Apple Could Bring Subscription Music Mainstream

It's pretty hard to find new music with any iPod/iPhone... Why? You can't just quickly load any albums you want onto it to try a new artist, if you want to do that with a decent UI you have to pay $10 an album! There's always piracy and torrents, but it's impossible to find new music you'll like through that without some kind of UI or interface at all. That's why I love music subscription services. The Zune Store and Rhapsody are the best. I found around 25 albums of awesome artists I never even heard of before with my Zune because of its' subscription service after only a few months, but then I sold it to get my iPhone. Microsoft really had something with the Zune, something that could help stop piracy, but it didn't become as popular as it should have.

Apple has sold over 6 billion songs in iTunes, which is the same as $6 billion, over the last eight years. Let's say 65,000,000 people have iPods and 20% of them sign up to a $15 a month subscription to download all the music they want. That's $2.34 billion. In another eight years, if the amount of subscriptions stays the same (it would definitely go up, though) iTunes would've made $18,720,000,000. Which sounds better? Apple can make roughly $19+ billion and you can get legal unlimited music downloads for the price of an album and five songs.

Imagine how that would be on an iPod and the iPhone. Browse through all your new albums and artists in cover flow, shuffle and rate songs, etc. But Apple could take that a step further on the iPhone 3G. They could let us download new music anywhere, so when we're bored of the stuff we have, no matter where we are, we can check out new artists. If they wanted to, they could integrate that in the iPod and add features like alerts when an artist on our iPhone or iPod releases a new album, an iPhone or iTunes would download that album instantly and it would be filling your iPhone/iPod up for you.

With their success with the iPod and iTunes, Apple could make a subscription music service go mainstream. The main reason most people don't use iTunes is because of Apple's prices. I would've probably spent over $1k if I downloaded all my music through iTunes, instead I got my albums through the Zune subscription service and torrents (not going into that...). Apple could really help stop piracy and make iTunes even more popular if they could finally have a subscription service. If they at least included Apple Lossless 256kbp/s MP3s (I still prefer 1000kbp/s+ FLACs, but if they pulled this off I wouldn't mind), they would definitely make me sign up for a service like that. A few other companies can pull it off with all of the major record labels for $15 a month, why not Apple?

 

what is really going to change the way people find and listen to music is Pandora ( www.pandora.com)

people who actually care about music analyzing it for the things that really matter, and making it available to listen, then providing tons and tons of info, on where to buy, similar artists, based on the actual sound of the music, etc.

I think Apple would be incredibly wise to incorporate something like Pandora into iTunes as a radio service, and possibly even into the iPhone/iPod software/hardware, making all sorts of music available to be listened to, and then available for purchase on their computer or device.

It is so fun to watch these huge record companies that provide absolutely nothing to the artist but crappy marketing finally begin to crumble to bits, and there isn't a thing they can do about it.

 

My first portable music player was an IPod Mini... in those days the only legal way to get music was to buy songs from the iTunes Muzik store. But then it got incredibly costly for me to buy all the music I wanted.

Then came subscription music from Napster (the legal kind). I tried that for a short while, and it worked out for the most part except... that it had DRM on the songs I downloaded, thereby preventing me from loading it onto my iPod. There went that idea...

Now, I've decided that to get the best scenario available, I sold my iPod and got a Zune and signed up for the Zune Marketplace subscription. It now is much more feasible for me to download all the music I want AND transfer them to my Zune when I please very simply. Now if they could only offer a subscription plan that includes those nifty TV shows, I'd be incredibly happy.

 

A while back there was some serious buzz making its way around the technology blogosphere that Apple might start a similar subscription service. It was rumored that they were in talks with a few of the larger labels to do so. I'm not entirely sure when, or even if we will ever see the results of those "talks".

 

I agree with circa pandora is great. And I do agree if Apple got a subscription service they would not only make more on iTunes downloads, but they would also sell more iPods. Hopefully within the next year or two they will do this.

 

I can't wait till all of our MP3 players have mobile internet, so I can use Pandora on the go.

 

Unfortunately services like Pandora are not available to people like me who live in Ireland and I presume the rest of Europe etc. A fair subscription service would indeed bring many pirates in from the cold and back on the legitimate side of music downloads but as I have said before till I'm blue in the face Apple won't be the company to end music piracy (or indeed lessen it) until it adopts a non-discriminatory iTunes pricing policy which is reflective of market currency exchange rates. At current rates Europeans should be paying €0.625 (€0.75 once VAT is applied) not €0.99 currently compared to $0.99. That just won't go done well with Europeans if they do the same with a subscription service. With alot of DSL connections in Europe either increasing download limits substantially or indeed going uncapped entirely (like mine ) that kind of policy and little effective policing of piracy means the torrents will flow freely.

 

And sorry Circa but if your applauding the demise of the traditional record company monopoly in favour of Apple and iTunes in order to see better deals for artists you are barking up the wrong tree. If you read this article from Gizmodo you will see exactly where Apple want to go regards royalty payments from content, from 13c down to 4c per track. Such a decrease in payment would almost certainly see many artists being simply unable to survive. There is greed, there is the music industry and at the top of it all is Apple.

http://gizmodo.com/352762/riaa-want...pple-wants-them-at-4-artists-just-want-to-eat

Apple used the excuse in their recent failed defense over discriminatory pricing in the Uk iTunes store that record companies charged Apple more in the UK and they were just passing it on to customers. Apple refused to disclose the details of those contracts to the public and were unable to provide any evidence of such differing contracts to the European Commission, who dismissed the argument as fantasy.

In Ireland we have a huge amount of pride in our homegrown music industry, clubs, independent labels and chances to get signed. Handing it over to Apple would simply finish off already struggling artists. Having gone to see the amazing and upcoming Laura Marling (English artist actually) ( www.lauramarling.com) last night at one of Dublin's best music clubs where many successful bands have started, Whelans, which if your ever in Dublin should be a must go, i'd rather see her get paid more by the evil Sony etc than get even more ripped off by Apple, via subscription or otherwise.

 

As long as it's completely free they can have it go mainstream. They are not the only mp3 players out their anymore and most allow any type of music to be put on and can do more file formats then the apple's now. Microsoft and Creative labs come to mind.

Apple is always hoping loyal people will jump on board and pay for things, but as their market share goes up their percentage of "loyal" customers goes down.

Mainstream users want reliability, but want things free or cheap as you get more users are into Windows and open source.

 

I dunno. DRM and incompatibility with other music players hasn't really been a deterrent thus far for many of the people who legitimately pay for their music online. For the more tech savvy of among us (NBR), yes that certainly makes a difference. I, for one, will not buy music locked by any DRM.

While you may see an ipod-only DRM as a marketing problem, Apple may very well see it as a boon to their product line. If they opened this kind of subscription service and made it ipod only, it would essentially be solidifying their strangle hold over the portable music player market. They already control the lions share of it, why not lock people in with a subscription that only works on their line of products?

 

So in Apple's favour we have
1) It will bring them mass profits
2) It will allow people with iPhones etc to download music while in a coffee shop.

Against
1) The starvation of a large proportion of artists who made the music in the 1st place due to massively decreased royalty payouts.
2) The continuing defense of DRM when every other major label and outlet has sent it to its rightful grave.
3) The lockdown of music to only Apple devices.
4) A serious drop in market competition through mp3 player to content stranglehold.
5) The potential loss of technological advancement in music format evolution due to Apple controlling the majority of device sales and their restrictions on format playback.
7) The continuation of discriminatory pricing policies worldwide.

Does anyone really believe that given the opportunity to own the mp3 market completely with both devices and content Apple would play fair. They haven't done it in any way shape or form up till now.

Isn't it ironic that Apple called its DRM Fairplay.

 

when has it ever been Apple's DRM? it is one applied by the labels is it not?

 

Steve Jobs has claimed that Fairplay, a technology licensed from Veridisc in agreement with the major labels which provide content on the iTunes site is only present due to restriction placed upon it under contract by the record companies which Apple has entered into licensing with.

However, Apple, as they did with the UK discriminatory pricing case in the EU, have refused to publicly disclose the contracts it proposes contain such covenants, either wholly or in part to the public which it proposes require its use. Such private contracts are not susceptible to motions for discovery unless evidence is adduced of potential abuses of law (such as anti-trust etc). The fact is that Apple have benefitted greatly from DRM, more than any other outlet or label, and despite Steve Jobs complaining publicly it should not be there Apple have failed to do anything about it.

Apple's methods for deflecting responsibility, blaming record companies on contractual terms rather than its own wish for a closed ecosystem simply don't reflect reality on several grounds.
1) Apple is the company which is making a profit from DRM.
2) The major labels have themselves dropped DRM, including Sony.
3) Apple have a closed system mentality reflected in every aspect of their business model, DRM assists such systems.
4) Apple have refused to license the technology to others so as to create interoperability between mp3 players and non-itunes outlets.

Apples use of NDA's (non-disclosure agreements) to publicly shield itself from accepting responsibility for DRM's use is not new so I won't go claiming they are the only company who use NDA's (they are virtually uniform in contract law regards issues dealing with intellectual property and copyright matters) but in this scenario its clearly Apple calling the shots and enforcing Fairplay's continued use, to the detriment of open licensing, interoperability and competition.