The beauty of a subscription to iTunes would be the sheer volume of material available to you, and it could be tailored to your tastes and preferences. Much more useful than your local radio station. I understand your point here, but I think there is room for both approaches in iTunes.
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
The beauty of a subscription to iTunes would be the sheer volume of material available to you, and it could be tailored to your tastes and preferences. Much more useful than your local radio station. I understand your point here, but I think there is room for both approaches in iTunes.
Now you know it doesn't work like that. You would have to pay for the previous month and the current month. And the whole poor comment thing is just silly
There are more college students buying iPods and listening to music than 30+ and 40+ year olds typing behind cubicles. The reason Jobs doesn't want to do subscriptions is because he is looking at all markets. Not just people with indespensible budgets. People barely want to pay an extra $50-$100 to get a Mac so why pay for music they won't listen to?
Now you know it doesn't work like that. You would have to pay for the previous month and the current month. And the whole poor comment thing is just silly
The reason Jobs doesn't want to do subscriptions is because he is looking at all markets. Not just people with indespensible budgets. People barely want to pay an extra $50-$100 to get a Mac so why pay for music they won't listen to?
And again you're missing the point. If you *want* that song/album, then you *buy* it. It becomes yours forever.
Subscriptions (for me at least) are used as a tool to discover music. The difference here is that I have access to the ENTIRE LIBRARY and listen to them as much as I want to. If however, I really *do* love that song/album, then I buy it and it stays in my library forever.
w00master
Agreed there is room for the approach, personally it sounds great to have the option of buying and renting both music and movies, but is it right for Jobs to suggest that no one will buy the subscription? Some say yes and some say no. Personally, I think he has the right idea. I hate the fact that Apple is a business out to make money on their products so to Jobs nothing matters but the bottom line, but he has to eat too.
Sorry...I'm rambling.
I just think Jobs has a better chance NOT investing in subscription music and investing it into subscription movies. I don't know how Redbox is doing but I get my movies from their all the time. The only draw back is their limited selection. Blockbuster (all here in the US I think) is going to hurt Netflix. The point is more people are used to renting movies and buying music. So the subscription approach is nice, but will it make Apple (and the evil music companies
) any money. And better still, will people be attracted to the idea. And can Apple overcome any technical problems (if any) that plague the subscription music industry now that would prevent the impatient consumer from cancelling their service. I just think it is a bit risky and that Jobs may have the right idea about not venturing into that arena... like the whole Tablet PC thing.
I understand you. I just see it as being a tad bit redundant and cause for concern. If I can listen to the whole 2mil+ iTunes songs and I buy an album I better get a pretty good discount, otherwise I am just paying for it twice. Especially if I go into the deal with the mindset that I will always have the $10 a month (if it's not more) to pay Apple. Most people are cheapskates (Imma cheapskate) they won't pay for the subscription every month then pay for the song to keep.
The discovering music thing is a good point. But can people justify spending $10+ a month to discover music, then buy it... or just buy the stuff they know they will like and find a friend that has a particular album to listen to. Music listeners have been doing that since before digital was in the dictionary. And usually, once I find the friend that has the actual CD or even the DRMed iTunes songs i can just rip the CD, or burn the DRMed music to CD then rip that CD and save $10 for dinner or another album that no one has yet.
Here's a question: Will Apple make you sign a contract for the service? Do others make you sign a contract like
EVIL cell phone companies?If so then it won't happen with Apple.
Then what the hell is DRM for?
I mean, if all I need to do to get the songs DRM Free is to burn the CD and rip them again, what is the difference between that and no DRM at all?
By the way, a lot of argument is being made here about whether the artists are hurt or not by DRM free music, my best guess is.. NO. And I say this because no one will ever stop piracy, one way or the other, everything can be cracked, patched, hacked .. etc.. the music industry needs to realize that they have to offer a price that people find that "it's worth buying" instead of downloading the album for free from a million available places.
I live in Portugal, here a CD costs about 20, minimum wage is 400, it's not fair
Guess what happens to your current iTMS songs when you need to reauthorise them?
And you even thought you owned those!
uh... NO
you payed a lot more than $10 per month on 10000 tracks, or you stole them... plain and simple
Hmm... I had noticed a strong "If Apple isn't currently doing it, then I'm automatically against it" mentality on this forum. I hadn't realized the "If Microsoft is doing it, it must be evil" maxim applied as well. Good call.
Hmm Kzin.. a perfect movie buff but not quite hitting it on the business side of the fence. Corporations need to make money. The reason things are heading to digital is because it saves them money. My grandfather didn't like LPs when they first came out. He said that the radio was much clearer and gave a better listening experience. Besides... LPs put radio workers out of business. Of course he didn't make much sense but that is the same thing radio tycoons said about satelite radio and the iPod. Hold the box set in your hand and having a booklet to read is a mute point to corporations. If they can save $3 on every movie that is distributed then they will save in the millions per year... and I wouldn't care about a few individual feelings if I am saving millions per year and the vast majority of the market is still buying my stuff.
Basically, buying movies with box sets and booklets has become the niche market that makes a few bucks here and there for the corporations they will keep them their for as long as some person can justify it, but just like vinyl, it will be out the door as soon as people start caring about the trees that are killed to make the booklet you are holding.
Other examples... Newspaper are printed on dead trees/toilet paper... going to the web and readership has been going down ever since. Convert or go out of business.
The Soda companies put High Fructose Corn Syrup in their drinks instead of sugar... that stuffs kills you slowly, why do they do it. They save $0.01 (One Cent) for every can they make. They make 15+ billion cans a year. That's Millions Per Year... I don't think they will start putting sugar back in their sodas.
Movie distributers are doing the Netflix, RedBox thing to save money. Have you ever though about people like me that actually like going to the movie theaters? Sitting in front of a big screen with good audio and popcorn. The home movie business has shut plenty of theaters down. I could go out and start giving reasons why you should see a film in the theater and stop renting and watching movies at home. Won't change the industry. People aren't going to pay rent songs then go out and pay to keep them. Corps wont give you anything for free.
Subscription music service is a great idea, but it won't fly until the music company changes their perspective and Apple makes real money off of it.
Now you know it doesn't work like that. You would have to pay for the previous month and the current month. And the whole poor comment thing is just silly
The reason Jobs doesn't want to do subscriptions is because he is looking at all markets. Not just people with indespensible budgets. People barely want to pay an extra $50-$100 to get a Mac so why pay for music they won't listen to?
you make no sense
so you all these people can afford to buy $400 ipods, and can afford to fill them up with thousands of dollars worth of owned music, but they cant afford $10 per month for unlimited music.... the only way that makes sense is if these people are pirating the music, and even then the ipod is still expensive unless you go mugg someone for it... either way you arent a paying customer and those in the biz of selling music could care less what you think
and whats this about having to pay for the previous month and the current one?? i have a lot of things i pay for monthly, and never have i had to pay any month twice!!
Then what the hell is DRM for?
I mean, if all I need to do to get the songs DRM Free is to burn the CD and rip them again, what is the difference between that and no DRM at all?
By the way, a lot of argument is being made here about whether the artists are hurt or not by DRM free music, my best guess is.. NO. And I say this because no one will ever stop piracy, one way or the other, everything can be cracked, patched, hacked .. etc.. the music industry needs to realize that they have to offer a price that people find that "it's worth buying" instead of downloading the album for free from a million available places.
I live in Portugal, here a CD costs about 20, minimum wage is 400, it's not fair
That was the argument made when DRM was introducted. In the early days, people bought CDs and made copies for their friends or let their friends borrow them. When computers came people just copied the music to their HDDs and made copies or put them on their iPods.
The music company likes complaining.
Um... if you have a cell phone you first pay for the first and second month. It's called having prorated bills, you are always paying for the next month, not the actual month of service. If you miss a month, then the month you haven't paid for and the next month are on your bill. I make sense... you don't understand.
And the iPod hasn't been $400 for a while. The 80GB is $350 and it is the most expensive. The best selling iPod is $199 (guess which one) and yes... you pay for the iPod once and the music once. With subscription service... just like any subscription service... you have to keep paying, and as said... if you have a budget to live by $10 a month is something you can do without. Not that no one will pay it... just not enough for it to be a lucrative business for Apple.
Subscription Misperception
It isn't about "owning" or "not owning" your music. When you subscribe you're not committing to paying $10 / month for the rest of your life so that you can listen to your music. You're paying ten bucks to be able to listen to anything you want to for an entire month. There's a big difference.
For those saying "I've already invested thousands into my music collection. Why would I want to throw that investment away and subscribe?" If you can't figure out why, maybe this isn't for you. But there are lots of people who, even though they already have lots of music, try out and buy new music. I have a good 50 years left in me. I may get to the point where I'm done listening to new stuff, but I'm not there yet.
It isn't about "owning" or "not owning" your music. When you subscribe you're not committing to paying $10 / month for the rest of your life so that you can listen to your music. You're paying ten bucks to be able to listen to anything you want to for an entire month. There's a big difference.
For those saying "I've already invested thousands into my music collection. Why would I want to throw that investment away and subscribe?" If you can't figure out why, maybe this isn't for you. But there are lots of people who, even though they already have lots of music, try out and buy new music. I have a good 50 years left in me. I may get to the point where I'm done listening to new stuff, but I'm not there yet.
Ever heard of eMusic? For 9.99 a month, you get 90 songs, you own them, they are DRM free, and better quality than iTunes. I haven't purchased a song from iTunes since I started using eMusic. I have downloaded about 2700 songs from eMusic since the last time I bought a song on iTunes. Best online music store by a long shot. Unless you listen to the crap that is played on the radio. Plus, you get 50 free songs every friend you sign up, plus on the homepage there are lists by artists and daily dozens to help you find new music every single day. eMusic is the best store on the net for real lovers of music.
im sure the business people in that business will continue to make money, and know a little mroe about how to do so than you me or anyone else on this forum, we are talking about choice... if you dont want subscription dont get it, i will..
Wrong. You don't have to keep paying. The $10 I payed last month to listen to anything I wanted to listen to last month was (obviously) for last month. If I'd like to do the same this month, I can. But if I want to buy 20 of the 500 new songs I listened to, I can do that too.
dude, you still only pay for each month once... yes, in some subscriptions you prepay for the month, that means that if you stop paying your service gets turned off in a month... you never pay twice...
so the most popular ipod is 199... and how much space is that? 4gb? now apple claims that 4gb is "1000 songs in your pocket" so thats $1000 plus tax to fill it up... so we are talking about $1200 total before tax, that would be 120 months of subscription, or 10 years!
bet you a nickle you wont still be using that same ipod in 10 years
and also go look up in the dictionary what 'prorated' means, you are off track on that one
God help me! You didn't prove that I was wrong. You actually proved that I was right and what I said was a fact. If you want to keep using the service you have to keep paying just like with any subscription service. Does anybody have a cell phone here are is everyone NOT paying any current bills? Real bills like car insurance that you have to keep paying, or the car note.... how about a mortgage?
And who said Apple will charge you $10...?
Real music lovers use eMusic...?
Yeah okay... real music lovers hated the iPod and online music downloads at first... last time I check real music lover was an opinion and what device are you listening to eMusic on. Sign up my friends for 50 free songs?
why... just give me the songs for using your service... why do I have to be your own advertiser... oh yeah, because eMusic doesn't have a marketing department and I am pretty sure they have ads out the wazoo to make ends meet. ... just came back from their site... music is $0.33 a song and I am pretty sure it isn't as easy to those who are not technically inclinded as iTunes is.Not saying subscription isn't good, just that it won't make as much money as everyone seems to speculate.
Dude... no one buys an iPod with no music of their own... and the iTunes Store has 2million+ songs so that's what a petabyte of info... how will you fill your 80GB iPod let alone listen to all of those songs...
Subscriptions are running on hype... it won't make any money... people rather own their music, not rent it. And as said before.. you pay once for the rentals, again if you want to keep a song, and again for the rentals next month regardless of what you own. And you will still pay twice for the intial month... got a cell phone?
Who said it would cost $10?
Who said it would be $10 forever? Bet you a quarter the price of the subscription goes up.
And your calculations make no sense at all, not too many people buy the iPod then all that they can hold at one time... that scenario is way off track. Not trying to get your panties in a bunch, Jobs can't justify subscriptions.
Okay there's a big problem with most of your analogies: Mortgage: you actually end up owning it in the end. Renting an apartment would be a better example. Of course, people choose to rent instead of to own all the time.
Car insurance: you're legally compelled to pay insurance in order to use what you already own. That would be like requiring all users who have purchased iTunes songs a monthly fee in order to actually listen to those songs. Not a good example.
Cell phones: this would be an okay example if you modified it a bit. Imagine a cell phone where you pay a monthly fee but you aren't locked into a 2 year agreement. For a reasonable, flat rate, you can make as many calls as you want. There are still some problems with this example, but it's better.
My point isn't that you don't have to keep paying if you want to continue to have unlimited music. That much is obvious and I think everyone understands that. My point is that if you want to try out a whole bunch of music, a subscription service is the only affordable, enjoyable way to do that. Radio doesn't count--too many commercials, you don't get to pick what you listen to, and they don't play much indie music.
Woops, forgot to address the "Who said $10" thing. Good point, that's just a number I threw out there that I'd be willing to pay for the service. $15 might also be reasonable, but I wouldn't stick around as long. Also, I'm assuming they wouldn't lock you in to a year or 2 year contract. That might be a bad assumption.
Other people have made many valid points and you aren't really addressing them. That doesn't make your arguments look very good.
...and what device are you listening to eMusic on. Sign up my friends for 50 free songs?
Do a little research. eMusic works fine on an iPod. There's nothing wrong with their referral system, either.
Personally, I use iTunes and eMusic. There's room for both.
People aren't discussing how much money it will make. They are expressing their personal interest in it.
I am not interested in music subscription (I find new music through friends, eMusic and iTunes, and at the public library). But I can easily understand that other people are interested.
First, you didn't pay twice for the first month. You paid in advance. Secondly, if you think iTunes will operate like a cell phone plan (i.e. a contract) that is just speculation. It makes no sense for iTunes to operate like that. eMusic didn't charge me twice for the first month. Neither did many other monthly services I have had.
I'm starting to wonder if you are really interested in the debate or just in raising your post count. You're not interested in subscriptions. Others are. What else can you say?
So the question is, if Apple is doing it and Microsoft is doing it, is it good or bad?