Well said. The ability to enjoy the entire iTunes catalog for a small monthly fee would be a great addition to the ability to buy albums you really want at a higher bitrate and without drm.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know I'm only repeating the same thing a lot of people already said, but I'm also in the "buy music, rent movies/tv shows" camp.
Of course, some movies I do want to own (The Fifth Element, Terminator 2, Spaceballs, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Army of Darkness, etc), but most of the time I only watch them once (anything recent).
Of course, some movies I do want to own (The Fifth Element, Terminator 2, Spaceballs, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Army of Darkness, etc), but most of the time I only watch them once (anything recent).
I feel the same as most of you. Music subscriptions are bad. I tend to listen to some songs frequently and don't want to pay over & over for it. On the other hand, I've bought a few songs on iTunes I didn't like so I wasted 99 cents. After a while, that adds up. Also, I've accidently deleted tracks I wanted. Would be nice if Apple would let people redownload for free or maybe a small 1-2 cent charge to cover bandwidth charges.
Movies, I can see on a subscription plan, with an option to buy like Blockbuster. Don't really know what the best subscription type is (if there is one): Netflix/Blockbuster where you get X number of movies at a time and you'll get more when you return them, or an unlimited amount of movies/month or whatever.
The thing I don't like about subscriptions is the music/movies are already made when you get them. The company doesn't have to do anything to keep them working after you get them. Only thing you'll have to pay for is the electricity to power your computer/iPod/whatever.
Movies, I can see on a subscription plan, with an option to buy like Blockbuster. Don't really know what the best subscription type is (if there is one): Netflix/Blockbuster where you get X number of movies at a time and you'll get more when you return them, or an unlimited amount of movies/month or whatever.
The thing I don't like about subscriptions is the music/movies are already made when you get them. The company doesn't have to do anything to keep them working after you get them. Only thing you'll have to pay for is the electricity to power your computer/iPod/whatever.
Here's my beef:
I like some pretty obscure music. If I pay $120 a year for all of iTunes, only to find that one day that record company bailed out and my favorites are gone, I'd be pissed.
It's about controlling your own destiny. I'd rather know what I have and know that I have it indefinitely, than to worry about what some sleazy, money hungry record company is going to do to screw me tomorrow.
I like some pretty obscure music. If I pay $120 a year for all of iTunes, only to find that one day that record company bailed out and my favorites are gone, I'd be pissed.
It's about controlling your own destiny. I'd rather know what I have and know that I have it indefinitely, than to worry about what some sleazy, money hungry record company is going to do to screw me tomorrow.
Music subscriptions, no way. Movie subscriptions...now we're talking, replace my netflix and i'm interested.
Personally, I'm all for the subscription method, I think it'd be great, especially with a library as extensive as iTunes. I hope Jobs reconsiders, because I'll be the first person in line to subscribe =)
subscription music
Geez... Haven't you ever dreamed of being able to turn on your music player and listen to any kind of music you happen to be in the mood for at that moment??? For $6 a month on Yahoo! Unlimited, you can listen to anything in the library as many times as you want. It's especially good for listening to new stuff that you're not sure you want to buy and you won't find on the P2Ps yet. On iTunes, all you get is a 30 sec sample (thanks a lot, Steve). But even an Arrowsmith freak might want to play some Josh Groban for a romantic evening at home (I suppose some of you have girlfriends?). Of course, you can record the stuff if you are a little bit resourceful, but it takes time, just as it takes time to sort through all the fake and poorly recorded files on the P2Ps. I hope Steve will change his mind, cause I'm tired of running two computer all the time...
Geez... Haven't you ever dreamed of being able to turn on your music player and listen to any kind of music you happen to be in the mood for at that moment??? For $6 a month on Yahoo! Unlimited, you can listen to anything in the library as many times as you want. It's especially good for listening to new stuff that you're not sure you want to buy and you won't find on the P2Ps yet. On iTunes, all you get is a 30 sec sample (thanks a lot, Steve). But even an Arrowsmith freak might want to play some Josh Groban for a romantic evening at home (I suppose some of you have girlfriends?). Of course, you can record the stuff if you are a little bit resourceful, but it takes time, just as it takes time to sort through all the fake and poorly recorded files on the P2Ps. I hope Steve will change his mind, cause I'm tired of running two computer all the time...
I seem to be missing something. I LOVE my subscription service to Emusic, and I own everything I download there. Steve, sorry, but you are dead wrong on this one. I haven't downloaded a song from iTunes since I started to use Emusic. And most of my friends have drifted towards Emusic as well.
I used napster's subscription service about 3 years ago before taking the plunge to iTunes. While I agree with some of the positives mentioned already (its great when you need a few songs for a party or special ocassion and don't really want to throw down the extra cash to get them) it became a real pain when new releases came out. A lot of files were unable to be rented (buy only) and this seemed to me to just be another way to slowly milk me of my cash.
Not sure if its still the same these days (or if other services are similar) but I'd rather just pay up front for everything and own it forever.
Not sure if its still the same these days (or if other services are similar) but I'd rather just pay up front for everything and own it forever.
?? While you pay monthly to be a part of emusic, you download mp3s and own them forever. This is not a subscription service model as this topic relates to. I think this is about the subscription services where you stop paying and your songs stop working...
The high and mighty Steve has spoken so it must be so. Are these the same customers who weren't interested in watching video on such a small screen? The man if full of it. There ARE people out there interested in subscriptions. Maybe not the traditional type of subscriptions but some type. Heck I wouldn't mind spending $10 a month for say 30 temp songs.
The man if full of it. There ARE people out there interested in subscriptions. Maybe not the traditional type of subscriptions but some type. Heck I wouldn't mind spending $10 a month for say 30 temp songs.
I agree with everyone about the own music, subscribe to video ideas, but I can't put my finger on why. I guess because I listen to different types of music all the time and enjoy owning it since I use it frequently, where a movie or TV show usually one-time entertainment. Of course, still offering movies and TV shows for purchase would be important too.
But yeah, the Apple TV is made for things like subscription HD Video, whereas I think the iPod is more for owning stuff. But the labels would love to have a constant source of revenue, and their wishes are paramount.
But yeah, the Apple TV is made for things like subscription HD Video, whereas I think the iPod is more for owning stuff. But the labels would love to have a constant source of revenue, and their wishes are paramount.
I don't think Steve here is right.
I don't mind DRM at all, i think if they remove it, people will just share songs with friends and it will lead to lower record sales, thus harming the artists.
also, i think PPV movie rentals would be awesome, i really don't need to own movies on ITunes. its a way lower quality format than DVD or HD. so i would love to watch and have it expire later, then free up the space on my hard drive.
also subscriptions to music? hell yeah, it's a great way to load up a full music collection without purchasing everything. if i want to burn something to CD, i can always buy some songs. i wouldnt mind having the option between the two. its good thing
I don't mind DRM at all, i think if they remove it, people will just share songs with friends and it will lead to lower record sales, thus harming the artists.
also, i think PPV movie rentals would be awesome, i really don't need to own movies on ITunes. its a way lower quality format than DVD or HD. so i would love to watch and have it expire later, then free up the space on my hard drive.
also subscriptions to music? hell yeah, it's a great way to load up a full music collection without purchasing everything. if i want to burn something to CD, i can always buy some songs. i wouldnt mind having the option between the two. its good thing
I think you're wrong. DRM free music will probably not result in a rise in file sharing. The very fact that CD's are not equipped with digital rights management is proof of this. What would be the main difference between a DRM free album from iTunes and a physical CD that would make any difference at all regarding file sharing? I can still rip the CD's, and into any bit rate and codec I wish, and still share them with everyone.
But I agree about PPV movies. This would be a big step up for the ATV, since there would be no worries about video files eating hard drive space.
Depends on the person. A friend shares a song/album with me. If I don't like it I'll trash it. If I like it I'll buy more from that artist. Or I'll go see the band when they're in town. It's called free publicity. Not everyone is mean and evil.
Exactly. Not all freebies here and there is some horrible act of piracy. Would you tell your friends "Sorry dude, I can't lend you my CD, it takes food out of the artists' mouths"?
I've had friends give me CD's copied from their own, and have had others email me songs and I've done likewise, which also resulted in them either deleting the files or looking for more stuff from those artists and purchasing them. Sharing music here and there isn't wrong...if anything, it's builds the market for the artists' work in general.
I've had friends give me CD's copied from their own, and have had others email me songs and I've done likewise, which also resulted in them either deleting the files or looking for more stuff from those artists and purchasing them. Sharing music here and there isn't wrong...if anything, it's builds the market for the artists' work in general.
Wow, the record companies would love this. What if the subscription model became the prevailing method of music delivery? Can you imagine how incrediblly *****TY the music would become! The record companies would have guaranteed recurring income and no incentive to sign and develop new artists especially artist in niche markets. Pay your fee and you get what the record companies decide you want!
I like iTunes. buy the song I want without having to buy the rest of the CD I don't want, @ $17 a pop. most 'artists' at best have only 1-3 songs per album even worth listening to, let alone buying. it's not my fault that Record Company's sign these guy's & girls to unwarranted 'bookoo' contracts. I'm too selective, and a 'subscription' would be useless to me. I'll go back to Borders if I have too. at least I can look at the College Girls Gone Caffeine!
Wow, the record companies would love this. What if the subscription model became the prevailing method of music delivery? Can you imagine how incrediblly *****TY the music would become! The record companies would have guaranteed recurring income and no incentive to sign and develop new artists especially artist in niche markets. Pay your fee and you get what the record companies decide you want!
Or since the record companies have a more consistent/predictable flow of income the need for a superstar cash cow is diminished thus it's less of a financial risk to sign artists that wouldn't necessarily have mainstream appeal.
Lethal
Personally I won't use a subscription, but I do prefer the option. My largest (only) complaint about apple, but it is getting better, is consumer choice. Athough, I believe jobs can do no wrong.
why does a subscription service according to Jobs have to be only that way. Have any of you ever heard of Emusic? Ya know? The number 2 online music store in the world? I pay 9.99 a month for 90 songs. If I don't download them all, they carry over for the next month. I SUBSCRIBE and I OWN everything, and it's ALL DRM free. iTunes need to copy the Emusic model. For 9.99, I get the same ammount of music I would have to pay 99.00 on iTunes. Jobs is plain wrong on this. There is a reason why more and more people are switching to Emusic. iTunes keeps seeing its growth decline (but still growing of course) while Emusic is gaining ground every quarter.
Of course Emusic only works with indy lables, but thats fine by me, the big lables are ***** anyways.
Of course Emusic only works with indy lables, but thats fine by me, the big lables are ***** anyways.
I agree. Jobs has a proven track record so far, so I trust his judgment when it comes to renegotiations. If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't even have an iTunes store.
However, I am excited to see other stores opening up with DRM-free tracks. I love iTunes, but I welcome competition. Imagine if back in the day Tower Records was the only record store and then people got mad when The Wherehouse started selling music. We can't get mad at other stores for opening. The more the merrier, because Apple will be forced to continually innovate, and we will all benefit.
I don't think its subscription according to Jobs more than subscription according to the labels. If they went by the Emusic plan the labels would be losing even more money (or at least hoping that enough people buy subs and just let them sit without every buying anything to make up for the $.10 a song that package generates). If Jobs could pull that off though, bless him.
A valid point, but you have shot your argument in the foot
I think some of you nay-sayers of subscription based services are missing the point:
"You have to keep paying for the songs you listen to over and over again."
Not true, if you want that then most of these subscription services allow you to purchase the songs to own.
"If you stop paying, then the songs go away!"
Yes, this is true. However, for most people who utilize subscription services this is not a problem at all. Why? Because, those tracks are typically "throw away" tracks anyway to bolster their existing OWNED tracks. Think of this tier idea:
1. Lowest level --> Subscribed songs
2. High Level --> Owned songs
The idea that your entire library will go away if you stop paying is implying that people who use subscription based services don't own any songs of their own. Not true at all. If they want the tracks permenantly, then they BUY them and own them. Why is this such a big problem?
Utlimately, I feel that subscription music is a great idea of discovering new music. You can try them out, discover new music. If you don't like the song, then no biggie if it goes away. If you love the song, then you PURCHASE the song (at a discounted rate) and you own it forever.
Why is this a big problem? I think it's an amazing idea and wish iTunes/iPods could do this.
w00master
"You have to keep paying for the songs you listen to over and over again."
Not true, if you want that then most of these subscription services allow you to purchase the songs to own.
"If you stop paying, then the songs go away!"
Yes, this is true. However, for most people who utilize subscription services this is not a problem at all. Why? Because, those tracks are typically "throw away" tracks anyway to bolster their existing OWNED tracks. Think of this tier idea:
1. Lowest level --> Subscribed songs
2. High Level --> Owned songs
The idea that your entire library will go away if you stop paying is implying that people who use subscription based services don't own any songs of their own. Not true at all. If they want the tracks permenantly, then they BUY them and own them. Why is this such a big problem?
Utlimately, I feel that subscription music is a great idea of discovering new music. You can try them out, discover new music. If you don't like the song, then no biggie if it goes away. If you love the song, then you PURCHASE the song (at a discounted rate) and you own it forever.
Why is this a big problem? I think it's an amazing idea and wish iTunes/iPods could do this.
w00master
The argument could be made that either model could meet the requirements of matching the broad term, "subscription".
Essentially, I look at an eMusic subscription in much the same way as I'd look at newspaper subscriptions. If I cancel my newspaper subscription, the papers that have been delivered to my house up to this point don't all suddenly disappear.
Then there's the Rhapsody subscription model, which is like a subscription to the IEEE standards library... While the subscription is in good standing, you can access anything in the library without any additional per-unit fees. Once the subscription runs out, you lose the legal right to use any material you'd amassed during the period of the subscription.
Finally there's the rental model (ala Blockbuster), which many readers here seem to have confused with either of the two subscription models above. In a rental model, you pay on a per-song basis, just like you would for purchases, except for two big differences: (1) The per-song fee is typically smaller than a purchase, and (2) You can only listen to the song a limited number of times, or for a limited timeframe, before the song becomes unusable and would have to be re-rented.
I personally think a subscription in the eMusic sense would be a very valuable addition to iTunes. I also think a rental model in the Blockbuster sense would be nice for movies. I'm not convinced that a subscription in the Rhapsody sense would be good for anybody.