Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, iTS
Why iTunes needs to offer an album-based subscription service
iTunes LP includes features typically found on physical albums, such as liner notes and photos, as well as exclusive video content. One of the goals of iTunes LP is to resuscitate album sales, which have been struggling in the iTunes age of à la carte individual track sales. While iTunes LP provides a means to resuscitate the album, an album-based subscription service would further this goal even more.
One of the crucial points that Apple -- and Steve Jobs in particular -- had with selling the iTunes Music Store concept (now just called the "iTunes Store") to the music industry was the need for à la carte music sales. That is, rather than selling music on an album-only or selective track, "singles" basis, consumers should be given the choice to purchase any song they wish.
Many in the music industry -- recording artists in particular -- balked at the idea. Their reasoning was that albums are concepts, and as such should be sold as a whole. To them, allowing à la carte sales would be akin to allowing one to purchase selective chapters from a book. That is to say, an album is much more than the sum of its parts. And I agree with this reasoning. I can't imagine listening to the Beatles "A Day in the Life" without listening to all of Sgt. Peppers, or to any song off of Kanye West's "College Dropout" without listening to the rest of the album.
But the music industry acceded to Apple's wishes, due primarily to two reasons. The first is that it needed to present consumers a viable and compelling alternative to P2P file sharing. And the Mac's relatively small footprint in the computing space would serve as a good testbed. If it didn't do well, it was just a small percentage of consumers anyway. And if it proved a successful concept, well, they'd be able to maintain control and steer the ship as they chose given that this was such a small percentage of consumers anyway.
Six years, Windows-compatibility, and several iterations and generations of iPods and iPhones later, iTunes is now the leading music retailer in the U.S.. As a result, Apple is now among the most influential players in the recording industry, with the ability to set the course for how consumers purchase music.
One of the primary arguments that Steve Jobs has made against a subscription model is that consumers want to own their music. But in the digital age, ownership has taken on a significantly different meaning and matters much less than it used to. Consumers today may not be de facto owners of the music they listen to, but enjoy many of the benefits of ownership through other means. Services such as Grooveshark and songza allow consumers to listen to any song by any artist whenever they choose; and even YouTube provides a means to this end.
Back when I was growing up, I had membership to both Columbia House and BMG Music Service, both of which are in many ways are subscription services. Rather than cannibalizing sales, these subscriptions fueled visits to my local Music Plus and Tower Records, where I would purchase even more music. To this end, an album-based subscription model is one that Apple should offer as an option to consumers. Such an offering, coupled with an option to purchase an album at a discount, would not only incentivize album purchases, but also possibly provide the record industry steadier revenue streams. And at the same time, consumers are still afforded the option to purchase tracks à la carte.
To Apple's credit, it has incentivized album purchases with "Complete My Album" as well as favorable pricing. While iTunes LP certainly offers consumers a value proposition, whether or not it's a compelling one that will rejuvenate album sales is very much debatable. The feature, coupled with an album-based subscription service (with iTunes LP goodies as a purchase-only benefit), could provide the winning formula for rejuvenating album sales.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Andre said 8:15AM on 9-14-2009
It's a start... but they will only sell music to me when it is the same quality of what I can get on a CD in a store.
Why would I buy a compressed version of music -- in a proprietary format -- when I can buy a perfect uncompressed "master" of it on a CD? With the CD I can create the compressed copies if I want for an iPod, create uncompressed WAV files for the hard disk in the car, and I can play the original uncompressed version on my CD player at home.
It's kind of like buying a cheap photocopy of a book.
Reply
Howie Isaacks said 8:23AM on 9-14-2009
AAC is not proprietary. Apple did not invent it. AAC was chosen at the beginning because at the time, it was the only standard that would allow Apple to wrap it in DRM. Later on, it became possible to do this with MP3 as well. A lot of people have mistakenly believed that AAC is an Apple standard. That just shows how lack of curiosity about the truth leads to ignorance.
bward74 said 8:29AM on 9-14-2009
Not everyone wants to have a physical copy of an album lying around. I have hundreds of old cd's just stuck in the cupboard taking up space. Now I download music to save wasting even more space. I have an mp3 connection in my car to plug my iPhone into. I have a Zeppelin speaker system for my iPhone at home, and in-ear headphones for personal use. All of which creates a sound that, to me, isn't any different from cd- especially with iTunes Plus content.
I would be happy for there to be a subscription service, but only to those who want it. I still want to be able to buy music to keep.
All I want out of the iTunes store is DRM-free movies and tv shows.
Andre said 8:29AM on 9-14-2009
I think in your efforts to find a technical fault with my posting, you missed the point of it.
mentalsticks said 8:31AM on 9-14-2009
> how lack of curiosity about the truth leads to ignorance.
Wow. Big, big words for a simple mistake. You should know that gigantism applied to verbosity leads to negativity in meta-comments.
David said 8:57AM on 9-14-2009
The problem with this idea is that it assumes that the uncompressed version must always be demonstrably better than the uncompressed. However, there are highly-regarded, tried-and-true methods for determining when two experiences are equivalent: double-blind tests. At this point in time, double-blind comparisons between uncompressed and compressed formats (using various algorithms and bitrates, and even different codecs for the same basic compression scheme) have been *extensive*. The conclusions are that, despite the claims of specific people that they can easily tell the difference, there is a point where double-blind tests indicate otherwise. By about 320kbps for MP3 and lower for AAC (closer to the 256kbps already being used by iTunes now), distinguishability disappears. And this is for A-B comparison. It's much harder to make distinctions when you hear a given track in isolation. It's harder yet to justify higher bit rate when the production values of the CD itself don't emphasize sonic quality in the first place.
So, once you get to a bit rate where even the best-engineered tracks sound the same as their original, uncompressed versions, you need to consider what you are trading off for going to higher bit rates ... greater cost to distribute and store (in the case of digital distribution), the need to ship discs of plastic around (extremely wasteful) and so forth. The high-bit-rate compressed version wins.
Now, the conclusion is different if we're talking about tracks that need to be editing or equalized later. The uncompressed tracks will provide much greater latitude for editing before detectable artifacts set in. However, this scenario applies more to content producers than to content consumers.
Andre said 9:27AM on 9-14-2009
Well, for much of my music I can tell the difference between uncompressed and 320Kb/s MP3. I have tested. When I changed from MP3 on my car stereo to WAV I noticed a big difference.
I suppose one could argue that MP3 is only as good as the de-compressor (i.e. the car stereo's rendering of MP3's), but whatever. I notice a large enough difference that I go to the trouble of re-encoding all my music as WAV, from the original CD. And of course, having the original CD gives me that choice.
As for storage and distribution, I don't buy it. They're doing it with movies and videos, which are considerably larger than a WAV file of a song.
If many, even most people can't tell the difference, then great for them. But give us a choice. It would be so much more convenient for me to buy the full uncompressed versions of songs on-line than dealing with buying and ripping CDs.
I'm willing to bet that given the choice, many people would buy the uncompressed versions on-line, even if they couldn't tell the difference. It opens up their options more.
Me? I'll continue to buy CDs until someone like Apple can sell me the same thing on-line. They can dress up the compressed versions all they like with album cover information, but they still can't match the uncompressed CD (yet).
chrismusaf said 9:38AM on 9-14-2009
What Howie Isaacs said is just the beginning of what you got wrong. In fact, your ENTIRE COMMENT is full of disinformation. Let's review:
"Why would I buy a compressed version of music -- in a proprietary format"
Like Howie said, it's not proprietary. Okay, we've established that.
"when I can buy a perfect uncompressed "master" of it on a CD?"
Yeah, that perfect CD of yours? Not so perfect. It's compressed too. SACDs are better, but a CD is nowhere near "master"
"With the CD I can create the compressed copies if I want for an iPod, create uncompressed WAV files for the hard disk in the car, and I can play the original uncompressed version on my CD player at home."
If you want an uncompressed "CD version" in iTunes, try Apple Lossless. While it is proprietary, it does not use DRM and it will save you space with no sacrifice in sound.
"It's kind of like buying a cheap photocopy of a book."
According to Wikipedia's article on AAC, Hi-fi demands at least 128bit/s (VBR) compression. iTunes Plus songs are all 256bit/s. I'd bet in a blind test you'd have quite a difficult time telling the difference between an iTunes Plus song and a CD.
So it's more like buying the Amazon Kindle version on a book, which is fully authorized and supported by the publisher and author.
Andre said 10:05AM on 9-14-2009
Alright, so I'm not an expert on who invented AAC files. I give.
I don't know if a CD is compressed or not - again, not an expert, but it's way better than the compressed versions that are on iTunes.
Does Apple offer the choice of lossless for its music on iTunes? Maybe that is an option if they do. I haven't seen that on music for sale - maybe I'm just missing that. I though that was a CD ripping option.
Another point: If I have devices that can only play MP3, then I am sure that converting from one compressed format to another will result in even more compression.
You can't make me not tell the difference between 256Kb/s compressed and the CD. Simple I can and do hear the difference. Maybe for 75% of my music I wouldn't notice unless I was really listening, but for a lot of it, there is a huge difference. I could offer example after example if you were here. Some music loses some of the great sound. Progressions from mid bass to deep bass, while technically "there" on an MP3 are just missing something.
Do you have the Supertramp CD "Even in the Quietest Moments"? That's a great test. Compare even a 320Kb/s MP3 of the title song with the CD on a good stereo system. As the bass notes slide down to the very deep ones, there is a noticeable loss in quality and dynamic range. Yes, the MP3 can get "down deep" (and many people probably don't hear the difference), but it doesn't sound anywhere near as good to my ears.
If you can't tell the difference, then great for you. I'm happy that you're happy. I can tell the difference. You may not like that, but I can. Maybe I'm just pickier than most people, but then I admit that, and want the choice.
I wonder why when they make CDs, that they don't compress it to 256 or 320Kb/s if people can't tell....? I suspect there are those of us who can tell.
It isn't like a Kindle, it's like a cheap photocopy. Being "fully authorized and supported" has nothing to do with it. If the Kindle image of the text was not of the same quality as the book, then your comparison would stand.
Some people would be happy with a colour photocopy of a painting on their wall. To many, the original looks better. Wikipedia could say that they're very close and people would be happy. Me, I'd want the original on my wall.
To all of you that can't tell the difference: Keep buying from iTunes and be happy - and stop trying to convince me that I can't hear the difference.
I will admit that I cannot tell the difference on my iPhone or on my computer's speakers, but on my good system I most certainly can.
I would just like the choice. I have that choice with CDs now, and I'm happy. I would simply like the option of buying the same quality on-line. There's an opportunity for Apple. They could even charge me a bit more.
Jon Iverson said 12:48PM on 9-14-2009
Blind tests have limited viability in audio, since the system/room you use, and the skill of the listeners alter the results. The best thing a blind audio test can achieve is to determine who the most sensitive listeners are in a given room.
That said, many people can pick out compressed files of varying degree every time - once you sort out what the difference is, you can hear it every time. Most folks are not trained listeners, or don't care.
Albums are recorded in a variety of mediums. Most are mastered for CD at uncompressed 44kHz resolution, which is the same resolution as the CD. But the original tapes or files may allow mastering at higher resolutions as well, which is where SACD or 96kHz/24bit downloads can shine.
For my part, I'll buy from iTunes when they release uncompressed or Apple Lossless 44kHz or better files. Without DRM.
SpinThis! said 1:00PM on 9-14-2009
@ Andre: I agree with you that Apple should offer at least an ALAC version. They even developed the format so why not offer it for $2.00/song or something?
That said, it sounds like you haven't done much testing at all. Unless you do a double-blind ABX test, it's easy to bias your comparison and find bits of music that "sound" off—simply because *you know* it's the compressed version. There are multiple ways to do it but unless you've done one and you can accurately tell which is which 75% of the time, you're fooling yourself. I think you'd be surprised at the results.
mabhatter said 1:12PM on 9-14-2009
you have a point. Now that they sell video there's no reason not to sell some CDs in Apple Lossless format. That's about half the size of the CD file but can expand to "lossless" quality. As CDs are rarely full bandwidth wise it's the size of a TV show for 5x the money.
I'd expect the labels are holding that back. But you'd have to ask what's the point in selling 5X the bits to do the same job. Are iPod headphones or computer speakers (from macs of course) going to get 5x audio improvement for MOST customers versus the improved "plus" version they put out now. It takes 5x the bandwidth and reduces the songs an iPod can hold without space taking/time consuming generation of multiple copies on your computer.
Most importantly... will people PAY FOR IT.
VanillaSpice said 11:50PM on 9-14-2009
"I can tell the difference. You may not like that, but I can."
Yep, that is exactly what all the "audiophiles" said before they participated in listening tests, and were proved wrong. Again and again. Through repeated tests. By different research groups. You can maintain a flat-Earth mentality or you can accept the overwhelming evidence, it is your choice.
Let me ask you this simple question - how, exactly, did you set up your system, so that it would randomly play either the compressed or CD-quality version of a song, through the same output setup, without any indication whatsoever (by any possible means) to you of which version was chosen?
How then did you find out, AFTER making your guess as to the format, and recording that guess (important), what format was actually played, so you could compare your list of guesses with the true answers, and thereby be able to say whether or not you can tell the difference?
You see, if YOU choose to play the compressed version, and then the CD-quality version, then YOU ALREADY KNOW which is which, because you just chose it (!) so it is not a proper listening test, and you cannot justify saying that you knew the difference only because of your hearing ability.
This is the root cause of most audiophiles claiming the ability to distinguish between compressed and uncompressed digital audio. Another problem is when systems will give away some audio or timing clue that, say, a CD has been chosen instead of an MP3. The whole purpose of blind listening tests is to eliminate these potential pitfalls and give a genuine result.
PS On a CD the data is uncompressed but is still just 16-bit digital samples at a 44.1KHz sampling rate, so not a "perfect master" in any sense.
Andre said 8:22AM on 9-15-2009
I didn't need a blind test, as the differences are that obvious.
Let me ask you... Why does Apple suggest that when ripping music, for the best quality, rip to their lossless format? Nobody should be able to tell the difference, right?
Why do they sell 256Kb/s songs instead of 128Kb/s? Most people shouldn't be able to hear the difference, right?
Why are so many people like me still buying CDs?
Why is it that everyone that can't tell the difference thinks that no one else can either?
I know someone that uses a fancy turntable and super-expensive speakers. He can tell the difference between that setup and my CD player with my OK speakers. I can't. But I believe him.
I can tell the difference between a digital picture taken with a $100 camera and one with a $5000 camera. Maybe you can't. Does that mean I'm imagining it?
I agree that most people can't tell the difference between a good MP3 and the original CD. If you say you can't, I believe you. They are close.
But why, if I can tell, does everyone say I need to test properly, not knowing which is which? Why not simply accept that I know the difference, and that I would pay extra for the "original"?
Most people don't notice the compression artifacts on a Blu-Ray movie. I can see those. I would prefer an uncompressed copy of the movie, but that too is unavailable. But I suppose by saying that, I would suffer the wrath of those who say the Blu-Ray is just as good, and that I must not be testing properly. (Why do I need to test if I already see the difference?).
Sheesh.... I just want a choice. I shouldn't have to defend to the masses that I can hear the difference. Why do you care? In the end, it shouldn't matter to anyone if I can hear the difference or not, as long as you're happy, and I'm happy.
I suggest a simple poll that asks "If Apple sold both compressed AAC and uncompressed WAV versions of songs, would you pay extra for the WAV?". I suspect the potential WAV buyers would be greater than zero. It doesn't matter if YOU believe they can actually hear the difference or not.
I would be interested in a link to all these tests with audiophiles that you refer to.
Howie Isaacks said 8:20AM on 9-14-2009
I'm still not convinced. I don't want to subscribe to music, I want to keep it even if I never want to pay for anything on iTunes ever again. If you want to subscribe to music, do so. Just don't try to push Apple into changing their model for everyone else.
Reply
mentalsticks said 8:34AM on 9-14-2009
Wow. Have some coffee first.
Jeremy Combs said 8:53AM on 9-14-2009
I would agree. I do not want a subscription based iTunes service. I believe the author has it wrong that the argument Steve Jobs made about people wanting to own their music is no longer relevant. I want to own my music and do not want it to be wrapped in DRM. iTunes has accomplished this so leave that alone. If they want to offer a subscription service do so but don't effect the rest of us who like it the way it is.
Frank said 9:21AM on 9-14-2009
same here. i buy it, i want to keep it — not rent it.
LAGal said 10:01AM on 9-14-2009
i think a lot of folks would agree with you. And a lot of folks can't tell the difference between mp3, AAC or lossless. The percent of those that can is actually rather small compared to those that can't. And it is the masses that Apple is going to sell to
as for the Columbia House reference. that was a buy by mail service, not a rental, so the comparison doesn't really hold. Netflix, particularly with their Instant Watching, is a tad closer.
Also, why does Apple have to be all things to all peeps. Why do they HAVE to have a subscription service. there are others out there. let those folks deal that market. and they can handle the sales. You don't see Tower Records or Best Buy running to buy all the radio stations to promote their titles to folks listening to the radio during rush hour. Nope. they let other folks do that. but on the flip, those folks can't run to the station to buy a copy of that new song or album. they go to Tower. both sides win.
Johnny said 11:08AM on 9-14-2009
I would like both services. I want to own my own music, but sometimes I would like to be able to try new music fully and then decide if I want to own it. If it was reasonable, like $10/month, I would consider subscribing just to find great new music and then purchase it when I deem it worthy of owning. Also, this would be great for when friends (whose taste in music you don't always completely trust) tell you to check something out or you are having a party and they want to hear it or several other scenarios where it would be nice to grab anything you want without paying full price for it. But yes, I still want to be able to buy music just the way I can now and it would be plain silly for Apple to remove that ability even if they did also start a subscription service.