MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Steve Jobs said it again, nobody wants to rent MUSIC!
Apparently this guy wasn't paying attention.

Did blockbuster ever rent cd's to people? Thought not.

Jan 18, 08 - 10:41 am Comment from: Cubert

What a fool.

Hey, wait a minute! I need to run down to Best Buy to rent a few CD's. I'll be right back.

OK, back now. Guess what? They don't rent CD's!

I'm all for the movie-rental idea. But instead of a 24-hour rental, I would like to see a 27-hour rental. David Pogue blogged about this a few days ago.

With a 27-hour rental, you could theoretically have one movie available to you over a two-evening time period, to allow for real life's unexpected interruptions.

WhitIV

Jan 18, 08 - 10:49 am Comment from: Ampar

You can rent 30 second music samples on the iTS for free.

Jan 18, 08 - 10:50 am Comment from: Tergenev

And you know what? Now that the RIAA is fighting to say that making a copy of the music that I bought in the past will no longer be legal. (Actually, they're arguing that making such copies was never legal. A patently absurd claim that says, "Well, the Supreme Court was wrong.") So they can make us re-buy music we already bought once??! I'm sorry, I bought Robert Johnson's recordings on vinyl. I will rip that LP to digital files and listen to it on my iPod. And later, to whatever format or medium technology drives the industry (holographic 3D brain engrams?) And the RIAA can go stick their collective heads up their collective a$&es;.

Jan 18, 08 - 10:51 am Comment from: effwerd

25 cents per song, you have 30 days to begin listening to the song, and 24 hours to listen as many times as you like. That would be so awesome. I can't imagine why Apple doesn't do it.

Jan 18, 08 - 10:52 am Comment from: Predrag

27-your period? Totally makes sense.

Otherwise, nothing more to add to the MDN take(s). Right on the money, as confirmed by, oh how many billions of songs sold, as opposed to how many thousand subscribers of Rhapsody/Napster/whatever the name is of those other insignificant digital music rental places!

Well, you can "rent" music at the public library. Or at least you could in the past. Ditto for VHS and DVD's.

I personally dislike anything with a subscription plan besides magazines. And even those I rarely get anymore, all the info is on the net before I get it anyway. And with Zinio, I get two magazines digitally, and don't have to recycle piles of old magazines.

So, subscription - thumbs down.

Jobsian view of the universe - thumbs up.

Jan 18, 08 - 10:58 am Comment from: HolyMackerel

As soon as a company or industry moves to a subscription-based model the level of customer service goes down. Why? Because they no longer have to think of ways to win the customer's dollars every day.

e.g. mobile phone subscriptions, MS's Windows subscriptions, Utility companies, Insurance companies, Cable companies, the government with taxes, etc.

Jan 18, 08 - 11:01 am Comment from: Spark

I can see that all stories for a while are going to elicit comments on Apple's video rental terms. Hello? This was a story on music subscriptions....
I may as well join the trend.... I hate glossy screens, blah, blah, blah.

Apple needs to find a way for me to decide whether I like a song before buying it. 30 second samples are not enough to check out new songs.

Often I buy a song only to find I don't like it. I feel cheated.

Renting songs would overcome this problem.

Jan 18, 08 - 11:09 am Comment from: Jubei

How many times must a subscription based service fail before idiots like these guys realize that it doesn't work for music. Just about everyone who has tried failed. Yet we still get these articles touting the subscription model for music.

The power of words.

For Subscription' read 'Ransom'.

As in: "We want to hold your music collection to ransom as a means of financing our primary interest... our coke habit".

A rental model would only ever work as a companion to a primary sales based system. If you could pay a reasonable amount to access music in order to decide if you like it or not. In order to stop people abusing the system they would have to put limits on it, perhaps limited to 5 or so plays before a song would have to be bought then I would find that acceptable. I'm not talking stupidly low figures like $5 a month but if you could perhaps pay for a month, try out a load of albums then buy what you wanted I would make use of it.

I think a model where you have to pay to keep listening to the things you like is doomed. A model where you pay to try things out before making permanent purchases would be far more acceptable to me.

Jan 18, 08 - 11:13 am Comment from: Cowboy

Why does the rental only need to be for 24 hours? Why not a week. My kids will watch a movie several times before I return it. 24 hours is unacceptable to me.

Jan 18, 08 - 11:16 am Comment from: MumboJumbo

@Steve516

Magazine? I think I've heard that word before. What is a magazine? Humm..... something like a foyer, perhaps.

"Now, for the limited amount of people for which a music subscription service would be welcome (those that can't do basic math or who've been diagnosed with a terminal illness), we say, by all means, Apple should offer it"

OK you are going to get me fired if you keep writing things like this... I am not supposed to be laughing out loud on the job...

Jan 18, 08 - 11:20 am Comment from: Woody

It might be worth re-reading this: Beleaguered Napster hikes Music subscription prices by 30%.

Thanks, but my $673.20 worth of iTunes music will never increase in price, because they're mine. Screw you, Saul Hansell and Ted Cohen, and Napster, too.

iTMS full store subscription please.... Music, Movies, TV shows... whatever you want for one monthly price.... kind of like Netflix, but for everything. Steve could figure it out... and that I would happily pay for.

Jan 18, 08 - 11:27 am Comment from: Spark

Speaking of Napster. You know they make it really easy to sign up online, but beware. When you decide to cancel (which most inevitably do) you cannot cancel online. They require you to call in and talk to a rep, whose job it is to talk you out of your decision. Doesn't that sound pleasant?

If people wanted to rent music, Rhapsody, Napster, etc. wouldn't be losing money hand over fist and iTunes wouldn't have 70%-80% of the music download market.

I was driving home last night and wanted to listen to something I hadn't heard for awhile. I noticed I had Tom Petty's Wildflowers CD on my iPhone, so I cued it up. With a subscription, I wouldn't have that music, particularly if I had switched subscription services at any point and didn't re-download my entire library.

I won't ever rent music. I'll go back to buying CDs before I rent music.

Jan 18, 08 - 11:31 am Comment from: shen

"NY Times writer wants to know where to find Apple’s rental service for music"

i believe it is in the terminal, under the directory /dev/stupididea

Jan 18, 08 - 11:32 am Comment from: Big Al

Music rental does work.

You subscribe for 2 or 3 months.

Audio Hijack every song you ever wanted to own.

Unsubscribe.

Live happily ever after.

Jan 18, 08 - 11:33 am Comment from: iDon't

Anyone ever heard of a radio?

Jan 18, 08 - 11:34 am Comment from: Marian

rental != subscription

Subscription = e-music
Rental = Napster, Ruckus, Rhapsody, etc

Subscription is like for magazines: it's yours to keep. It gives you access to new stuff, in controlled quantities.

Subscription might not be that bad (e-music is #2 in digital music sales). As long as the content it's yours to keep.


For movies, iTunes is rental, Netflix is subscription-based rental.

I'm ironically listening to "Dust in the Wind" by Kansas for about the 1000th time in my life, while reading this.

Maybe the Sponge Bob Movie crowd doesn't want to own their movies, but I don't want to. Any movie not worth buying isn't probably worth watching.

His Steveness says most people only watch movies only once. Really?

The Magnificent Seven? Casablanca? Rear Window? The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence? Children of a Lesser God? Raiders of the Lost Ark? Risky Business? The Big Chill? Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid?, Body Heat? A River Runs Through It? The Longest Day? Looking For Mr Goodbar? Bad Day at Black Rock? The Candidate? The Deer Hunter? The Last Waltz? Unforgiven? Blazing Saddles? Chinatown? Inherit The Wind? Dances With Wolves? Platoon? Under The Tuscan Sun? Chocolat? The Last of the Mohicans? Judgement At Nuremberg? Alice's Restaurant? Sunset Boulevard? the list goes on.

no one rents music, no one would rent it.
and subscriptions? wtf?
i want to have my music.
and i dont like itunes to that degree.
sometimes i prefer a hardcopy.
sometimes i dont, if its like "hammer time". ill give hammer some money, but i dont need a hard copy of "2 legit 2 quit"

Subscriptions do make sense for 12 year olds who listen to top hits until they're sick of them, or until the next big hit comes along. I watch my niece buy music, listen to it over and over, then move on - she has a cd tower of stuff she bought back in the day that sits unlistened to, because it was trendy and now is passe. Still, 14.95 a month is too expensive.

It's called MarketPlace, get yourself a Zune and have at it.

"he believes that subscription services are the best answer to the industry’s problems."

Sorry. I'm not interested in solving the industry's problems.

Jan 18, 08 - 12:00 pm Comment from: Predrag

To those who wish us to "Enjoy Our Rentals - They'll Pass":

Most passionate movie buffs, who amass large collection of their movies (VHS, DVD, whatever) only have so much time to watch their movies. There are many (as quoted above) excellent, classic films that have truly passed the test of time (the list does go on, with much of Cubrick's oeuvre, as well as Truffaud, Goddard, Chabrol, and others). The argument of his "Steveness" remains unshaken, though. While you can walk your dog, mow your lawn, work on your presentation, prepare your breakfast and listening to music at the same time, in order to watch movies (at least the kind the poster of the referred message would want to own; we're not talking about "American Pie" series here), you need to set aside two hours of your time and do pretty much nothing but watch that movie. If nothing else, for that reason alone, there is only so many times you can see a movie.

We can all agree that in the course of our lives, we hear our favourite music at least several hundred times (I know for certain that some of the musical pieces I have heard at least 1,000 times over the past 35 years). There isn't a single movie that I could watch more than a dozen times. Your upper limit might be higher, but it will never come anywhere near the upper limit for your music. Again, there may be a negligible percentage of the population that would be extremely interested in permanent ownership at the same level they're interested about music. However, judging by the successful existence of the movie rental business around the globe, it is clear that consumers like the concept.

For full disclosure: I own some 40 DVDs (mostly Disney - two young children in my household); I also own some 300 CDs, most of which is ripped into iTunes (for the two iPods in the house).

In conclusion, his Steeveness is pretty much on the money. Most people watch their movies only once. Some watch twice, some more. They represent too small a segment to consider. For them, there's always the store to purchase their movies.

Rental business for movies will take off.

As for the original subject of this discussion, neither rental, nor subscription for music makes sense. As I said previously, MDN pretty much covered it. Nothing of substance to be added.

Jan 18, 08 - 12:12 pm Comment from: REALTORben

I haven't read all the comments, so maybe someone addressed this, but we also have to remember this...

Human Nature is actually a result of Behavioral Training. People are brought up to do certain things and act certain ways. This is passed on to their kids as their kids watch them and learn from them. The cycle of life continues.

The cycle of life has always had people going to the music store and buying music. The music industry never ever ever (until the last decade or so) tried to do anything other than "Sell" music.

The movie industry not only spent time and energy getting people to "buy" their movies (in the big screen, and again in the after market) but also gave them opportunities to "rent" them. This has been going on for decades and is now built into the human psyche.

The movie industry is much better. They have found ways to get people to pay for their products (often the same product multiple times). First in the theatre (sometimes seen more than once), then again as they buy the Movies, then again as they rent the movie to go on a trip so that theirs does not get damaged.

Furthermore, movies decided to "re-release" movies (even more so with DVD's) with newer versions that have more features. The music industry followed suit with "best of" album's and often "best of + 1 or 2 new songs so that we don't have to make a whole new album to get your money".

Look at it plainly. The Music industry has all their eggs in one basket....make money from people buying their CD.

The movie industry has put their eggs in multiple baskets....make money from the theatre release....make money from the VHS/DVD release....make money with rentals....make money with TV syndication.....make money with re-releases.

The fox is in the hen-house and the music industries basket is being robbed. Yeah digital movies are being copied and the movie industry is complaining, but you don't see any of them going broke do you?

Jan 18, 08 - 12:31 pm Comment from: Marian

"The movie industry not only spent time and energy getting people to "buy" their movies (in the big screen, and again in the after market) but also gave them opportunities to "rent" them. This has been going on for decades and is now built into the human psyche."

Dude, watching a movie in the theater is not "buying the movie". It's more like "renting the movie".

Jan 18, 08 - 12:33 pm Comment from: jjjj

We want to own our music. BULL. A fraction of people buy music nowadays. Quit spewing the Jobian line.

I do own thousands of CDs. But streaming allows me to sample, an not have to take the purchasing plunge on a title that might very well suck. Rhapsody, I use a lot, but not the portable service. I do also tap into free.napster.com for some low quality streams, just to get an idea what an album might be like.

There is room for both ownership and subscription in this world, and I am happy to play both sides.

No, consumers do NOT want to RENT music. That is clear and everyone has it right that if this was the case, why are all the subscription sites taking a dive?

Yes, the vast majority of consumers want to RENT movies. This is clear as rental sales always greatly over shadow those of actual DVD sales. THANKS APPLE for giving us Movie Rentals!

But where everyone is missing the boat is TV Shows? If it is clear that the majority of consumers don't want to own really awesome movies, then why does everyone think that we want to always own all those episodes of Ugly Betty? Really? If I only want to watch a move once or twice, how many times am I going to go back and watch that same episode of The Daily Show? And why would I want to deal with having to house and backup all that crap too?

TV is 1000x's more disposable then movies. Lets get real APPLE! Give me $0.25 or $0.50 rentals of TV shows and I will tell Charter to bite it and go to 100% digital download programming and never watch another commercial.

Don't know about you, but if I have an option to BUY an episode of Ugly Betty for $1.99 or just simply watch it and lose that 30 minutes of my life never to be repeated for $0.25, 99.999% of the time I will drop that quarter again and again for more TV to WATCH then I will EVER BUY.

Paying for music with DRM on a monthly basis is just stupid, and that's why nobody does it.

Paying a surcharge on top of broadband access for drm-free music, on the other hand, would be pretty spiffy depending on the amount of the surcharge, and what the means of distribution would be.

It is the whole idea that your music library can disappear in a puff of smoke if you drop your subscription (or if the service just shuts down!) that makes the whole idea a non-starter.

I've been paying a subscription fee every month to emusic for a couple of years now and am quite happy with it.

I haven't read all the posts. So sorry if someone has mentioned this or covered it already.

Quickly, with regards to the article.

Steve Jobs did say during his Keynote this Jan 15th... that MUSIC by our customers is PREFERRED to be OWNED... purchased RATHER then SUBSCRIBED...

Apple has the technology to do otherwise... but unlike MOVIES shall keep the FORMULA the way it is.

"The cycle of life has always had people going to the music store and buying music. The music industry never ever ever (until the last decade or so) tried to do anything other than "Sell" music. The movie industry not only spent time and energy getting people to 'buy' their movies (in the big screen, and again in the after market) but also gave them opportunities to "rent" them. This has been going on for decades and is now built into the human psyche."

A little off, but well said.

People have been buying recorded music for hundreds of years. Before the phonograph, there were player pianos and music boxes.

Conversely, people didn't buy movies. People 'watched' movies. Before films, there were plays that you went someplace and watched. After that, you had movie theatres where you went to watch movies. It's only in the past 30 years or so that people could bring home movies and watch them.

An interesting thing with movie rentals, though, is that movies were original priced to rent. The studios figured that no one actually wanted to own movies, so they didn't price them that way. They priced them for your neighborhood movie rental place. So movies were about $80.

One of the studios figured they'd try an experiment and priced one of their big hits at $20 and they made a ton of money--seems people like to own movies after all!

"Furthermore, movies decided to 're-release' movies (even more so with DVD's) with newer versions that have more features. The music industry followed suit with 'best of' album's and often 'best of + 1 or 2 new songs' [...]"

Actually, "Best of" albums have been around for quite some time--longer than movies have been sold.

---

In regards to renting music, though, I've said it before and I'll say it again: "No one wants to rent their favorite music. But people might rent music in order to determine whether it will become their favorite."

In other words, "music rental" can never compete with buying. Trying to position Napster against the iTunes store is really stupid. Instead, these people should be trying to compete with XM, Sirius, and terrestrial radio.

What I want to do is be able to create a playlist that says, "Download the latest news and weather. Download all music from Billboard's Top 40 singles whose genre is not 'Rap.' Remove all music that is no longer on that list. Include these 50 songs from my personal collection." This way, I grab my iPod in the morning and it has a nice collection of new music, my personal favorites, and the latest news and weather for my morning commute.

Radio? Who needs radio?

Jan 18, 08 - 01:11 pm Comment from: Demon

I think Steve would close the iTunes music store before going subscription.

Jan 18, 08 - 01:30 pm Comment from: Big Al

When mentioning classic filcks, let's not forget Deep Throat.

That was the finest desplay of talent I've ever seen.

Jan 18, 08 - 01:47 pm Comment from: dogfriend

I don't want to rent music, but if I did, I think that XM or Sirius is a better alternative to Napster et. al.

What I really want is DRM free copies of my favorite music. So I buy used CD's from a local store and rip them.

Am I totally off base here? Does everyone actually WANT to own TV shows?

So,
People want to OWN music
People want to OWN and RENT movies
People want to OWN TV shows?

really?

Jan 18, 08 - 02:01 pm Comment from: skeeter

It's so frustrating that MDN and 95% of all Apple loyalists just don't get it. Two big points:

1. Every subscription service out there also offers the option to buy. Consider it "try before you buy." I'm baffled why people are so turned off by this. Hell, you wouldn't even have to subscribe if you don't want. MDN just can't seem to grasp, what with its overwrought math and all, if you like a song you've discovered via subscription, you buy it. Sheesh.

2. Every subscription service to date has failed for the same reasons Netflix online, Vudu, Unbox, et al (as pointed out by Steve on Tuesday) have: Apple hasn't done it. Nobody's gotten it right.

"Now, for movies, a rental service makes perfect sense because it better fits the way people consume movies than does outright purchasing."

That's why the spectacular success of DVD at sell-thru pricing was such a failure... nobody really wants to own movies. :^)

Every parent I know has kids who are Disney/Pixar freaks. They aren't going to want to fork over $3.99 to $4.99 every time little Mary or Mark wants to re-re-re-re-watch their favorite kid flick. That will get a lot more expensive than owning a DVD real quick.

"Not to mention, where do you store all of that content that you own, but are only going to watch once or twice?"

On shelves where they used to store their CDs. Unless you're one of the extreme minorities that live in dorm rooms or one room apartments, storing DVDs isn't really a problem.

I live in a 1 bedroom, 1 & 1/2 bath, 800 sq.ft. house, and I don't have a problem storing my 300+ DVD collection (and I have room to double that), and when people entry my TV room they don't see a single DVD.

"Most people can count the number of movies they’ve watched three or more times on their fingers."

Maybe true, but the success of DVD means most people also want to own a lot movies... just as much as they want to own music. Even at sell-thru pricing, DVD rentals were far cheaper than buying. Video rentals should have exploded with DVDs, but they didn't. Blockbuster and other video rental establishments almost died after the advent of DVD. People were buying DVDs more than they were renting.

Video rentals won't supplant DVD buying because it's not an either or situation.

The difference between Steve Jobs and the music industry is that Steve Jobs is listening to customers. There will be an iTunes subscriptions service when a significant # of iPod users want it. The music busniess has sold itself on a subscription model as its salvation... but business is about selling what your customers want.

I don't care if they sue pirates (it is illegal and their right), but if they want to make MONEY they need to look for compelling services for their PAYING customers.

These customers have been taught to collect and own music and are largely happy with that model. To consider one's music collection a lifelong treasure.

Here's an idea: instead of selling inferior .mp3s and DRM laden shit, why not offer SUPERIOR quality recordings electronically. That'll get the audiophiles--the ones who pay for music and pay the music industry's bills--to actually repurchase the music because it is superior. (I never had a problem buying CDs to replace vinyl because it was a superior format for everyone but the most ridiculous high end listener).

And I have an idea for one form of superior quality recording that I'll give away for free... Instead of two-track stereo, why not sell ALL the original tracks so the user can actually play producer and remix.

Part of the digital revolution is not just owning content, but repurposing it and remixing it.

In the meantime, simply sell BETTER than CD quality for a premium. Will average listeners be able to tell the difference on an ipod? Doubtful. But the hardcores will "need" to own the better quality.

You can rent songs from iTunes for $.99 a song and as an added benefit you get to keep the song.

Jan 18, 08 - 08:59 pm Comment from: ken1w

I think Steve Jobs has effectively killed DRM for music, with Amazon now selling exclusively DRM-free tracks. It's not dead yet, but it will be only a memory within two years. Why would Apple take action to bring the worst form of DRM back to music?

Note that Apple DID NOT make subscription-based video rental available. Video rental from the iTunes Store is still per item. I think Steve Jobs believes in giving credit to superior artists. When selling songs and videos per item, it recognizes superior art. If the media is sold "in bulk" through a flat-fee subscription, the customer is no longer selecting and paying for the superior art. For that reason, I think Apple will resist offering a flat-fee subscription-based service for either music or video.

I like this Nabster business. I would love to pay $20 or even $30 a month to be able to download whatever I want and as many as I want. But only for movies, not for music.