Apple planning subscription version of iTunes? Depends on how badly do you want to believe…

Is Apple getting ready to offer some sort of iTunes subscription service? Maybe, but maybe only  if you feel like reading way too much into some recent moves the company has been making. It seems that everyone (well, mainly AppleInsider) is a-flutter over their recent hiring of Julia Miller, who was in charge of marketing for Microsoft's Xbox Live service and who has tons of experience with monthly subscription services. Yeah, seems a like bit of a stretch (especially since no one will even say what Miller's going to be doing at Apple, but AppleInsider says that Apple has definitely been trying to negotiate some sort of subscription service where the labels would receive approximately 5 cents per month for each song downloaded and then transferred to an iPod. We're not saying that they're feeling the heat from Napster's new Napster To Go subscription service (because honestly, who knows what's really going on down in Apple HQ these days), but we would most definitely not be complaining if Apple decided to go toe-to-toe with Napster To Go.

Oh, and there's a second semi-related part to all this rumormongering: Think Secret reports that Apple is one of several companies fixing to buy HipSolve Media, a small startup which offers a Windows Media-based solution for record labels to distribute DRM'd music downloads directly to consumers, bypassing online shops like the iTunes Music Store. We're not even gonna touch this one.

[Thanks, yang]

Read - AppleInsider
Read - Think Secret

[Chin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

Here's Apple following another company once again, this time with the subscription based shop..

Once its up, expect Apple fanatics to claim that Apple started subscription based online stores.... beware!

[fuzzer @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

they did.

[bonaldi @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

Could it be she's being drafted in to save the ailing .Mac subscription service?

[Jacob @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

Guys, that model doesn't make any sense. "the labels would receive approximately 5 cents per month for each song downloaded and then transferred to an iPod." - If I downloaded and transferred 1000 songs, which is only 100 CDs worth of music, Apple would have to pay 1000*0.05=$50 per month??? I doubt they would charge more than $20 per month for the service. That looks like a loss of $30 per month on that model and that's with my example of 1000 songs. If someone downloaded and transferred 10gb of music, that would be approx. $125 in monthly fees paid to the label for one user.

If this model is incorrect, but Apple finds some way to make the subscription model profitable, then I think it's an excellent idea for them to offer that option. They would dominate the market.

An iMovie subscription model would kickass too!
Movies downloaded to my mac-mini when it's idle. Connect my mac-mini to my TV thru a new connector and bam, I'm watching Office Space.

It would be good for them to buy that DRM company. Maybe itunes will just be a marketplace and Apple will end up just getting a transaction processing fee. They barely make money on it anyways. I wouldn't mind. Labels would pay to promo their newest albums/singles...

[Joshua Ochs @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

To Chin, the immature twit:
- They didn't create the GUI, they made it a PC reality.
- They didn't create USB, they made it a marketplace reality.
- They didn't create Firewire, they... oops, yes they did.
- They didn't create the HD-based player, they created one that worked seamlessly and was compact (do you even *remember* what a Nomad was like back then?).

They *did* create the online music store, and made it work.

As for subscriptions, why should Apple jump in? Their position has always been that people want to buy their music, not rent it. So far, not many people disagree (as Napster releases no sales figures, while Apple can trumpet theirs).

Let's just say for a moment the market proves them wrong, and people *do* like subscription services. Apple could add one with a minimum of effort (they already have the catalog, infrastructure, etc - all that remains are some minor technical/DRM hurdles, but piddly compared to what's in place). Poof, Applewould have a subscription music store that works with iPods almost overnight.

Why would you stay with Napster?

You have no sunk costs (you don't own any of the music anyway). You can redownload everything for no "fee" (just end the Napster subscription and open an iTunes one). And now you can fill your iPod and use the iTunes software, which Napster cannot.

This is a dead-end move for Napster and others. If it succeeds, Apple will swiftly move in and clean their clock. If it doesn't succeed (where I'm placing my bets), then Apple loses nothing, but Napster loses big.

So why should Apple be worried?

[The Jeremy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

Here are the four options for the recent hire:

1. Shore up the .Mac service. I don't buy the assertion that its "dying" though.

2. Start up a subscription service through iTunes. Obvious. In fact, its a little too obvious.

3. Begin the foundation for the *iMovie* Store. Very ambitious.

4. All of the above.

I really hope Apple does start the subscription service if only to bury Napster and Microsoft's Janus platform. It would be nice to see the Best Buy employees required to push the iTunes Subscription Service on their customers as they currently are doing for Napster; chuckling to themselves about how poor it [Napster] is.

[Doubtful @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

Oh yeah, I'd be all over it, especially since Apple's DRM has already been cracked. No more waiting for hackers to crack Janus.

I hope all of your sarcasm detectors just overloaded.

[IWood @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

Hey, you know what I'd like to see?

My Mini! That's what.

And I'm going to keep bitching about it until a) I get it or b) Apple admits that repeatedly launching new products with inadequate manufacturing in place and bogus delivery times is not "insanely great."

[SPMN @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

What about a Moto-Apple-Wireless Carrier subscription? A subscription based plan would make all parties happy.

[Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

This can't be true if it was apple would be suing someone.

[narco @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

Well if I'm thinking in terms of what benefits me, then I say screw iTunes (I never buy music from there anyway), MAKE THE .MAC SERVICE BETTER. Jesus Christ, I love Apple and have been a .Mac subscriber since iTools, but .Mac just simply BLOWS. Only reason I pay the $99/yr is because it's integrated into my work and I don't want to switch email addresses.

Please magic lady, whoever you are, fix .Mac. I beg you!!!

Fishes,
narco.

[kyle @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

carmi, please leave that kind of crap for your own site. and when you do get around to posting something intellegent, your name, and a link to your site are at the top of your post, do they really need to be at the bottom too?

[Carmi Levy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

Kyle,

It seems a user here named "Carmello" has been posting for the better part of the past day using my name and address. These are not my posts, as I'm patently incapable of writing like the lobotomized golden retriever that this user obviously seems to be.

Someone clearly has a lot of time on his hands, and given the slanderous tone of the posts, I'd suggest it might be in this site's best interest to clamp down on this type of malicious behavior.

But what am I except a technology journalist, after all? Such are the perils of using your own name in the first place, I guess. Call it a lesson learned.

Carmi Levy (the actual one)

[Pk @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

So now Carmi's (subtlety) threatening engadget with legal action because of his poor bruised ego. Tsk tsk. Slander? If anything it's poignant satire. Whoever it is makes a good point:

"But what am I except a technology journalist, after all? Such are the perils of using your own name in the first place, I guess."

Who writes stuff like that? You're a big fat target if I ever saw one... this guy's just saying what we're all thinking. Don't take yourself so seriously.

Pk

[Joey Geraci @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

forget a subscription service, apple needs to get it's act together and make ipods able to play wma/drm songs. "But that will take away from the fabulous monopoly that apple has on direct digital music on the ipod?" So, what. Im sure Apple makes so little off of the Itunes music store, because of the nature of the business, that their bottom line would be the same if not probably much bigger from the stragglers who have been refusing to get an ipod on principle that apple has disabled wma playback for no reason other than stupid pride.

[Kendall @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

I would like a Apple Itunes Subscription service, my whole family has ipods and my dad is willing to pay a subscription service the only thing holding us back is apple...

[Robbie @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

Its about time Apple offered an iTunes subscription service. I have tried many mp3 sites (Including Napster to go) and their music is not compatable with iPods and iTunes which means I can only use iTunes to download my music which is expensive (79p per song!!)

[Craig @ Dec 19th 2005 12:12AM]

I believe Fairplay would be a decent DRM to use generally speaking. The only problem with Apple really doing a subscription service is the fact that Fairplay is really really weak, basically just a deturrant. I mean JHymn keeps getting updates that work quite well every month or so. Honestly, I believe they need to go back to square one and re-do their DRM system. Or just "Think Different" and license Windows Media DRM from MS. I bet that if they were willing to work with Microsoft they could get MS-DRM 10 on the Mac and integrated into iTunes/Quicktime. People may not like Microsoft, but their DRM system does work better than any other, thus guaranting the iPod a subscription model with few updates/head-aches.