"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."
That's right, Jobs. You tell 'em.
I'm glad Steve is listening. I have never been impressed with the subscription models. I want to own my music. And yes, I LOVE my iPod!
I agree. If other companies were making any progress in market share with rented music, Apple would be all over it. Why sabotage a good thing like the iTunes music store?
I like the Alex Lindsay (from TWiT) model actually. As much music as you want for a flate rate, that is low bit rate and DRM with the option to buy higher quality DRM free music. That way I can try anything I want for a bit, and only own stuff I really like.
But iTunes offering DRM free music next month is a great step in the right direction, which I will happily settle for.
As much music as you want for a flate rate, that is low bit rate and DRM with the option to buy higher quality DRM free music.
Just to clarify, this is subscription for the low quality with the option to buy without subscription a higher quality?
Yes. Basically the way iTunes will work in May (at least with EMI music) but add the subscription.
I am not in with Steve or anything. I just think it sounds like a good idea.
Honestly why would you want to rent your music? If you want to try it out, go to the artists website and give it a few listens or check out myspace, if the :30 samples on iTunes don't cut it for you. In most cases if a song doesn't grab me in that time...I'm not going to listen to it or buy it!
If I may add, how are we supposed to re-discover a song in our collection several years down the road, long after we've forgotten it if we have to pay rent for it? I mean, I just dug out CD's that I haven't listened to in years, and couldn't imagine having to pay another month's rent for the priviledge. It's just against the whole nature of music.
Maybe I just listen to music differently than other people, but I listen to my music over long periods of time. I don't listen to the latest top ten songs on the radio (ick), and most of my music -- probably around 90% of it -- is pre-1995 at least, mostly 1970s and 1980s.
For someone that only listens to the top 40, a subscription makes sense, because after a few listens most people don't care about it anymore. But for the people that genuinely like the music they have, and want to listen to it years later, a subscription is just a waste of money. There is no way I am going to pay a monthly fee to a company just so I can listen to music I downloaded years ago. No. Way.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't use the subscription service for music I really enjoy. However I have a commute every morning that would be perfect for trying out new music. If I can just go nuts grabbing things with a subscription and listen as I drive, it would help me to discover new things. I can't get that from artist web pages or Myspace (yuck!).
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |