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

Steve Jobs: Customers Don't Seem Interested in Music Subscriptions

"people want to own their music."

True, but he didnt say anything about videos. Hopefully, they will introduce a streaming movie rental service with iTunes movies. Perfect for the AppleTV & for those who dont wanna own every single movie they wanna watch.

Maybe thats what the rumor points to??
 
"Customers Don't Seem Interested in Music Subscriptions"

Really, Steve? Just because you do not like it it doesn't mean we do not like it. Just try it and you will see!
 
peestandingup said:
"people want to own their music."

True, but he didnt say anything about videos. Hopefully, they will introduce a streaming movie rental service with iTunes movies. Perfect for the AppleTV & for those who dont wanna own every single movie they wanna watch.

Maybe thats what the rumor points to??
Click to expand...

I hope so.
While I have no interest in subscription music - I really do want subscription movies.

C
 
rlreif said:
im with you dude
im coming around to the subscription model... at first i wasnt when it was only mainstream crap online, but if i can have access to everything at once, its worth $10/month... thats like buying one new album per month, or 2 beers and a chintsy tip at a bar... i think its actually 4 million songs on itunes now
Click to expand...

OK, so $10 a month = £10 a month going by most US companies. That is insane. £120 a year? I own pretty much all the music I want anyway.

If I had just been born, and wanted lots of new music, this *might* be a cheaper way to do it... but you have to keep paying... forever. Those costs add up. I don't spend that much on music in a year. But that's just me. I have Tool and NIN and many classical tracks. I have a 30GB library and only about 100 iTunes songs. Mainly bacuse it's £0.79 here. That is not $0.99. £0.79 is more like $1.58 - so they can get stuffed.
 
This surprises me, but I guess it's in line with many of the responses so far.

I subscribe to Rhapsody and love it. When people come over I ask them what they want to hear. They say "what do you have?" and I say "everything". It's really amazing. I am willing to pay $100/year to have ALL MUSIC. New album just came out? Have it. Old song I haven't heard in a while? Have it. Album I have never heard from a favorite band? Have it. It's a different way of thinking about things, but it's great. I stopped buying from iTunes, and I was looking forward to considering it again if they added a subscription model.
 
Evangelion said:
This is a case where people need to be protected from their own stupidity.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY! Oh, subscription music sounds nice...until the day your car gets wrecked & has to be fixed, then the rents due the next day, plus your dog gets sick & has to go to the vet. You would like to eat that month, so WOOPS, there goes all my music.
 
The subscription model is something that definitely sounds good in theory, but with something like iTunes, Apple isn't going to make a 'prosumer' and 'consumer' package like they do with their computers.

Really, think about it, can you imagine the PR nightmare of having to explain to some internet n00b that they can't access ANY of their music ever again because they've decided that they haven't been downloading enough songs in the past few months to make it worth the monthly fee?
 
What I don't understand is why so many people here act as if subscriptions are substitutes, rather than complements to buying. Services like Yahoo and Real also offer downloads for keeps with lower prices as Apple ($0.89 or $0.79). You can listen to the entire catalog as long as you keep paying, which is great to discover new music, and buy what you really like to keep. The main reason that they're not more popular is that they don't play on iPods.

Let's face it, if one or two years from now Steve suddenly changes his mind and does offer subscriptions --not instead but in addition to buying, just like Yahoo and Real--, everybody would think it's the best thing since sliced bread. Just like with video downloads.
 
The nay-sayers either don't listen to much music, have a hell of a lot of money, or have some knee-jerk reaction to DRM.

I love music. I want to hear as much as I can all the time. I want to hear NEW music, not the same songs over and over again. I don't want the radio to pick it for me (I only trust a couple of DJs to do that). A subscription model is perfect for me, and it's perfect for the vast majority of Under 25s for whom music is something to be consumed for a couple of weeks, and then you move onto the next set of new songs.

The pitch is simple: Buy an iPod, pay $10 a month, and listen to whatever you want, whenever you want. It's easy money, and, from most reports, exactly what the record companies want.

If you want to "own" (I put it in quotes because I don't entirely agree that you do own your music with iTMS DRM) your music, go ahead. The subscription model would just add another string to the bow.

Why Steve is putting up a smokescreen is anyone's guess. There is a definite market for it, it's an easy contract to sign and it's easily implemented. I think he may just be out of touch, or his thinking is entirely railroaded into getting DRM off music, and that by accepting the model, is actually validating it (which, to be honest, is a very GOOD use for DRM).
 
koobcamuk said:
OK, so $10 a month = £10 a month going by most US companies. That is insane. £120 a year? I own pretty much all the music I want anyway.
Click to expand...

Dude, what? That's an album a month from the high street, as opposed to as many albums as you want all the time. Your maths is crazy.
 
So, after paying all this money, at the end, I've got nothing tangible to show for it - I just get to 'listen' to the music?

Um... isn't that called a 'radio'?? :confused:

Ang
 
I would be interested in a subscription service simply because it allows you to sample as much music as you want for very little money.

It would also be great as (at least on a PC) you could copy the music whilst it was playing and keep it! A bit time consuming, but a lot less than buying all the music you can copy.

However, as previously stated there would be minimal financial gain for Apple as any money gained would probably go back in to maintaining issues in synching and DRM.

Bit of a shame really!
 
My 2 Cents...

1) Subscriptions? for Movies, yes, since I usually watch once or twice then forget about it. For Music....
2) ....if there are DRM-free versions then I'd rather "buy" those and "own" them because I listen to a good song many times over. However, I don't consider that I "own" anything that has DRM, so until iTunes is free of DRM I consider it more of a subscription model anyway.
 
Not sure if I am going to explain my thought correctly and clearly but here goes...

What is in for the record companies? And more importantly what is in it for hte artists? A physical CD gives them a revenue stream so does a digital download. Now, if I pay $20 a month for a subscription service and I have 300 or so songs on my computer from 5 different labels how is this divided amongst the labels? Now let's say I add another 70 songs all from one label - all the U2 tracks for example - would the other labels now get less from me as a percentage of my total subscription? This is what I don't get? Sure the labels would continue to get revenue from me every month I keep their songs as opposed to a one off purchase, but I would swap and change what I have on my computer and listen to on a regular basis. So a song that is stuck in my head 'cause someone was whistling it would be on my computer for a few days till I ended up hating it ( 'Bad Day' is a good example). I may have downloaded it for 99c previously but now it is on and off my computer in an instant - what does the label and/or artist get? Of course, if I currently spend $30 - 40 a month on avergae on music a rental service would be cheaper for me, but not the labels.

Now here is the kicker (for me anyway) I live in Japan and will probably do so for a few more years. Once I leave the country all my investment in a subscription service will be down the plug-hole if i cannot take it with me. All that money and nothing to show for it?
Don't know if it is clear but I don't think this is a good business model for a record label?
 
donlphi said:
I agree with all the first two comments I read. I want to OWN my music. I'll listen to a song countless times. Movies on the other hand would be better off rented. I don't like the BUYING movie concept. You are going to watch a movie a few times max, and that MIGHT be in a 3 year time span.

MUSIC = BUY
MOVIES = RENT

Blockbuster got it right years ago. No need to try and reinvent the wheel.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with that....
My only concern is that do you really want to movie files on your system that doesn't work after a period of time (x days, x weeks, x months)? Who would be responsible for deleting them? I am Apple fan, but I don't want iTunes flagging the WRONG files for deletion and doing so!
 
Angsty said:
So, after paying all this money, at the end, I've got nothing tangible to show for it - I just get to 'listen' to the music?
Click to expand...
Yes. Economists call this a service, specifically, an entertainment service, and people are paying money for it. In fact, in most developed countries, services make up the majority of economic activity. Crazy, isn't it?

Um... isn't that called a 'radio'?? :confused:

Ang
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. Radio's don't give you access to their entire catalog on demand, and are normally funded through ads or taxes.
 
Music subscriptions I'm not interested in at all. Video subscriptions on the other hand, I'm very interested in. I hope Steve is able to tell the difference between the two.
 
Curtis72 said:
Pretty much agree with that....
My only concern is that do you really want to movie files on your system that doesn't work after a period of time (x days, x weeks, x months)? Who would be responsible for deleting them? I am Apple fan, but I don't want iTunes flagging the WRONG files for deletion and doing so!
Click to expand...

i'm sure apple could implement a method of deleting songs you don't actually own.
 
but what are they not talking about.

i agree i want to own my music.

BUT, i would love to rent movies and tv shows!

look at blockbuster/netflix, the rental game is where its at.
 
Lixivial said:
And let's face it, the poster boys for this method haven't exactly been having their wallets explode with income.
Click to expand...

People would probably be saying the same thing about online music sales if it wasn't for iTMS.

Online music subscription options are extremely limited right now and any conclusions about demand seem very spurious while it is not available through the 80% (ish) market share holder and on the 80% (ish) market share portable device.
 
Ew Subscriptions!

No thanks.
Subscriptions look good from a companies perspective - a great way to keep a steady income stream that is easily quantified.

Apple could do this for the Record companies quite easily - but I won't be signing up for it.
I don't want a subscription set-up for Music.
I don't want a subscription setup for Movies either.

I AM very keen for better quality and DRM free music.
Bring THAT on!
 
What no-one seems to have pointed out yet is that if you have a subscription with a company, and that company goes bust, or no longer supports that service anymore (iTunes will not last forever), then what are you going to do? You'll have spent years paying a subscription, only for all of your music to disappear. Buying your music gives you the security that it is yours and you have control over it.
 
This is probably a stupid question, but can you burn the songs onto cds? I guess not, because the drm would be unusable, but this presents another issue, I would be efectively limited to playing my music on my ipod or computer... At least with itunes drm'ed music you can still burn it and play it on regular cd players...

I don't know in the US, but I'm sure the EU would have some serious beef with that model...
 
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