The subscription versus download debate continues...
We reported earlier that music industry heavies
believe a subscription-based model of digital music acquisition will eventually win out over the iTunes Music Store’s
pay-per-download model. The
latest comes from Napster chief Chris Gorog, who quips about the iPod: “You can fit 10,000 songs on it… [but] to
do that would cost you $10,000 if you bought the songs from Apple. With our plan, customers can get 10,000 songs on
their device for $180 a year. It’s an enormous value.”
It *is* a good value, but it’s tied to your PC. If you want to move your tracks to a portable device or to CD, you
still have to shell out $1 per track. As reader Doug
Grissom suggests, who not make the subscription itself portable? Dock your (insert non-iPod player here because
Microsoft’s DRM won’t work with the real deal ;)) and replenish it with a whole new selection of music whenever you
like, for a low monthly fee. That’s a concept that just might rock.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
fishpatrol said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
I think the subscription model looks better as the number of indie tracks available goes up. I suppose I could fill up on bands I've heard before, but ship me the new stuff, what people are dreaming up and creating today.
The big question is how will businesses make money if they go subscription-based. If keeping your subscription current is all you need to keep those tracks around, what's going to drive a user to purchase those tracks, especially at that same squeezed-out quality?
That's where I'd invite Amazon onto the stage. Sell a subscription-based service to their catalog that also lets you buy CDs at reduced rates. Subscriptions drive CD sales, all at the same company.
Why CDs? I read about people who only buy from the iTMS, and I must admit I think they're bonkers. I listen to my iPod at work and on the go, but I still like to sit down and listen to a stereo system. Plus, even a $60 pair of headphones can reveal nuances in the music you hadn't heard before--and won't hear if they're compressed out.
Quick channel flip to Mind Hacks talking about how the human brain handles noise and that mp3s prove that audio quality doesn't matter. Well, maybe not while I'm walking the grocery aisles. But when I actually sit down to listen to music, I want to hear it all. Is music just background now, soundtrack material? Are people still listening?
Reply
PXLated said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
What I find amusing is that "IF" subscription services do become popular (right now the only ones that seem to believe are the ones offering them), Apple could very easily add that to iTunes. They have the expertise, infrastructure and experience (movie trailers, etc). All these reporters and analysts seem to miss that fact.
So, Napster and the rest are still dead meat. :-)
Reply
Peter Rojas said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
Actually, the whole point of Microsoft's Janus DRM system is that the music IS transferable to a portable device and is not tied just to a PC. It doesn't cost extra to transfer your music to a portable player, but if you stop playing your monthly fee you no longer have access to your music collection.
Reply
Matthom said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
I agree with PXLated. Apple can easily add subscription based purchases to their music store, if and when the time comes to do that.
You can't claim that a certain company is "doomed," just because of their approach to sales. Because all they have to do is change that approach - meaning Apple can adopt subscriptions too.
And the comment about spending $10,000 for 10,000 songs is quote inaccurate. Some albums have more than 10 songs, and are only $9.99. (I'm sure many people realized that.)
The point is... I only PAY for songs that I truly want - and 99 cents per song is fine with me.
Reply
Will said 10:56PM on 7-05-2005
I'm afraid for Apple of the day Napster to Go rolls out. It's exactly as Doug suggests. If a customer gets the right player with the right technology, you can take your downloaded music with you wherever you can take your iPod. Of course, Napster will have to overcome the iPod's immense lead. I think in the beginning, there will be a lot of customers finding themselves liking the subscription-based model but not wanting to ditch their iPod.
Sony still seems to hard-necked to succumb to Microsoft's DRM, but I think eventually, there will be new listeners without players that will be sold on the concept of actually filling their player. Will we experience overload? Then again, Netflix hasn't conquered the DVD-ownership market. The Apple marketing machine is just so strong, sometimes I wonder how Microsoft can have a music store that competes with the licensees of it's technology.
Reply
barb dybwad said 4:41PM on 10-07-2005
Peter has a point (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,116362,00.asp) - everything is technically in place for this to happen. But according to the Napster site: "Note: Napster tracks must be purchased before they can be transferred to a portable device." (from http://www.napster.com/compatible_devices/) Which makes me wonder - what's the holdup? Will we see it soon? Are there other services that are already offering it? If so - I would be tempted. I have no desire for 'one music player to rule them all' - lord knows I already have a dozen or more ways to listen to music and they can all live in happy harmony together (no pun intended but once it was out, I couldn't stop it :)) I don't think I'm the typical consumer, though. Some folks want everything in one place, and some folks will not rest until they can own all of their tracks outright (http://apple.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000350023289/).
Reply