An anonymous tipster has told MacDailyNews that Apple will hold a special media event in late September that will discuss and/or announce the following. The information that the source provided, verbatim:
• MobileMe, iPhone, iPod Touch
– Enable disk use
– When enabled for disk use, iDisk folder accessible
– iDisk app
– Viewable formats can be opened, other formats grayed out
– Button to sync with MobileMe
– Photo syncing support via MobileMe
– October launch
• iTunes Unlimited
– 256 Kbps music; highest quality digital music subscription service ever
– 50% of U.S. store available for iTunes Unlimited at launch, U.S.-only launch
– Available through iTunes or retail box a la MobileMe, funds applied through iTunes gift cards cannot be used towards subscription purchase
– $129.99 stand-alone or $179.99 with MobileMe, current MobileMe subscribers can add iTunes Unlimited for $99.99
– One-year subscription period
– Current a la carte options unchanged
– When signed in to subscription account, “Buy” is “Get”
– “Download and Play throughout iTunes Unlimited Subscription” or “Buy and Keep”
– “Buy and Keep” option available for downloaded subscription songs, purchased version replaces subscription version
– Late October launch with iTunes 7.8
MacDailyNews Note: This is a rumor. Please treat it as such. We’ll bring you more information if and when it materializes. If this event does happen in September, we also would also expect Apple to debut new/updated iPod hardware for the Christmas shopping season.
MacDailyNews Take: As we’ve often said, Apple should offer an iTunes music subscription option if and when it makes business sense.
Subscription service will become more mainstream with Apple on board. at ~$9/month, it’s viable.
If I read this rumor correctly, not sure if I dig the 1 year lock-in, though. Would like to have the option of a one month trial.
NOW everyone will change their tune and say that subscriptions are cool now that STEVE is doing it.
Hypocrites (I see into future)
Very detailed info. Seems very likely, especially in combination with the expected new WiFi iPods (and existing iPhones) that can stream the new subscribtion streams…
This would be great! I hope it’s true. I’ve long wanted to subscribe to iTunes to find songs I could later *BUY*. I just hate buying some itunes songs to find out I don’t really like it.
Subscriptions, oh the first sign of change. SIGN ME UP for that free subscription service…..
I can wish!
Watch out Dell and the FORMER Apple guy, that BERG is a coming…… is the crows nest asleep? Or without those bi-noculars in the HMS DELL’s captians desk?
Watch out for popping rivets….
I would have expected an MDN-take saying that subscription-models will never work…
Rent more cowbell?
Count me out of any subscription service thank you.
Sounds like complete crap to me. Apple have said time and time again they don’t think the subscription option works, and the success (failure) of other subscription services show that.
Also, the iDisk / MobileMe / iPhone just doesn’t add up at all, from a technical level, or a usability level. Enabling “disk use” on an iPod is nothing to do with iDisk.
The first sounds interesting (disk-mode and OTA idisk) but I’m not interested in subscription music. Even if it is Apple doing it (whoop-tee-doo), I’m still not interested. Subscription is of the RIAA.
Because it mentioned subscriptions and didn’t mention laptops I know it’s not true.
subscription = complete and total crap. give me the 256 bit rate songs and no DRM, sure, but pay per year for songs over and over? no tnx k bai.
if that is all Apple can do to improve the iTMS, i will disappointed.
now if i can access my iDisk from my phone. ok, that will be useful!
I’ll gladly keep purchasing my music as I see fit. I don’t need yet another perpetual bill to add to my budget.
Yes, Steve Jobs said many, many times that people prefer to rent their movies and own their music, which doesn’t prevent him from offering movies for sale and music for rent. MDN’s take doesn’t dispute the fact that “business models that fly in the face of reason are doomed to failure”. This is why iTunes business model is founded on music for SALE.
That Real (Rhapsody) and Napster are still in business, after all these years offering subscriptions, says that a small fraction of the population might actually be interested in renting music. There is no reason why Apple should cede that market to inferior people. Let’s not forget; every single person who currently wants to subscribe to unlimited music CANNOT use an iPod. Therefore, Apple is not only losing several hundred thousand annual subscribers to the iTunes subscription service, it is also losing on several hundred thousand unsold iPods.
As for music subscription concept itself, a (somewhat reasonable) argument might be made for teenagers. When you’re a teen, you listen to your current teen music idols. Once you grow up, you become embarrased by your teen musical taste. As we know, teen is a pretty important demographic group for music labels. Allowing them to pay subscription while they’re teens for the music they’ll only listen for a few years would make some sense.
Ironically, Apple will rapidly take away market share from all those other subscription services and come to dominate that field as well.
And MDN’s take is still consistent: Apple should offer it IF, and only IF, it makes business sense. And today, it does. Anyone here who doesn’t like it can safely ignore it (just like I’ll be ignoring MobileMe for the time being). Those who’ve been waiting, looks like your wait may be coming to an end. Get ready to buy that iPod now.
Nope. Not me. 99 cents for a download that you keep and do with what you want…period.
If however it was $99.00 dollars a year for unlimited songs you get to keep and do with what you want then I would go for that.
If not, then 99 cents for one permanent download. I don’t care how cool Steve Jobs is. This one won’t fly.
@MadMac
You’re blasting Apple users based on a rumor? I don’t think we’re the hypocrites.
Fsck subscriptions for music. They need to give us a Netflix-like subscription for movies such as the one Daniel Eran Dilger laid out.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/12/07/how-apple-could-deliver-workable-itunes-rentals/
A lot of people are already renting music via satellite radio. Subscription iTunes would let you choose the music you like, instead of having someone feed it to you.
Subscriptions SUCK!!!! You keep paying for music you already paid for, over and over again. That’s why none of the others worked, people want to own there music and play it anytime they damn well feel like, and not have to check in with the music labels to get there permission. This is exactly what the music labels want everyone to do, pay over and over again for your music which you already have.
It doesn’t make sense now, and it doesn’t make sense EVER!!!!!
If Apple Offering a subscription Service will appease the music labels to the point of all the Music tracks in the iTunes store going DRM Free (when purchased), I say let their be a subscription music service with iTunes. While the number of subscribers will be small and will remain small at least it will give the music cartels what they’ve been dreaming of Subscription Music with iTunes. It also gives Apple the model to show the Movie Studios that a subscription movie rental service is possible too. And Buying customers should be happy too if all the DRM is gone off purchased tracks.
It might end up being a Win Win Win
Steve Jobs said it hiimself, people want to own there music, not rent it. So I believe this so called rumor will not materialize for real.
Well to be fair it sounds like it could be an improvement over your average subscription service by easily allowing you to permanently purchase wherever you see fit.
— When signed in to subscription account, “Buy” is “Get”
— “Download and Play throughout iTunes Unlimited Subscription” or “Buy and Keep”
— “Buy and Keep” option available for downloaded subscription songs, purchased version replaces subscription version
Could that be the revolutionary part of it or are most music subscription services already similar?
Seems like someone completely ignored my post. Let me argue again:
If you have a teenage child, you will buy them subscription, instead of having them buy every single Miley Cyrus song. Over the six or seven years before going to college, your teen would have evolved tastes and probably bought several thousand tracks from various artists. These would become embarrassment once they’re in college (more importantly, they’d get no iPod play anymore). And you’d be out several thousand $$$. If you had subscription for these seven years, you would have paid less than a thousand.
Subscription model will remain a very small segment of the general market. The point remains valid, though; right now, Apple cannot sell a SINGLE iPod to these people. If they only allowed subscription on iTunes, they could all buy iPods and be very happy.
And the most important thing: it will NOT affect any of you who have no intention of ever in their lives coming anywhere near music subscription.
John, I don’t know about you, but I spend well over $129 per year on music and have for more than 30 years. If a subscription service is $129 per year, allows me to get any and all the music I like and I can take it anywhere on my iPod, it seems like a good idea!
Subscriptions have always been a good idea – when supplemented by a viable option to buy tracks and when the price and terms of usage justify the fact that you lose everything when you stop paying. Previous subscription services have tried to position themselves as being a one stop way of listening to and obtaining all your music with the goal of tying you to a service forever. A working subcription service would be to allow you to do your casual listening and try stuff out at a price that you could afford to not end up with anything tangible from.
Steve, say it ain’t so!
I’ll stay with purchasing my music, thank you very much.
This would be a major competition to satellite radio.
Let’s also hope they have a feature like seen on Pandora. Perhaps there is a connection here with the recent Pandora royalty troubles?
Meh, subscription models are the devil. I don’t typically spend more than $129 a year on music anyway. I have Pandora and Last.fm for full length previews. The iDisk thing is cool though. Makes sense and makes MobileMe slightly more interesting.
I’ll stick with purchasing, too. Along with my vinyl copy of Who’s Next, I also got 8-track to play in my 73 Mustang, Cassette to play in my ’79 Pacer, CD and now an iTunes version at 128kbs. I can’t wait to pay for the 256 version.
“NOW everyone will change their tune and say that subscriptions are cool now that STEVE is doing it.
Hypocrites (I see into future)”
If you can actually COMPREHEND what people have always said, it’s that subscriptions ONLY models don’t work. There should be an option to buy because people prefer to OWN their music, not rent it perpetually.
No, Predrag, we aren’t ignoring you. It’s just the basis of your point is something that I suspect most parents here don’t agree with.
“If you have a teenage child, you will buy them subscription,…”
No, we won’t.
Or, at least this parent won’t be flushing an unnecessary $129 down the toilet each year. That’s no way to teach a child financial responsibility. My kid can spend his own money, whether for a sub or individual purchases, to support his entertainment habit.
its a rumor.. and a corny one… people wanna own their music
how about subscrption tv shows
I don’t want a music subscription, I like owning my music as I listen to it over and over and over.
What I really want for my AppleTV is a monthly rental subscription for unlimited access to older movies like all the other services are offering. And lower the price/increase rental times for HD movies.
As we’ve often said, Apple should offer an iTunes music subscription option if and when it makes business sense.
I agree, but someone will create automation mp3 software that will exploit the “analog hole” so one can simply play back their subscription music from a iPod back into a Mac/PC.
Tag it and bag it. Steal millions of songs.
Come on, think of the artists. It’s only a frigging buck a song. One only needs about 2000 really good songs to have enough variance.
If subscription models for music actually worked well, then satellite radio would be much more popular than it is.
As it is, Sirius (SIRI-NASDAQ) stock is trading at a buck forty-six a share and the stock has been in long slow decline. XM was subsumed by Sirius proving that competition in that space can’t sustain the model. It probably has more to do with their marketing and delivery. I don’t know, but satellite radio just sounds complicated. Marketing.
I have access to commercial-free music radio on iTunes but never listen to it. Does anyone else?
If Apple offered subscriptions, I have no doubt they would garner a small percentage of listeners, but that group could never sustain enough profits to support all the Store has to offer.
Wait and see, people.
Wait and see…
@Macaday
Count me out of any subscription service thank you.
A-Men Brutha!
Video will NEVER appear on an iPod! Like Steve said, who wants to watch a tiny video? Er…wrong time period sorry.
“I have access to commercial-free music radio on iTunes but never listen to it. Does anyone else?”
commercial free? nope. KEXP? yep
there are different types of music fans. some people only have a few hundred songs and aren’t progressive in their taste. they listen to what the radio plays. a subscription service for these people may not be cost effective versus buying the latest top 40 hit.
other listeners have gigs and gigs of music, are progressive listeners and are very open to new music. these people might benefit more from a subscription service.
just a thought…
@ Macromancer:
Name one subscription service that doesn’t give you the option to buy. The model you described – which I think is a fantastic model that’s been widely misunderstood and unjustly maligned – is the way ALL subscription services operate, and always have. Sadly, the noise generated in corners such as this one (in which I’m firmly planted, no less) has managed to drown out all the points that make this model make sense.
For everybody STILL whining about wanting to “own” their music and railing against being tied down yada yada yada, here’s how it works:
You pay a fee to access everything the store has to offer, listen to whatever you want as much as you want whenever you want, be it on your computer or on your iPod. Pretty cool. On top of that, or instead of that, if you find a song you love enough that you want to OWN it FOREVER, you simply click a button that says BUY, and bam! You own it!
Do you know why all those other subscription services have largely failed? Simply because your iPod don’t work with it. Or, you could say, because it ain’t Apple.
What Apple needs is a TV Show subscription plan like Netflix. I’ve stopped buying TV shows from Apple, since i usually only want to watch them once. It’s just too expensive.
Every since I got the Netflix ROKU box, I get to use it for free with my Netflix subscription.
“Name one subscription service that doesn’t give you the option to buy. The model you described – which I think is a fantastic model that’s been widely misunderstood and unjustly maligned – is the way ALL subscription services operate, and always have. Sadly, the noise generated in corners such as this one (in which I’m firmly planted, no less) has managed to drown out all the points that make this model make sense.”
Hmm… no.
You may think it’s fantastic, but the “fact” that it makes sense does so only to you (and those who agree with you).
Why? Because you (and those who agree) refuse to accept the reality that it makes sense only for you. Music subs are not maligned, nor misunderstood. That’s just making excuses for why music subs haven’t succeeded.
In regards to listening to music, not everyone’s circumstances, situations, musical desires, tastes and wants are the same. If they were, then yeah, what you say might (heavy on the might) make sense.
But the simple fact is, they aren’t.
“For everybody STILL whining about wanting to “own” their music and railing against being tied down yada yada yada, here’s how it works:
You pay a fee to access everything the store has to offer, listen to whatever you want as much as you want whenever you want, be it on your computer or on your iPod. Pretty cool. On top of that, or instead of that, if you find a song you love enough that you want to OWN it FOREVER, you simply click a button that says BUY, and bam! You own it! “
No one is whining. We know how it works. Most of us just don’t think it makes sense to pay for something twice.
The only whining that seems to be going on in regards to music subs is coming from music sub advocates, who appear unable to accept the notion that most people simply aren’t interested. They’re starting to sound like shills for the music industry.
“Do you know why all those other subscription services have largely failed? Simply because your iPod don’t work with it. Or, you could say, because it ain’t Apple.”
Hmmm… no, again.
They failed (not “largely,” but failed period) for one simple reason.
Most people simply aren’t interested in music subscriptions.
I personally think subscriptions are dumb but Apple doing a subscription service is a win-win. If it works, they win by suffocating any other potential future competition in this area and if it doesn’t work they still own the online digital media market.
Besides, it probably took them, what, two days and five monkeys to program that capability?
Having this option is really a no-brainer for Apple.
I will NEVER EVER pay a monthly fee to listen to music. And I won’t ever pay a monthly fee to listen to satellite radio.
This is the wrong way to go (if true).
This is just a Microsoftian like ploy to make Dell give up their plans before they even start.
Well, who said Apple couldn’t find a Microsoft tactic it could copy?
I could have sworn the author said this subscription story was a rumor. Why are people going ballistic over this as if it had already happened? The source is an anonymous tipster which means absolutely nothing. Just move on. There is nothing to hear except the dropping of FUD.
Apple: buy Pandora.
Subscription services require stronger DRM than Apple has implemented in iTunes and would represent a major regression in Apples pragmatic stance on DRM.
I always thought subscription services were detested here (seems I’ve read a many of MDN Takes saying they’d never work, etc)… I know my feelings for them are still as such. NO THANKS on renting my music… I view that same as renting a place to live, a waste of money when you have the option of owning.
That’s not to say I can’t be convinced otherwise, just until someone can do so, I’ll continue detesting subscription services for music (movies are slightly different, since I generally don’t watch a movie repeatedly… but I still would prefer to own something I’m paying for).
My 2¢
I think the subscription service is great for someone that wants to explore music. I don’t want to buy dozens of new songs a month that I may decide I don’t like. It’s the difference between interactive discovery and being spoon-fed by radio…kind of like the difference between the web and tv.
Subscription AppleTV? Isn’t that called “cable”? I just wish Apple and NBC would make up as I’ve been looking for a viable way to dump my cable company.
If Apple is trading adding a music subscription service (as a condition) for making all of its “a la carte” music 256 kbps and DRM-free, I’m all for it.
Just because a service exists, it doesn’t mean I have to use it. If the only way to pay for it is to get a $100+ annual subscription, it does not seem like Apple is pushing the service too much. Then again, this could be “just a rumor.”
I’m fine with a music subscription if it’s implemented well. I don’t really care if I “own” music, I just want to be able to listen to what I want, when I want. That’s why I pay for music now… after all, I only benefit when I’m actually listening to something, and I want to support the musicians whose music I listen to. The “product of service” model may be a bit odd to a materialistic (focused on owning stuff rather than benefitting from stuff) society, but I dig it.
The key of course is “implemented well”. I need to be able to listen any time… perhaps now with the iPhone (which I don’t own) a music subscription service will make more sense, because in theory you could listen at [almost] any time. This has been the achilles heel of other services. The other weakness is that I listen to a lot of obscure stuff that isn’t available on iTunes, so I won’t be able to listen to it on an iTunes subscription service.
“NO THANKS on renting my music… I view that same as renting a place to live, a waste of money when you have the option of owning.”
I don’t get it… those things are nothing alike. Your digital download has zero value to anyone but you, so it is not at all like owning a house, which you can resell. Even if you sell a CD, you generally can’t sell it for more than you bought it for, so it’s not an investment but an expense. Subscription or not, you’re just spending a certain amount per year for the ability to listen to certain songs that you want to hear.
Too much detail. I say fake.
ken1w… I don’t think you understand who it is that wants DRM. It’s not Apple. jobs said back when the iTunes store opened that he didn’t think DRM worked and didn’t want it, but the labels pushed it on him. If he adds a new service that requires DRM that will be seen by the labels as a concession, and REDUCE the likelihood of majors other than EMI going DRM-free on iTunes.
WHAT A F*KING HYPOCRITE!!!
Subscription was deemed the Anti-Christ by Jobs. Now it’s F*kng Nirvanha! WTF? This had better not be true. I am beginning to lose all manners of respect for Jobs if he does this. I have long held the iTunes model as the most successful online music marketing program, because it destroyed the subscription based models.
Now This? I don’t get it!
and artists get paid…. how exactly?
wow my post is the only one not written by an idiot, and mine doesn’t say anything…weird
@Peter da Silva
> jobs said back when the iTunes store opened that he didn’t think DRM worked and didn’t want it, but the labels pushed it on him.
What Steve Jobs says and what he really wants are two different things. He and Apple are the master manipulators of the media. Philosophically, he personally probably believes DRM is bad for customers, but DRM is NOT bad for Apple, and Steve Jobs knows it. The more DRM’ed songs Apple sells from the iTunes Store, the more likely customers will keep buying iPods in the future.
Apple gains nothing at this point by going DRM-free on all songs. In fact, if they do so, it just allows all of Apple’s hardware-making competitors to declare their less popular music players to be “compatible with the iTunes Store.” So Apple will keep using DRM, while blaming the music industry for “forcing” the use of DRM, for as long as possible. It’s an amazingly smart and well-executed strategy…
ken: I’m not talking about Jobs’ beliefs, nor do I care what they are, I’m talking about his public position. If his public position to DRMed music (which is currently one of opposition) changes, than that will weaken his position vis-a-vis DRM.
“Apple gains nothing at this point by going DRM-free on all songs.”
They gain leverage against attempts to force them to use a common DRM in Europe, which indirectly provides them leverage against Microsoft’s Windows media format.
“In fact, if they do so, it just allows all of Apple’s hardware-making competitors to declare their less popular music players to be “compatible with the iTunes Store.””
Not unless their competitors add AAC to their music players. Re-encoding the music from AAC to MP3 or WMA causes the same loss of quality whether you’re “mix-burn-rip”-ing Apple’s DRM off the music or not. It’s not the DRM that produces a lock-in to iTunes, it’s the fact that very few media player support AAC.
DRM on music buys Apple very little. It doesn’t lock users in to iTunes (seriously, I’ve used both iPods and other music players with iTMS music, both “m4p” and “m4a”, and there’s virtually no difference in the process). All it does is get them a larger music livrary than they would have if they only had independents and EMI on board.
DRM on music has a large cost to Apple. It costs development time to maintain, it requires more frequent updates to iTunes than if they didn’t have to push a new version out every time a new Fairplay crack comes out, and it opens them up to liability in markets like Europe.
They have practical reasons to take a pragmatic stance against DRM, and weakening that stance is not good for them long term. That doesn’t mean they won’t change that stance if it’s profitable to, but you shoudln’t just dismiss it like that.
@Peter da Silva
Most of the better competing music players play non-DRM AAC. SanDisk does. So does Sony. Even Zune plays AAC files. There is no need to re-encode. And if iTunes became DRM-free for 100% of songs, you can bet any iPod competitor without AAC support will suddenly gain that ability to become “compatible with the iTune Store.”
> DRM on music buys Apple very little.
Sure it does. It locks other music players out of the most popular (by far) online music store. And the percentage of ALL music bought from the iTunes Store is getting larger and larger each month. You think preventing other players from using the iTunes Store is “very little”?
> DRM on music has a large cost to Apple. It costs development time to maintain
Most of the R&D;is already spent. Hackers have given up trying to hack FairPlay as a non-profitable venture because Apple can EASILY disable the hacks.
The iTunes Store is a break-even proposition when it comes to music. It exists to push iPod sales. If Apple went 100% “iTunes Plus,” the cost to Apple will be in the need to serve up 2x size files that are 256 kbps (versus the current 128 kbps) and operating a huge (mostly break-even) online music operation that benefits competing music players as much as it does iPods. That’s what I call a “large cost to Apple,” not the small ongoing cost to maintain a DRM system
Apple’s competition is not Amazon. Amazon sells a huge percentage of iPods and Macs for Apple; Amazon is Apple partner. Apple does not mind if Amazon succeeds in selling non-DRM MP3 files, as long as most of those customers are playing those songs on iPods. Even Microsoft is not really Apple’s competitor (except when it comes to the inconsequential Zune). Apple’s competition are companies that make completing hardware products.
If Apple simply removed music DRM at this point, it would weaken Apple’s market position against its true competition. I’m not criticizing Apple for keeping DRM… I’m commending them for playing it smart by keeping DRM in place as long as possible while passing the blame to the “evil” music industry. Well played, Apple!
I don’t know whose fault it is, but you’re arguing against a different point than the one I was actually making, and I’m not interested in getting sidetracked.
Apple is not taking a stand against DRM because they think it will win them marketing points with the 1% of the population who cares about it. Apple is not taking a stand against DRM because of any technical issues. Apple is taking a stand against DRM because the European government threatened to force them into DRM interoperability. Why do they care? because that would be a huge cost, no matter how they did it: it would require them to either support WMA (and take on a bunch of contractual obligations to Microsoft that they don’t want), or license fairplay (and that would mean they could no longer react quickly when fairplay was broken, because they’d have to coordinate with sandisk and the rest, and that would hurt them in their contracts with the music companies).
This has nothing to do with “passing the blame”, or with the “evil” music companies. Most people don’t care about DRM, many don’t even know it’s in there unless it breaks. Most people don’t even play DRMed music on their iPods, and the only music they have from the itunes store are the freebies they got with their iPod… if they bothered. When Starbucks did their iTunes promotion, the local Starbucks ended up throwing out most of the iTunes music cards. And yet, even without this “iTunes lockin”, people keep buying iPods, year after year. Why is that?
Have a look at how many iPod accessories you can get at best buy, next time you’re there. And have a look at how many Sandisk or Sony accessories there are. See if you can find any that are specific to the player, the way iPod accessories tend to be. If you find any, see if any of them are compatible with the players Sandisk was selling 3 years ago.
> Apple is taking a stand against DRM because the European government threatened to force them into DRM interoperability.
> Most people don’t even play DRMed music on their iPods, and the only music they have from the itunes store are the freebies they got with their iPod… if they bothered. When Starbucks did their iTunes promotion…
So on one hand, you’re saying Apple is motivated to get rid of DRM because of regulatory concerns in Europe. But on the other hand, “most people” don’t have DRM’ed files on their iPods, so Apple should not even care too much about DRM. Your argument in contradictory.
Besides, I haven’t heard a peep out of those doofus regulators in Europe in over a year; it’s a non-issue. If they were going to act (and not just talk their BS), they would have done so by now.
And I have not purchased a CD in over two or three years; all of my new songs have come from online sources, mostly the iTunes Store. Apple recently sold it 5 billionth song from the iTunes Store (it’s probably close to 6 billion by now). I question your assumption that “most people” do not have DRM’ed files on their iPods. The rate of sales in increasing, so the current DRM system become ever more relevant to Apple over time (the longer it continues).
As a customer, I want the iTunes Store to be DRM-free on all songs and (more importantly for me) at 256 kbps. I too believe Apple will succeed with selling iPods whether the iTunes Store is has DRM or no DRM. My primary point is that Apple has no great incentive to get rid of DRM in a hurry, and I personally believe Apple will keep it going as long as feasible.
But as a secondary point, if this new DRM in the form of a subscription service (if true) is what allows Apple to SELL all of its songs at 256 kbps and DRM-free, I’m all for it. I’ll just ignore it and keep buying my songs for 99 cents, but at a higher quality and with no DRM. THAT would be awesome.
It’s not my statement that’s contradictory, it’s the European government’s position that’s contradictory. Apple defused it by getting rid of DRM from a portion of their catalog. For now. The law grinds slowly, an issue can go away for months or years or even decades and then pop up again.
Getting back to where we started, “if this new DRM in the form of a subscription service (if true) is what allows Apple to SELL all of its songs at 256 kbps and DRM-free, I’m all for it.”
My original point was that it’s unlikely to the point of impossibility that a subscription service would have that effect. I can not conceive how you could possibly imagine that it would have that effect. It would weaken Apple’s position against DRM (regardless of WHY they have taken that position, they HAVE taken it), and hurt them in their negotiations with the labels.
All your babbling about whether Apple’s “really” against DRM or not is irrelevant, because the reasons don’t matter… a subscription service is a movement away from the goal you’re looking for.