SuperSite Blog

As usual Paul, you overgeneralize mac fans' position on the issue.  You set up a strawman position that doesn't accurately describe what many mac fans have said about the issue -

basically, that there are good reasons for questioning whether music subscriptions make sense for most people.  If priced better than what the record companies have been willing to agree to, it could make sense.  There's nothing wrong with doubting the utility of something, and then saying, sure, if it can be priced right, let's give it a try.

Mac users are not opposed to the option of a music subscription if Apple can get the labels to agree to reasonable and fair terms - who would be?  It's just a choice you can make or not make.

Jobs has been famously negative on music subscriptions, but how do we know that this is not just a bargaining position, to get the labels to go lower on the price?  Music subscriptions at the current prices required by the labels have failed.

Personally, I would probably get a music subscription IF I could afford it.  However, I have tons of music already, so it would be a luxury and I would use it mainly to discover new music to download.

@cesjr: Paul's favorite statue is the strawman. I doubt very much that he can find a statement from Jobs or Apple where they said they would  "never" offer a subscription service. But his rabid fans will eat this up, as always.

For the record: I'll be first in line for a reasonably-priced subscription service that works on my iPod. I suspect I won't be alone.

Why do you have to taunt Mac fans everytime you say something not so nice about Jobs or Apple ?

Just adopt the same rhetoric and tone as when you relate goofs about MS and you won't see any "spin" here. That simple.

After all, you can't expect objectivity and impartiality in the "spin zone" no ??!! ;-P

Paul, you underestimate the Zen of Steve.  The past does not exist - it's all about the now. ; )

Also, c'mon, tone down the "Apple fanatics" stuff.  They're an annoying vocal group, but a minority of a minority.  Your obsession with 'em is Rush Limbaughesque.

If this comes to pass (and something which I've always thought was a great option for consumers), the spin will be pretty simple:  something like we think most customers want to own their music, but we want to offer consumers options - for people who listen to a lot of music, here's a great way to do so.

Also, if it does happen, it'll mark a considerable shift in Apple's digital music strategy, which will be quite interesting.  I think it's quite possible.  Apple can no longer rely on the modest (but real) FairPlay lock-in with the explosion of DRM-free alternatives, and have to offer all options to keep iTunes's place as a digital music giant.

Also, what's the deal with "exactly what Steve Jobs said he'd never do"?  

Jobs just about never makes statements like that.  He's much too canny.  He always phrases it terms of what the consumer "wants" (which means what Apple thinks consumers wants  - or, in some cases, what Apple wants consumers to want).  

Hmm. A music player with an all-you-can-eat subscription? Where have I heard that? Oh yeah. That one from Redmond, Washington.

Once again, Cupertino, start your photocopiers.

(Of course, Apple's history of attacking that model will move into unhistory and Jobs will claim Apple invented it but that's just par for the course... See, "We invented the personal computer", "We invented the GUI", "We invented the MP3 player", ad nauseum)

Actually I think Apple has a bleak prospect in the regular songs sale since the introduction of Amazon service. That business was not very lucrative right from the start for them, it's becoming even less now. Hence the decision to adopt a more lucrative one, and one that has no competition for now (on the iPod that is still the dominant player on the market).

Can someone enlighten me (Paul?) as to the economics of these kind of schemes? I can never quite understand why everyone thinks this is the answer to the music industry's problems.

Even at an $80 dollar premium... over the life of the player... say 18-24 months.... that comes out at around $4 dollars a month. Surely the people that would be attracted to this kind of product would have been paying that much (or indeed) more for their music from other sources.

Sure the music biz gets a nice hit upfront, but then each customer is likely to spend a lot less on CDs and downloads.

The only way that the music industry can make more money is if the consumer ...... spends more money on .... music.

Paul, would you pay some attention to your site community?  Everyone is clamoring in unison for even-handedness and bait-free commentary.  The snide, hackery is just looking more and more ridiculous with each snarky jab.

I for one would LOVE an affordable subscription.  I think that would enable a whole wave a music discovery and experimentation for me personally that I'm unwilling to finance now.

The problem with playsforsure was never the subscription model per-se. It was the outrageous monthly pricing combined with the alleged widespread sync problems (problems that Microsoft acknowledged each time a new WMP version pledged "improved syncing").

Please, Paul.  Wake up and knock off the crazy jabs for the sake of your own credibility.

This all still depends on other things that Apple should be far more worried about.  One is the fact that they still sell DRM infested, low quality ACC music files, when down the road Amazon is selling higher quality copy protection free Mp3s that work with any device.  This is a HUGE problem for Apple, and while it is probably not their fault, it is, or should be anyway, their top priority right now.

This kind of deal could be huge, but it wont be if the music that you get from this subscription service is just a rental.  Jobs has said it before himself.  People dont want to rent their music, they want to own it.  Well right now, if you buy from iTunes, you are simply buying the rights to the filed for an indefinite amount of time.  That has to change or this deal will flop.

http://www.chipnit.com

@lookmark

www.zeropaid.com/.../Steve+Jobs:+%27No+subscription-based+iTunes%27

Uh-huh....

From that article:

"Never say never, but customers don't seem to be interested in it," Jobs told Reuters in an interview after Apple reported blow-out quarterly results. "The subscription model has failed so far."

How does "never say never" = "said he'd never do"?

As I said, Jobs usually tends to extremely careful with how his phrases his public statements, especially what Apple will or won't do.

OK he is not exactly  "never" but if it was anybody but Steve Jobs that's how it would be interpreted.

Brandon.pope - Apple "still sell(s) DRM infested, low quality ACC music files, when down the road Amazon is selling higher quality copy protection free Mp3s that work with any device.  This is a HUGE problem for Apple, and while it is probably not their fault, it is, or should be anyway, their top priority right now."

I'm sure if apple agrees to this subscription service that is built into the device cost -- which the record companies are pushing and want deeply - apple will require the labels to allow itunes to sell DRM-free tracks.  

That is going to be a condition of steve jobs agreeing to ANYTHING the record companies want.

**raises hand indicating he's s member of the community who likes it when Paul points out Apple's inconsistencies**

i'm sorry to say, but this isn't news - Microsoft was investigating a similar plan nearly 8 months ago with the Zune, along with free songs based on advertising.  of course the Apple apologists just so conveniently forgot.

arstechnica.com/.../20070819-activated-licenses-ms-watermarking-to-sell-ads.html

if you really think the music industry is going to let consumers get away with a paltry small flat fee for unlimited access to all the music in the world, then you're in for a shock when CD's are discontinued.  trust me - you're better off just buying music in physical disc format for the foreseeable future.

Call me old fashioned by no matter which music player I have (I did have an iPod very briefly but returned to using my SE K800i as my music player, it's not as a good as an iPod but I needed the money to replace my dead EOS 5) I decided to continue to buy music on CD format. At least then there is the physical item I have which is nice to own, there's less fear that due to DRM that someday my music will be inaccessible (though CDs will probably pass not too far down the line) and they are just darn nicer to have. As tanatlising as things like Coverflow are, nothing re-creates the atmosphere of leafing through my CD shelves and pulling out something to play.

I do still buy on-line sometimes but by far I prefer real media in this case (not the streaming player!) Subscriptions fill me with fear that once I stop paying or unsubscribe, my music is good as gone. Of course a subscription model is a wet dream to people in the game for the money in this respect.

techdribble:

"Never say never"  = "never"?  Wha?

Anyway, I'm not arguing this wouldn't be a very significant strategic shift for Apple - it most definitely would be.  And a welcome one, IMO - options (or consumer-friendly options, at least) are a good thing.

I've had many an argument over this topic with a friend who works for MS.  He is a big fan of subscription services.  For me though, the issue comes down to one of value.

Current subscription plans offer the consumer very little value for what you get.  For example, the current Zune pass is 14.99 per month, which translates into 179.88 per year.  That translates into the equivalent to 10 to 18 albums per year.   Multiply that by five years and someone with a subscription would spend nearly a thousand dollars and have nothing to show for it.  Compared to the person who bought CD or downloads who would have perpetual rights to nearly 100 albums worth of music.  

Thus, in my view the subscription model never held enough value to make sense.

Now compare this to some of the schemes being floated or rumored for iTunes.  8 dollars a month and you get to keep 50 songs a year.  Now at the end of five years, you would get to keep 250 songs or the equivalent to 25 to 30  albums, and you would have spent a total of 480 dollars.  The equivalent of about 18 dollars per album while at the same time gaining access to millions of songs.  This compares to buying  27 to 48 albums and not gaining access to millions of songs.  

Thus, in absolute terms this subscription model competes pretty well with buying model.  You would pay a little more, but gain access to a huge library.  In addition since all the songs you would keep were specifically chosen by you, you wouldn't end up with a bunch of albums with three good songs and seven crappy ones.  

Thus, the real issue with subscriptions is one of value.  Currently all subscription music models don't provide music fans with any where near the value they get when they buy physical media.  Thus, each and everyone of them has been a spectacular failure.  

If Apple, or MS or any other online service is able to get the price at or below 8 dollars per month AND allows the downloader to perpetually keep an acceptable amount of music then the value becomes greater then buying the physical media.  

At this point the subscription model would begin to succeed.

Regards

Joe Dokes

"in my view the subscription model never held enough value to make sense."

The subscription model will succeed when it's available for the dominant music player (the iPod) on the dominant service (iTunes). Simple as that.

Until then, the other subscription services are insignificant, because they are a niche (subscription) within a niche (non-iPod players).

lotsamystuff,

no.. its about value.  Even if Apple offered a rental service, at current prices and terms it is a poor value.  Thus, even if Apple offered the service it would probably fail or at the very least be unpopular.

It's about the price of the service vs. the value of the product.  All current subscription plans are too restrictive  and too expensive.  

Further to prove the point, what percentage of Zune users have actually signed up for the all you can eat plan?  If it were 40% to 75% I would say the model has some potential.  But my guess is that it is far lower than 40%.

Regards

Joe

Pingback from  Airline Travel » Apple in talks with music companies

mikegalos@msn.com

Please provide LINKS where APPLE ACTUALLY has said any of the things you are whining about...