Filed under: iPod Family, iTS, iTunes, iPhone
The Rumor Room: iTunes Unlimited
By definition, nearly all tips we receive about Apple future product intros are wrong. After all, we're not Engadget. People aren't going to risk their jobs to deliver insider information.
That being said, a tip that shot into our mailbox this morning really tickled my fancy: not because I think it's accurate but because I really really want it to be true. Our anonymous tipster laid out a description for iTunes Unlimited that I thought was brilliant. Although this guy (by definition) does not work for Apple, he really ought to.
He suggested that the late September Apple event would introduce several great items that we'd love to see but haven't been holding our breath for. These are disk access for the iPhone and iPod Touch and iTunes Unlimited.
His take on iTunes Unlimited goes as such: For just $129.99 (or $179.99 bundled with MobileMe, or $99 for current MobileMe subscriptions), you would buy unlimited music access for one year. This would offer you 256 Kbps music, or as Steve would boom it, "The highest quality digital music subscription service ever." You could download and play directly on your computer or iPhone/iPod and the option to "buy and keep" would replace the subscription version of a song with a downloaded version.
I totally love this idea. It's not the first iTunes subscription rumor we've heard, either. I'm not betting that would happen. But it brought a huge smile to my morning. What do you think of iTunes Unlimited? If it were available, would you buy it?
Thanks, extremely creative anonymous tipster
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
dastranger said 12:41PM on 8-20-2008
I'd also love for this to be true. In any case, sign me up.
Reply
Kodo said 1:57AM on 8-21-2008
I hate this idea. I want to own my music, not have it expire after 12 months. I go through and listen to old music all the time, rarely listen to new stuff but if I buy something today and I want to listen to it in 2 yrs and haven't paid subscription I can't listen to it.
I have NEVER understood why subscription models are popular, maybe I am old and used to collecting CD's and tapes and having physical copies of stuff nearby and ready when I wanted it.
Jeff McFadden said 3:07AM on 8-21-2008
I originally disliked the idea of "renting" music. But I finally tried Rhapsody and LOVE it. It's like having a 4 million song jukebox at your disposal. It's right up there with Tivo as one of my favorite products of all time. That said, I'd switch to Apple's service in a heartbeat. Rhapsody uses Microsoft's software engine and it's buggy and unreliable. Apple will no doubt do a way better job.
Rhywun said 11:00AM on 8-21-2008
I don't get it. I would never pay to *rent* music either. If I want a radio-like experience, there are plenty of internet radio stations to choose from, or Pandora. Well, until the government decided to price them out of existence, that is.
twoeightnine said 12:46PM on 8-20-2008
They charge you more if you already bought MobileMe?
Reply
dagamer34 said 12:51PM on 8-20-2008
I'm guessing if that's if you don't already have a MobileMe subscription. I was hoping to get a discount if you didn't already have a MobileMe subscription.
That's ok, Apple gave me a 60 day trail extension so i haven't been charged yet!
todd said 12:46PM on 8-20-2008
Uhh... while for the user it may be amazing, for Apple, sounds like someone would just purchase everything available from the store, thus costing Apple a LOT more than $179. This assumes the person can buy and keep the tracks after the one year time frame.
Reply
Mike Chu said 1:19PM on 8-20-2008
The option to buy & keep would suggest that access to the music is only available during the subscription period
Gary said 6:10AM on 8-21-2008
And there-in lies the flaw. Why would I spend US$129 pa to rent music from Apple when I could spend the same amount and own it with eMusic?
The flaw with this service is that it provides little benefit to consumers. If you're a casual music fan, you probably don't spend much more than US$129 a year on music anyway, and you're ulikely to see the benefit of access to the full iTunes catalogue. If you're a serious music fan, you will spend more than this annually, but you will place a lot more value on ownership of that music.
The record industry is desperate to foist the subscription model on the public, because it allows them to gouge consumers for continued access to albums they could own. This is not a good thing for the consumer. Imagine the kid who starts his or her music collection with an iTunes sub - sure they enjoy access to a fantastic array of artists (minus the Beatles, sadly), but the second they stop that sub, they are left with no music at all.
Personally, between my existing CD collection, my eMusic sub, the occasional amazon Used & New purchase and Last.fm, I already enjoy a much better access to music than an 'iTunes Unlimited' sub could provide.
Joe said 9:44AM on 8-21-2008
@Gary
While I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea of an iTunes subscription plan, and would probably not get one if they offered it anyway, being that I've switched to DRM-free AmazonMP3 for my digital music needs, I'd like to say that the reason this would work better than eMusic is the availability of mainstream artists and albums.
I've tried eMusic, and while the price is right, and you get to keep the music, I could barely find enough music that I was interested in to supply the free batch they give you when you start the service. If you're into indie/underground/unknown artists, and willing to take a shot on music for a fee, then the service is fine, but if you're looking for more well-known music, iTunes or Amazon (or other more mainstream services) are a better bet.
As a side-note, if you're interested in the type of music that eMusic offers, Amiestreet.com is something worth checking out. Their pricing model is quite unique (in my opinion).
Mikey said 12:47PM on 8-20-2008
I like this idea but even if it were true I don't think the current "Statistical" Buyers would have those funds to toss up for an "Unlimited" Subscription, Personally Ive dropped over $2,000 since the intro of iTS and i don't feel bad about it because it was progressive, C'Mon the Jonas Brothers tops the chart? do u think Suzie is going to have a Benjamin to toss for her music?
Reply
harrywolf said 12:47PM on 8-20-2008
Subscription?
NO thanks.
Another bill to add to all the other bills - frankly, with prices going up, esp. gas prices, I can see people returning to piracy quicker than ever.
Heres the list for our house:
Apple Macbook Pro - $2400 - every 3 years
Three Macbooks: - $3000 - every 3 years
One Apple airport - $200 - every 3 years
Telus phone and ADSL internet - $1000 per year
Rogers iPhone + phone (business and personal) - $3000 per year
Mobile Me - $99 a year
This is in Canada (Vancouver) - I cant take any more bills......
Gas is $1.40 a liter.
Subscription is another bill that most of us dont want - thats why friends sharing music via burned CD's and borrowed CD's is so popular.
A friend buys an album, he/she shares it around.
Thats reality in most peoples worlds, and I see nothing wrong with it.
Its harder and harder to not get pissed at what these 'stars' are earning, as the gap, worldwide, between rich and poor gets wider.
Lets see tracks at .50c and subscriptions at $35 a year.
Reply
Jaryd said 1:44PM on 8-20-2008
You do know that isn't just the artist who is affected by stealing music, right? What about all of the others involved in the production if an album? They deserve to be paid for their work as well.
Also, it doesn't matter if it is 'fair;' it's the way it is. It's against the law to steal music, and it's wrong.
rethciR said 2:14PM on 8-20-2008
The artists hardly make anything from the album sales. All that money goes to the label, advertising, RIAA, etc. Don't get me wrong, I thing most music today is crap and the artists still make too much $$$ money for what they're delivering, but the price of online media comes from pressure from the RIAA and MPAA. If they'd pull their heads out of their @$$'s and embrace digital distribution, this thing would become a lot more streamlined.
Øivind said 2:13PM on 8-20-2008
If you can't afford another bill I guess that's a bit sad, but it doesn't mean the option shouldn't be available, as long as the existing system remains.
I'd much rather have "Download a generous amount and keep it" for let's say $100 a month, and then you can download up to 200 albums a month from your computer or your phone or whatever. It could be $50 for 25 albums or $500 for unlimited downloads of everything in the iTunes Store (except software). That's what I'd pay for. Subscription streaming or DRM-infected files? No thanks.
Vince said 7:26PM on 8-20-2008
That's one of the dumbest posts I've seen in some time here, Øivind. That works out to $2/album. Do you really think that the studios are going to decide that albums should cost $2/each? And you really think that there are enough people out there willing to pay hundreds of dollars a month for music from iTunes to make it a marketable product. And $500 a month for unlimited? Do you realize that there would be no need for the subscription after one month because you could have already DOWNLOADED EVERYTHING? Under that model, albums would be worth PENNIES each. Time for a dose of reality.
Øivind said 12:42AM on 8-21-2008
I'm sorry you feel it's dumb, and I'm sure record companies agree with you. The point I tried to make is that most people spend a lot less than $100 a month on music, while a small percentage spend a lot more. If you can squeeze as much money out of each customer as his budget can allow, you will ultimately earn more money. Especially when your product is unlimited. It doesn't matter if the customer pays $2 per album, as long as the total sum of money paid for music is greater than it used to be. Meaning it's better to sell 10 albums at $2 than 1 at $10. I can't see that it's a bad or stupid thing, especially now that music has lost most of its value due to illegal downloading. Those $ figures were just examples, I have no idea if $100 would be the sweet spot, and the unlimited subscription probably wouldn't work as you pointed out.
I can only speak for myself when I say that I'd gladly buy at least 50 digital albums a month for $2 per album, but I would probably not buy 10 albums for $10 per album. Then I'd rather buy single songs instead of full albums or even full discographies, which is sad.
YodaMac said 12:48PM on 8-20-2008
No thanks! I prefer to just pay for what I want and not have to pay for a years worth of... what? I don't want to pay every year for the same songs I always listen to...
And why should Mobile Me be MORE costly a subscription? huh?
Reply
freediverdude said 12:51PM on 8-20-2008
I'm not sure how many people would go for this. I know I probably wouldn't, because I wouldn't want my music to disappear after 1 year if I didn't have the money to renew right away. I would rather have a permanent license ("own it"). I usually can get a sense of whether I will want the song or not from the sample.
Reply
Miranda Kali said 12:58PM on 8-20-2008
Mmmm. Subscription? No thanks. I really like the whole "AOL Radio, for free" thing on my iPhone. I love, and even use, the ability to go straight to iTunes and buy a song if I like it.
Sure, the stations have commercials, but I take that hardest of old school actions in such a case and change the station...or simply listen to the music I bought.
...Now that disc access, on the other hand.
GIMME!!
Reply