The subscription-based iTunes
rumor has
been around for what feels like eons, and apparently, it's rearing its always intriguing head once more. According to a report over at
Financial Times, the suits in Cupertino are currently "in discussions" with major music outfits about a new model that could essentially "give customers free access to the entire iTunes music library in exchange for paying a premium for its iPod and iPhone devices." Reportedly, a distribution model similar to Nokia's "
Comes with Music" could be used on both iPhones and iPods, while traditional subscriptions would be reserved for the iPhone -- a device which has a monthly billing relationship already attached to it. As it stands, we're hearing that the major holdup is Apple's hesitation to pay big bucks in order to access the labels' libraries, but here's to hoping the iTunes buffet opens for business sooner rather than later. [Warning: Read link requires subscription]
posted March 18th 2008 10:29PM
Don't people already pay a premium for Apple devices? I like Apple hardware as much as the next person, but one thing it isn't is cheap.
Just like the "iPod Charger" that just has a USB port. It sells for $50. You can pick up a universal USB charger @ wal-mart for $10 and it works fine. That's a damn expensive Apple logo!!
Supporting Wal-Mart is never a good thing.
1. Unlimited music for iPods!
2. ?????
3. PROFIT!!!
1. Unlimited music for iPods!
2. PROFIT!!
Carl, you missed the reference.
To be fair, the USB charger is $29. Although I think it's higher at places like Best Buy because they tend to overcharge for the Apple-branded accessories.
no, i was actually making a reference to the fact that no matter what apple does they'll make a profit because of their devoted fanbase.
i get the reference.
I'm sure Apple's crunching a lot of numbers. On one hand, you have people who will never pay per-track for iTunes music, and on the other, those willing to pay $1 a track to fill their multi-gig player. A $100 premium nets you a gain from the non-iTuners, and a loss from those who would have paid piece meal.
i disagree with sinerasis, i dont mind paying more for what this potentially would give. but i will NOT repeat NOT repeat NOT repeat NOT NEVER EVER IN A MILLION YEARS consider it if this crap has DRM!
@a ham sandwich
HAH. "yes please download these 320kbps downloads for one monthly fee, but be sure to delete them when you cancel your service!"
NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS WILL YOU GET NON-DRM UNLIMITED DOWNLOADS LEGALLY.
First one! I hope apple does make the deals.
If I cry a little for you, will you cry less?
if by 1st you mean 4th, then yes, your 4th.
your not on the podium.
@wootman
If by "your" you mean "you're" then yes, you are funny.
Would I pay extra money up front for an unlimited, downloadable iTunes library? Depends how much extra.
Would I pay extra each month for an unlimited, downloadable iTunes library subscription? Again, depending how much extra, but I'd be more likely to go this option instead simply because it still allows me control whether or not to continue giving Apple money.
If the quality of the iTunes library goes downhill, I can end my subscription and save my money. If I pay it up front and the library goes down the toilet, Steve-O won't care, he's already got my money.
That depends. The access might be per device. So if you buy a new iPod, then you need to pay the premium up front again. In that case, even though Steve-O has your money, he wants to keep the library growing so that you pony up again when you buy your next-g ipod (dont even know what # they are on now).
The DRM license will probably expire when you stop paying.
I've already got "ALL I CAN EAT" on Limewire and Frostwire for the grand total of $0.00 per month.
or if your not a pirate, rhapsody.
ill take 10$ a month over 200+$ per ipod, ktnx.
Aren't LimeWire and FrostWire the very exact same thing? (except one is shareware and the other is freeware)
Anyway, I'm with you man... Pirate music FTW!
The legalized Napster is less than $13.00 a month, as well... basically guaranteed to be cheaper than an iTunes subscription, and it's got an amazing selection of music. Regardless, you also have options to strip DRM from media files in the form of DoubleTwist... thanks to DVD Jon. If you don't know what I'm talking about, Google is your friend... and it's worth a look. None of my paid music has any DRM crap on it, and I hope that it never will. :)
I bet they even use the tagline "Comes with Music" and play dumb.
Gotta love them Apple-sized balls!
But really, that'd be great 'cause I'm in the market for a new iPod. All you can eat music, well, that'd be better than having two cocks! Especially for you (you know who you are).
I know this is a little tough for everyone but I'd really like to go one day without having to read the words "cock","balls", "dick", "jewels" or any variation of such.
We could call it the engadget challenge and host it on the 5th of April. Everyone try to refrain from the use of any metaphors for cock or balls. Any takers? Any engadgeteers wanna make this official?
Welp, good job criticizing them for something they haven't done yet and aren't going to do.
Prediction: tomorrow, farfisa is going to kill a baby. What a bastard, you shouldn't kill babies.
@ Zorque -- Well, I don't have a history of killing babies, but apple sometimes likes to take names and things that other people have come up with first and claim them as their own... You know... if you'd been following.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/05/apples-little-problem-with-ripping-off-artists/
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/01/11/apple-intel-ad-not-so-original/
http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/07/ipod-touch-vs-htc-touch-apple-trademark-dispute-round-2/
...had to leave out the Cisco iPhone thing and the Touch ad that uses a tune from a Zune ad, but you get the idea.
"Welp, good job criticizing them for something they haven't done yet and aren't going to do."
Am I missing something here? I mean are you making a joke or something because farfisa does, in fact, use both the words balls and cocks in his comment... Either that or your reading comprehension is TERRIBLE.
Never mind... With farfisa's reply I notice the comment was aimed at him, not metal. I suppose I failed that.
Does acknowledging the failure negate the actual failure?
Two lefts don't make a right. But three do.
Not quite, but at least it keeps people from farming me. (I like to think of the Engadget comment system as an MMO, as I don't get to play those anymore.) Does this count as my third left?
please for the love of god dont do it!
nobody likes having to pay for the same music over and over each month(cough zune pass)
just keep the nice you pay you have it forever method
Yeah, nobody likes subscription models!!
except Netflix subscribers...
or Gamefly subscribers...
or Napster subscribers...
or Rhapsody subscribers...
or... Zune Pass subscribers.
Hmmm, pay 15 dollars a month for zune pass, or 10 dollars for every album I've downloaded? I could probably pay for 10 years of the zune pass with all that money if I bought all the albums.
I don't think I'd put a music subscription service in the same boat as netflix/gamefly. With them you're renting physical media with the intention of returning. With a music model you "keep" it and then it just "stops working" when you don't pay.
And considering how Napster has been doing in the past and probably still recently, I don't think that would be the greatest example. Rhapsody mostly does OK b/c of Best Buy and I have no idea why anyone would use a Zune, so I can't comment on that part.
While I wouldn't say "no one wants a subscription service" I also wouldn't say your examples entirely prove that point.
Subscription may be an all you can eat buffet, but at the end of the day you're only renting your food.
In my understanding: you have unlimited downloads, but DRM automatically removes and restricts the content. There goes the suckers who will pay for DRM.
Why do they have to make it so complicated? I want it to download and just play and play and play without some crap ruining it. I think this is the reason why some peeps resort to Frostwire and Limewire for their music: It's easy and it won't fess you up with DRMs. It's a kind of "path of least resistance" thing that we all like.
wow. that is possibly the best metaphor ever.
Just when you thought we were killing off DRM, "BOOM!" a possible breathing of life into the bastard concept. IF the rumors are true, anyway. I'd rather pay on a per track/per album basis.
Also interesting is that Nokia's "Comes with Music" model referred to in the above article was lamented while I detect no such sentiment when Apple is rumored to be implementing a similar model. Hmmm...
Subscription/rental models have DRM in it to make sure users don't keep it after the rental period.
Since it's a 'rental', you're not supposed to keep it forever. Just for the time you paid for.
It's like renting a car for a week for a pretty small flat fee. Then when the week's over, you have to return it. You can't just keep it with you and take off with it.
The music giants put DRM to make sure that the music isn't going anywhere after that period. In subscription/rental models, DRM actually does make sense.
Though for buying, I agree - DRM shouldn't be bundled with music you bought legally. But for rentals, it makes sense that way.
except music isnt a consumable.
@wootman
That's the point he is making. It is a ridiculous thought to rent your food simply BECAUSE it is a consumable. The idea being you don't rent music and you shouldn't have to.
Sure, the buffet owner can have the food back right after I've been to the toilet...
That was a really clever metaphor the first thousand times it was used. Now it's just hackneyed. Here are the arguments against it:
"The food still tastes good going down."
"If you don't like subscription programs, buy the damn music. No one is stopping you. This is just another way to consume that suits some people better."
"It is expensive to discover new foods one expensive meal at a time. Better to sample everything at no additional cost"
"You're paying for access to a library, not eating food. Your metaphor is dumb"
the list goes on and on.
Really though, a subscription model for music makes sense to some users. Think of it like satellite radio but with an unlimited number of channels. You can get any song you want at a moment's notice, and listen to it right then and there. You never BUY the music, true. But you're not paying "purchase" prices for it either. I can download way more than 15 songs in a month, so I'm clearly not paying purchase prices. If I only listen to 5-10 new songs a month? Clearly the subscription model isn't for me, I should just buy my music piecemeal.
At the risk of being downmodded:
Engadget, WTF? This is breaking news? It's a rumor! I'm not one to get on this bias flame war unless I feel like there is something. Don't put it in "BREAKING NEWS" unless its a fact and is a big deal. Your vista coverage dose not exist and a rumor is breaking news? Come on.
/end rant
Correction: An *Apple* rumor is breaking news. Hell, anything Apple is breaking news around here.
noob its all in the punctuation
There are significant advantages to a subscription method, namely, actually paying for large amounts songs by the song or album is prohibitively expensive. You can always just pirate the music but I prefer a model that pays the people I listen to.
It's because of the zune pass that I actually own a zune. That and the fact that three computers and three zunes can share one account/bill so I'm splitting the cost with my roommates.
Well I'm pretty sure that violates the terms of service, but hey, apparently illegal stuff is an option around here for acquiring music.
How much is a Zune Pass? I can't seem to find it on their site without signing up...