iTMS To Add Subscription Service?

[katanna]

Two or three years out, subscriptions will overtake a la carte because it is a much more interesting proposition.

I disagree 100% (like most of you).
I have over 2600 songs in my collection. For what you pay a month for subscription, I could own a new CD each month. Plus, with subscription, you have to stream the songs... bad if you have a slow connection.
Overall, there is NOTHING good about subscription except that you have access to more songs (for most of us). Way too many bad things...

Matthew

 

[Thanatoast]

It's like this. When you need something from the grocery store, you go and buy it. Would you shop at a store that required you to fork over $100 a month prior to any shopping at all?

What if that $100 gives you the right to go in and eat any food on the shelves, as long as you do it in the store? Say they have stoves and tables and everything. You can go to any grocery store around the country and eat anything and as much as you want, just show them your card. $100 a month. Would you do that?

 

[nhmacusr]

There are times when a subscription service might be useful. Anyone know the rules? Say could a bar or restaurant get one? Then they would always have the latest tracks. Any office would probably like it too.

One thing to remember here folks..... Right now they are trying everything in their power to make the subscriptions work. When they become popular, the RIAA will change the rules. They will not live at $9.95 a month listen to as much music as you want for long.

 

[feature]

You buy a house? You use it for twenty years and then move (or die). You paid $500 a month to rent that place. Don't kid yourself that you ever "own something forever".

Matt

Hmmmm... i bought my house at 26 it will be paid off at 41...no more payments...wait that means i own it....your statement is just silly...

 

[ariza910]

If you really stop to think about it a subscription service would be a great complament to the iTunes music store. Make the subcription cheap so that poeple get to listen to huge amount of music and then give them the potion of buying what they really want to keep.

Yeah buying music is great since you get to keep it, but a subscription would allow you to listen to over a million iTune songs, many of which you would never listen to.

 

[kanker]

Subscription services are unbelievably stupid from a business perspective. All I need is a few hours, WireTap or Audio Hijack, and for $10.00 I have all the music that the subscription service offers that I would want. End subscription, maybe re-subscribe for for a month a couple of times a year, repeat the process with whatever new stuff is there that I want - hundreds or even thousands of dollars of music for $30 a year. Stupid.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

There are times when a subscription service might be useful. Anyone know the rules? Say could a bar or restaurant get one? Then they would always have the latest tracks. Any office would probably like it too.

One thing to remember here folks..... Right now they are trying everything in their power to make the subscriptions work. When they become popular, the RIAA will change the rules. They will not live at $9.95 a month listen to as much music as you want for long.

Because bars and restuarants are publicly broadcasting the music, they will not be legally allowed to just pay $9.95 a month or whatever. They would have to pay public broadcasting rights, which would be somewhere nearer five or ten times that amount.

The same thing happens with pubs and Sky TV. To you and me at home, Sky TV costs a [some would say whopping!] £35 a month. So a pub could just broadcast all the live football matches for that could they? WRONG! They pay a WHOLE lot more because they are broadcasting it (not just home family use).

 

[johnnyjibbs]

Subscription services are unbelievably stupid from a business perspective. All I need is a few hours, WireTap or Audio Hijack, and for $10.00 I have all the music that the subscription service offers that I would want. End subscription, maybe re-subscribe for for a month a couple of times a year, repeat the process with whatever new stuff is there that I want - hundreds or even thousands of dollars of music for $30 a year. Stupid.

That, my friend, is very true, and a risk they have to take. Of course, by using WireTap or whatever, you end up with a compressed AAC/MP3/WMA file being recorded as an AIFF file (and therefore taking up tonnes more space for the same quality - re-ripping into AAC will reduce quality).

I just think the subscription model is stupid because it's all stuck on your computer and, while it's nice to sample new music, most people have their favourites that they play time and time again, even 40 years later. Imagine renting for all that time!

 

[wrldwzrd89]

That, my friend, is very true, and a risk they have to take. Of course, by using WireTap or whatever, you end up with a compressed AAC/MP3/WMA file being recorded as an AIFF file (and therefore taking up tonnes more space for the same quality - re-ripping into AAC will reduce quality).

I just think the subscription model is stupid because it's all stuck on your computer and, while it's nice to sample new music, most people have their favourites that they play time and time again, even 40 years later. Imagine renting for all that time!

Don't forget that Audio Hijack Pro isn't limited to making AIFF files. It can also send its output to a WAV, MP3, AAC or Apple Lossless file. However, that doesn't mean you'll gain (or lose) additional quality - it just saves you a step.

I agree with you as far as subscriptions being used for sampling new music goes, but you must keep in mind that subscription models are targeted toward teenagers, the market segment likely to benefit most from them. Only problem is that there are plenty of music store users out there who aren't in that market segment, and would rather use a download service like the iTunes music store. My preference is for downloads because I don't buy music very often, so a subscription would be a total waste to me.

 

[munkle]

I admit I'm a little bit confused by the heated discussion. If iTunes did implement a subscription model, it would not replace the current a la carte model. They would complement each other. You would still have a choice, a greater choice in how you consume you're music.

I personally buy all my music from CD's because that is the choice I prefer. I am not tempted to buy music from the iTMS for a myriad of reasons, but that does not mean I think Apple shouldn't have a music store. I understand that it fits the need of some, like the subscription model will.

If they did implement a subscription model it still wouldn't interest me but it would be another tool in Apple's music repertoire. I personally think they will offer this option once they've perfected the DRM technology to allow the iPod to play the songs. If you don't like it, don't use it!

 

[kanker]

That, my friend, is very true, and a risk they have to take. Of course, by using WireTap or whatever, you end up with a compressed AAC/MP3/WMA file being recorded as an AIFF file (and therefore taking up tonnes more space for the same quality - re-ripping into AAC will reduce quality).

Also true, but how many audiophiles are buying compressed formats anyway. I'm a music professional, but I do most of my listening in the car or on some other far from audiophile system, as the bulk of consumers do - not to mention the huge numbers of folks who do most of their listening on cheap headphones while working out, riding the bus, etc.... The difference that a second compression will make will be negligible at best in those situations, and as wrldwzrd89 noted, Audio Hijack Pro takes a big step out of the loop. making it that much easier to sack a subscription service.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I admit I'm a little bit confused by the heated discussion. If iTunes did implement a subscription model, it would not replace the current a la carte model. They would complement each other. You would still have a choice, a greater choice in how you consume you're music.

I personally buy all my music from CD's because that is the choice I prefer. I am not tempted to buy music from the iTMS for a myriad of reasons, but that does not mean I think Apple shouldn't have a music store. I understand that it fits the need of some, like the subscription model will.

If they did implement a subscription model it still wouldn't interest me but it would be another tool in Apple's music repertoire. I personally think they will offer this option once they've perfected the DRM technology to allow the iPod to play the songs. If you don't like it, don't use it!

That's exactly what I want to see - if a subscription service gets added to iTunes, it must not replace the existing download service, even if you or I have no use for it. I buy iTMS tunes infrequently because most of the music that can be found on CDs and on the iTMS doesn't appeal to me. Check my website in my signature for a breakdown of my iTunes library.

 

[macumus]

I'm on dialup and since eMusic seems to be all web browser based I should be able to "shop" from any internet connection (unlike having to be on my computer with the iTunes Music Store).

This is not the case. I use iTunes Music Store on more than one computer, in different locations. You have to be signed in under your own User Name and Password. You can't access your home music collection, however. But, this is the fault of the record companies. The ability to stream you music over the internet was present in the iTunes 4.0 release, Apple removed internet streaming with iTunes 4.1 (I think 4.1) due to complaints from the record companies. They felt users would use that to steal music.

 

[coolsoldier]

I don't have a portable player, so being tied to a computer isn't a problem for me, but what concerns me most about a subscription service is inflation. When I buy a song from iTunes for $1, then 10 years from now, even if iTunes songs cost $5, I will still have paid $1. With a subscription service, I pay $10 a month, and 10 years from now if subscriptions cost $50 a month, I'm stuck either paying five times as much or walking away with nothing for my money.

Buying something is an investment (even something like an iTunes song that you can't sell) that you make, and the return is the value of it's use. If the value of listening to the music goes up (i.e. if prices go up, or the music is no longer available), you came out ahead. With renting models, there is no investment, no chance of gain. If prices go up, you pay more. If the music is no longer available, you can no longer listen to it, and so on.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

I admit I'm a little bit confused by the heated discussion. If iTunes did implement a subscription model, it would not replace the current a la carte model. They would complement each other. You would still have a choice, a greater choice in how you consume you're music.

Here's one eample. The Times newspaper in the UK is a broadsheet and has many respected readers. Recently, they brought out the Times Compact Edition - a tabloid version of the same paper with the same content but smaller size - to compliment the original broadsheet.

However, careful analysis has shown the mini version to be somewhat dumbed down - shortening headlines to be more catchy and "The Sun"-like and to make them fit. Meanwhile, they are strongly promoting the mini edition, even placing adverts of it in the main broadsheet edition. It already seems like the original broadsheet is now in the process of being phased out.

We don't want to find that in a couple of years from now, the a la carte model is taken away (some excuse about most of the revenues being from subscription or pressure from RIAA, etc) and we're stuck with subscriptions. I'm hoping Apple will never let this happen but it could.

Oh, and I think the current system is simple. Adding subscriptions goes against the Apple philosophy and makes it more complicated and confusing.

 

[munkle]

Here's one eample. The Times newspaper in the UK is a broadsheet and has many respected readers. Recently, they brought out the Times Compact Edition - a tabloid version of the same paper with the same content but smaller size - to compliment the original broadsheet.

However, careful analysis has shown the mini version to be somewhat dumbed down - shortening headlines to be more catchy and "The Sun"-like and to make them fit. Meanwhile, they are strongly promoting the mini edition, even placing adverts of it in the main broadsheet edition. It already seems like the original broadsheet is now in the process of being phased out.

We don't want to find that in a couple of years from now, the a la carte model is taken away (some excuse about most of the revenues being from subscription or pressure from RIAA, etc) and we're stuck with subscriptions. I'm hoping Apple will never let this happen but it could.

Oh, and I think the current system is simple. Adding subscriptions goes against the Apple philosophy and makes it more complicated and confusing.

OK I'm afraid you're argument is weak. You don't want iTMS to add a subscription model because you don't want it competing against the current a la carte model, which you happen to prefer and thus wouldn't want it to be replaced, saying it's against Apple's philosophy and citing newspapers offering an alternative as an example.

The reason The Times started offering a smaller version of its broadsheet, was because The Independent's version proved to be so succesful, raising readership by 20,000 odd. The reason: it was exactly the same newspaper, just smaller, making it more convenient for commuters in London. I don't understand you're comments of dumbing down, even if the headlines have been shortened, the content remains exactly the same. Nevertheless, your example still perplexes me. Broadsheets shouldn't sell smaller versions of their newspapers because it might replace the larger versions? And this is bad because? As it stands now both are being offered, complementing each other, and if one was to be replaced it would be because consumers stated a distinct preference. It is only because of consumer demand that a tabloid sized version was introduced in the first place.

Your fear seems to be that a subscription model might replace the a la carte model. If Apple does provide a subscription service and it proves to be so overwhelmingly popular that the a la carte model was no longer profitable, then it might be replaced. However I think that this is very unlikely and it would only be replaced if it made sense to Apple.

And I don't understand how a subscription model would go against Apple's philosophy. If they were to offer a simple subscription service and compatible DRM technology, along the lines of something like Microsoft's proposed Janus, making it easy for the user to enjoy his/her music on his/her computer/iPod through his/her method of choosing, how is that against Apple's philosophy? What is this philosphy you speak of which makes the a la carte model so sacrosanct?

The main arguments against the subscription model seem to be based on personal dislike. If you don't like the subscription model don't use it! I am not a fan of the subscription model and would not choose to consume my music that way. And like I have already said, I also choose not to buy music from the iTMS either, preferring CD's. But that being said, I understand that it is a good idea for Apple to have a music store. Much like I can see why some people would choose to consume their music via a subscription model. I do not believe they are mutually exclusive. Offering one does not mean you should not offer the other. Once Apple decides, if ever, that it's makes sound business sense to offer a subscription model then I think they should.

 

[iPost]

When I buy a song from iTunes for $1, then 10 years from now, even if iTunes songs cost $5, I will still have paid $1. With a subscription service, I pay $10 a month, and 10 years from now if subscriptions cost $50 a month, I'm stuck either paying five times as much or walking away with nothing for my money.

Do you really think you'll still be able to play your iTMS songs ten years from now?

The iTMS (and any other DRM'd content) is the 8-track tape of the new millennium.

Ten years from now, music will be delivered in a much improved format that the idea of listening to a 128kbps AAC file will be laughable. My prediction is that at some point in the future, Apple will pull the plug on their current license server, and when you try to play today's iTMS songs on your 2014 Mac running OS XVII, all you'll hear will be the ubersonic ping from an error message. You can count on it. That's the way the music industry operates (and the way the music execs think).... every 10 years or so they try to get everyone to repurchase their music over again. They do not view the purchase of a single work of music as a once-in-a-lifetime thing, but instead something that they try to get you to do over and over.

 

[ijimk]

don't fix something that isn't broke. the music store is fine leave as is

 

[johnnyjibbs]

OK I'm afraid you're argument is weak. You don't want iTMS to add a subscription model because you don't want it competing against the current a la carte model, which you happen to prefer and thus wouldn't want it to be replaced, saying it's against Apple's philosophy and citing newspapers offering an alternative as an example....

....The main arguments against the subscription model seem to be based on personal dislike. If you don't like the subscription model don't use it! I am not a fan of the subscription model and would not choose to consume my music that way. And like I have already said, I also choose not to buy music from the iTMS either, preferring CD's. But that being said, I understand that it is a good idea for Apple to have a music store. Much like I can see why some people would choose to consume their music via a subscription model. I do not believe they are mutually exclusive. Offering one does not mean you should not offer the other. Once Apple decides, if ever, that it's makes sound business sense to offer a subscription model then I think they should.

You make some good points, and I can't disagree. Yes, maybe it's my current dislike of subscription models that may bias me (I have a pay-as-you-go phone too!) but there is always this fear that the thing you like will fade away if it becomes the old tech and the 'old-fangled' way of doing things. Ultimately, as you say, the method of delivery (and the size of the Times) will be based on customer demands and profitability but there are plenty of times where I may be in the minority and want to go against the grain (I own a Mac for one thing).

I think my other point about customer confusion was valid though.

Do you really think you'll still be able to play your iTMS songs ten years from now?

Don't forget a thing called future lag. In 10 years I have every expectation that I can still play my iTMS songs - and then I could always keep a CD player or two for life with my songs burnt to CDs. I can still read from floppy disks if I so desire and they're getting on now. Even MP3 is looking at being a teenager.

don't fix something that isn't broke. the music store is fine leave as is

my thoughts exactly

 

[wrldwzrd89]

<snip>
Even MP3 is looking at being a teenager.
<snip>

As proof of this, I did some encoding to MP3 yesterday of various video game soundtracks. I'm not posting the links here - if you want them, go to VGMP3. To be honest, I don't know why I'm even posting in this thread anymore, since I hardly ever use the iTMS, and keep it turned off most of the time.

 

[macnulty]

I'd just like to remind people that you never really own anything, it's all rented.

You buy a TV? You use it for three years and then replace it. You just paid $20 a month to rent it for a while.
You buy a house? You use it for twenty years and then move (or die). You paid $500 a month to rent that place.
Macs, music downloads and everything else on the planet work in exactly the same way. Don't kid yourself that you ever "own something forever".

I buy TV I can sell it, I rent a TV I have to return it to Rent-a-Center
I rent an apartment I have nothing, I buy a house I have financial leverage
. . . I cross the Hudson, my vision clears

 

[Loge]

Do you really think you'll still be able to play your iTMS songs ten years from now?

The iTMS (and any other DRM'd content) is the 8-track tape of the new millennium.

Ten years from now, music will be delivered in a much improved format that the idea of listening to a 128kbps AAC file will be laughable. My prediction is that at some point in the future, Apple will pull the plug on their current license server, and when you try to play today's iTMS songs on your 2014 Mac running OS XVII, all you'll hear will be the ubersonic ping from an error message. You can count on it. That's the way the music industry operates (and the way the music execs think).... every 10 years or so they try to get everyone to repurchase their music over again. They do not view the purchase of a single work of music as a once-in-a-lifetime thing, but instead something that they try to get you to do over and over.

The conditions of the store are quite clear - you own the song for ever. Steve has also said this many times. Of course there will be higher quality formats available in the future and it will be your choice whether to repurchase music in those formats or stay with what you have already.

 

[iPost]

The conditions of the store are quite clear - you own the song for ever. Steve has also said this many times. Of course there will be higher quality formats available in the future and it will be your choice whether to repurchase music in those formats or stay with what you have already.

You own it forever, but only on your current computer. When you bought the song, a license which allows the song to play was delivered to your computer (you cannot transfer the license to a different computer).

I doubt that you will still be using your current computer within 10 years. When you transfer that song to another computer, the license does not transfer (and even if you did transfer it, the license would be invalid on that computer). When you go to play the song, iTunes will notice that the song does not have a license, and it will then go to the Apple license server to request a new license for the song on that computer. If you don't have any more computers left on your license allocation (the license server will grant a license for up to 5 computers), a license will not be granted, and the song won't play.

This implies that as soon as Apple pulls the plug on that license server, you will be unable to transfer any of the iTMS songs to play on another computer, as iTunes will be unable to obtain a license for that different computer.

By the way, this isn't a slam against Apple. The same situation exists with every other online music store that is selling protected DRM content.

And, this will happen. Support for current formats will eventually die and at some point, and you'll be unable to transfer these songs to newer or different computers. I've been using Apple products for a long, long time and they do stop supporting old stuff after awhile. For example, my Apple eMate 300 is less than 10 years old... I'm pretty much out of luck these days trying to get a replacement battery from Apple.

But the point is, the iTMS songs that people are buying are unlikely to be useful for a lifetime. And, if you're someone who is buying a lot of content, would you rather spend, say, $1200 for 1200 songs that will be useless in 10 years, or pay $10 a month for access to hundreds of thousands of songs?

Some may argue that the subscription model is a better bargain. And, it's not like you're throwing money away. For that $10 a month, you're getting the entertainment benefit from listening to that music. If you pay $50 to go to a live concert, do you demand a video recording of that concert so that you can enjoy it over and over? No, you pay the $50 for the enjoyment of that experience of the moment.

Some people don't go to concerts and only buy recordings. Some people do both. The point is, why does there have to be only one way? Selling downloads and offering a subscription service do not have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[zim]

You own it forever, but only on your current computer. When you bought the song, a license which allows the song to play was delivered to your computer (you cannot transfer the license to a different computer).

I doubt that you will still be using your current computer within 10 years. When you transfer that song to another computer, the license does not transfer (and even if you did transfer it, the license would be invalid on that computer). When you go to play the song, iTunes will notice that the song does not have a license, and it will then go to the Apple license server to request a new license for the song on that computer. If you don't have any more computers left on your license allocation (the license server will grant a license for up to 5 computers), a license will not be granted, and the song won't play.

This implies that as soon as Apple pulls the plug on that license server, you will be unable to transfer any of the iTMS store songs to play on another computer, as iTunes will be unable to obtain a license for that different computer.

By the way, this isn't a slam against Apple. The same situation exists with every other online music store that is selling protected DRM content.

And, this will happen. Support for current formats will eventually die and at some point, you'll be unable to transfer these songs to newer or different computers. I've been using Apple products for a long, long time and they do stop supporting old stuff after awhile. For example, my Apple eMate 300 is less than 10 years old... I'm pretty much out of luck these days trying to get a replacement battery from Apple.

But the point is, the iTMS songs that people are buying are unlikely to be useful for a lifetime. And, if you're someone who is buying a lot of content, would you rather spend, say, $1200 for 1200 songs that will be useless in 10 years, or pay $10 a month for access to hundreds of thousands of songs?

Some may argue that the subscription model is a better bargain. And, it's not like you're throwing money away. For that $10 a month, you're getting the entertainment benefit from listening to that music. If you pay $50 to go to a live concert, do you demand a video recording of that concert so that you can enjoy it over and over? No, you pay the $50 for the enjoyment of that experience of the moment.

Some people don't go to concerts and only buy recordings. Some people do both. The point is, why does there have to be only one way? Selling downloads and offering a subscription service do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Have you purchased from iTMS? The license is not assigned to the given computer, you have the ability to authorize and de-authorize which computers can play the tracks. We are given the ability to authorize 5 computers at a time and have the ability to burn an unlimited number of cds and put the songs on as many iPods as you own.

From the apple store: http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/buy.html

"Own It Forever And A Day
With the iTunes Music Store, you don’t have to deal with the hassles of a subscription service or annoying advertisements that have nothing to do with music. For just 99¢ each, you get high-quality AAC music files that won’t disappear at the end of the month, or ever. In all, the iTunes Music Store offers music that’s fair to you, fair to artists and easy to enjoy."

I realize you are not disputing ownership, I just thought it was important to point out that your first point, "but only on your current computer," is incorrect.

 

[iPost]

I buy TV I can sell it, I rent a TV I have to return it to Rent-a-Center
I rent an apartment I have nothing, I buy a house I have financial leverage

Yes, but you cannot resell iTMS songs. The license that you are given when you "purchase" a song from iTMS is not transferable.

I remember someone trying to challenge this by attempting to sell an iTMS song on eBay awhile back. eBay pulled the auction as it was illegal. See: http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/09/04.8.shtml