybe the new nano would have GPS and nike +. Then all they need is an HR monitor and I am set.

RG

 

[s.hoz]

See, I think they should apply a Subscription Service. For me, I download and buy SO much music, and I'm always finding new bands to add to my list, it just makes sense to have a To Go service like Rhapsody's.