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
Soooo... when Microsoft makes a subscription service the keystone of their Zune music player, it's a stupid idea...
But when Apple does it, it's brilliant.
Wow - the RDF is thick tonight...
Where did anybody say that? I swear, you Apple haters barely have two brain cells to rub together between you. It's like the mere mention of Apple at all sends you down into your Apple hate spiral and you make stupid comments like this, arguing against something nobody actually said.
I dont understand why everyone is like "OMG DOWNLOAD ALL THE MUSIC ON EARTH FOR 15 DOLLARS A MONTH WHAT A TERRIBLE DEALZZZZZ?" *Exageration* Seriously guys i downloaded 10 thousand songs from the zune pass...that is..10 Thousand Dollars which equates to 50 years before i pay that all up....im going to be 70 in 50 years and i wont be regreting that i did this...seriously do you really think that this is going to be the solution for the next 100 years? With tech going at this speed i dont see us using any sort of drm or music store or whatever in like 50 years when i would be paying my 10 thousand dollars in zune pass subscription. If you guys want to plan ahead 50 years go ahead...ill be enjoying me 10 thousand songs for 15$....
*edit* that is the ONLY reason i got a zune over an ipod is becuase of all the music i could listen to on it from zune pass..
$15 for 50 years worth of a subscription? No, it's actually $15/month, which would make it nine thousand dollars. And it still has DRM on it and you still don't own it. You still have to give the music BACK. Since you could spend that money on DRM-free music and actually own it and do whatever you want with it, which one is really the better deal?
Hmm... Pay nine thousand to rent music till I die OR pay 50 thousand to own it now and then when I die I can't enjoy it anymore.
I think the choice is pretty freakin' obvious.
To read the article without subscribing, replace "Authorised=false" by "Authorised=true".
I refuse to download from iTunes but use emusic and amazon.
I also said on here last year on several occassions that I wished Apple would go to a sub based type of option. If so, I would pay monthly without hesitation.
Give it to us JOBS!!!
My question is Why? Haven't we already proven that people are not interested in subscription models for music? They want to own it. iTunes us the number 2 music retailer because it isn't subscription based. Now for TV and movies I can see where the subscription model is more of a plausible discussion.
I don't get why people can't get their head around the fact that millions of people use and love subscription services. You can listen and download as much as you want for the cost of 1.5 CDs. It opens you up to try and download WAY more artist than if you only buy what you can afford.
Example ... i hear a blip of a song on a movie soundtrack ... i download the entire cd ... listen to the entire thing ... keep if i like it and discard if it's crap. If it's crap like 95% of what's out there i am not out $10 every time. It's perfectly logical.
The number one reason for people buying a non ipod player is so they can subscribe to music.
I think its a good idea...
there is always room for jello
$100 for unlimited downloads restricted to 1 media player I own? No Thanks. I'll pay my $10 per physical CD, have the ability (in most cases) to rip it to as many computers I own, transfer that file to my Sansa, pop the disc in my car CD player, bring it to a friend's and put it in their CD player while playing cards, etc. Thanks. I also like liner notes, cd jackets, whatever you want to call them. I want something other than sound for my money...at $1 a track or $10 an album, give me something. Won't even get into the "having to pay to listen to things you already 'bought' DRM and other restrictive software" discussion.
And why is the recording industry losing money? Because they don't sell quality music. A good portion of the records out there have one or two good tunes on them...three if you are really lucky...so why pay $10 for 3 songs when you can 'file share' for free?
I think file sharing is a great idea, if used properly. Such and such releases a new album and I want to know what the rest sounds like. So I go to a sharing site, download a few tracks to take a listen. If I like what I hear, I go buy the CD. If I don't, I delete them (why would I want something that I thought sucked?). People can argue that amazon or bestbuy allow you to 'sample' on their sites, but 30 seconds of a song isn't anything to judge a song on.
Anyway, I digress and those are just my views/opinions.
I know Zune, Rhapsody, Napster have subscriptions but they are losing money. What I would like to see is a a model that could eventually lead to ownership. Lets say you subscribe to a song and maintain your subscription for 18 months, after that you own the song. This model allows the record company to make a profit and you own the song in the long run..
Not a reply, exactly... but aside from "Rob Schoenfeld" (who offers a third alternative), most of the arguments that I've ever seen on this subject seem to treat subscriptions and sales as mutually exclusive ("Why would I pay for access to a song for the rest of my life when I can just buy it?", etc.). I'd always assumed that subscription models allowed you to freely sample anything that you could want -- if you want to keep it, you can buy the track, or CD, or LP, or whatever. To use the words of another (PA alert):
"Short version: I will gladly pay fifteen dollars a month as an insurance policy against buying bad music. "
PLEASE APPLE, HEAR ME! PLEASE DO IT!
Let me put my god-forsaken Zen on eBay and get another iPod.
I love your hardware but I also love music. People who love music cannot possibly buy all music that they listen to unless they are rich, or don't actually love music (i.e. listen to a bunch of radio garbage over and over again).
I am an average upper middle class person with extra money to spend, but I literally find 5 new albums a day on Rhapsody and often end up listening to many of them over and over again. That would be $50 per day, or $1500 per month if I used iTunes. Ouch! I pay 1% of that at $15!
Many people will still buy. I often still buy certain tracks and albums. But you will gain so many customers like me just itching to come back to the iPod/iTunes/iPod platform!
Argh, iPod/iPhone/iTunes platform.
I will pay monthly for this, i can get them from a newserver I pay monthly for. It would be convenient to give the money to frapple and take what I want...it's not like you get a blond from the deal...just music. And whether i eat it or not it's comparable to when i had an external drive with 60gb of music on it crash - with the buffet it's like apple is the hard drive - i pick what i want, if they crash they'll be back up, i get album covers with having to google for 300 albums after every leech. I'd pay up to 20 a month easily. If your too cheap for it then maybe u should look at trading in your blue collar 9-5 and do something else with your whining lives. If you're some form of public service - i.e Military-5-0, or god fobid a firequeer - GET A REAL JOB and stop making your families suffer by spending 2 months salary for an Ipod shuffle. lol - lamers
Maybe a monthly fee for unlimited downloads: that way it could be optionally after buying your iPod or iPhone. If they dont get it (Free Music) from Apple they'll get it someplace else.
Isn't this the same thing that fanboys made fun of zune for having? likely. so i'm sure now that apple invented this idea it's probably a great move for apple.
I just bought the Magellan Maestro 3210 yesterday from Best Buy and I can’t put it down. I know that Amazon.com has a cheaper price but I’m a little impatient and didn’t want to wait for it to ship. I have not put it down since I took it out of the box. It worked right away and it’s amazing. Magellen GPS (http://www.highspeedsat.com/-magellen-gps/) is very sleek and small it feels like I’m holding a wallet almost. It has a nice and bright screen that is easy to read even in the sun or in the dark. The interface is extremely well put together and with over 6 million POI’s I’m sure I’ll be able to find how to get where I’m going even if I’m not entirely sure where that is.
you can already get free unlimited music for your iPhone, just go to iDizzler.net (on your iphone) and use "7777" for access code.
Regardless of the fact that iTunes stole the idea, they'd be providing a much wider collection of music than the other stores, and that would attract more people. I read somewhere else that not all the songs on the Zune Marketplace can be downloaded in Zune Pass. It may not be a bad thing.
@ Abuzar (March 19th, 1:52PM) For people like me, the cost of ownership is worth it. Ownership is very important to a consumer - it's the reason we used to buy CDs and didn't just borrow them from our friends. And the reason why listening to radio wasn't enough, we needed our songs on demand, in the palms of our hands. You could argue that subscription still gives you music on demand, but the fact is that people don't just pay for music, they pay to OWN the music. That's why people are so proud of their music libraries - they own them. They're not rental cars that they can show off to everyone but then have to return when the rental period's up.
In an ideal world, music would be 15c a song and DRM-free; the iTunes store would have a broader music collection (I listen to a lot of world music that iTunes does not provide) and iPods would last for more than two years without breaking or malfunctioning. But that's a far-fetched dream.