Filed under: iPod Family, iTS, Steve Jobs, Apple
Jobs: iPod users don't want to rent music
Reuters reports that Steve isn't looking to create a subscription-based iTunes model. "Never say never, but customers don't seem to be interested in it," Jobs told Reuters. "The subscription model has failed so far." Jobs said that iTunes customers want to own their music, not rent it.
I think that's a pity because I've tasted a subscription model and actually enjoyed using it. Given Apple's move away from DRM, a necessary component of music subscription, Jobs stance is not a surprise. TUAW readers weighed in on subscriptions in this recent post.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
O.I. said 12:14PM on 4-26-2007
How does he know customers don't want it? Did I miss the trial run?
Reply
Toastmaster General said 12:17PM on 4-26-2007
I agree. I don't want a monthly fee to listen to music.
Reply
Joe said 12:18PM on 4-26-2007
Why would I want all my music to stop working when I stop paying a subscription? I've used Napster and it's crap unless you pay more money to copy to MP3 players. I'd rather pay per album or song and have the ability to keep it forever even if I stop using iTunes Store.
CD stores don't charge you a monthly fee and make you return CDs.
Reply
Alex S said 12:59PM on 4-26-2007
Also, with subscription models, you can't burn to CDs because the CD will keep working forever and not just shut off when you stop paying monthly. For those of us that only have CD players in their cars (no Aux input) this is a deal-breaker.
Reply
Stephen Lang said 12:35PM on 4-26-2007
Um, CD stores don't let you cart out the whole store with you. Both models have pro's and con's, it mainly depends on your listening habits.
I'd love to see a subscription service being offered, it only gives us more choice. The one thing I hate about all existing services though is how many albums have certains songs that are purchase-only. So you pay your monthly subscription fee, yet you still don't have access to all the songs. That limitation definitely makes it not worth it.
On the whole though, I stick to buying physical CD's.
Reply
running said 12:45PM on 4-26-2007
I like that Steve's quote:
"The subscription model of buying music is bankrupt. I think you could make available the Second Coming in a subscription model and it might not be successful."
(http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs)
Reply
phi said 1:02PM on 4-26-2007
although there's nothing to say he wouldn't do a subscription model for the videos. People don't mind renting movies/tv shows.
Reply
ChillyWilly said 4:15PM on 4-26-2007
Monthly fees for music belong on satellite radio, not iPods.
If Apple does decide to add a subscription service to meet some sort of demand, then I would hope they add it instead of replace the current buy your music model.
Reply
zander106 said 1:39PM on 4-26-2007
If the iTunes Store went completely DRM-free and had an eMusic-style subscription (30-40 tracks/month at $10/month or so), then I would be on board with that.
But I agree that the idea of collecting a bunch of music that you can't permanently keep is kinda pointless to me. Music is something that I will continue to want to experience years down the road. If I have to continue paying tribute to a retailer for that usage, that's just ridiculous.
I do, however like the idea of having the ability to preview whole tracks and albums before buying. So here's a feasible music test drive option that I would propose: set up a system where all iTunes Store account holders have the option of listening to a set number of tracks for free every month (say, 10-15). Users flag a track for "preview" and get the privilege of streaming it over iTunes (not transferrable to iPod or burnable to CD) for 30 days or so. After that time, this "preview" access to the track goes away and you can't flag the track again for a few months or so. This seems like a system that would appease the labels but allow customers some extra flexibility to preview tracks for purchase.
Reply
blinkcowz182 said 2:00PM on 4-26-2007
I tried the Napster service (even tho I have an iPod) just for a couple of months. It was awesome downloading as much music as I wanted for the same price. And then I decided to cancel and suddenly the gigs of files on my computer were useless. Its kind of scary to think I could invest my money in something that could be turned off at any second leaving me with nothing to show for myself. I'll pass on a subscription model!
Reply
Treo Cell Phone Fan said 2:00PM on 4-26-2007
Apple doesn't want people to rent unlimited songs online for a flat monthly fee is because the profit margin for this kind of business model is very low.
Reply
michel said 2:05PM on 4-26-2007
I don't want to consume music.
I want to pay one time and keep it years and years
you have to understand, I still listen pink floyd and Queen from so many years I forgot
but also Gorillaz or Air. and surely again in 20 years.
I don't want to rent. and pay and one day loose them.
I want ti pay one time for one music. THE music.
Reply
rp said 2:30PM on 4-26-2007
I think that a subscription service would benefit everyone. It's like renting video games but on a smaller scale; if you rent something you hate, you can always get rid of it. If you buy it, then you're stuck with it until your little brother takes it from you or you trade it to someone else for something better.
With music, it just opens up the possibility of finding new stuff that you didn't know you wanted. If you really like it, then you can always buy it. iTunes could even work like Netflix does and suggest tracks for you to rent based on similar interest. It's a no lose situation. For those that don't want subscription, fine, just buy your tunes. As an Apple shareholder but someone who can't find anything good on iTunes (where's the drum and bass? cmoooooon), I'd like to see this happen.
Reply
Bob said 2:32PM on 4-26-2007
Online music subscriptions from Apple? No thanks. Online movie subscriptions from Apple? Yes please.
Reply
halhiker said 2:58PM on 4-26-2007
I agree with rental movie program on iTunes. Music I want to own. I listen to it over and over and over. Movies I would rent. Let me watch it once and that's it--just like the video store.
Reply
twodaysgone said 3:16PM on 4-26-2007
Buy music. Rent movies/tv shows. That's what I would love to see. Maybe they should make both options available. A pure music subscription model is a bad idea. I don't buy the same amount of music every month, yet with a subscription, I would have to pay the same fee. No thanks!
Reply
Phil said 3:18PM on 4-26-2007
Rent music, no way. I like to own my music.
Rent movies and games? hell yeah, I enjoy Netflix and Gamefly more than anything I can ever remember subscribing to.
But movies and games are not like music. I'll listen to the same song over and over and over, but with movies I generally watch once and then maybe revisit it again down the road. As far as games I'll buy the ones that provide endless fun, but for games like Super Paper Mario where once you beat it there isn't much reason to play again..rental is great.
Reply
mike said 3:20PM on 4-26-2007
If they ever do offer a subscription based plan I hope they model it after something like the music clubs such as BMG, Columbia House, etc.
I envision you can play anything from the online library with your monthly subscription with the caveat that you couldn't burn the files to disc. But along with that you'd also be able to 'buy' a certain number of songs/albums per month based on the monthly rate you've chosen. Say for $12.95 a month you get all the music you want to listen to as well as 1 album or 12 songs purchased for continued use if you stopped your subscription. There would be a tiered pricing structure of something like:
$12.95/month/12 songs yours to keep
$19.95/month/24 songs...
$24.95/month/30 song...
I think I'd go for that especially if, like a cellular plan, you could carry over monthly songs like roll-over minutes.
Anyway. It'll never happen, I guess.
Reply
chewbee said 3:24PM on 4-26-2007
I don't see where anyone has suggested that subsription would REPLACE purchasing. If you don't want subscription, just don't use it. Why campaign against it? It's not a threat to purchasing. Can't they exist side-by-side? Or is subscription so heinous that it must be eradicated?
Reply
Justin Bell said 6:59AM on 4-27-2007
O.I.: Because he's a successful businessman? Perhaps you also assume that what you want is probably what most people want?
The general consensus is that renting music sucks. Music is not like a movie or a video game. Perhaps for some people it is, but not most, it seems.
Reply