According to the Financial Times, Apple is (still) considering an "all-you-can-eat" subscription model, which is strange, because why would anyone want to eat digital music? They must mean "listen." Yes, as speculated before (in order to figure out what Jobs will be doing in a year, just listen to what he says he won't do now, apparently), Apple might come up with a plan where you would pay either a monthly fee or a lifetime subscription to download music from iTunes presumably straight into your iPod or iPhone. Supposedly what's holding the deal up isn't the price negotiation between consumers and Apple, it's between Apple and the record companies. Nokia, which is planning a similar deal, is reportedly happy to pay $80 per device to the music companies for the rights, but Apple is only offering $20.
Which makes sense -- Apple is the 800 lb. gorilla in the media device market, and so they have the ability in most cases to pay what they want or not bother. If the two sides do come to a deal, however, even the terms of property are still up in the air. A few ideas being bounced around would let consumers keep a certain number of songs even if they changed devices, while some deals would only allow access while the subscription was active.
What this may mean for us as consumers, at least, would be that Apple is planning to bring the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store to even more devices in the iPod line (or at least expand the capacity of the iPod touch to hold a subscription collection like this). If Apple really is planning to open up their library to a subscription, they should make it as easy as possible to obtain the music on demand.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
3-19-2008 @ 9:28AM
Jim said...
Apple, Apple, Apple -- everyone's pretty free with Apple's money, aren't they? But what you fail to notice is *you* and *I* are going to pay between $20 and $80 for this subscription, not Apple. Even if it's their kick-back to the record companies, we'll end up bearing the costs - that's how business works. It's a cost. They pay, then you pay - and if you don't realize this, you need to grow up and see how the business world works.
Let Apple negotiate the best deal possible, I say. If they can knock this kick-back down, I say take your time and do so. We're the ones who'll benefit in the long run...
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 9:39AM
Galley said...
Until Apple can allow streaming of virtually every song ever recorded, these rental schemes will fail.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 9:40AM
Reuven said...
Uh, uh. I've had my hopes raised only to have my heart broken one too many times by these iTunes subscriptions rumors. And I'm not going to fall for it again.
Oh, who am I kidding? I would love it if this were true. I love the subscription model I get from Rhapsody, but I hate having to Parallels into Windows to get it, and I hate the buggy Rhapsody app even more. This would make my day if it came to be.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 9:44AM
Andy Bewernick said...
can you say Amazon Killer? Would be great!
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 4:55PM
Simon Arch said...
Why does Amazon need to be "killed"? Surely competition is a GOOD thing, and not something to be suppressed?
3-19-2008 @ 7:57PM
Andy Bewernick said...
Hmmm... Yeah, I guess that is also true. I guess that Amazon could also be one of the contributing factors to iTunes moving to include subscriptions. I'm a hardcore Amazon user but I do like that they are pushing iTunes to be better.
3-19-2008 @ 9:52AM
Chad said...
Steve has always been against the subscription model and has been quoted as such multiple times. There's no reason why Apple would add a failed model (many times over) to something that works.
Reply
3-21-2008 @ 12:19PM
π said...
Quoth the Steve:
""Never say never, but customers don't seem to be interested in it. The subscription model has failed so far."
"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."
The article, if anyone actually read it, is mostly speculation
3-19-2008 @ 10:01AM
acidscan said...
Failed model ? I LOVE the subscription model, why am I gonna BUY a song that after 10 times I don't wanna hear anymore ?
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 12:29PM
Frank said...
what about the reverse, though? why pay over and over for a song you want to keep?
3-19-2008 @ 1:01PM
acidscan said...
Will you keep listening to the SAME song again and again and again ?.... you should have some kind of problem :)
What if I want to listen to new music the one that MAYBE I will like, or new artists, etc, etc.
I think the best solution is to have BOTH methods implemented, that's way everybody is happy.
3-19-2008 @ 2:21PM
Frank said...
well, more choices are always good, i agree with ya. i like having the ability to buy my music once, and keep it, rather than renting it and having it go away at someone else's whim, which is why the subscription thing doesn't work for me. if you like it, then more power to you. maybe apple can find a way to make us both happy. i hope so!
3-19-2008 @ 5:05PM
Simon Arch said...
"Will you keep listening to the SAME song again and again and again?"
Some folks might. I listen to a lot of music, but when it comes down to it, there are about twenty or thirty albums total which form the core of my listening habits. And of those albums, there are at least two or three per disc which I've heard hundreds of times, if not more.
Listening habits will vary from person to person, just like musical tastes.
3-19-2008 @ 10:03AM
Adam Searle said...
I'd love to have the option of paying another $100 for an ipod touch, and having unlimited music for the life of the device! Or attach $5/month onto the bill of an iphone.
I'd like a way to transition that music to my next i***, presuming I opted for the 'all you can eat' option again, without having to redownload etc. But thats just a transition issue
Oh, and does itunes on my mac get in on this? That would sweeten the deal
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 10:24AM
cylonite said...
what is so great about a subscription model for customers? we feel compelled to download songs that we dont want, in order to justify they subscription.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 1:12PM
Wojtek said...
And when is Apple finally going to fulfill the demands of European Union and offer the iTunes Store to all countries of the EU?
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 1:42PM
basscadet said...
subscription model applies to all those people who don't collect music and just use it like a portable radio. All those people that listen to disposable mainstream hits would probably buy this model (although I find it hard to think why would someone without strong musical preferences not prefer simple radio).
Soulseek, DC++ and torrents is best model still.
Reply
3-20-2008 @ 12:08PM
Bob said...
Sure, this would be nice to have but the killer app would be pay $20 a month for access to music, TV shows, and Movies! Good-bye radio, good-bye Comcast, good-bye Netflix.
Reply
3-20-2008 @ 1:18PM
Shawn McBee said...
Everyone seems to be arguing the merits of subscription vs the current model, but you're all overlooking the real reality of the situation:
Apple has repeatedly balked at the idea of a subscription service and, in doing so, has built the second-largest music retail outlet in the world! Projections have them over-taking Wal-Mart and becoming the single largest retailer of music on the planet before long.
This is not a circumstance that lends itself to a need or desire for re-tooling the business model. They've had nothing but steady growth since the launch of the iTunes music store and changing the business model now would risk the incredibly huge standing they have in that market.
In short: it will never happen.
Reply
3-20-2008 @ 4:53PM
Bob said...
"Apple has repeatedly balked at the idea of a subscription service"
They have also balked at the idea of video on the iPod and an Apple Cell Phone. I'm not arguing because you make several valid points: I'm just pointing out that Apple often proclaims one view point then changes their mind the next week so anything is possible.