“Going against conventional wisdom, I think Apple will soon introduce a subscription-based music and video service. Although music-subscription services have been in the digital music rotation for years now–and with relatively low success–Apple has repeatedly shunned this still intriguing distribution model for its iTunes Music Store. But the digital music space is still young, and as competition from the likes of WMP 11 and Urge heats–or, rather, warms–up, I believe Apple may shock us with its own bulletproof version of an all-you-can eat iTunes club. And consumers will lick it up,” James Kim, Senior editor, CNET Reviews writes. “While subscription services have struggled to capture the hearts and wallets of the masses, the infrastructure and the standards for operating a service are ready to go. While not everybody will warm to the idea of renting songs, the time is now for users to accept the subscription model as one of the many options for consuming music.”
“Imagine a subscription-enabled iTunes 7 with all-you-can-stream access to more than 3 million tracks for $10 month. You’d also be able to compile playlists manually or automatically using a mix of your own songs and the entire iTunes catalog. You could actually fill up a 60GB iPod with the click of a button. You’d still have the option to buy tracks, perhaps for less than 99 cents. As a subscriber, you’d get access to videos and maybe even movies for a few bucks more. Of course, you’d have to get the newest iPod, equipped with an internal subscription clock,” Kim writes. “I can’t believe that in five years, Apple won’t have a subscription service. The company has taken note of the problems on the WMA side, plus it has the advantage of controlling both the hardware and software sides of the subscription equation. The time is now for an easy-to-use, utterly convenient, and cheap subscription service from Apple.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: A subscription service option for iTunes that works for both Mac and Windows PC users plus also works with iPods? Now that sounds like a winner to us. Not for everyone, of course, but it would be a nice option to have. What do you think?
Advertisements:
• Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook. Starting at just $1099
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
Related articles:
Apple iTunes music and video store takes first step toward subscription model – March 08, 2006
Survey hints at Apple iTunes movie service with subscription, a la carte models explored – March 02, 2006
EMI Music Chairman: Music subscription services like Napster and Rhapsody haven’t beeen huge – January 23, 2006
BusinessWeek: Apple unlikely to launch music subscription service – August 15, 2005
Merrill Lynch analyst: Apple could ‘flick the switch on a music subscription model’ – May 13, 2005
Apple cautious about online music subscription model – May 09, 2005
Study shows Apple iTunes Music Store pay-per-download model preferred over subscription service – April 11, 2005
Should Apple add subscription service to iTunes? – March 07, 2005
Apple to add subscription-based option to iTunes Music Store? – December 06, 2004
It’s existed for years… it’s called Usenet newsgroups.
@Realist:
I think you might have it wrong:
1) Regarding the # of computers authorized:
It really won’t be up to Apple – the record companies would want to get as much income as possible, beign allowed to use this on more than 2 computers would limit their revenue – they wouldn’t let Apple do this without a major revision to the contract.
2) The cost for subscription is low in the beginning, but spread that over many, many years I believe it becomes more costly than straight owning. I’m sure many of us have old albums from the 1970’s and earlier. I like and I think I’m not alone in being able to go back and re-live my life in music.
Based on the subscription model I have to pay and pay and pay and pay to keep what I love or use to love. By the way I won’t have anything to pass on to the future gene pool.
3) Do you think the record companies will want to limit their income by giving a discount for those that want to purchase their music? From all indications I could see the record companies charging the same rate even if you had a valid subscription, they got you by the B@lls.
Actually the more I type this response I think those that go with the subscription model are just short-sighted.
My 2 cents
“Nah. Call me old fashioned, but people still like to have ownership over their music. The streaming-and-buying-for-€10-a-month-and-less-than-99c-a-track model just sounds unnecessarily complicated to me.”
elscir,
I, and millions of other consumers, also like to own the music we pay for. But there are folks who would pay a subscription fee for music. Like businesses. My brothers and I operate a chain of grocery stores, all linked to the Internet with high-speed connections. An iTunes subscription service would be ideal for providing in-store music at all locations. I don’t listen to Abba or Barry Manilow, but many of our customers do. A choice of over 3 million streaming tunes would save us the massive ongoing headaches we currently experience in terms of sourcing music, compiling playlists, and burning them to multiple discs for multiple stores. The holiday season alone would be well worth it.
Apple could easily target businesses with pre-compiled playlists for different locations and occasions, and managers would still have enormous latitude to create their own, on the fly if need be. Remember Muzak? They built an empire providing music to businesses. Apple could own this space if they wanted to. In fact they could easily partner with Muzak, providing the music while Muzak does what they do best, researching the musical tastes of each market and providing the playlists that most appeal to each business’ clientele. There are lots of possibilities, and Apple has lots of people who I’m sure are much smarter than I am, so I’d be really surprised if they haven’t already thought of something along these lines.
@Static Mesh: “Now there is this ultra compression alogrithm and new TCP protocol that combined can get about 5000x the bandwidth using the present structure in place.”
—-> Got a link to a story on that? I’d be interested in readng about it. Sounds interesting……..
You know what I’d like to see… A system where you can donate money to your favourite artist.
For example, I love Radiohead and respect Thom Yorke, but got all of their albums from P2P. I would happily donate $50 to the band for their hard work and great music, but paying $50 dollars to the record labels… never gonna happen.
Be very careful with the laws you pick and choose to follow. This is not as much of a moral argument as so many make– you either buy music according to the rules, or you break the law. You are no hero if you subvert the labels, you’re a crook. There is no entitlement to music, or whatever you want. If you don’t like the deal, don’t buy. Certainly don’t steal.
Taking things because you disagree with the system is saying “what I want trumps everything else.” That ought to work well until someone trumps you.
Isn’t the problem with subscription based music services that you are then able to record the music with your computer. You could record every track you like for a mere $10 a month. There would be less need to actually buy the music then, even though arguably it may be better quality if you buy it.
I got married because I like commitment. I commit and I seek it in return.
Music ‘lent’ to me is just not good enough. There is no such thing as a 100% guarantee, and in a few years when the service is withdrawn (probably because the musicos’s will have found a different to route to make more money) doesn’t bear thinking about.
Life’s too short.
and how would this work?
what happens to the songs on the ipod if you don’t continue to pay…fill it up (hehe have phun DLing 60Gb on anything less than a 10Mbit line) for 10 bucks and then don’t pay any more?
this would be exactly like napsters shit except you get to keep your hard drive space.
MDN Magic Word: “single”, as in if Apple goes to subscription service only for iTunes, I won’t buy a “single” song… outta here.
This makes sense. Let’s keep in mind that you don’t “own” the music – the copyright holder does. You simply purchased a license to use it.
Subscription model is a license as well, with stricter terms limiting use. As long as I can move that song to my iPod and authorize it for use on other iPods and computers, I’m down with that. Timing is good, too, as there is talk that BitTorrent-like functionality will be included in the next OS, allowing for bandwidth sharing across subscribers. And maybe Apple take it one step further, allowing for tiered subscription rates based on the amount of bandwidth I provider to fellow subscribers.
Subscriptions are not the way to go. And besides, there is not enough good music out there to get your moneys worth. The music industry is a joke.
MDN Macic Word: “STOP”, as in STOP with the MDN Magic Word!
Yes! Best of both world! 0.99$ each or 6.99$ all you can eat! (video + audio)
Matrix3,
“It really won’t be up to Apple – the record companies would want to get as much income as possible…they wouldn’t let Apple do this without a major revision to the contract.”
– Um, they also wanted a tiered pricing model, but Apple didn’t let them do that either. I think you underestimate Apple’s bargaining power.
Based on the subscription model I have to pay and pay and pay and pay to keep what I love or use to love.”
– Not exactly. You pay for new music that you may not need to keep forever. You can still purchase separately the music that you do want to keep forever.
I think you’ll find that the general approach to music tastes is shifting. Artists and styles of music are not staying popular for two decades anymore. People like certain styles of music or certain artists for a year or two and then move on. Instead of investing a lot of money on songs that may not be interesting a few years, or even a few months, in the future, people are wanting to invest their money in staying current.
“Do you think the record companies will want to limit their income by giving a discount for those that want to purchase their music?”
– Who says that the record companies would give the discount? I imagine it would be Apple that gives the discount, just like they do with the free song each week.
“Actually the more I type this response I think those that go with the subscription model are just short-sighted.”
– The subscription model is only for certain people, but for Apple to ignore it altogether is short-sighted.
Muzak is evil. I’m not in favor of anything that allows the cancer of that “music” to spread.
For those that prefer a subscription, there would be no reason to go elsewhere.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
A choice of over 3 million streaming tunes would save us the massive ongoing headaches we currently experience in terms of sourcing music, compiling playlists, and burning them to multiple discs for multiple stores. The holiday season alone would be well worth it.
I’ve tried this, created 10 cd mix for play at the local pub.
You know what? All the songs have different volumes. It’s a hassle adjusting each song, blasting/quiet/blasting quiet.
One has to change the DRM to MP3 then run it through software to adjust the volume level, takes hours on a Mac Tower.
Your better off using XM or Sirus and then streaming that. Change the music on the fly once in awhile.
—-> Got a link to a story on that? I’d be interested in readng about it. Sounds interesting……..
Right here, actually it’s 6000x faster than DSL
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=49306
Subscription movie/TV show service for iTunes = Netflix with immediate downloads instead of waiting for DVD in mail.
I think people would go for this. Big time.
I prefer to own my music.
But…
I prefer to rent movies – unless it’s a really good one. A subscription service for movies would be OK.
$20 a month for all-you-can-watch movies/TV shows could work.
“why pay $10 a month when you could download all you want for free!? Downloading music illegally is just too easy.”
Um, because some people actually have morals and understand simple concepts like that stealing is wrong? Grow up!
“As a recording artist with songs for sale on all major services, I can assure that subscription models stink.
I personally end up getting a fraction of a penny for each of my songs that someone “rents.””
Folks! THIS is the thing that everyone seems to forget about. Yeah, sure, a subscription is CHEAP, but it SCREWS all the artists…maybe even worse than ever.
If we want great music, you’ve got to quit forgetting about the people who MAKE THE MUSIC! We need to put the ARTISTS FIRST…like they’re doing over at tuneflow.com and other similar music sites.
@Static – Thanks for the link. Very cool. I WANT MY BIC-TP NOW!
^^^^ That’s BIC-TCP
Yes for video, because renting video, including the all-you-can-eat monthly “subscription” method, are viable models in the “real” world. People expect to “rent” videos, not buy them. Apple realizes this, and their future digital online video store will support what people are comfortable with, renting videos versus buying them.
However, people have never “rented” music in any significant way. There are no music rental stores in the physical world. Music listening is a passive activity, and we listen to the same favorite songs dozens of times (not just once like most videos). So Apple will not introduce a music rental service.