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

[Maccus Aurelius]

I agree with those that believe a subscription model is harmless. While it may still impose DRM, you're under a clearer understanding that by subscribing you have certain limitations imposed upon the music you listen to, such as no CD burning and then the usual account authorization for current protected tracks. The biggest hurdle I can imagine in all of this is the studios' cooperation with this business model. If too many songs are out of reach of subscribers it would be a huge negative. This is also a problem with the Zune Marketplace, in which many albums are not available for the "all you can eat" model, and some are not even allowed to transfer wirelessly. I believe that to make this truly work, the entire iTunes library will have to be on board. Not a single album should be out of reach for people who paid good money to access the entire library.

 

[MacManTexas56]

i think the music subscription would be awesome. what's really the difference in saying that you OWN the music as opposed to the subscription plan? I have all my music on my imac and i constantly play it daily. So to me, something like paying $20 a month to have unlimited downloads would be great. Why would i want to pay $1.07 for each song to say i personally OWN it when i can get unlimited ones for $20 a month? What's the difference, it's all on my imac regardless.

i don't know the exact details of the itunes subscription model, but i tried out the napster one and it was pretty cool. But i'm not a big fan of their software etc. If it worked just like the napster one i'd be all over it from apple for sure.

 

[cparker]

I think it's important to point out a direct quote from Jobs in reference to the original Reuters article:

"People want to own their music," he said.

Since Jobs said that specifically, I believe that it's clear that he's not thinking of "subscription" in the eMusic sense, but in the Rhapsody/Napster/Yahoo sense. It's pretty clear that's where he's coming from regarding his stance on music subscriptions for iTunes.

 

[JPark]

Subscription = Rental = Good

Subscription is a good thing. Here's why:

The subscription model is inherently a flat-rate rental model. The same technology that would allow people to subscribe to music would also allow for renting movies. Granted, just because apple offers the one doesn't necessarily mean they'll offer the other, but the technology would be in place. At that point it would be a matter of hammering out the details with the movie distributors.

Rentals would be a good thing because (obviously) most everyone wants to be able to rent movies, but also because it would allow me to finally use my iPod to borrow audio books from the eLibrary. More and more audio books are being offered in a digital only, downloadable format. And of course these are all protected wma's because aac's and iPods don't do rentals (ie. subscriptions).

So...bring on the subscriptions already!!!

 

[kerryn]

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

Finally! One of the few people on the forum that GETS IT!

Subscription services are excellent for discovering music and bolstering your existing collection of music that you might light to listen to from time to time, but which you would not actually want to spend hard earned cash on.

When you find music on the subscription service that you absolutelly must own, then there is nothing to stop you from buying that track or going out and getting the CD.

Currently I use Yahoo! Unlimited and I use a Nano in the car (as it interfaces nicely with my car systems and my Creative Zen broke) but the two are incompatible. Its takes a bit of effort to get the subscribed WMA tracks onto the Nano but it can be done. I'd rather not do this and give my subscription money to Apple instead to Yahoo! (Who I hate as a company), but Jobs currently doesn't think I want to do this.

Shame on him. I have never spent money in iTunes and will not until they have a subscription service.

 

[BWhaler]

He's right. I certainly have my fair share of disagreements with Jobs, but this is one area where he is correct.

And the fact that all of the subscription businesses have failed is the ultimate proof.

 

[papadopolis1024]

I think for movies they sould rent them at like 1.99 for 3 watches. I dont see steve doing this though.

 

[JPark]

And the fact that all of the subscription businesses have failed is the ultimate proof.

Just like mp3 players were largely a failure before the iPod? Just like legal music downloads were a failure before iTunes?

Perhaps it's the implementation that is flawed and not the concept.

 

[jbernie]

Instead of going with subscriptions, maybe Apple could consider offering drm music that has an expiration date, ie you can download it and itunes will keep it in the playlist so you know what it is you downloaded but you cant play it again until you purchase the track.

 

[johnee]

that's awful... i would never sign up for that... i'm surprised this is the way of online music subscription, and i'm surprised people actually subscribe... but i suppose that "Audio Hijack Pro" would come in handy with subscriptions...

I don't want to have to learn a tool or keep a monthly subscription to keep my music alive. I'll just buy the damn things.

 

[Teddy's]

If nothing is broken...

Really, iTunes is doing fine.
So why is all the conmotion? Steve said NO.

I don't know why there are people that hate so much iTunes. Many of them for the wrong reasons.

In the future, it will be just like today's CDs: "oh I prefer to buy this album from HNV or Well-mort, its cheaper... oh, I just saw Firgin Megastore is selling that for $5.99 I will go today!"

 

[johnee]

I think for movies they sould rent them at like 1.99 for 3 watches. I dont see steve doing this though.

I actually wouldn't mind that, as long as they don't limit the time in which I have to view the movie 3 times. I would like to watch the movie for the 3rd time 5 years after I rent it. After I watched it the third time, it would just disappear from my library.

 

[w00master]

I don't want to have to learn a tool to keep my music alive. I'll just buy the damn things.

What the heck does this mean? If iTunes had subscriptions, you'd use iTunes. How hard can this be? Is it so hard to use iTunes as a *tool* to organize your music (both owned and subscribed)? This makes absolutely no sense.

Again, no one has *yet* addressed my points that I posted above. People here are just saying "subscriptions are bad, end of story" without really examining the real benefits of them. Ultimately, I am *strongly* against DRM. However, I believe a two-tiered model: DRM'd *subscribed music* and DRM-free OWNED music would be a HUGE benefit for consumers.

Why does it have to be *one* or the *other*? Why can't it be both? Think about it, having both options gives consumers *more* choice, better opportunites to *explore* new music. At the same time, giving Apple and music companies *both* a constant source of revenue *and* people buying individual tracks/albums?

I still don't get this "one or the other" mentality that everyone has on this issue. It *doesn't* have to be one or the other.

w00master

 

[JPark]

Ultimately, I am *strongly* against DRM. However, I believe a two-tiered model: DRM'd *subscribed music* and DRM-free OWNED music would be a HUGE benefit for consumers.

Why does it have to be *one* or the *other*? Why can't it be both? Think about it, having both options gives consumers *more* choice, better opportunites to *explore* new music.

I still don't get this "one or the other" mentality that everyone has on this issue. It *doesn't* have to be one or the other.
w00master

Amen to that. You've got my vote. Again, I don't even want to use the subscription service, I just want iTunes to have the ability so that libraries can offer iPod-compatible audio books.

 

[k2k koos]

I agree with an earlier post albeit with a twist:

Here's mine.

Music: buy
Movies: Buy + Rent

 

[richard4339]

I used to own a Zen Touch, and strictly used Windows. I subscribed to Yahoo!'s subscription music service, and it completely kicked ass. I could listen to a full song to see if I liked it. I downloaded well over 300 songs within the first three days of subscribing. I probably didn't even download another 100 songs within the year that I used the subscription, but do the math. 400 x $0.99 = $396. $12.99 x 12 = $155 (I rounded). My Zen broke and I bought an iPod. On iTunes, I have spent $40 in 4 years. When I'm getting unlimited all I can get downloads, I can download everything new and old, stuff I want to listen to regularly, and stuff I don't. If I'm buying each song for $0.99, I'm not going to do that. I also discovered a lot of music I really liked through this, stuff I wouldn't have ever listened to before because I wouldn't have wanted to buy it individually. I mean, who would have though that Franz Ferdinand actually had good music on their two CDs besides the main ones played on the radio?

Granted, one thing Yahoo! did right (IMO) is give a discount on buying the music if you have the subscription. Hell, with non-DRM music coming out, maybe if you pay $9.99 a month for unlimited downloads with transfers to your iPOD, maybe you could then be eligble for the non-DRM higher-quality version for only $0.99, or the DRMed version for $0.80.

I understand all the arguments behind why people don't like the subscriptions, but its just plain wrong when I'm reading people say the subscription services never worked on other services, because they're obviously still in place for a reason...

 

[Edmar]

Won't hurt Apple

I don't think is a bad idea to offer a subscription service as long as every song available at iTunes is available in the all you can consume model. I personally like to own my music and like to share with friends and relatives, I still buy a lof of cd's as well as iTunes singles. I would love to have a similar service for their tv shows and movies content.

 

[Digital Skunk]

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.

I didn't really consider the subscription music business as failing until you mentioned Sony/BMG which kept sending me annoying letters telling me to sign up for their service. I agree with you on the "Apple bringing life" to the business thing. If it happens then I hope Apple does a good job at it. If it fails everyone and their grandmothers will be commenting on it. As for the subscription fanboys, I still think that subscription music is just not going to fly too well with the Masses it is simply renting music, and if you are going to do that then get a subscription to XM or Sirius or listen to the radio.

Steve just seems to understand that there isn't a real demanding market for it.

 

[rlreif]

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.

well... if you dont spend 10 quid ( i dont have a pound symbol on my keyboard) per month on music then you arent really a target customer and your opinion on this matter is moot... no offense, i dont mean to come off as harsh, but thats really not very much money... how did you amass a 30GB collection spending less than 10 quid a month?? how old are you?? either you are exptremely old or you have pirated the majority of your collecion... either way you arent the target market

 

[Digital Skunk]

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

Ummm.... if you wanted to discover new music why pay for it? Just listen to the radio. Listen to your friends iPod or the preview songs in iTS for free. So what your saying in essence is pay for the subscription, then pay for any of the songs you want to keep again and then keep paying for the subscription which is actually making you pay for the song you just bought over and over again....

If you are going to buy the song just buy the song... what's wrong with that?

 

[rlreif]

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.

thats the dubmest argumet ive ever heard... if you are so poor that you barely make your $10/month payment every month then get off this forum and go get another/a better job! and music should be the least of your worries! again you arent the target market....

besides whats to say that if you miss a month your music is gone forever? you miss a month, no music that month, next month, make a payment, you have all the music in the world again

 

[Digital Skunk]

because they're obviously still in place for a reason...

Like Microsoft?

 

[w00master]

Ummm.... if you wanted to discover new music why pay for it? Just listen to the radio. Listen to your friends iPod or the preview songs in iTS for free. So what your saying in essence is pay for the subscription, then pay for any of the songs you want to keep again and then keep paying for the subscription which is actually making you pay for the song you just bought over and over again....

If you are going to buy the song just buy the song... what's wrong with that?

Again, you're missing the point. Subscriptions provide *many* people with the ability to do more *indepth* searching and discovering of the music that they may (or may not) enjoy. Again, if you don't *want* to subscribe, then *don't.* Why limit *my* choice because you simply don't want to subscribe to music?

And again, the songs you want to keep forever and ever, you BUY them. It's a simple as that.

Again, why limit choices? Why does it have to be one or the other?

w00master

 

[w00master]

Like Microsoft?

And here is what I think the *real* reason why people on this board are "so against subscriptions." Honestly, I think it has nothing to do with subscriptions itself, I think people hate them simply because APPLE DOES NOT DO IT. People are subconciously making this an Apple vs. MS battle, when in reality it shouldn't be.

Get this out of your head, this is *not* about Apple vs. MS. This is about OPTIONS. This is about more tools to explore music.

w00master

 

[MacConvert]

No no no.. Jobs is wrong.

I _am_ interested in subscription music - however, I don't want the downloaded music to be DRM protected or have any kind of sharing/expiration limitations.

If you give me that, and trust me that I won't pass it further than my wife's or brother's iPod - then I will pay you your 20 or 30 a months for a good long time to come to get some fresh new music.

I believe in paying for things, but I also believe in being able to afford those things I like. At .99/song, I can only support my first belief but not the second one (will pay, but can't afford).