I hate this idea. I want to own my music, not have it expire after 12 months. I go through and listen to old music all the time, rarely listen to new stuff but if I buy something today and I want to listen to it in 2 yrs and haven't paid subscription I can't listen to it.

I have NEVER understood why subscription models are popular, maybe I am old and used to collecting CD's and tapes and having physical copies of stuff nearby and ready when I wanted it.

↓↑report

I originally disliked the idea of "renting" music. But I finally tried Rhapsody and LOVE it. It's like having a 4 million song jukebox at your disposal. It's right up there with Tivo as one of my favorite products of all time. That said, I'd switch to Apple's service in a heartbeat. Rhapsody uses Microsoft's software engine and it's buggy and unreliable. Apple will no doubt do a way better job.

↓↑report

I don't get it. I would never pay to *rent* music either. If I want a radio-like experience, there are plenty of internet radio stations to choose from, or Pandora. Well, until the government decided to price them out of existence, that is.

↓↑report

I'm guessing if that's if you don't already have a MobileMe subscription. I was hoping to get a discount if you didn't already have a MobileMe subscription.

That's ok, Apple gave me a 60 day trail extension so i haven't been charged yet!

↓↑report

The option to buy & keep would suggest that access to the music is only available during the subscription period

↓↑report

And there-in lies the flaw. Why would I spend US$129 pa to rent music from Apple when I could spend the same amount and own it with eMusic?

The flaw with this service is that it provides little benefit to consumers. If you're a casual music fan, you probably don't spend much more than US$129 a year on music anyway, and you're ulikely to see the benefit of access to the full iTunes catalogue. If you're a serious music fan, you will spend more than this annually, but you will place a lot more value on ownership of that music.

The record industry is desperate to foist the subscription model on the public, because it allows them to gouge consumers for continued access to albums they could own. This is not a good thing for the consumer. Imagine the kid who starts his or her music collection with an iTunes sub - sure they enjoy access to a fantastic array of artists (minus the Beatles, sadly), but the second they stop that sub, they are left with no music at all.

Personally, between my existing CD collection, my eMusic sub, the occasional amazon Used & New purchase and Last.fm, I already enjoy a much better access to music than an 'iTunes Unlimited' sub could provide.

↓↑report

@Gary

While I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea of an iTunes subscription plan, and would probably not get one if they offered it anyway, being that I've switched to DRM-free AmazonMP3 for my digital music needs, I'd like to say that the reason this would work better than eMusic is the availability of mainstream artists and albums.

I've tried eMusic, and while the price is right, and you get to keep the music, I could barely find enough music that I was interested in to supply the free batch they give you when you start the service. If you're into indie/underground/unknown artists, and willing to take a shot on music for a fee, then the service is fine, but if you're looking for more well-known music, iTunes or Amazon (or other more mainstream services) are a better bet.

As a side-note, if you're interested in the type of music that eMusic offers, Amiestreet.com is something worth checking out. Their pricing model is quite unique (in my opinion).

↓↑report

You do know that isn't just the artist who is affected by stealing music, right? What about all of the others involved in the production if an album? They deserve to be paid for their work as well.

Also, it doesn't matter if it is 'fair;' it's the way it is. It's against the law to steal music, and it's wrong.

↓↑report

The artists hardly make anything from the album sales. All that money goes to the label, advertising, RIAA, etc. Don't get me wrong, I thing most music today is crap and the artists still make too much $$$ money for what they're delivering, but the price of online media comes from pressure from the RIAA and MPAA. If they'd pull their heads out of their @$$'s and embrace digital distribution, this thing would become a lot more streamlined.

↓↑report

If you can't afford another bill I guess that's a bit sad, but it doesn't mean the option shouldn't be available, as long as the existing system remains.

I'd much rather have "Download a generous amount and keep it" for let's say $100 a month, and then you can download up to 200 albums a month from your computer or your phone or whatever. It could be $50 for 25 albums or $500 for unlimited downloads of everything in the iTunes Store (except software). That's what I'd pay for. Subscription streaming or DRM-infected files? No thanks.

↓↑report

That's one of the dumbest posts I've seen in some time here, Øivind. That works out to $2/album. Do you really think that the studios are going to decide that albums should cost $2/each? And you really think that there are enough people out there willing to pay hundreds of dollars a month for music from iTunes to make it a marketable product. And $500 a month for unlimited? Do you realize that there would be no need for the subscription after one month because you could have already DOWNLOADED EVERYTHING? Under that model, albums would be worth PENNIES each. Time for a dose of reality.

↓↑report

I'm sorry you feel it's dumb, and I'm sure record companies agree with you. The point I tried to make is that most people spend a lot less than $100 a month on music, while a small percentage spend a lot more. If you can squeeze as much money out of each customer as his budget can allow, you will ultimately earn more money. Especially when your product is unlimited. It doesn't matter if the customer pays $2 per album, as long as the total sum of money paid for music is greater than it used to be. Meaning it's better to sell 10 albums at $2 than 1 at $10. I can't see that it's a bad or stupid thing, especially now that music has lost most of its value due to illegal downloading. Those $ figures were just examples, I have no idea if $100 would be the sweet spot, and the unlimited subscription probably wouldn't work as you pointed out.

I can only speak for myself when I say that I'd gladly buy at least 50 digital albums a month for $2 per album, but I would probably not buy 10 albums for $10 per album. Then I'd rather buy single songs instead of full albums or even full discographies, which is sad.

↓↑report