“Don’t hold your breath for music subscriptions from Apple’s iTunes music store — Steve Jobs will never offer them. Renting music flies in the face of consumer behavior,” Leander Kahney writes for Wired.
“Consumers want to buy music, not rent it, and a big part of Steve Jobs’ genius is his firm, intuitive grasp of how consumers behave, and tailoring Apple’s technology to accommodate it — not the other way around,” Kahney writes.
Kahney writes, “Nonetheless, there’s a lot of speculation that Jobs may soon offer subscriptions, mostly because he’s currently renegotiating contracts with the record labels, which love subscriptions because of the steady, predictable revenue stream.”
“I just canceled my subscription to Microsoft’s Zune service after about three months as a subscriber. I finally realized that I’ll never change my music-consuming behavior to fit its business model,” Kahney writes.
Kahney writes, “Like all subscription services, Zune is analogous to a cheap Vegas buffet. At first you stuff your face like a pig, but when you go back, there’s nothing you want to eat. After an initial burst of activity where I downloaded everything I could find, my usage dropped off a cliff.”
“I thought the Zune subscription service would be good for finding for new music, but it isn’t at all. I’ve found more music from TV ads than I found through Zune,” Kahney writes.
Full article here.
Oh, so that’s who bought that Zune!
As we wrote as recently as last week: Business models that fly in the face of human nature are doomed to failure.
Human beings like to listen to favorite songs over and over. They like to own these songs, so that they can play them over and over. They do not want to pay someone an unending monthly rate in order to be allowed to hear their favorite songs.
1,000 excellent songs costs $990 (or $1290 for DRM-free, higher-quality EMI songs) for life, but to listen to them with a $9.99/month subscription plan for 10 years would cost $1199, for 20 years it’d be $2398, $3597 for 30 years, $4796 for 40 years, and so on – and that’s not even taking inflation into account! That subscription rate is going to increase over time, but once you buy a song, you own it for life at the price at which you purchased it — your deal gets better over time, not worse.
Now, for the limited amount of people for which a music subscription service would be welcome, we say, by all means, Apple should offer it – if it makes business sense (i.e. development and operational costs are less than profit potential).
Regardless of what happens, the fact remains: The labels want subscriptions to succeed because they dream of a recurring revenue stream, not because music consumers desire such a service. We can almost hear the greedy bastards in their music cartel boardrooms, “If only we could get them on subscription plans, if only we could get them on subscription plans…” Dreams of easy cash do not a successful business model make.
One more time: Business models that fly in the face of human nature are doomed to failure.
Now, for TV shows and movies, a subscription service makes perfect sense because it better fits the way people consume those types of content than does outright purchasing. Not to mention, where do you store all of that content that you own, but are only going to watch once or twice? Most people can count that number of movies they’ve watched three or more times on their fingers.
We want to buy our music and subscribe to a TV shows and movies plan via Apple’s iTunes Store.
Steve is a genius. The music labels – NOT!
1st post – again!
Beware, just because the process started out with people owning their music doesn’t necessarily mean that will continue. The subscription model could very well make sense, as technology allows the worlds music to be found and tasted from one location, and if the model expands to include movies, TV, etc, basically on demand, then this could very well be an economical and sought after source of entertainment model.
“Don’t hold your breath for music subscriptions from Apple’s iTunes music store — Steve Jobs will never offer them. Renting music flies in the face of consumer behavior,” Leander Kahney writes for Wired.
Journalists should know better than to use “never.” Steve Jobs has shown that he will change the course of Apple when it is advantageous, either from a strict business standpoint (i.e., contracts with the labels), or based on evolutions in technology or the marketplace. Video on a portable device like the iPod? Never!
MDN word= Because. Because I don’t to rent music! Because I don’t want to rent Movies or TV shows. I already pay way too much to the other greedos…cable, and I don’t even have time to watch the junk they pass off as entertainment.
Never say “never”.
I agree with the MDN take and with the above posts, but we are automotons and can exhibit rational economic. If at some stage in the future, subscriptions services were to become absolutely dirt cheap, say $1/mth, perhaps our buying behaviour might change.
Just sayin…
Typo: “we are NOT automotons”
Hehehe…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
If it’s the selling of songs to potential customers outside the country that is the stumbling block preventing this, do these restrictions apply when renting?
It may resemble radio broadcasts. A country may be prohibited from rebroadcasting, but unless you’re in such countries as Cuba or China, there’s no law against listening to them from the source — unless you’re the BBC.
Bought that Zune? MDN my 25¢ says Kahney was using a free review Zune.
What’s wrong with monthly based tax this is not “renting” music ..But the ITunes model is goog enough.
That’s the problem with the world. People are happy with goog enough.
Awhile back MDN did a story on a black college girl (in the east I think) who said she was going to buy a Zune because ‘everyone has an iPod and she wantrd to be different’.
I wonder what ever happened to her? Is she still ‘different’? Has she found someone to squirt with?
Sorry off topic.
I want to own, but first I want to rent to explore and find stuff I like. The problem with previous approaches are they were an either/or proposition. Too narrow minded. iTunes has a diverse catalog which allows both the popular (breadth) and eclectic (depth) exploration that can’t simply be done by turning on the radio to find songs.
Hurrumph, you’re rigth that’s the problem …
On a previous article, someone had a good idea of including a rental option with the .Mac account….
@irent2Buy
iTunes lets you listen to s asone for 20 seconds which helps a lot of people to choose. If that is insufficient, do what I do….go to many new stores which have listening stations. I go to HMV here in Canada and they let me listen before I buy. Great way to discover new stuff.
sorry…that would be…listen to a song for….
@ShadowMac
Typo: “we are NOT automotons”
Actually, and as long as you’re correcting, we are not [AUTOMATONS].”
@Buster 20 sec is not enough, I’m not remembering wich website but one allow to listen up to 1 minute.
You can easly imagine a shuffle web player who listen 20 sec per 20 sec.
That’s not hurting to code that …
Sure you could pay 1,000 for 1,000 songs, but that’s all you’d ever get to listen to. Like getting stuck on Jack FM. I get millions of tracks on demand, across all genres, and new releases every week. I am a music fan, so that option works best for me.
“renting” – I hate that term, is great for those who like to discover new music, or those in the business. For the price of a on sale CD a month, having access to 2-3 million or more songs at the click of a mouse is wonderful. Via a browser, Rhapsody.com works pretty well on a Mac, and they keep rolling out new features that are close to the Win app. Not being portable on iPod/Mac OSX is my one peeve, and that would require a client app. I’ve thought about loading XP to run a nonPod, but I just can’t bring myself to do that.
Now, a lot of folks aren’t into discovery. Most aren’t. The average person buys something like 1-3 CDs a YEAR, probably what they see on Oprah or Idol. Subscription probably isn’t for them. Audiophiles, you are probably out, too, because the sound quality will never be there for you, but then, ITMS is out, too. But the rest of us, the music loving fans, the one who care about new release Tuesday, Rhapsody is a good option.
The music industry should actually hate Subscriptions. I used to buy 6-20 CDs a month. Now, with Rhapsody, I buy closer to 5-6 a month, so less money goes to labels’ bottom lines and to record retailers. Plus, I’ll buy mostly hard to find items, stuff that’ll probably never make it to Rhapsody, or is limited in release. The combination of Rhapsody, and my rare buys help complete my long tail quest.
To be able to “rent” music … wouldnt some form of DRM have to be applied ? .. and wouldnt that DRM have to be wrtten in such a way that it would “expire” after certain conditions were met ?
And didnt His Steveness (just recently) hammer out a deal with EMI to sell music without DRM ?
Seems to me, the market is shifting toward non-DRM’d music, and not the other way around !!
Of course, the other music labels will hafta be dragged along, kicking and screaming before they see the light !
Stuck needle musico’s: The model is broke. We’re headed for broke. Force it on ’em and make them pay. Money for nothing, make them pay.
SJ: Oh no you don’t. We give ’em what they want. Value for money and gifts for free.
@oh my .. if you set a duration limitation it will take a week before the system will be cracked
(my 2 cent)
@ joe
love your sales pitch. don’t believe a word of it.
Since you love to discover, tell us what you’ve found lately!