I think the deluge began in my newsreader sometime last night: “Apple to consider iTunes subscription service!” You’d have thought that perhaps the clouds had parted and the smiling visage of Steve Jobs had blazed forth, sending down word from on high that Apple would offer iTunes subscriptions.
Not exactly.
I traced the suggestions back to a story at CNN Money, in which the CEO of a company I’ve never heard of, INTENT Media Works, says he’s been in talks with Apple.
Les Ottolenghi, CEO of INTENT MediaWorks, a digital distribution system that works with peer-to-peer networks, said he’s had meetings with people from Apple and he believes the company will announce a subscription service for iTunes within the next six months. “I think Apple is seriously considering a subscription offering right now even though they will probably tell you otherwise,” he said. Spokespeople for Apple were not immediately available for comment.Okay, I get that because he’s a CEO, he ought to be a pretty reputable source, but how the hell can you disprove this? You can put just about anything in there. Like: “I think Apple is seriously considering a washer/dryer offering right now even though they will probably tell you otherwise.”
Ottolenghi goes on to suggest that the very reason subscription services haven’t caught on is because Apple—the biggest player in the market—doesn’t offer them. It’s a chicken-and-the-egg argument, but it’s certainly possible. The story author, Paul R. La Monica says he’d sign up for such a service:
as someone who buys from iTunes pretty frequently, I’d support a subscription model. For $15 a month, all I’d need to do is buy two albums a month to justify a subscription. I think many consumers would be amenable to paying a flat fee for unlimited downloads on iTunes.The catch, Paul, is that such music wouldn’t really be yours. If you stop paying for the subscription, you lose all those albums you “bought.”
Now, I’ve pleaded with Apple in the past for a subscription service—for video. But as others have pointed out, including Steve himself, the way we consume video is very different from the way we consume music—people want to own their music, while they’re perfectly happy to rent their video.
I’d certainly welcome a subscription for video, but I think Apple and Jobs have shown, most recently with the EMI DRM deal, that they have an interest in giving consumers what they want. And it would seem to me that the blockbuster success of the iTunes Store’s à la carte music model doesn’t point to consumers clamoring for a subscription model any more than they want an Apple washer/dryer.
For me it's definitely a Big No to a music subscription service and, in all fairness, I'm not much interested in a video subscription service either. We have a DVD collection that testifies to the fact that we like to own and don't like the idea of having to pay a continuous fee for something to watch. At some point in the future (and this is a fair while away) I'm going to both retire and become "hard-up" for cash - I don't want to have to stop spending money and suddenly find that all my music/movies disappear. In this regard I'd rather have a smaller collection that is as much mine as the various protecting bodies will allow.
While it's probably unlikely to happen anytime soon, I'm sure there is money to be made. There are, as you prove, people who like subscription models and would be willing to pay. Before iTunes, I paid a monthly fee to emusic.com for unlimited downloads. There is money to be made. Clearly not as much as there is from individual sales, but money nonetheless. I don't know how much research and technology would have to be devoted for Apple to create and implement a subscription model that work in tandem with the already established selling model. Only Apple can determine that. I'll continue to be the non-subscription person, but Apple should certainly consider a subscription service.
Maybe they just have more goodies on their R&D plate right now that interfere with a proper study of a subscription model?
Subscriptions suck. Most people want to buy there media and play it whenever they want and not have to worry about if there subscription payment is up to date. It costs more to do this then buy the media outright and doesn't save you anything.
I notice the quote from Ottolenghi says nothing about music. Maybe Apple is considering a video subscription service.
In addition to the whole, media disappears when you drop the subscription problem, how can Apple have an iTunes subscription service that covers all the media it sells? Is there a fee they can charge that would cover unlimited movie and music downloads? One that people would pay just for music that doesn't screw Apple on the video? Would there be three subscription prices (music, movies, music & movies)?
I know a movie subscription service would be like Netflix, but Netflix throttles users. That's hard to get away with for an online service (no, "it's in the mail" excuse). Apple would probably have to offer a subscription that allows x movies per month. It seems to me that a rental option makes more sense than a subscription. Just no "24 hours to watch the movie" restriction, please.
I thought this was obvious. Think about it - consumers are used to paying monthly phone bills. All of a sudden subscription makes sense for music.