... you can choose whether you like to use the subscription model or just buy songs, unlike others (i.e. Yahoo, Napster, Real).
Just to be clear:
Yahoo, Napster, and Real all sell songs for 99c each with no subscription. Yahoo & Real offer their subscribers a discount of 20c per song - they charge 79c each if subscribers want to buy permanent (burnable) downloads.
AFAIK, Napster charges subscribers the same price, 99c.
However, all 3 above do focus on subscriptions so much, it's no wonder that people aren't aware they also sell 99c songs just like iTunes.
(Well, not *just* like iTunes. Yahoo's songs are 192k WMA DRM, Napster's are 128k WMA DRM (IIRC) and Real's are 192k AAC Harmony DRM.)
1. As Bob Cringley wrote in his article, the Yahoo price of $6.99/month is probably at the "at cost" level, so if Apple wanted to make no extra money, $6.99 would be it. Anymore is profit. $7.99 would be enough to hold off any other subscription service and give Apple a little coin.
2. Also the music industry seems to have chosen subscriptions as its preferred format. They keep ownership indefinitely and can change the game at anytime, at least once your yearly contract is up. This says to me a few things. iTunes is almost too good for the customer and Apple's 99cents is probably a better deal than we even thought at the time. Can't help but want to go against what the record companies want me to do.
3. iTunes is great so far because I still have most of my music ripped from CD's and such and so I don't want to pay a subscription for my favorite songs that I already paid for - which will be the songs I mostly listen to anyway! The iPod and iTunes then is the perfect transition for both old CD's and new mp3's. However in the next decade, most people will have libraries that they never owned physically - so long term subscriptions will seem more in line with their reality - music as a service, not as a product. Keep in mind most of human history music WAS a service (personal performance) and not a product. I think this will eventually be the case in the future.
4. What I don't like about music as a service is that the service can change or leave without my permission or even knowledge. What if Bob Dylan songs become seen as threatening and the label takes it "off line." Many people will go thru their day and life not even knowing about it. Who will be there with the archive, the vinyl/CD trail that it existed? There is a reason we still use paper for court records and such and I like the idea of the "ownership society" at least for this segment.
5. As for hardware of iPod v. cellphone - why not have the best of both worlds? Build a cellphone with an iPod Shuffle built in. They have their own batteries, they can both be made small and light enough that only ergonomics are a concern now. Either make a cellphone with a slot to slip in the Shuffle so that the control buttons are accessible or make them integrated into the same handset. They just update, synch and recharge seperately and seemlessly so you don't need to know or care. The Shuffle plays until it runs out of power and the cellphone isn't effected in the least. Okay it takes up some room from the cellphone, but batteries are a lot better now and it creates enough of a functional and physical seperation with the two devices that I like.
6. Finally, I believe the subscription model does have SOME redeeming aspects to it, but like someone earlier suggested, Steve won't just imitate the current models. I believe that subscriptions should be based on a different hardware model as well - not the iPod, but the cellphone. In the MacNN fora I suggested a new model in which the subscription is used, not for temporarily downloading mp3's on your harddrive (filling space that is) which will "disappear" if you don't pay. But the subscription is for the ability to stream any song you want and keep it and others cached in a smaller partition of your hd, cellphone, etc. The idea is that it would be an "on demand" setup, not a temporary "store and ignore" setup. There is too much to describe in this thread, but I think subscriptions in an iTunes universe can work for customers and for Apple if it redefines the paradigm again, as with the first iPod.
Comments
Originally posted by Lurch Mojoff
... you can choose whether you like to use the subscription model or just buy songs, unlike others (i.e. Yahoo, Napster, Real).
Just to be clear:
Yahoo, Napster, and Real all sell songs for 99c each with no subscription. Yahoo & Real offer their subscribers a discount of 20c per song - they charge 79c each if subscribers want to buy permanent (burnable) downloads.
AFAIK, Napster charges subscribers the same price, 99c.
However, all 3 above do focus on subscriptions so much, it's no wonder that people aren't aware they also sell 99c songs just like iTunes.
(Well, not *just* like iTunes. Yahoo's songs are 192k WMA DRM, Napster's are 128k WMA DRM (IIRC) and Real's are 192k AAC Harmony DRM.)
2. Also the music industry seems to have chosen subscriptions as its preferred format. They keep ownership indefinitely and can change the game at anytime, at least once your yearly contract is up. This says to me a few things. iTunes is almost too good for the customer and Apple's 99cents is probably a better deal than we even thought at the time. Can't help but want to go against what the record companies want me to do.
3. iTunes is great so far because I still have most of my music ripped from CD's and such and so I don't want to pay a subscription for my favorite songs that I already paid for - which will be the songs I mostly listen to anyway! The iPod and iTunes then is the perfect transition for both old CD's and new mp3's. However in the next decade, most people will have libraries that they never owned physically - so long term subscriptions will seem more in line with their reality - music as a service, not as a product. Keep in mind most of human history music WAS a service (personal performance) and not a product. I think this will eventually be the case in the future.
4. What I don't like about music as a service is that the service can change or leave without my permission or even knowledge. What if Bob Dylan songs become seen as threatening and the label takes it "off line." Many people will go thru their day and life not even knowing about it. Who will be there with the archive, the vinyl/CD trail that it existed? There is a reason we still use paper for court records and such and I like the idea of the "ownership society" at least for this segment.
5. As for hardware of iPod v. cellphone - why not have the best of both worlds? Build a cellphone with an iPod Shuffle built in. They have their own batteries, they can both be made small and light enough that only ergonomics are a concern now. Either make a cellphone with a slot to slip in the Shuffle so that the control buttons are accessible or make them integrated into the same handset. They just update, synch and recharge seperately and seemlessly so you don't need to know or care. The Shuffle plays until it runs out of power and the cellphone isn't effected in the least. Okay it takes up some room from the cellphone, but batteries are a lot better now and it creates enough of a functional and physical seperation with the two devices that I like.
6. Finally, I believe the subscription model does have SOME redeeming aspects to it, but like someone earlier suggested, Steve won't just imitate the current models. I believe that subscriptions should be based on a different hardware model as well - not the iPod, but the cellphone. In the MacNN fora I suggested a new model in which the subscription is used, not for temporarily downloading mp3's on your harddrive (filling space that is) which will "disappear" if you don't pay. But the subscription is for the ability to stream any song you want and keep it and others cached in a smaller partition of your hd, cellphone, etc. The idea is that it would be an "on demand" setup, not a temporary "store and ignore" setup. There is too much to describe in this thread, but I think subscriptions in an iTunes universe can work for customers and for Apple if it redefines the paradigm again, as with the first iPod.