Apple's Jobs still not keen on iTunes subscription service - Page 2

So then, Einstein, if Apple DID have a subscription service, it would be great for only 10% of the market (if you are correct) but it would cost Apple hardly anything in infrastructure costs and you could still (like me) use the music-buying model. The labels would lose their major beef with Apple and as the person above stated, the Zune loses its one possible ace card.

Why do people keep thinking that subscriptions would hurt anyone?! It is like people who are afraid that gay marriage will destroy the family. To think an iTunes subscription option would hurt the iPod is simply ideology, not rationality. If you don't want subscriptions, don't buy subscriptions!

Personally I like buying music.

I agree except I'd add ... "People want to feel as though they have control over their purchases, ieven if it costs more, except for a few who don't and for those who want to dabble once in a while."

Again their is no real reason why Apple can't have parallel purchasing models. It would make keeping track of rented vs. bought songs a little more difficult (yet just put them in italics in the library for Pete's sake) for those few who would like both in their libraries, but that would be up to them to deal with if they did so. It might cause some perception problems, but no real problems in the iTunes marketplace.

Just trying to separate perception from reality here. They are not always the same.

Well, yeah. But also, the extremely poor musical taste of much of the American public.

I remember telling friends the INSTANT Britney Spears, the Spice Girls, Michael Bolton, and Celine Dion hit it big that said acts were either grossly overrated or outright sucked. The pattern repeated itself again and again and again:

Me: What are you doing listening to that? It sucks!
Friends: Whaddya mean, they suck?!? They're great, and everyone else thinks so too! You're the one with the problem.

Of course, two years later, they're disowning said talentless hack along with everyone else, and claiming they 'always' hated them. Go figure.

.

I agree with all of that. I'm one of those people. But the majority are not, and that's why that format is successful, and has been ever since radio started up early in the last century.

Well, the concept of the Top 40 isn't due to that, even if some of the songs played were.

Well, yes, of course. I'm just talking in the general sense.


I agree with you. I never said they couldn't. As I said, I have nothing against the idea. I just don't think it will be as popular as some think.

Since modern physics seems to be over your head, let's go with Nobel Prize winner in economics, Milton Friedman. Let the market decide. Up to this point, the market has chosen purchasing over renting music. Apple's was not the first online music store, it was just the first to be a financial success. Instead of whining, pleading, persuading, preaching, and generally flapping your jaw, hold out a dollar bill. If there is money to be made renting music, then come along to accept your money.

The Nobel Prize winners have their theories, but we have an old saying in the 'hood--Money talks, B.S. walks.

What is your suggested means of implementing that metaphor?

(Apr 27, 2007)
You can view it now on Youtube:
Two Apples on Youtube!

I don't know that that line of reasoning proves much here. Did the 'pay for music' model do better because it was inherently superior, or did it win out because iTunes and the iPod (and the integration between the two) were simply better than the competition & whatever music purchase model Apple had favored would've won out anyway? Makes you wonder.

In any case, and as others have noted, it is NOT an 'EITHER/OR' choice. Subs and straight-up music purchases can co-exist happily in parallel on the iTunes Store, just as apparently 99 cent DRM dloads and $1.19 DRM-free dloads will shortly.

.

I'n not really quibbling, but it's $1.29.

Seriously though, how will Apple deal with the DRM question? The DRM on subscriptions is much more severe then it is for purchases.

EMusic, I believe, has a subscription without DRM. But, that is just for indies, who have no DRM anyway.

How would Apple deal with the majors, or anyone else that insists upon it?

Apple now seems to be committed to eliminating DRM as fast as they can.

Isn't the eMusic system more of one that you are still buying, but more of a recurring bulk purchase discount? Where you get a lower price per track for committing to spend a certain amount per month?

I don't know exactly how it works, but it isn't a regular subscription. What you say seems to be close.

Macrumors published this:

http://www.macrumors.com/2007/04/27/...c-videos-soon/

Apple could do subscriptions despite the DRM, they'd just have to open it up. The thing that's getting them into hot water in Europe isn't so much DRM but the 'no interoperability' thing caused by the closed nature of FairPlay. \

Of course, that then begs the question, "Why didn't they just open up FairPlay, instead of going DRM-free?".
A: Because it solves the interoperability problem, gets the European regulators off their nuts, AND its something that customers like. But subscriptions are something that some customers like too, and they're likely to accept DRM as a necessary consequence of having it. They already have elsewhere.

Meanwhile, for the "DRM can burn in hell" crowd, there'd still be iTunes' regular 'you own the music' DRM-free downloads. Everybody's happy... except of course for the 5% of people who are never happy and will always complain no matter what.

.

I think that this will be difficult to resolve.

I don't see Apple wanting to get into something they seem to have committed themselves to work getting rid of. It's become a matter of politics now.

I don't see Apple offring this unless they see subscriptions rising rapidly, and sales of songs dropping. Jobs pretty much hinted at that recently.

I dunno Mel... we're just going to have to wait and see what the results of the negotiations are. Stevie J did get the 'DRM-free in exchange for variable pricing' deal he wanted from EMI, but EMI was in an especially weak position, and the other majors will be a tougher nut to crack. Especially if EMI's DRM-free catalog doesn't sell especially well when it comes available.

Sure, *we* care a lot about DRM and bit rates, but Joe Average might just go, "$1.29 insteada 99 cents? For the same song? I don't think so."

If things go that route, Jobs will have to sweeten the pot, which may mean... yep, subscriptions.

.

Don't forget that EMI was testing DRM-free downloads for several months already. The story is that they approched Apple, not the other way around, after Job's blog. It's very likely that EMI got what they wanted out of Apple.

I think for Apple, it was put up or shut up.

Either way, I'm not sure that Apple will want to add another DRM service at this time.

It's fair to say that both parties got what they wanted. EMI got a potential spur to their online sales, higher pricing, and the appearance of being 'ahead of the curve'. Apple got DRM-free music to sell, and a precedent to use against the other major labels in negotiations.

Win-win for Apple and EMI, but not so much for other majors, from their point of view. No wonder they were bitching so hard after the EMI deal was announced.

What Apple is doing now is probably the equivalent of 'encirclement'. The other majors may well decide that variable pricing alone is not enough incentive for them to offer DRM-free. But almost 30% of music is not controlled by the major labels.

So, if Jobs can get the vast majority of independents/smaller labels to join EMI in offering DRM-free, he can meet his publicly stated goal of having 'about half' of the music offered on iTunes be DRM-free, even if the other three majors stonewall. And if sales of those DRM-free tracks are good, well, the 'contrarian three' major labels start to look desperately out of touch and behind the curve. If that happens, they'll cave, sooner or later. That's what Jobs is counting on, and it could come to pass... he'll get his 'EMI deal', but with everybody.

But the flip side of the coin must be considered as well. I'm not saying that this sequence of events is impossible, or even improbable. All I'm saying is that it could be derailed by a number of things (indies being slow/recalcitrant to join up, DRM-free tracks not selling as well as anticipated, subscriptions and subscription-subsidized Zunes lighting a rocket under Zune/Zune Marketplace sales), and if so, Jobs will have to do what he's done so well in the past: improvise.

And that may mean subscriptions to sweeten the deal for the other majors, despite Jobs' recent anti-DRM rhetoric. Things turn on a dime with Apple when they need to... one day, the G4/G5 family of processors are the best things since sliced bread, not so long later, Intel is king. Apple adapts to circumstances... which is a good thing, actually.

But given that, bear in mind that Apple is anti-DRM right now because it is strategic for them to be so, not because of any very strong philosophy or values. If it becomes strategic for them to offer subscriptions, they'll do so. Not saying its a certainty, just a good possibility, though I agree it won't happen very soon (Jobs' current strategy vs the other majors would have to fail first before he considers adapting tactics).

.

Ha, ha .... nice satire, but I'm afraid your analysis is flawed and Friedman was only half correct in economics and you are overly simplistic regarding the market.

First, the market can only decide what it has been offered to buy. They have had the choice of Apple/iPod/iTunes vs. Whateversoftware/Whateverplayer/Sony,Naptster,whatever music store. Does that mean buying is better than renting? No, oh ye of the flawed logic. It means that the entire bundled goods and services of Apple are better than the competitions goods and services. A true comparison would be between Apple/iPod/iTunes buying vs. Apple/iPod/iTunes renting. That is what we call an experiment with limited/contolled variables. Only then will the "market [really] decide."

Second, I think the buying model will still beat the renting model. I prefer it myself. But I also see that if the renting model is a steady percentage of the market at least 10% or higher, than Apple should at least try to compete in it as well. I don't see a big downside to it and it has such a big upside in taking away any advantage of the competition. It won't stop your ability to only use the buying model in the least, AND if it makes the record labels even only a little more secure, they might drop the purchase prices or add DRM-free songs even quicker, since revenue will be coming from more than one stream.

Third, you have no clue what "whining, pleading, persuading, preaching, and generally flapping your jaw" actually is, since you don't see it in yourself. I am simply critiquing certain comments that make bad logical assessments. Please describe where I am mistaken in my propositions or argument logic. I also don't really understand what you meant by "holding out a dollar bill"!?!? Maybe I don't have your street cred.

Fourth, you're a poopy face!

BTW, I used to teach physics.

Ooops, TBaggins, you made my points already (and much more succinctly), sorry I didn't read ahead.

I was thinking about that model as well.

Since Jobs talks about the CD as the medium of content that is already DRM-free and the iTunes Store with the ability to burn to physical CD media, its logical descendent - why not make all purchases, high quality, DRM-free music and make all rentals, current quality and DRM-laden music?

Yes, it adds some complexity and I personally would not go that way, but again if 10-20% do want to go that way, why not let them?

A third option is to re-define the service slightly so that you get beyond the current perception of what "rented music" is ...

I know this is a ways off, but I sort of think of subscriptions, not like magazine or current music subscriptions, but rather like paying to have on-demand radio with customizeable playlists. Once the iPhone is up and going and wefi more ubiquitous in public spaces, you may not even need to keep subscription content on the device at all (beyond the necessary buffering and metadata). You would then stream "your" music inside your house, on your aTV and your other devices and you wouldn't really care that you didn't own it. It would be the equivalent of paying $10/month to be able to program your own radio station and change songs on the fly.

The problem with this is obviously the trick to making streaming media something that is portable. Well then Apple could make iPods wifi, which would give communities even more reason to wifi urban areas and Apple has the lead in the emerging Radio over IP market as the iPhone pushes VOIP and GoogleOIP, etc.

In this way there is a much greater separation in the services of getting music from Apple and it might create a better model in the minds of the consumers:
Option 1: Buy music from iTunes as I always have done.
Option 2: Pay $10 for unlimited music exploration via on-demand "radio" which doesn't take up harddrive space
Option 3: Do both.

What am I missing here? Besides the flooding of bandwidth...

The number of intelligently positive "'subscriptions' in addition to purchases" posts in this thread has been enjoyably surprising. It's satisfying to finally see many of the same points I attempted making years ago not being drown out by a majority of narrow-viewed naysayers.


Both services would be advantageous for me. Option 2 because, for one reason:

I listen to streaming internet audio "stations", with the sequential playback limitation of conventional radio. I'd like the choice of creating custom streaming playlists or choosing from ones other people have created. On the iTunes Store, I can imagine the iMix feature being a more broadly appealing social music network service than with its current purchase-only model.


Missing, as in any currently irresolvable issues?

Do you think the type of on-demand streaming you're proposing could be a viable alternative to satellite radio if portability issues you mentioned could be resolved?

Maybe it's too late for further discussion since this thread seems to have fizzled-out a few days ago.

Yes, the ability to stream the iMixes would be a much better social framework than any Zunefied squirting. Everyone gets to be their own DJ/radio station programmer without having to design their own blogs or podcasts.

Yes, I was wondering about technical issues to a million people streaming iMixes.

Is this being debated in another thread? Seems like once the aTV and iPhone hit a critical mass, streaming content (via iTunes Store or not) will be the frontier Apple needs to stake out.

Just because Steve Jobs says he doesn't think subscriptions will sell it doesn't mean anything. He always says that until the day he's ready to sell something.

I can't imagine how the subscription model would NOT sell well. You get everything you want, as much as you want, right now. That is the American way. If you are throwing a party and you want to pick 30 songs to play, you can pick any 30 whether you own them or not.

For people really into music it is the way to go. Let's say I want to rediscover the top psychadelic songs from the 60s. Am I really going to spend $100 on 100 songs? No, but for $15 for a subscription I can download a bunch of albums. Let's say I haven't heard much Marvin Gaye but I want to get into him. Download 10 of his albums and listen to them for only $15.

I don't see how 1000 new songs for a month for $15 isn't a great deal but 15 songs that you might get bored of for $15 forever is.

You are unusual. You also seem young.

We also buy books, though I suppose you don't buy them either.

Subscriptions haven't done well. That's a fact.

Seems an obvious way to extend the value of the iTunes Store for existing and new customers. Only those who'd be satisfied with pricing and limitations, of course.


Without identifying specific issues it generally seems possible for audio streaming since popular sites like YouTube are capable of handling heavy streaming video traffic. And streaming uses less bandwidth than downloading the same content.


Probably; is there any topic that's not being redundantly debated?


Maybe sooner? I've recently been considering it in the context of possible consequences to Internet radio if the proposed royalty rate increase (which I vehemently oppose; SaveNetRadio) for webcasters does go into effect on July 15th.


That doesn't imply they can't do well, which is also a fact. Btw, you seemed a bit harsh with spindler.

How and why these types of "subscriptions" might succeed in the future is more interesting (for me) to speculate and discuss than dwelling too negatively on the failures.

There may be a small difference if it really is the same content at the same bitrates. Usually what happens is that streaming often uses lower bitrate encodings than a download of the same content.

While it's a fact that they haven't done well, it's only a supposition that they can do well. It isn't a fact until it happens one way or the other.

Not harsh, just straightforward.

I find that by ignoring history we can think that something is true when it isn't.


I've stated many times that I have nothing against Apple trying it.

But, how would you measure success? What numbers would you think Apple would have to produce to show that it was worthwhile? At some point, hopefully, a venture goes from losing money to making money, if it becomes a success at all. At what point would that happen?

If it takes away from song sales, would Apple lose more than it gained?

I'm sure that Apple is working on numbers for all of this and more that I didn't bother to mention.

Not sure I understand. An example of what I meant is that downloading any content from iTS potentially uses all my available broadband bandwidth while streaming audio uses only a fraction of it (dependent on, and possibly with even higher than iTS content, bitrates).

I'll bite on this one.

Why would streaming use a lower amount of bandwidth? Are you talking about slower than realtime streaming?

Sure, though I don't think that's applicable to any of my comments.


I know your objections don't exclude the possibility it could be worthwhile for reasons some people clearly expressed earlier in this thread.

It's ridiculous when the idea is entirely dismissed simply because someone has no personal interest, especially when they've extrapolated that to assume it's true for everyone else. Heck, there's a predictable tendency for certain people to do that on many forums (etc.) regardless of what the topics of (dis)interest are.


Those are sort of rhetorical questions since I'm incapable of answering with anything more than limited information guesses.


I've considered that's one reason why Apple is satisfied with iTS remaining purchase-only as long as it sustains sufficient profit (whatever that may be).

I'm talking about bits/second bandwidth, approximately measured/monitored in near realtime with MenuMeters' Network menubar item (for instance). Am I using the wrong terminology?

Ok.


Let me more clearly state my position on this.

My non-objection to this is known.I'm not saying that it can't succeed. I'm saying that I don't see how it will.

I sometimes find playing the Devil's Advocate to be more useful then simply agreeing, or letting things go. I'd rather get people to think things through, however it turns out.


Of course. It goes back to what I said above. We should at least think about these problems when forming our opinions about it though.


That's one of my reasons as well.

Then you aren't talking about realtime. If it is slower than realtime, then the bandwidth will be less. But if it is in realtime, and the quality is the same, then bandwidth will also be the same.

These meters are not known for their accuracy.

I'll often take devil's advocate role to encourage alternative viewpoints, as I've been doing by considering ways iTS "subscriptions" could succeed while others are altogether opposed to the idea.

'nuf said.


Obviously it takes longer listening/watching/saving an entire track that's throttled by a streaming A/V server than typically downloading the same track via FTP (etc.). If downloading A/V content is much faster than streaming identical content then how can they be using the same bandwidth?

Would it be more accurate to substitute "transfer rate" for "bandwidth"?


Which is why I said approximately; it's certainly good enough for casual measurements/monitoring I use it for.

If that's so, then yes, of course it would be different. But, generally, streamed content seems to come down as your connection will allow it. Each site is different in their capabilities. Apple has vast amounts of bandwidth for this purpose.

When I stream something to my machine, with my 6 Mb/s connection, it often downloads much faster then it plays, so the download from the stream finishes well before the content is through playing.

I don't think that any site will stream at the exact speed needed to play the file because of the vagaries of the web. If they do that, there will be a likelihood of stuttering, or even stoppage. They simply download as fast as they can, up to a certain point, which will cover any problems.

[quote[
Would it be more accurate to substitute "transfer rate" for "bandwidth"?[/quote]

I suppose it would be more meaningful that way. The bandwidth is what the site has in total.


Sure, but if the speeds are close, it might not be able to tell which one is faster.

You're confusing things. A stream is a continuous connection as you play. The stream's download definitely does not finish before you play. That wouldn't be a stream.

Yep, that's the difference between streaming and downloading (and their bandwidth consumption) that I've been struggling to explain to Mel. Thank you!

No, I simply giving the information as to what actually happens with streamed media.

Are you saying that whenever you stream something it comes down at exactly the rate required?

Except for slower connections that never happens.

A download is when you download a file of whatever it may be, and play it later.

You've read Apple's own prefs on Quicktime. It gives you choices as to how you will have the stream work. You can cache part before the stream starts to play. You need to do this on slower connections so that the strean can get a head start on the play, or the play stops in the middle somewhere until the stream catches up.

If your connection is fast enough, the stream caches faster then it plays, and finishes caching the entire file before the play is finished.

This isn't downloading at all, unless you are allowed to keep the stream later. Then it is both.