MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Mar 18, 08 - 06:41 pm Comment from: R

I'm personally not that big on a subscription service at the moment, but I've always seen the biggest hurdle as the emotional angst people have in not owning/continually paying for things that they're used to owning. If the psychological hurdle can be overcome-- which I believe to be, in part, made up of fear that the service people use will go out of business right away-- music rentals have a place because it's really not that different from subscription satellite radio. And now that the iPod touch and iPhone have access to the store without being tethered to a computer, it's not that much different at all.

That said, I can't yet get myself to pay for radio either. Geez, city water bills even bother me. Who the hell put government in charge?!!

Damn kids-- get off my lawn!!!! Ahem... have a good evening. That'll be all.

An additional $80 to access the ENTIRE library? Do I get to keep the music that I download?

I just heard that iTunes has sold something like 4 Billion songs. Made me think of that first Billion and how they gave some guy a $10,000 iTunes gift card.

I was thinking how cool it would be to be able to download that much music...

This would be cool.

(PS -- A similar for rentals would be killer, but I'm sure  folks know that.)

@R
Is that you Rip?

Mar 18, 08 - 06:52 pm Comment from: TowerTone

Edgecliffe-Johnson.....isn't he from near Peter's Canyon?

Mar 18, 08 - 07:04 pm Comment from: Des Gusting

Sounds like an absolutely shit deal for musicians. What, for example, would a musician's 0.000000001% share of @20 buy? A couple of milliseconds of studio time? A few bytes of music software?

Mar 18, 08 - 07:05 pm Comment from: Des Gusting

Ummm, that should read "$20", not "@20".

Mar 18, 08 - 07:05 pm Comment from: MikeK

@Des Gusting,

Agreed..

Of course, like MDN said, we need more details.. But I sure hope this isn't Apple grasping at straws trying to keep iPod numbers up..

Mar 18, 08 - 07:13 pm Comment from: DogGone

Shogun - Apple announced the 4B point in Jan at MacWorld.

I guess the number is more like 4.5 by now.

If you do look at the rate of iTunes sales, the yearly rate has stabilized to around 2B / year. Obviously way better than anyone else, but the interesting thing is that the rate has not increased since 4/07. Note this is taking the figures and dates provided by Apple so the specific time points may be off.

So what may be happening is that although a lot of people are buying iPods they (like me) are filling them with their existing music or buying CDs and ripping them.

I, for one, would consider paying 80 bucks to have access to whole catalogs, IF, that is for the life of the unit. I'm getting bored of what I have, am frustrated with paying $6 or more for a CD and not liking what is on it bar one song. Whilst I would prefer higher bit rate songs (192-256) I really want to discover new music and CDs are like playing roulette. If this is a yearly fee then the offering must be broad and all my iPods and Macs should be able to access the music.

Mar 18, 08 - 07:29 pm Comment from: ChrissyOne

It's the Celestial Jukebox at last. Crazy s-o-b is really gonna do it.

"believe it or not, some people use, for example, iPod touch, sans music...:"

My 30Gig iPod has only videos on it (I am a video producer, so it contains demo materials) and has never even had a song on it.

My shuffle has only audio books

Mar 18, 08 - 07:38 pm Comment from: HotinPlaya

Sounds like choice
All you can eat
subscription,
purchase

I don't see how this could work. How exactly would the record labels make more money this way?

Mar 18, 08 - 07:49 pm Comment from: jetsetboy

@TowerTone: LOL!

Mar 18, 08 - 07:49 pm Comment from: Spark

Better check for patent infringements first...

why are they visiting this rental model again? it has never worked.
as for the entire library of music, sounds good, but who gets payed with a scheme like this? how are musicians compensated? additionally, does driving up the price of an ipod by 80.00 ( ie. nokia) make sense to Apple when they create a new device? $320 instead of $240, $129 instead of $49? And how do you account for families with multiple ipods? Will there be a special serial number that makes itunes access a whole library only if the new device is in or will Apple charge its customers the $80 or $20 additional due to the infamous "ACCOUNTING RULES," to get everyone up to speed?

Interesting.

Mar 18, 08 - 09:07 pm Comment from: ron

I'd pay so that I could stop the rap-crap and hip hop rubbish that might be included.

hmmm...if I spend 80 bucks buying 80 songs and then drop my iPhone in a bathtub, I still have my 80 songs. If I spend $80 (added to the price of my iPhone) and lose the phone, what do I have...besides a big hole in my wall that will also need to be fixed?

The article says Apple "is also understood to be examining a subscription model [which] would work only for its iPhone devices, where it has a monthly billing relationship with customers through the mobile phone operators offering the device, while the 'comes with music' model would work with iPhones and with iPods,"

Why the iPhone only subscriptions? I have a Netflix subscription that has no hardware tie in and they seem to be able to get my money just fine. They have my payment info and each month they deduct the subscription amount. Apple could do the same. They already have my payment info for iTunes purchases as it is.

This is rubbish.
It WONT work - music isnt a 'commodity' like pork bellies or orange juice - its much more personal and comes in many different packages and delivery systems.

The music biz hit the high point of their existence a while back - its all downhill for them from here. Their model is dead/dying.

Also, in case anyone hadnt noticed, there is a limited number of songs/melodies that can be used before we get blatant plagiarism of music (actually thats already happening).
Music is limited, and eventually will decline somewhat.

Listening to music is at a peak - in the 1950's people simply didnt listen to as much music as they do today.

There is so much of it out there, especially if you have any friends(!), you could listen to a ton of stuff without ever buying or downloading any more at all.

Families are a great source of music - kids can play their parents CD's or even records. No sale for the music biz there.

Anyway, no matter what the biz model, the iPod will be the player to listen to it on.
Why should Apple care if music is sold in different ways - what you going to play it on - a zune?
Didnt think so.

Mar 18, 08 - 11:51 pm Comment from: Big Al

$20 per iPhone & iPod touch for unlimited tunes for the device's life. I'd buy that. The Labels get $20 X 20 million sold per year = $400 million, very conservatively speaking. It would probably be closer to $1 Billion per year.

As far as I know artists get nothing on rentals or radio play. Not in their contracts.

Mar 19, 08 - 12:00 am Comment from: DogGone

@ bollocks

Loads of good points. What is missing is how to hear new music.

Point in case. I'm bored with my current library. I would like to hear / explore new stuff. Most CDs that I buy have few good songs on them. I want to be able to hear new music and buy stuff I like.

Best place to hear is the radio. But most stations plays the same stuff all the time. Even the new music alternative stations plays stuff I know and heard of.

HD tagging obviously make sense, but it has to go hand in hand with stations playing new music not just the same stuff for years.

There are thousand of songs that I would like. I just need the right medium to hear them. iTunes / streaming / tagging makes the best approach to provide open access to new music.

Mar 19, 08 - 01:11 am Comment from: MikeK

"As far as I know artists get nothing on rentals or radio play. Not in their contracts."

------------

That is completely false. An artist gets paid EVERY SINGLE TIME their song is played on the radio, television, cable, etc.. Of course, that is assuming that the artist wrote the song and has not sold off their publishing rights.

The song play activity is tracked by BMI and ASCAP, which in turn collect the money for the artist and pay them their royalties quarterly.

@ MikeK

I beleive Big Al is half right. The artists do not get paid for rentals nor ring tones. This fight is just getting started.

Des Gusting's comment is right on: subscription music is a bad deal for the artists.

iTunes pays the artist 70 cents of each 99-cent download. The subscription models pay 1 cent per downstream or 2 cents per download. I would have to get 70 times the subscription listeners to equal Apple's royalty.

Jim Swan
"None-Too-Great Hits"

@jim swan


> iTunes pays the artist 70 cents of each 99-cent download.

Pays the artist or pays the record company?
If the latter, what does the artist actually make?

@rickw

Thanks for your question.

I can only speak as an indie using the TuneCore uploading service. Apple's 70 cents comes directly to me thru TuneCore's accounting, which takes no percentage. Instead I paid them a small initial set-up fee to deliver the album to iTunes and to as many of several other download services as I desire, for 99 extra cents each. Each subsequent year I keep the album current with an annual storage fee (about $9).

The advantage of a commercial record deal is the access to big-bucks advertising. It's hard for indies to get found by the average mainstream listener. In return for that advertising advantage, the signed artist sacrifices most of the royalty to the record company. You just have to hope that the scale of the sales outweighs the percentage cut, I guess.

Since the Napster deal most musos haven't received one lousy cent. This model would screw them further. Frankly, I don't use the iTunes store and will not use it because of their pricing model. Also this is just another form of DRM to protect a dying industry model (as previous posters have already said) and I won't have a bar of it.

The new music model increasingly being embraced by savvy musos is to release songs and albums (which are also dying) and directly marketing the products to their audience. This is achieved via web marketing and direct sales to the public via tours. And touring is the new cash cow for exploited musicians.

Let me also say that copyright is stupid, dated and anachronistic. I mean, maybe the next research I do for my class should be copyrighted and I should receive a royalty for it. Give me a break.

Say No to all forms of DRM and copyright!

Mar 19, 08 - 04:30 am Comment from: Tommy Boy

Such great reporting, NOT: "Apple, which is thought to make relatively little money from the iTunes store compared with its hardware sales,"

Apple make relatively little margin from the iTunes store compared with its hardware sales, but makes a huge profit because of volume, volume, volume.

@Jim Swan

Well Jimbo, here's your chance to plug your musical expressions of emotion

Put the links up, I want to hear it ... maybe buy it.

Mar 19, 08 - 07:19 am Comment from: ken1w

If you only pay once when you buy the device, it's not a "subscription."

I think the artists get screwed with arrangements like this, whether it's a monthly fee or a one time fee. So the label gets $20 or whatever per iPod. What does the artist get from that $20? If this is the future, artists abandoning the labels to sell directly to the public will become a bigger trend.

Apple should stick with its successful a la carte model, then make deals directly with artists.

Whoaaaaa. Look what I got in my pocket.

@skylark

Thanks for your interest. I tested the following iTunes link, and it takes me to the Japan Store -- I don't know whether your mileage will vary or not, but the Japan Store is where I have the "liner notes" for the songs.

In case it doesn't work for you, a search for "Jim Swan" in any country's iTMS will bring up my album "None-Too-Great Hits" (along with a few other entirely unrelated items).

Without further adieu, here's the link:

Jim Swan - None Too Great Hits


They're all simple home recordings dating back to the 70s and 80s. Each is in a different style, but they're all very folk-oriented. Not sophisticated at all, but I hope you like them anyway.

Thanks again for the opportunity.

Jim

is this even from a reliable source? Sounds a bit like Microsoft, not Apple. Apple consistently reduces prices, why have a new 'premium' model that only offers music as an extra? It is Apple-like to low bid though, because for $20, that would be a no-brainer.

I don't want most of the music out there - paying for what I want works best for me - my teenage niece however would probably love access to the latest greatest.
Having both options would only be a win win IMO.

Would this mean they stopped selling it as it is sold currently. or would these be on top of the current system. I want to own my music, i would go back to buying CD's and just import them.

Mar 19, 08 - 10:34 am Comment from: _realist_

This would actually be a good deal for the labels, Apple, and consumers. I'm undecided about how the artists would come out.

It provides the labels a guaranteed revenue stream. For $20 a unit, Apple gets to advertise iPods that come with millions of songs essentially right out of the box and free of charge. Consumers have two options for experiencing music without any visible overhead charges.

NO BRAINER! Even at an additional $100/iPod for access to the whole iTunes directory EVEN ON A SUBSCRIPTION basis would be worth it. Apple should make this optional for its users - I know I'd run out and buy a new 80gig Classic iPod at the first oppourtunity if such a deal was offered!

Mar 19, 08 - 10:57 am Comment from: Gandalf

Sounds like bullshit, written to put pressure on Apple and condition the public perception.

Way too many potential dirty tricks to further defraud artists, I can't see Steve being part of it. But he has become a skilled negotiator and can pull rabbits out hats.

However it sounds more like a power play, taking away the earning potential of independent artist. Long term if music appears free (included in the cost of the device) people will refuse to pay for music. Any artist who hasn't a deal can make zero dollars from their skill and work so the labels increase the power of their monopoly.

The even bigger picture is that it is part of the increasing curtailment of civil liberties, a little bit here, a little bit there, few people notice. One day you'll need a license to whistle a tune if the powerbrokers have their way.

Copyright is a good idea otherwise the powerful just steal from the weak but it should back to the three years it was rather than several decades that it is and over a century that the media companies would like.

I'll buy anything that can get me more juice from iTunes store for less. Well, you know, a plan offers less than $.99 a song maybe?
And 320kbps would be nice too!

I think Apple should deal with more musicians directly, cutting out the labels where possible. They could charge the same 0.99 and both have a bigger share - similar to the announced iPhone developers' plan. Apple maintains the site and gets 30%. The musicians get the rest. At the very least this approach would weaken the labels' bargaining position. This would work with new music - wouldn't help with existing libraries.

I'm unsurprised at MDN's "Oh..um, that'd be fine with us" attitude after years of bashing the subscription model with both hands. How many dozens of times has MDN posted their diatribe about how subscriptions "fly in the face of human nature?"

Business models that fly in the face of human nature are doomed to fail. --MDN, every few days for the past couple of years.

Mar 19, 08 - 03:46 pm Comment from: _realist_

According to this ars technica article:

"Apple's plan is different in several respects. Since the average iPod owner buys about 20 tracks from the iTunes, Apple wants to make the premium about $20, arguing that it should cover the average consumer's downloads. Then the owner can make unlimited music downloads from the iTunes Store for the life of the device. Once downloaded, the tracks are yours to keep, even if you get rid of the original iPod or iPhone. And since iPod and phone owners tend to replace devices fairly regularly, the record labels would be getting the fee whether or not the consumer makes any further downloads. Silicon Alley Insider did the math and thinks it's a good deal all around. But according to the Financial Times' sources, the labels are looking for numbers closer to the $80 Nokia is reported to be paying."

Although, that statement isn't very well supported, but if true, this will have a very large impact.

Mar 19, 08 - 05:47 pm Comment from: Tired of Retards

PC Apologist,

Selective quoting makes you look like an asshole, which, of course, you are. Also included in the MacDailyNews Take to which you linked:

"Now, for the limited amount of people for which a music subscription service would be welcome, we say, by all means, Apple should offer it - if it makes business sense (i.e. development and operational costs are less than profit potential)."

MacDailyNews has stated the exact same quote in multiple Takes spanning years, including, but not limited to:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/16114/
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/14772/
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/13919/
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/13471/
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/13418/

@jimw

Thanks for the reply.