iTMS To Add Subscription Service?

[iPost]

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.

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.

Yes, I have purchased from iTMS and I have activated/deactivated computers too. So, I know what you're talking about.

But, the license IS assigned to a computer. When you deactivate a computer, you just invalidate the licenses on that computer as well as inform the license server of the situation so that it will grant you a license for an additional computer. You can freely activate and deactivate computers -- as long as Apple keeps its license server alive.

My point was, when Apple pulls the plug on that license server, you will no longer be able to transfer songs. And when that happens, you'll only be able to play songs on the computers on which they reside.

Of course, you can argue that Apple will continue to run its license servers forever and this situation will never happen, but I think history shows that companies rarely support a given technology for lengthy periods of time like that (especially a proprietary technology).

By the way, someone mentioned "future lag" and pointed out that you can still play MP3's, which is a pretty old technology. But in my experience, that tends to only apply to widely adopted technologies (like MP3). In contrast, I bought some tracks from Liquid Audio (which used a proprietary format) years ago. Guess what... I cannot play them now on my new computers because they changed the license format (or something... after a few hours of trying to get them to play, I gave up).

This is another reason why Apple should license its FairPlay AAC technology to other companies (so that it could become widely adopted and have a better chance of being supported for a very long time), but that's a completely different debate.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

Thank goodness you can burn CDs of those tracks from the music store then. And audio CDs will be able to be played in 50 years' time, mark my words.

 

[rainman::|:|]

let them add it if it's profitable; as long as they still sell music i'm fine. if people have a use for rented music, no skin off my back... to me it just seems like a waste of money, and a lot of music you'll lose eventually.

paul

 

[Loge]

My point was, when Apple pulls the plug on that license server, you will no longer be able to transfer songs. And when that happens, you'll only be able to play songs on the computers on which they reside.

You're making an assumption that Apple will make it impossible to transfer songs in the future. This goes against the conditions of the store and many statements from Steve. Even if they did so, it would still be possible to burn to CD.

 

[dekator]

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".
Matt

Excuse me, but that's nonsense. There is a difference in terminology between 'rent' and 'own' and for a reason. Not only does 'owning' give you many more rights, but, to come back to your 'home' example: After 20 years, I can move *and sell the house* or *give it to my children* or or or. Because I own it. If I had just rented it I couldn't do anything with it. See the *big* difference.
A CD I own, when the company that sold it goes down. No problem. Change in price ? No problem, I bought it. Understand the difference? I can give my CDs to everyone, family, friends. Don't be so egocentric. I can even re-sell them, if I like, it's an investment
The point is not 'forever' or not, the point is owning vs renting. I hope your faculty of discrimination will increase over time. What you wrote above, is just hollow sophism.
Still, people have to decide what model they go for. Personally, DRMed downloads aren't right for me. I've got a few songs from iTMS but I still prefer CD quality. A subscription doesn't make sense for me but I do pay rent for my flat

 

[munkle]

Granted people subscription isn't very clever, doesn't offer very good value etc, etc. most people on this board can see that...doesn't mean Apple shouldn't make money off the suckers, I mean music purveyors who choose to consume music via a more 'interesting' model, as long as they keep on selling music. It's not a case of either/or, it's a simple case of a la carte AND subscription.

 

[dtp]

If there is genuine demand for a subscription service, I think that it is foolish to rule it out as an option for iTunes - while it's an option that does not suit my needs (I download perhaps one or two tracks a month, and perhaps buy an album once a year - if it's on special offer!), I can imagine that there are people out there who are only interested in listening to a specific track once or twice, but who like to listen to a wide variety of music, and so would benefit from the option to listen to as much different music as they like over the course of a month for £10, rather than only getting to listen to 15 different tracks for that. No, it's not for me, but I imagine that some parents might find it easier on the wallet, especially since there is no option to sell iTunes songs on once their child is bored of the music, or embarrassed that they once enjoyed it!

On the other hand, I think that the assertion that subscription services are a 'much more interesting proposition' is quite ridiculous. Renting is not an interesting proposition in the slightest for anything other than a niche market for the short term, or for vendors. For example, a DVD might be purchased once for £19.99, or it might be rented out to many different customers for £3.50 a night. If you have six people renting that DVD in the course of the lifetime of that DVD you're already in profit - and you've got the hard copy in the end to show for it, which can be sold on for a large discount at the end. It makes good business sense for vendors to rent out, but not for customers who'll want to watch something over and over - or listen to one piece of music over and over. If, though, a consumer only wants to watch the film once, or listen to the track once or twice, then it makes sense for them to rent the film or music. Thus, it should be offered as an option, but certainly not replace the buying option.

 

[Porchland]

It's like renting out the front door of your house to your kids, and making them pay for all the stuff they actually consume. Sure they get a lot of positive things for being able to come inside the house, and can also spend a little extra to get those that they really like (a.k.a. food), but once that month is over you've got their money, and they've got nothing, except what they paid extra for. Maybe not the best analogy though.

No, the best analogy would be a trip to the local cineplex. You pay eight dollars, you watch the movie on a great big screen, then you go home.

Why is the subscription model so offensive to people? If Apple rolled out a subscription model that allowed you to port the track to your iPod -- even if they timed out after 30 days unless you re-synced -- for ten bucks a month, I'm all over it.

 

[Moxiemike]

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".

Matt

See, here's where you're 110% WRONG. You rent a house, first off, I'll use pittsburgh as an example. You can rent a 3 bedroom townhouse/rowhouse here for about $1000/mo.

If I were to buy that place, I might pay $500-650/mo. So i'm SAVING cash in buy over renting. BUT, we have to figure that home values are always rising (for the most part) so if I plan my purchase correctly, I can MAKE some money when I go to sell that house. If i've added, say, a kitch for $5500 I can probably get $10k extra for my house. Say I've bought a "fixer-upper" cheap and did a lot of work to it? I could double my money.

Can't do that renting. Ever.

 

[Stewie]

I don't know why so many people are dead-set against subscription. I played with Rhapsody the other night, and lemme tell you, having their entire catalog at my fingertips for $10 a month is a great deal. Who cares if you don't own it? You still get to listen, don't you? And you get to listen to a lot more for a lot less. The only trade off is you are tied to a computer. Unless, of course, iTunes implements this and you go buy an Airport Express. No one says you can't buy the tunes. You're just renting the right to listen to *400,000* of them for ten bucks a month!

By biggest problem with the subscription services is that I simply don't spend that much time at my PC where I can listen to songs. I don't want to be forced to sit at my computer or run cables all over the place for a subscription service through my computer. XM radio would make a better choice for your $$$, then you can at least take in the car and into your home or office providing you get the mobile version of the radio.

 

[Loge]

Why is the subscription model so offensive to people? If Apple rolled out a subscription model that allowed you to port the track to your iPod -- even if they timed out after 30 days unless you re-synced -- for ten bucks a month, I'm all over it.

Yes, at 10 bucks a month it makes a lot of sense even if you only use it as a deluxe way of previewing tracks. But if it starts to replace CD purchases, you can bet it will cost a lot more than 10 bucks a month, unless for a very limited service.

 

[nsb3000]

Apple should offer the choice, if for no other reason than to push forward the AAC standard. If Apple doesn't rent music, everyone that wants to rent music will be forced to buy a WMV compliant device. Even if they want to own a song, they won't be able to use iTMS to put the song onto their music player. Apple shouldn't lose the music/DRM standard war to MS just because they don't want to rent music.

Right.. Exactly. There would be nor harm from apple offering the choice of a subscription service...how can any of be against more options for how we get our music? As long as Apple doesn’t abandon the existing system, than everyone is happy.

 

[onemoof]

Subscriptions make more sense

I think people can use subscriptions and purchase songs. Subscriptions are more like a radio service that you can customize. You can subscribe to XM, Sirius, or an online music store and get all the music you want.

 

[fairyliquidizer]

People slave all their lifes to buy stuff, and guess what they have only rented it coz in the end the big man in the sky takes YOU away from all that you own. You may as well have rented!

PS- I once had my entire record collection stolen. 400 albums. Gone. Should have rented!

 

[Squire]

PS- I once had my entire record collection stolen. 400 albums. Gone. Should have rented!

Should have had insurance!

Squire

 

[munkle]

People slave all their lifes to buy stuff, and guess what they have only rented it coz in the end the big man in the sky takes YOU away from all that you own. You may as well have rented!

PS- I once had my entire record collection stolen. 400 albums. Gone. Should have rented!

I'm sure somebody has already made this point...if it's yours you can pass it on!!!! So someone else can benefit from your choice to buy rather than rent. Some people really are struggling with this concept!

In the end, whether you rent or buy is up to you, and it is you who decides which option provides YOU with the most value. There is no right or wrong answer. Just don't come up with some flawed argument to say why one is better than the other.

 

[fairyliquidizer]

Should have had insurance!

Squire

I was a poor student at the time. Got plenty of insurance now!

 

[fairyliquidizer]

I reckon the best model is Cable TV. You pay your subscription you get to watch all you can stand! You stop your subscription no Cable unless you use an alternative service. You could just buy DVDs instead of course.

 

[jared_kipe]

I would rather have better quality downloads than a subscription.

 

[datura]

~*~
I would absolutely love a subscription service for iTunes. I have iTunes, and an iPod, but I rarely use iTunes to buy music. If I want an entire album, I go out and buy the CD - I don't like to pay 10 bucks and not have a physical copy of something.. but that's only for artists I know I love.

For all the radio crap that catches my ear, but I have no desire to own an album of, I'll buy the single songs on iTunes... more often than not, I get sick of these songs in like 3 days though.

So for me, a subscription service would be perfect.. there is a lot of music I would love to listen to if I was suddenly in the mood for it, or to satisfy some guilty pleasure, but is not worth buying, not even at 99 cents a song.

And I'm sure there are hundreds of other people who feel this way, and that's why Apple would be smart to offer both subsription AND individual download programs.

 

[100plus1]

that would be cool

 

[iMeowbot]

If Apple adds a subscription service, they cut the iPod out of the loop. Suddenly Apple's service is little different from the others, just a store and media player.

All iPods already have have timers, play counters and the ability to write to disk (or flash). All they need is a relatively small firmware update. They are already able to do subscriptions whenever Apple choose (and, as the Apple spokescritter says, they haven't ruled it out).

 

[iMeowbot]

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.

There are already subscription services for those, they've been around for many years. That's what companies like Muzak and DMX do (yes, they offer popular music, not just the stereotypical dreary elevator stuff).

If a businesses were to use a consumer subscription services, they would have to individually deal with cutting checks to the PROs. Those fees would also be more expensive, because when you stream a preprogrammed subscription from the Internet you have to pay royalties to the performers while conventional services only require royalties to the songwriters (that's a US quirk, every country has different rules on who get public performance fees).