MUSIC on the other hand, you tend to BUY what you want to listen to more than once. I hear people say, "I wanna SAMPLE my music before buying", but I really think you want to sample it before using some software to rip it. There are much better ways out there to "sample" music. iTunes gives you a 30 second clip of everything. I think if you heard 30 seconds of "SHE BANGS" by Ricky Martin, you would have enough information to say yes or HOPEFULLY no in this case.
Sorry, but no. The 30 second clip is NOT useful in determining the quality of a song, or if it's part of a genre you like. So many songs these days are cross-overs that change gears mid-song, or have a different paced section of the song, that you can't really be sure what the 30 second clip represents in terms of the overall genre of the song. And it's absolutely terrible for figuring out if you're going to like the song as a whole ... unless the song itself is only 30-40 seconds long.
The value of the 30 second clip is: "is this the song I heard somewhere else, or a different song?" or "is this the right remix of the song I know I'm looking for?" In other words: for the 30 second clip to be useful, you must already know the song you want.
Using the 30 second clip to figure out whether or not this is the song you want to buy is like buying a DVD based on the trailer. You use the trailer to decide what to (see in the theatre/watch on TV/rent from blockbuster/queue from netflix). You don't decide to BUY the DVD until you've seen the movie and decided if it's something you honestly want to keep forever ... unless it's a bargain basement sale on the DVD, in which case you're paying the "rent from blockbuster" price (ie. it's the low-risk environment of rentals, and not the higher price/risk of buying it unseen at full price).
Same with the 30 second clip. It's useful in identifying a song, not in deciding whether or not to buy it. A subscription service or much cheaper rental service WOULD be useful in deciding what to buy, however.
There have got to be several people on this site that have XM or Sirius. I am a Sirius subscriber, and if you are not, maybe you would see some benefits to RENTING music from iTUNES.
...
If that is too costly, there is another great music invention that still works well, the RADIO. Give it a try.
What you're missing here is that:
iTunes music subscription == Sirius/XM radio subscription. Only iTunes music subscription is a better idea because you actually pick the song you want to listen to right now, whereas with Sirus/XM you only get to pick the genre you want to listen to right now. Sirius/XM lets you pick a channel that fits a genre ... but you still aren't picking what songs are going to played at any given time, or even on any given day.
But my point is: it's the same concept. Subscription iTunes replaces "listening to the Radio". What has been done so far with "internet radio" is not "The Internet version of Radio". iTunes with a subscription is "The Internet version of Radio". You browse it yourself instead of waiting for someone to broadcast it to you serendipitously; you discuss what's new with other people who are interested in the same genres and then go listen to it yourself, instead of being fed a playlist by a DJ. "Internet radio", and over the air radio, really, is driving a model T on the autobahn: trying to make a dinosaur function in an environment that is far beyond the technology that you're using.
And, by bringing up XM and Sirius, you've already contradicted your earlier assertion that people don't want to pay for the music and then not own it (when you said "music -> own, movies -> rent", unless I confused you with someone else). XM and Sirius show exactly that people will pay for temporary access to music. Doing the same thing with iTunes just goes one better by giving you a finer grain of selection than what XM and Sirius give you.
If you want to compare the options I presented with other models in the same category:
iTunes data subscription -> subscription radio/movie/tv services, or on demand tv that is not pay per view
(XM/Sirius on the music side, Netflix on the movie side, cable/satellite TV on the tvshow side)
iTunes data rental -> blockbuster style movie rental, pay-per-view tv, on demand pay per view tv
iTunes data purchase -> DVD and CD
_ALL_ of these are proven market concepts for entertainment delivery. And, in my opinion, doing it through an online service (preferably iTunes, but also with the Yahoo music service, etc.) goes one better than the ones I list.
iTunes data subscription is better than satellite radio or cable/satellite TV because you pick the content from the entire library of choices, instead of only being able to pick a channel and then having to watch according to someone else's schedule for that channel. It's better than Netflix, because there's no turn around time. It is directly comparable to having an "on demand TV" service that is paid for by the month instead of by the show because you pick and view from the catalog as often as you want with as many repeats or changes as you want while you maintain your subscription.
iTunes data rental is better than blockbuster for the same reason iTunes data subscription is better than Netflix. And it's better than pay-per-view TV for the same reason it's better than cable/satellite tv. It is most directly comparable to "on demand TV" where you can pick any show from the library, view it one time for a fee, and then it's gone.
iTunes data purchase is just the on-line version of buying CDs and DVDs.
None of those markets is going away any time soon. Having iTunes offer data subscriptions and data rental _IN_ADDITION_ to the current data purchase model doesn't mean iTunes is entering in to unproven markets. It means that it is using its current strengths and popularity to compete in proven markets.
It's the right thing to do. Too bad Steve doesn't see it.
