Sanding our assholes with 150 grit. Slowly. Lovingly.

What do you think about the subscription model for music?

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2007-04-26T070824Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-295691-1.xml - Jobs says Apple customers not into renting music

<quote>
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Inc. Chief Executive Steve Jobs indicated on Wednesday he is unlikely to give in to calls from the music industry to add a subscription-based model to Apple's wildly popular iTunes online music store.

"Never say never, but customers don't seem to be interested in it," Jobs told Reuters in an interview after Apple reported blow-out quarterly results. "The subscription model has failed so far."
</quote>

I thought about it and I found I subscribe to things I don't want to own. Like magazines. I don't keep them so subscription is fine. The idea of paying someone a fee to maintain ownership doesn't sit well. Perhaps that will be  a generational thing. The idea of owning may not be as strong in a world where we adopt new products so frequently ownership isn't even an issue. Like for phones and cars.
Permalink son of parnas 
April 27th, 2007 10:34am
I did it for a bit, mostly for older stuff.

The bigger problem is that there is more content now than there is really time to listen to. That's why I think a move back towards live bands that you actually go to see now and again, and like, then buy the album because of that, is happening. I'm just not likely to buy the music of some guys from far away because of their image, unless the music is so fricking good, it's just ridiculous. Doesn't happen often.

The music industry has been pulling a fast one for so long, now they're pissed the game is up. Sob.
Permalink $-- 
April 27th, 2007 10:44am
A subscription model that meant that had access to an entire collection might not be so bad. I wouldn't pay crap for a subscription to a small subset of songs at a time.

So if I could listen to anything I could find on iTunes for $10/month, then yeah, that's fine. But I wouldn't pay something like a nickel per month per song or anything close to that.
Permalink JoC 
April 27th, 2007 11:04am
I think the current subscription model is too expensive.  If I had to pay a dollar for every month I've owned my Cat Stevens albums, or Rumors by Fleetwood Mac, or the other 200 or so albums I've purchased, I couldn't afford them.

And I don't purchase a lot of albums.

Now, if there were some way to be charged a penny-a-play, that might make sense -- but it's STILL more expensive than the current "buy an album for $20 and play it forever" model.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 27th, 2007 11:20am
Ours is the first generation that is able to pass on music in an undegraded state to our children. I think long term, the only sustainable model will be a very cheap subscription model - say something like £10 / month for unlimited music
Permalink Billx 
April 27th, 2007 11:28am
you can get listen access to the ENTIRE Naxos catalogue for about 20$ a year. they have the right idea. It's like a radio station you can use to check out new stuff, and you end up buying a few on CD because you like it.
Permalink $-- 
April 27th, 2007 11:37am
that's per YEAR. That is a price that makes sense.
Permalink $-- 
April 27th, 2007 11:38am
Okay, but how do you pay the artists and publishers with that $10 a month * All_Consumers?

For instance, Cat Stevens quit making records in 1978 or so, (recently started up again 2006 I believe).  Should he have been reimbursed every time I played "Peace Train"?

With modern technology, perhaps we can keep track.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 27th, 2007 11:38am
Now there's a good point.  Most magazine subscriptions I subscribe to are around $24 PER YEAR, not $10 per month.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
April 27th, 2007 11:39am
it doesn't make that much sense. when you buy an album, it's more than being able to listen to it. It's an article in your living room, says that you like that stuff, a little symbol of you and your tastes. The problem is that there is so much stuff out there, and we also need a cheap way to try stuff out properly (better than listening to the first 20 seconds).

Quite a few times stuff I've downloaded I ended up buying anyway, if I really liked it. Otherwise I end up not bothering with it anyhow.
Permalink $-- 
April 27th, 2007 11:41am
It would be a step further away from what I want.

I currently don't have an iTunes account because if I'm going to buy an album (or just the good parts), I want a disc with cover art, at the original quality that the artist intended.  An AAC encoded file (while sounding pretty good) doesn't do it for me, and /renting/ such a file appeals to me even less.
Permalink xampl 
April 27th, 2007 12:19pm
It's all rent, people, it's all rent. Owning anything is a delusion of permanence.

Question: I have $10K in non-liquid music assets and accrue $200 a year on music, when can I retire to sustain my music lifestyle?

Can I get a music annuity (a one-time fee) to use music for the rest of my life? What if my musical tastes changes? What if I decide to 'travel' to local clubs? Can the annuity cover those expenditures as well? It's pretty much impossible to plan.  This irritates me to no end.
Permalink strawberry beeswax 
April 27th, 2007 1:51pm
Hold on, let me check...

Yep - the CD's I bought in 1986 are still sitting on the shelf, and those songs are on my playlist. (of course if I'd nuked the mp3's, which I've done a few times, I can just rerip them) I paid $12 each for them 21 years ago.

The idea of having to pay 252 months * some monthly fee for them doesn't really seem as appealing.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
April 27th, 2007 3:04pm
yeah, it's not all rent. You buy a CD to own it. You might rent music to check it out. What's hard about that?
Permalink $-- 
April 27th, 2007 3:06pm
It's still all rent. Just $12 was a cheap lump payment. CDs wear out, formats change, people die, etc.
Permalink strawberry beeswax 
April 27th, 2007 3:12pm
"CDs wear out, formats change,"

?

You did see the part where I said 1986, right? Just about 2nd generation CD's, and not going anywhere any time soon.

I also still have a bunch of 45's in the back and a turntable if worst comes to worst.

In fact, I've lost more subscription music than I have physical music by far.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
April 27th, 2007 3:22pm
shit, I still buy vinyl. I get some ridiculous bargains like that.
Permalink $-- 
April 27th, 2007 3:32pm
The everyone-rents comment is mostly about death. :)

Reincarnation, afterlife, etc - doesnt matter. You can't take it with you. We're just renting.
Permalink strawberry beeswax 
April 27th, 2007 3:57pm
>> You did see the part where I said 1986, right? Just about 2nd generation CD's, and not going anywhere any time soon. <<

Got you beat -- I still have discs from 1983.  They still play, too.  All those people talking about how discs degrade just aren't taking care of them.

I dread when the industry moves to another format.  Another $18 per title to replace what I already own, and plays perfectly well, for a new format that is marginally better than the original Sony-Phillips standard.
Permalink xampl 
April 27th, 2007 5:00pm
If you can rip your CD, why would you ever buy another format to replace it?
Permalink Billx 
April 27th, 2007 7:41pm
Have you tried buying a 12" laserdisc or betamax player recently?
Permalink xampl 
April 28th, 2007 12:01pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: April, 2007 Other topics: April, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics