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

Digital Skunk

macrumors G3
Dec 23, 2006
8,096
916
In my imagination
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.


Yes! We should be able to just rent movies and buy the music. Let me rent them for $2 and you have the industry beat. Let me rent them for a $1 and Apple will rule the multimedia world and Red Box will be out of business.
 

Digital Skunk

macrumors G3
Dec 23, 2006
8,096
916
In my imagination
"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!

Trying something and failing at it usually means a backlash of MS fanboys and media. It will most likely give negative comments from the computer world and maybe even cost millions of dollars to setup, then millions more to shut down.
 

Nym

macrumors 6502a
Oct 4, 2006
607
0
Porto, Portugal
Humm, I like owning the music, however, I can't see why Apple doesn't offer a subscription model too, it gives customers the choice of having their music one or both ways.

My only question is that subscription model is like "pirate's heaven", after two days of opening the service to customers a mini-app called iDownloadSubscriptionSongs will appear and that way you'd own all of the iTunes library for 9,99, well, that's the reality.

And BTW, I never bought anything from the iTMS (mainly because I don't actually own a VISA and the iTMS doesn't accept generated virtual VISA cards), still, when you buy an album from the store and you burn it to cd, if you import the songs again will they keep the DRM? Just a curiosity.
 

Digital Skunk

macrumors G3
Dec 23, 2006
8,096
916
In my imagination
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.

That's a good way to look at it. But the one thing I have learned as a former college student is that you don't want too many subscription services if you do not have a steady stream of income, or if you won't be using the full capabilities of the service. Cell phones get used everyday and keep you in contact when you need someone or someone needs you. Car insurance makes sure you can pay to have your car fixed and you can pay the guy you hit. Music subscription....:confused: ... it does help that you can get this song and that song whenever you want but you are paying for songs you may never listen to, and once you cancel the subscription you have NOTHING.
 

Digital Skunk

macrumors G3
Dec 23, 2006
8,096
916
In my imagination
Humm, I like owning the music, however, I can't see why Apple doesn't offer a subscription model too, it gives customers the choice of having their music one or both ways.

My only question is that subscription model is like "pirate's heaven", after two days of opening the service to customers a mini-app called iDownloadSubscriptionSongs will appear and that way you'd own all of the iTunes library for 9,99, well, that's the reality.

And BTW, I never bought anything from the iTMS (mainly because I don't actually own a VISA and the iTMS doesn't accept generated virtual VISA cards), still, when you buy an album from the store and you burn it to cd, if you import the songs again will they keep the DRM? Just a curiosity.

Funny thing is that it will NOT keep the DRM. That was the way I did it before all the software came out that stripped the songs of DRM. I don't know any anymore since I just authorized all the Macs in my family so they can play each others libraries. But once you burn the Audio CD and rip it back you your computer the DRM isn't there.
 

Wildhack

macrumors newbie
Aug 5, 2003
2
0
Montana
Everybody's tastes and habits are a little different

I can't say that my tastes and listening habits lend themselves to a subscription model, but everybody has different tastes and needs. I have to believe that there is a significant section of the market that wants to have temporary access to the entire catalog. Some combination of subscribe-keep might be tempting too. I like the emusic model of paying a set amount each month for a number of downloads. Maybe a set fee for downloading all you want each month and keeping some would be attractive.

That being said, the subscription model for movies would be a great deal for the consumer and would sell a lot more Apple TV's for Apple.
 

Digital Skunk

macrumors G3
Dec 23, 2006
8,096
916
In my imagination
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.

No no no I am sorry... there is nothing subscription about ITS right now even with the evil DRM. If you buy the song I can copy it as many times as I want authorize up to 5 computers and play them there anytime, anywhere (with iPod) and let anyone listen to it when I am near WiFi or in a cave.

Plus... once you burn a CD of the music it strips the DRM

SupeMediaStore.com 100CDs for like $25 on a good deal day. :D
 

Digital Skunk

macrumors G3
Dec 23, 2006
8,096
916
In my imagination
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!

I think the renting movie thing would be like a streaming thing. They would give you a passcode or something you would punch it in then stream the music to your computer then you can stream it over your Apple TV.

Or you will download the movie and get a certain number of watches or days to keep it, then once you play it again it won't let you play it. Tell you that your time is up and ask if you want the file deleted.

Maybe :)
 

BenRoethig

macrumors 68030
Jul 17, 2002
2,729
0
Dubuque, Iowa
Yes! We should be able to just rent movies and buy the music. Let me rent them for $2 and you have the industry beat. Let me rent them for a $1 and Apple will rule the multimedia world and Red Box will be out of business.

Give me a rental scheme similar to vongo at $10 a month and the AppleTV will take off.
 

Digital Skunk

macrumors G3
Dec 23, 2006
8,096
916
In my imagination
I can't say that my tastes and listening habits lend themselves to a subscription model, but everybody has different tastes and needs. I have to believe that there is a significant section of the market that wants to have temporary access to the entire catalog. Some combination of subscribe-keep might be tempting too. I like the emusic model of paying a set amount each month for a number of downloads. Maybe a set fee for downloading all you want each month and keeping some would be attractive.

That being said, the subscription model for movies would be a great deal for the consumer and would sell a lot more Apple TV's for Apple.

That's a good point. Subscribe then if you want a certain song you can pay a discounted amount to actually keep it once you subscription is over.
 

RRK

macrumors 6502
Mar 14, 2007
456
0
USA/Ohio/Columbus
Sorry I didn't read the other three pages but Im glad Jobs made a clarification after that analyst said Apple was eyeing subscription services. So now I think we are nearly guaranteed subscription movie service or tv service. With subscription tv Apple TV will actually be a cable tv alternative which is huge.
 

csimmons

macrumors 6502
Nov 19, 2002
252
0
Stuttgart, Germany
No no no I am sorry... there is nothing subscription about ITS right now even with the evil DRM. If you buy the song I can copy it as many times as I want authorize up to 5 computers and play them there anytime, anywhere (with iPod) and let anyone listen to it when I am near WiFi or in a cave.

Plus... once you burn a CD of the music it strips the DRM

SupeMediaStore.com 100CDs for like $25 on a good deal day. :D

The labels only want Apple to offer music subscriptions because they see Apple as the only one who can generate enough interest in that model due to their market dominance.

The music subscription model has been kicked around by the labels since the mid Nineties. Everyone who has tried it has failed or is failing, so the industry looks to Apple so save their recurring revenue dreams.

Don't think for a second that the artists, producers and publishers would get a fairer share from a successful subscription model. They won't. Trust me.

NOTE: Before I get criticized by subscription model fanboys for my take on the whole subscription service model, know that I current work for Sony / BMG here in Europe, so I know what I'm talking about. :eek:
 

justflie

macrumors 6502a
Nov 29, 2005
888
1
Red Sox Nation
Someone might have already said this, but I'm trying to finish a project and don't have to read all the comments (so why am i posting this anyways?!:p ). The key to this article is that Steve is only saying no subscription to MUSIC. Well, at least from reading the Macrumors summary, there's no mention of video. I think they will move to a subscription and/or renting option for video for those with AppleTV and the like. This (hopefully) wouldn't replace the pay-to-own model, but would rather be complimentary to the current model. If you want to watch a movie one night but probably never again, rent it for $4 and have it be playable for 3 days or something. That would work in my book.
 

grahamtriggs

macrumors regular
Jul 31, 2003
169
86
MUSIC = BUY
MOVIES = RENT

This assumes a number of things - the amount of times you want to watch a film vs. the amount of times you might listen to an album, that with a rental you have to give it back after a brief period of time, that the rental costs are unit based and much lower than buying.

None of which is necessarily true. Download music subscriptions are a great additional service that let's you pick and try things as you want, all at a fixed cost. It's not a complete replacement for owning music, but given all the associated problems with downloads (DRM, backing up content, etc.) - I think it's a great move for downloads.

For owning music, I'll stick to buying true high quality products (ie. CD, SACD, etc.)
 

lmalave

macrumors 68000
Nov 8, 2002
1,614
0
Chinatown NYC
Love subscriptions, love my Sansa Connect

I love subscriptions and I love my Sansa Connect. Sure, the elegance of the hardware and interface can't compare to the iPod, but Apple would do well to copy Sansa's and Yahoo Music's features that aid consumers in Music Discovery.

Examples:
- Being able to listen to internet radio stations (the iPhone may eventually add this when it gets updated to 3G or WiMax)
- Being able to listen to *custom* radio stations (it'll dynamically create playlists based on songs you've rated). This is a killer feature that Yahoo, Rhapsody, etc. have, but iTunes has yet to add
- Being able to immediately download a song you hear on the internet radio (or, for that matter, the whole album that the song is on). This is *the* killer feature, in my opinon. Granted, this feature is much more useful with a subscription model, since there is no additional incremental cost to downloading more songs, so you are more likely to download the song since it's not going to cost you $1 a pop.
- For any song you hear on the radio (or even one you're playing from your own library), you can select "make a mix like this song" and hear (supposedly) similar music.

But yes, there's the whole "not owning your music" bit. In my opinion most people just have a reflexive resistance to not "owning" their music. just because it's not what they're used to. The way to think of it is this: you get enjoyment out of *listening* to music, not owning it. Before subscriptions, the value you got from owning a song was that it was the *only* way to listen to a song whenever you wanted (rather than waiting for it to come back on the radio or something). But subscriptions give you another way to have a local copy of that song (or just a bookmark the stream if you prefer) so that you can play it whenever you want.

Yes, you would "lose" the song when you quit the subscription service, but you can always download/bookmark the song again at whatever subscription service you are switching to. It's just the chance you take. Basically you have to weigh the annoyance of having to download all your music again (though at no additional cost if you're just switching to another subscription), versus the tremendous value provided by unlimited downloads. For me the decision was easy - I'm downloading maybe 100 songs a week (through the music discovery features. If I hear a song I like I just select "download entire album", and I'll do that maybe 10 times a week).

The value provided by the unlimited downloads is just so extremely compelling that the "switching cost" of changing to another music provider is just not a big deal. Especially considering that that switching cost is non-monetary, it's just the annoyance of having to download all of your music again. And I'm sure if the subscription model becomes more popular, people will come up with a solution to the "switching" problem. For example: software that allows you to save your library as a huge playlist text file, and then when you join the new service it goes down that list of songs and automatically downloads them all....

Anyway, people that keep ripping the subscription model but haven't tried it are really missing out. You really won't know until you've tried it for yourself...
 

CommodityFetish

macrumors regular
May 31, 2006
165
0
Syracuse, NY
"Rent-to-Own"

If you're going to have a subscription model, make it so that you don't lose everything if you stop subscribing. ie - let the equivalent of half (or some percentage) of the money I've spent on the subscription become credit towards buying and owning whatever songs I want.

That sounds like what "customers would want" - the best of both worlds. Of course it's not really about the customers is it?
 

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,565
That's a good point. Subscribe then if you want a certain song you can pay a discounted amount to actually keep it once you subscription is over.

That would be my idea: Pay $15 a month for a subscription, and it allows you to buy up to $30 a month at half price. So if you spend $30 a month anyway then the subscription is basically free.
 

Evangelion

macrumors 68040
Jan 10, 2005
3,374
147
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?

In those economic calculations, retail is also considered a "service". And are you saying that renting music is a good idea because we are moving towards service-economy? By that logic, it's a good idea to stop eating, since we are moving away from agriculture.
 

kzin

macrumors 6502
Jul 20, 2005
304
0
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.

And clearly, if you and Blockbuster think it should be a certain way, then that's how it should be. People don't need choices, they need corporations and random individuals to lock them in to particular modes that might satisfy most people, even if they don't satisfy all people.


Frankly, as a film buff, I _DO_ want to buy certain films. The idea that I shouldn't have that option is absolutely asinine.

I want the option to rent most movies, and buy the ones that I might want to keep. And, honestly, NO current vendor has the right model for this. I can subscribe to netflix and tell them I "lost" a movie, but then I don't get the full set of a box set, the nice box for the disk, nor the booklet that goes with it. I just get one disk at a time. That's stupid. I can't just easily convert my rental from blockbuster into a purchase (and if I just forget to return the rental, I also don't get the box, the booklet, etc.). That's also stupid (but practical, considering the inventory realities of blockbuster's rental model).

I should be able to subscribe and sample what I want without owning it, and then choose to keep/own longer term copies of things that I decide are worth owning. This is true for both movies and music.

And, ideally, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between "owned from the start" and "converted from subscription/rental to owned". Buying it would immediately get you all of the extra stuff (booklet, bonus disks, cover art, etc.).


So, no, Steve Jobs doesn't have it right. I would immediately sign up for a subscription to iTunes, and if the songs I download that way aren't going to be permanently available in my library, then I would ALSO buy songs from iTunes when I came across something that I know I want to keep in my collection forever. And I might ALSO buy CD's (I still do that, too).

iTunes ought to give you:

a) an option for subscriptions to all of their data (all types: movies, tv shows, songs), but that you wont keep indefinitely (stop being able to play it if your subscription lapses or can't be verified for some reason?)
b) an option for "renting" data (like a subscription but with a one time watch/listen, something like $.10 to listen to a song once ... and it may or may not count as a discount if you buy the song) (or, instead of "one time", it would be "unlimited times in 24 hours" or something).
c) an option for the current model of buying copies of data, that will stay in your library even if your subscription lapses, or you're in a situation where the device can't verify your subscription, etc.
d) an option to buy PDFs and similar material that duplicates the box-art and booklets that go with the other data if you had bought physical versions of it.
e) an option for buying non-DRM data, based upon the policy of the individual IP owner, instead of based upon a store-wide policy.


If iTunes did all of that, I can imagine iTunes eventually being my only source of this music/movies/tv. Though, that somewhat depends on how easy it is to access old/classic movies, which is a bit easier to do with netflix. But if the netflix and itunes catalogs were identical, and iTunes offered all of the above choices, I wouldn't want/need netflix at all. I'd probably drop DirecTV too.
 

kerryn

macrumors regular
Apr 12, 2007
114
0
I like the subscription (rental) model. I have been using it for nearly 2 years now in the Windows world.

The ability to pay $9.99 per month and have access to 2 million songs is far more valuable to me than paying 99c per track.

In the time I have subscribed I may have bought a couple of hundred songs, which I might typically get bored with quite quickly. Instead I have about 14,000 subscription songs that I can access so I do not get bored with the music and I am finding constant variety and new artists all the time. This is where subscription music excels the ability to explore new artists and genres without feeling that you are wasting money on a song of unknown quality (if you were to buy).

Do I own the music? No. I do not care. The way I look at it, to purchase 14,000 songs via itunes would cost around $14,000. I do not have that much to spend on music. However, even if I did, $14,000 would buy 116 years of subscription music at $10/ month - so I am not going to worry about the fact that I am paying per month for the right to listen to music.

Plus in 116 years - apart from being 6 feed under, I would have listened to a whole lot more that 14,000 songs.

I believe subscription has a future, I am surprised that people here are so hostile to it. The solution is simple. iTunes should offer two models for music delivery. Purchase and subscription.

People can purchase their music if they want (though I would only do it if it were lossless and DRM free) and others can subscribe - explore their music and still buy if they want. The two models models are not mutually exclusive.

I use Yahoo! for my subscriptions. Now Yahoo! kind of sucks but the subscription service is excellent with good quality 196kbps WMA tracks.

Do not bash what you do not know, until you have tried it.
 

Rocketman

macrumors 603
It is my understanding there are already subscription services out there. Use them if you like that paradigm.

As for movies I think the fact that many more people are wiling to consider renting is "bad", but a matter of enculturalization via services like Blockbuster and Netflix that reduce the cost to watch many movies in a series without buying each and every one of them, thus reducing total cost. So maybe with movies BOTH a rental model and a purchase model is the way to go.

Plenty of folks buy a DVD or VHS of a movie they have viewed and LIKE. Heck, maybe even a trial viewing scheme of movies of say two trials per movie purchased and a "viewing fee" beyond that. So it is a hybrid between purchase and rent using a purchase software model.

I am in favor of a buy paradigm for both, but some form of "trial or reduced cost review" is needed as some movies are loosers and no way do I want to purchase that *&&^% and support the moron who made it :)

Rocketman
 

mrthieme

macrumors regular
Nov 29, 2006
209
0
Sorry I didn't read the other three pages but Im glad Jobs made a clarification after that analyst said Apple was eyeing subscription services. So now I think we are nearly guaranteed subscription movie service or tv service. With subscription tv Apple TV will actually be a cable tv alternative which is huge.
You hit the nail on the head with the cable tv alternative, Apple seems to want iTunes to be the pipe through which we consume all our media. The only problem to me it seems is that for 50 bucks a month I can watch a ton of cable progamming if I choose, but could only buy 25 tv shows through iTunes as it stands right now, and for the most part I am not interested in owning tv programs.

Where iTunes could easily better cable subscriptions is in the diverse variety of niche programming that can be provided instead of the broad market fluff Comcast pipes into my house each month. If Apple can strike the right pricing model with video on iTunes, working in conjunction with the :apple: TV I will gladly cancel cable.
 

lifeboy001

macrumors member
Apr 18, 2005
41
0
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.

Eh, I say the same thing to everybody I know. Meanwhile, I don't have to spend an extra $120-$180 per year to retain my 10000+ tracks. How many people here have already spent 15 or more years of their life collecting music? Maybe the little kids that post here find this a worthwhile transaction, but if you've already invested any more than a thousand dollars or so into a collection, it just doesn't make sense economically.
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,241
6
i will not subscribe to music.
movies i would though. i'm finding myself re-watching movies less and less. depends on the flick though. so a subscription movie service would rock (especially with a discount to own/purchase) and i would be using it all the time.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.