Apple Mulls Flat-Rate "Unlimited Music" Option

Mike writes "Apple is in discussions with the big music companies about an 'all you can eat' model for buying music that would give customers free access to its entire iTunes music library in exchange for paying a premium for its iPod and iPhone devices. Finally, it looks like the industry (or at least Apple) is 'getting it'. The real question is not whether the big music companies will go for it, but rather, who will be the first one to get smart and agree to offer it?"

Comments

As long as

[imamac]

my purchase does not "expire". I want to own my music. And if it doesn't expire and I can get unlimited songs, just how expensive would this premium be? I expect it would be significant.

Re:As long as

[wbav]

If you RTFA, the fee Apple is pushing is $20 and you keep the music as long as you keep the device. No word on CDs but I would expect that music would continue to play through iTunes, even if you sold the device.

Re:As long as

[zappepcs]

Not only that, but will indy artists get any cut of that? or just the **AA guys? Apparently they don't share well with artists. I don't see any of this benefiting the people most proclaimed as suffering from music copyright infringement.... the artists.

Re:As long as

[TheNinjaroach]

I want to own my music. Then stick to CDs or unencumbered MP3s. The idea of a subscription service is that you keep paying for it to hear all the music you want. You would end up canceling your subscription the moment you downloaded as much music as your hard drive could hold and that would be the end of it.

Re:As long as

[LunaticTippy]

I think a lot of people wouldn't mind "renting" unlimited music for the right price. Say for $10/month I'd bet most people would be OK paying forever.

Of course, that would require pretty strict DRM. Apple would have to scrap the whole "rip audio CD" thing, which would be a dealbreaker for me at least.

Re:As long as

[TaoPhoenix]

I think Apple is mastering the Boiling Frog theory of sales.

Right now, the conceptual actions of the **AA are hurting artists by reputation even more than the pure $ effect with their fear campign.

Once Apple gets a lock on the Flat Fee model, they can work on weird ways to funnel the money to the artists. "Donate your dollar to the artist, save a dollar on an ipod" or something.

Re:As long as

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a lot of people wouldn't mind "renting" unlimited music for the right price. Say for $10/month I'd bet most people would be OK paying forever. Hi, my name is Napster. I'm from the year 2004--have we met?

This subscription schema fails every time. Apple's subsidizing through device pricing is fully new. DRM or not, the vast majority of listeners will listen to this music on an iPod, CD, or through iTunes on a computer...they've got so many people by the balls now that it doesn't matter. Their foothold is strong enough that unless the pricing or features is horrendous, people will buy it regardless of what the minute percentage of slashdotters and audiophiles want, and they'll still be a top 5 music sales company.

I wish they'd drop DRM myself, but let's look at what hasn't worked and what anybody with a clue would assume Apple would do here. Lock people in and throw away the key (for me, that's not a bad thing, I like it, haha).

Re:As long as

[AuMatar]

Only if no new music comes out that you want. And if that's the case, the problem is with the music industry.

Re:As long as

[ahabswhale]

The article is poorly worded but they aren't talking about charging the consumer $20. The $20 is what Apple wants to pay the record companies per device. It's not clear what they have in mind for the consumer. In any event, they aren't getting any bites because Nokia already pays $80 for the same priviledge.

Mind you, you can already get this feature from Rhapsody To Go for $14.99/mo for unlimited access to ~4.5 million songs. They've had this feature for quite a while now.

Re:As long as

[jordyhoyt]

I want to own my music. What happens when the music you buy turns out to be music you don't actually like all that much? Or maybe after a few years your tastes mature and you don't really like that album you bought so much anymore, what then?
I own a Zune and gladly pay the bad music insurance because I know my tastes fluctuate wildly. The freedom to download 20 albums at a time (guilt-free mind you), then scrap the 18 I decide I don't like is, to me, paramount to actually "owning" music I might regret buying.

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

You forgot the anticompetitive part. You know, like how Microsoft threatened to terminate Windows licenses on Compaq for supporting Netscape and AOL?

Apple would need to be doing something anticompetitive with their monopoly... such as refusing to sell iPods to WalMart because they also sold Sony.

Re:As long as

[Naughty Bob]

The anticompetitive part is if they don't extend this deal to non-ipod owners.

Re:As long as

[cayenne8]

"The anticompetitive part is if they don't extend this deal to non-ipod owners."

Why? There are numerous ways to get music in different methods for different players.

No one forces you to use iTunes to even buy/get music for the iPod.

Re:As long as

[cayenne8]

"Of course, that would require pretty strict DRM. Apple would have to scrap the whole "rip audio CD" thing, which would be a dealbreaker for me at least."

If Apple would allow me to download lossless music at or better than CD quality, with no DRM, I'd be a customer in a heart beat. I'd happily pay a reasonable price to be able to do what I do now with CD's online. I'd then be free to burn it to CD for backup, and then listen to it at max fidelity on home systems, and re-rip it to lossy formats for environments that aren't fidelity friendly like the car or gym on a portable (iPod).

Re:As long as

[eepok]

And if my device is "general multiple-format multi-media system"? What? My computer, laptop, other computer, MP3 player, and car stereo all exchange information in one way or another. They're networked and connected in one way or another.

Re:As long as

[Naughty Bob]

Because they hold a monopoly.

Compare it to MSFT's situation- There are numerous browsers/media players. But when they bundle their own, and are a monopoly, they've broken the law.

Re:As long as

[vought]

Apple used to include a hundred megabytes of music with every Mac before the iPod came out. It was a way to populate the iTunes library with "samples" of digital music before it was mainstream to have libraries of mp3s. This was in 2000, IIRC.

How is this different, other than they're charging a small premium?

Re:As long as

[veganboyjosh]

What happens when the music you buy turns out to be music you don't actually like all that much?

The same thing that happens now when I buy a CD, and it turns out I don't like it. I sell it, give it away, or trash it. So?

Re:As long as

[quantaman]

I want to own my music. Then stick to CDs or unencumbered MP3s. The idea of a subscription service is that you keep paying for it to hear all the music you want. You would end up canceling your subscription the moment you downloaded as much music as your hard drive could hold and that would be the end of it. Big initial payment, low monthly payment.

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

No it isn't. That's like arguing Microsoft is illegally anticompetitive for not releasing Office for Linux, Nintendo is anticompetitive for not releasing Metroid Prime for the XBox 360. In fact, that is like arguing "exclusive deals" are illegally anticompetitive.

As it stands, non iPod owners can still buy these songs from the iTunes store, on CD, or via other distributors, so until Apple commands something like 80% of the market, they can't be accused of illegally abusing their monopoly.

Re:As long as

[cayenne8]

"Or maybe after a few years your tastes mature and you don't really like that album you bought so much anymore, what then? "

I'd say that was a case of lousy music to begin with??

Hell, I'd say I STILL like 99% of the stuff I bought when I was growing up and beyond. I've yet to outgrow Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, the Stones, Metallica, Hendrix, Prince, Queen, Eagles, Tinsley Ellis, Yes, Keb Mo, The Who.....

I guess I mainly only buy music that really hooks me, and I know I'd listen to over and over. I dunno if it is lack of such music, or that maybe music buying habits are less stringent than when I grew up. Maybe it is the lack of good, decent fidelity equipment to play stuff that isn't compressed as hell for young people these days.

I dunno....but, I rarely tire of anything I've bought over the years. Sure, I may play it into the ground for a bit, and put it aside for awhile, but, I often dig them back up when I look through my collection to listen to something "I've not heard in awhile".

Re:As long as

[Naughty Bob]

M-o-n-o-p-o-l-y (both of ipods & itunes)

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

There is nothing illegal with having a monopoly; it is, as I said earlier, only illegal when you engage in anticompetitive behavior when you have a monopoly.

In the first case, Apple may have a monopoly in MP3 players. However they have done nothing anticompetitive (again, the example where Microsoft threatened to terminate Windows licenses to Compaq because they bundled Netscape). Anticompetitive means it hurts Apple but it hurts their competitors more. Anticompetitive would be withholding iPods from WalMart until WalMart stops selling Sony.

Offering a subscription service to iPod owners is not anticompetitive because it does not prevent the competition from responding in like, nor from competing.

Microsoft terminating Windows licenses from Compaq is anticompetitive because it stops Compaq from bundling Netscape; stopping the competition by manipulating their monopoly in Windows licenses.

So, again, how is offering a subscription service for iPods and iPhones anticompetitive? It doesn't stop Amazon from offering DRM free MP3s, it doesn't stop Microsoft from releasing their own subscriptions, it doesn't stop Sony from partnering with Rhapsody for a similar service.

Re:As long as

[Naughty Bob]

Non ipod owners cannot access this new, all you can eat deal. That's where the problem lies.

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

Read this. There is nothing wrong in having or acquiring a monopoly as long as you didn't do anything anticompetitive/illegal to acquire it or to have it.

In this case Apple has not done anything anticompetitive nor illegal. The only way I can see this being anticompetitive is if this offer disabled iPods or iPhones of users who were found to also own Creative or Sony products. In other words, using their monopoly on iPods to hurt consumers in order to hurt Creative or Sony.

Re:As long as

[Slashdot Suxxors]

So? So most people don't enjoy wasting money.

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

So? That isn't illegal. The illegal part comes in when Apple acts in an anticompetitive manner (defined by antitrust law as harmful to consumers) using their monopoly. How is offering special deals to iPod owners anticompetitive? They aren't using their iPod monopoly to hurt consumers, in this case they use it to help them by giving them special bonuses.

They aren't hurting consumers with this offer.
They aren't hurting competitors with this offer.
They aren't hurting affiliates with this offer.

Therefore there is nothing illegally anticompetitive with this offer.

They would need to be using their iPod monopoly to hurt the consumer; like raising prices of iPods for users of other music stores, or denying access to stores like Amazon or Walmart for running music stores.

Neither has happened.

Re:As long as

[Naughty Bob]

There is nothing wrong in having or acquiring a monopoly as long as you didn't do anything anticompetitive/illegal to acquire it or to have it.

Apple would be maintaining their monopoly by making the 'all you can eat' deal iPod-only.

Re:As long as

[Naughty Bob]

Don't ya see Sam! The consumer is hurt as, in order to take advantage of the (iTunes monopoly based) all you can eat deal, they are forced to compromise in choice of player. That's the whole point.

I suspect we might be boring the others now, and I've tried my best to explain it. I guess we'll just have to see how it all unfolds.

Re:As long as

[blhack]

"Donate your dollar to the artist, save a dollar on an ipod" or something What incentive would apple have to do something like that?

They're a BUSINESS, not the saviors of the planet.
They have a duty to their stockholders to maximize their profits.
If anybody starts a revolution with the music industry, it certainly won't be apple. More than likely it will something like last.fm, imeem.com or the pandora project.

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

All right, here is a list of common anticompetitive practices culled from Wiki:
* Dumping, where products are sold into a market at a low price which renders competition impossible, in order to wipe out competitors.
This might be dumping if Apple did not "pass on" the price to consumers. Given the initial up-front fee, however, the consumer appears to be paying fairly for this service.

* Exclusive dealing, where a retailer or wholesaler is 'tied' to purchase from a supplier.
This isn't exclusive dealing because the consumer can still buy music from Amazon, WalMart, Best Buy, etc and use it on the iPod. Likewise the music distributors are free to continue selling CDs and license to Amazon.

* Barriers to entry (to an industry) designed to avoid the competition that new entrants would bring.
Apple has established no barrier to prevent others from entering the market; witness Amazon's MP3 store

* Price fixing, where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.
This would be the case if Apple were colluding with Microsoft and Nokia so all paid the same price for licenses. This is not happening.

* Refusal to deal, e.g., two companies agree not to use a certain vendor
This would be the case if Apple were colluding with Microsoft and Nokia to lock out a certain vendor. This is not happening.

* Dividing territories, e.g., you get everything west of the Mississippi, we take everything east
This would be the case if Apple were colluding with Microsoft and Nokia for different regional markets. This is not happening.

* Limit Pricing, where the price is set by a monopolist to discourage economic entry into a market.
If we argue that Apple is a monopoly in MP3 players, this would only be applicable if they set the price of iPods low enough to prevent competitors; since this doesn't apply to the music store, nor is Apple charging too low a price, this doesn't apply.

* Product tying, where products that aren't naturally related must be bought together; this prevents consumer choice.
This would apply if the products weren't actually related; iPods play music, so purchasing a music subscription with your iPod actually makes sense. This also does not prevent consumer choice because consumers would have the option of not buying into the subscription.

* Resale price maintenance, where resellers are not allowed to set prices independently.
Resellers are free to raise prices; lowering prices would lead to losses and that is not illegal nor prohibited by Apple either.

* Coercive monopoly - all potential competition is barred from entering the market
This is what Microsoft practiced, using it's monopoly to prevent Netscape from gaining traction. Apple has not practiced that here, either.

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

Which is identical to Microsoft maintaining their monopoly by making the next version of Direct3d Windows only, or Nintendo by only releasing Pokemon on the DS.

There is nothing wrong with an iPod only deal if they aren't actively hurting competitors; again, the example of raising iPod prices for people who own Creatives would be anticompetitive. So would denying sale of iPods to WalMart for supporting PlaysForSure or Zune, or to Amazon for running an MP3 store.

And this doesn't hurt consumers because consumers benefit from this deal (if they buy it). And consumers who don't buy it aren't hurt, at all. The absence of benefit is not harm.

Re:As long as

[superpulpsicle]

All the record labels have to do is allow other media players to have the same priviledge. If I went out and bought a Creative Zen, then it too should be able to download unlimited music and not be locked down by Steve Jobs ^H^H^H^H^HApple.

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

That is like arguing that a Toyota Prius (or any innovation or feature) is anticompetitive because the competition doesn't have it!

A consumer is forced to choose here because Apple is being competitive, not anticompetitive. Microsoft could, can, and should do this, and there is no barrier here. Sony can, could, and should do this too, and there is no barrier here. In these cases then none of Apple's actions have prevented competition, competitors from acting, or consumers from benefiting.

Unless you think it is wrong for Toyota to offer the Prius in a hybrid model without also offering a Prius in a non-hybrid model!

Re:As long as

[Naughty Bob]

Okay I'll bite, once more-

Barriers to entry (to an industry) designed to avoid the competition that new entrants would bring.
Apple has established no barrier to prevent others from entering the market; witness Amazon's MP3 store

Witness Amazon's mp3 store is right. It's exactly like the MSFT bundling issue. I'm not saying the Amazon service can't exist. But their ability to compete would be restricted by this move by Apple, as Apple would be leveraging their monopoly. Man, it's simple, and this will not happen if Apples lawyers have a clue.

Re:As long as

[Naughty Bob]

Explain in your analogyhow Toyota are leveraging a monopoly in one area to suppress competition in another.

(I am now figuring that you are vexatiously misunderstanding the issue, or are honestly not ever going to be able to figure it out- I quit!)

Re:As long as

[jcr]

Because they hold a monopoly.

Not quite, but even if they did, having a monopoly isn't illegal. They aren't acting to prevent other vendors from offering either music or players.

-jcr

Re:As long as

[shark72]

"Mind you, you can already get this feature from Rhapsody To Go for $14.99/mo for unlimited access to ~4.5 million songs. They've had this feature for quite a while now."

Thanks for pointing this out.

At this very moment I'm using my new Squeezebox Duet to listen to the new Gnarls Barkley album in its entirety. I probably won't buy it, but my Rhapsody subscription allows me to listen to it as much as I want until I grow tired of it. As I can with all of the new music that comes out that I'd like to listen to, but which I probably won't have much interest in ten years from now.

I used to spend about $50 a month on iTunes. Since I got my Duet and got Pandora and Rhapsody working on it, my iTunes spend has dropped to zero. The next time I come across some music that I'd like to keep, or to take with me on my iPod, I'll buy it. But the all-you-can-eat model is taking care of all of my music consumption for the time being. I used to be a huge iTunes fan, but in my household it's quickly become irrelevant.

Re:As long as

[Moofie]

IFF people buy it, the prices are not horrendous.

Value is identically equal to the amount somebody is willing to pay for something.

Re:As long as

[Naughty Bob]

I know having a monopoly isn't illegal (you're trolling, right?). But using a pre-existing monopoly in one arena, to suppress competition in another, is.

Whether they have a monopoly or not is a different issue. I don't have the relevant figures, and I don't know where courts draw the line. I'd say if iTunes is >75% of the download mp3 market, and the nearest competitor has 10% or less, that's a monopoly. That's off the top of my head, and ultimately, what does my opinion matter?

Re:As long as

[Anonymous Coward]

They're a BUSINESS, not the saviors of the planet. Tell that to Steve Jobs!

Re:As long as

[Anonymous Coward]

Would Amazon's mp3s stop playing on iPods?

if yes then it would be anticompetitive. if not then there wouldn't be an issue.

Re:As long as

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone ends up "renting" their music anyways because the format will eventually die out. LP's may be the only thing countering this thought but really people does it really make you sleep better at night because you "own" your music.. cd's break. cassettes are gone. 8 tracks are humorous. every time people bring up the owning argument, you have to consider the fact that a lot of people would be more than happy to pay for unlimited access to an already well designed and organized database of music.. ahh, no more tagging issues, no more cover hunting, a life without folder,file,backup,cross platform,mobile management.. let some other bastard do it for you and let me pay them a fee to have all music, all the time, everywhere i go.

Re:As long as

[mjrmjr]

I largely agree with your points, but not regarding resellers. Simply put, resellers do not exist in the online digital music world. Whereas there's a store down the street from me that legally sells used CDs, there is no legal mechanism by which a person or business can resell an mp3. I can't buy an mp3 from Apple then turn around and decide on a price to sell it to someone else.

Re:As long as

[Naughty Bob]

Did other browsers/media players stop working on windows when MSFT had bundled their own browser/media player?

No. But because MSFT yoked their versions to their monopoly product, it violated anti-trust laws.

I realise this is less than entirely straight forward, but honestly people, read the sig before you reply again. Then don't.

Re:As long as

[billcopc]

You're looking at the wrong bad guy. Apple can sell this music buffet, that's cool. The important thing is that if the RIAA allows Apple to do it, they must allow ANYONE to do it, incl. Zunes, RCA shiteboxes, Creative, etc.

Re:As long as

[cayenne8]

"Because they hold a monopoly."

I beg to differ. There are still many other mp3 players out there.

There are many other sources for getting mp3's....the easiest of which, is copying your own CD's.

Heck...even with an iPod, you needed buy ANYTHING from iTunes store to use it....

I see no monopoly here...there are other choices out there.

Re:As long as

[adona1]

Large market share != monopoly

Re:As long as

[webmaster404]

So, I have a Gp2x where I can program it, so does that mean that I just have to have an AAC player on it and just download it? Because if so, I might just get iTunes (under Wine of course) and get it.

Re:As long as

[afabbro]

I've yet to outgrow Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, the Stones, Metallica, Hendrix, Prince, Queen, Eagles, Tinsley Ellis, Yes, Keb Mo, The Who.....

All right, who let the baby boomer in?

Re:As long as

[goaliemn]

So when Napster had "all you could listen to" subscriptions that required Windows media player and a certified device, why wasn't that a problem? Its the exact reverse of this, and noone said boo.

Re:As long as

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a dominant share of a market is not a monopoly. As long as there are other MP3 players available, it's not a monopoly. If APPLE bought every company that makes MP3 players, then that would be a monopoly.(MONO means "ONE" )

Re:As long as

[goaliemn]

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on MP3 players.

Its amazing to me how people argue in other posts about how apple is playing fair by not opening up itunes to non-ipod devices, because there are other sources for music and devices, but when they offer something people want, but don't have an ipod, its now not fair, because they are a monopoly.

Re:As long as

[mcmaddog]

I know having a monopoly isn't illegal (you're trolling, right?). But using a pre-existing monopoly in one arena, to suppress competition in another, is.
are you trolling?

What pre-existing monopoly was Apple able to use in one arena to suppress competition in another? When the iPod and iTunes debuted it was only available for Macs. When the iTunes store was launched it was only available for Macs, was considered by the labels as a safe experiment because what damage could happen with the Mac market so small, and the iPod market share was still only about 25%. The rise in the iPod and iTunes store market shares have been because of the symbiotic relationship between the two and not because one was a leveraged monopoly to suppress the competition of the other.

Re:As long as

[gnasher719]

There are many other sources for getting mp3's....the easiest of which, is copying your own CD's. Apple is not even the biggest US seller of music that can be played on an iPod. The biggest is still Walmart.

Re:As long as

[Benaiah]

If you RTFA, the fee Apple is pushing is $20 and you keep the music as long as you keep the device. No word on CDs but I would expect that music would continue to play through iTunes, even if you sold the device. Hahahaha you expect the music to play...
I expect it wont play in itunes unless your prepaid I-device is plugged in. I also think that every time you lose connection to the internet your computer would refuse to load itunes, and play any songs regardless of which ithing was plugged in. Oh and this would probably effectively make reselling anything with these prepaid songs on it illegal :)

Re:As long as

[TaoPhoenix]

Assume there is one. Any number of things work, such as reciprocals from the artist.

The fun thing about visionaries is you can loosen a few of the usual strictures. All the consumer cares about is PartiallyFree As-In-Beer, so between the two of them it's just a discount for volume.

Re:As long as

[Anonymous Coward]

Introducing laws to protect a free market is like fucking for chastity. You have one legitimate option: don't buy the damn product. You don't like Microsoft products being pre-installed on Dell computers? Fine, build your own and run Linux. And if Dell doesn't like the deal, fine then they can use a different OS. Price dumping? What would you call free software then?

The only illegitimate action is coercion by physical violence or threat of physical violence. The rest is just voluntary trade. If you don't like what I have to sell or the conditions I'm selling it, then you have the right of not buying it. But you have no automatic right to violate my rights of making voluntary deals with other people.

Re:As long as

[Lunarsight]

This isn't 'getting it', IMHO.

I think the artists who are 'getting it' are beginning to see the albums as a promotional tool for revenue elsewhere, rather than the source of the revenue stream.

The artists who are 'getting it' realize there are other routes to song exposure than merely radio. Allowing your music to be used sans royalties opens up an entire spectrum of possible forms of exposure. Podcasts, video games, independent movie soundtracks, low budget Youtube videos, etc..

Re:As long as

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

In the first case, Apple may have a monopoly in MP3 players. However they have done nothing anticompetitive...

Actually, Apple may have monopoly influence in the portable, digital music player market (MP3 players), but if they do, then several of their actions are pretty clearly anticompetitive tying. First, they bundle iTunes with every iPod sold. That is classic bundling. The iTunes store sells music that makes use of Fairplay DRM, but competitors cannot either license that DRM or get their own DRM supported, that is clearly tying.

Anticompetitive means it hurts Apple but it hurts their competitors more.

Anticompetitive actions aren't about hurting and given participant in a market. They are about undermining the market. The test for anticompetitive actions is not, "does it hurt the monopolist?" The test is, "are they taking an action to gain share in another market, that competitors in that market cannot also take, because they don't have a monopoly to leverage."

For example: Apple has a share of the music jukebox software market. Apple has gained market share by shipping a copy with each iPod they sell. If Apple is ruled to have an monopoly, can say, Real Media get their software shipped with every iPod? No they can't, hence Apple is leveraging their share of portable music players to gain in the music jukebox software market.

Now before people reply to this trying to defend Apple, or because they don't want to believe this is what the law states, there are several factors that are of concern. First, Microsoft has already been convicted of leveraging their desktop OS monopoly to gain share in the music jukebox software market, but the remedy was completely ineffective and they have not stopped the offending action (bundling). Calling Apple onto the carpet for doing the same thing to leverage into the same market is a bit ridiculous. Second, because Apple's monopoly status is in question, the courts generally would order them to stop the action, and only add punitive damages if they do not stop. Apple could stop shipping iTunes with every iPod or they could include other vendor's software, or they could ship an installer that lets the user choose from among several options. Third, Apple has taken numerous steps to remove any tying between the iPod and other markets. For example, they have been trying to drop DRM from their music offerings, removing the tying between the iPod and the iTunes store.

So, again, how is offering a subscription service for iPods and iPhones anticompetitive?

If Apple is ruled to have a monopoly; offering a subscription service that works with iPods would be anti-competitive if they take advantage of their control of the iPod to gain in the music sales market. This includes using DRM they don't license to other subscription services and refusing to support other DRM on iPods. It might also include bundling a copy of iTunes with every iPod, seeing as iTunes has a connection to Apple's service offering built in.

It doesn't stop Amazon from offering DRM free MP3s, it doesn't stop Microsoft from releasing their own subscriptions, it doesn't stop Sony from partnering with Rhapsody for a similar service.

No it doesn't stop others, but that is not a requirement. MS's bundling of Windows Media Player did not stop RealPlayer from installing, but it did leverage their monopoly on Desktop OS's to gain an unfair advantage, since Real Media could not install their player on all Windows machines. The same applies with Apple. Supporting only Fairplay and not licensing it does not stop Real Media from offering a subscription music service, it just makes it a lot harder since Real Media cannot use DRM to prevent people from downloading all their songs, canceling their subscription, then listening to them anyway.

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

You can if it's DRM free, which is one of Apple's initiatives. It isn't like Apple is going to stop you from giving away your MP3s (MP4s technically), so long as you obey copyright law at the same time.

Coincidentally, it is copyright law that forbids you from selling your MP4, not Apple.

Re:As long as

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

But using a pre-existing monopoly in one arena, to suppress competition in another, is.

Actually, it is using a monopoly in on market to gain in another, pre-existing market (not necessarily suppress others). Still, if Apple is ruled to have a monopoly, then yeah the tying is pretty clear cut.

Whether they have a monopoly or not is a different issue. I don't have the relevant figures, and I don't know where courts draw the line. I'd say if iTunes is >75% of the download mp3 market, and the nearest competitor has 10% or less, that's a monopoly.

The "rule of thumb" in many jurisdictions is to look at the market whenever one player gains more than 70%. Apple has about 80% of the US market for flash and hard drive based portable players if you exclude video players and portable game players and cell phones that also play music. If you include all of the above, Apple has about 14% of the market. So a lot of this depends upon how the courts define the market and if they consider buying a cell phone or a Playstation portable a valid alternative for average consumers.The EU seems to be the first jurisdiction to announce investigating, so we'll see what they come up with.

Re:As long as

[multisync]

I do something along similar lines. I listen to Internet radio. I support a station i like every month, save streams in mp3 files so I can listen to them on my portable player and in the car, and only buy the music I really like. I still buy a lot of music, and a lot of bands owe their sales to me to a station run by a guy and his wife. I don't get to pick the tunes, as I imagine you get to with Rhapsody, but then I've got my own music collection to do that with if I feel like it.

Re:As long as

[ObligatoryUserName]

It looks like Ars is misinterpreting the reports. What I've read is that Apple is offering $20/device to the music artists/labels - divided up based on actual downloads. Their research says consumers will buy this ability at up to +$100 per device. So, I'd expect the cost to be between $20 and $100 (maybe costing more or less based on the capacity of the device - $25 for a shuffle, $100 for an iPhone? [Assuming the Classic iPod will be discontinued at some point here...])

In this scenario it's justifiable for Apple ask for more of the revenue for themselves because they're assuming years worth of bandwidth obligations.

This would be attractive for the labels because it would be about 30% more revenue than they're getting now from iTunes on a per-device basis, but it's unattractive because it creates a supply glut that virtually guarantees dramatically reduced sales in the other sales channels. (Though, piracy likewise produces a supply glut so maybe they're ready to make peace with an environment awash in easy to acquire music.)

Re:As long as

[pandrijeczko]

So the whole crux of your argument is "Monopolies are bad if it's Microsoft but good if it's Apple". Cool!

Now about that prize you've won. Do you want the "I sold my soul to Apple" T-shirt in black or white?

Re:As long as

[pandrijeczko]

You would end up canceling your subscription the moment you downloaded as much music as your hard drive could hold and that would be the end of it.

Except for the fact that a very nice man in a nice expensive suit sent you a nice copy of a piece of paper with lots of nice words on it that you signed with a nice pen before you joined. That's because the nice man in his suit loves you so much that he doesn't want you running off into the sunset after a month... oh no, he wants you to be his nice credit-card owning friend for ever and ever and ever...

Re:As long as

[wild_quinine]

* Limit Pricing, where the price is set by a monopolist to discourage economic entry into a market. If we argue that Apple is a monopoly in MP3 players, this would only be applicable if they set the price of iPods low enough to prevent competitors

Chance would be a fine thing...

Re:As long as

[blankgm]

I can see it now .....

Well imamac, can I call you imamac? You see it really isn't a question of whether or not you want your own music, or even whether or not your music will expire.

If you look at our map here what you see is a representation of the United States in various colors. Each of these colors is an area in which, during certain times of the playing period, your music will be available for you to listen to, while in other areas you may have to pay a very slight associate fee to access your tunes.

The first thing we need to do is to identify your home area. Your home area is that are in which you will spend the majority of your time and the area in which your music will always* be available to you. Should you leave your home area, then you are in a 'roaming' area. Music may or may not be available to you while in the 'roaming' area depending upon our agreements with the primary music provider for that area..........

*Please note that always, as used in this explanation of our Terms of Service (TOS) denotes those standard hours during day, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (subject to change) during which standard play rates which may or may not be covered in your plan are included.

Re:As long as

[mog007]

Those are mostly the same preferences that I have, and unless somebody bumped up "baby boomer" to the early 80's, you shouldn't assume great music is only confined to the generation that produced it.

I hear that Bach guy's stuff is still pretty popular.

Re:As long as

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should we heed your sig when you don't seem to?

Re:As long as

[ajcham]

That sounds like a great collection - and I'm in my early 20s you insensitive clod!

Re:As long as

[ArAgost]

Just a friendly reminder: according to IP and copyright laws around the world, the only music you own is the music you wrote (unless you sold that).

Re:As long as

[Dan541]

If you RTFA, the fee Apple is pushing is $20 and you keep the music as long as you keep the device. No word on CDs but I would expect that music would continue to play through iTunes, even if you sold the device. Are the files mp3? or an incompatable proprietary format?

Re:As long as

[intheshelter]

I agree. I want to own my music, not rent it. And in reply to Mike's ridiculous statement about Apple finally "getting it", I'd say they "got it" long before anyone else and that is why iTunes has been such a success. The record companies are the ones who don't get it, they want you to pay them over and over again for the same content. iTunes understood consumers enough to know that we want to buy it and own it.

Re:As long as

[Lars T.]

All the record labels have to do is allow other media players to have the same priviledge. If I went out and bought a Creative Zen, then it too should be able to download unlimited music and not be locked down by Steve Jobs ^H^H^H^H^HApple. Sure, if Creative made a similar agreement with the music labels - but then you want Apple to pay the money so you can download the music for free, right?

Re:As long as

[imamac]

I understand your point. It was implied that I want to own that copy. And I do. No one can take it from me once I purchase an iTunes+ track.

Re:As long as

[ArAgost]

I know, I was just being a bit of an IP Nazi. Returning IT, I think that Apple being the biggest player in the market of digital music they just won't screw up like newbies. I'm a bit skeptic that this will happen at all, given Jobs position on renting music, but we all know how this kind of preditions work.

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

Except there is nothing anticompetitive about Apple's bundling. Microsoft got in trouble because they threatened to terminate Compaq's Windows licenses for bundling Netscape. Apple would only be in trouble if they stopped supplying iPods to WalMart because WalMart bundled Rhapsody with each iPod; I do not think Apple has taken any such steps to stop this action.

See, and this is why it's important to use Microsoft as an example correctly, Microsoft got in trouble for using one monopoly, Windows, to leverage another, Internet Explorer. They manipulated the market by threatening Compaq; in this case, however, Apple has not manipulated the market. They have not threatened anyone with the iPod in order to give iTunes, or the iTunes store, any advantages. They didn't strongarm WalMart into dropping their music store in order to receive iPods, they didn't strongarm Amazon into halting their DRM free music sales in order to sell iPods, they didn't strongarm Best Buy into stopping the sales of music in order to sell iPods.

So they bundle iTunes with iPods, how is that any different than Nintendo bundling Wii Play with their Wii? See, the point is that when Apple started bundling iTunes with the iPod, seven years ago, they weren't a monopoly. They "grew" their monopoly honestly, and in the same vein, they do the same thing everyone else is doing; the Zune comes free with their Zune Jukebox, Sonys come with SonicStage, Creative Zens come with MediaConnect (or whatever they are called), etc.

The big difference is that Apple ALSO provides iTunes free to both Windows and Macs, regardless of whether they own an iPod or iPhone. The Zune and Sony software is only available for Windows users, and for the longest time you could not download Creative's media player without paying a fee or buying a new jukebox!

So to reiterate; Apple hasn't done anything wrong other than be the most popular MP3 player, music store, and jukebox. As Amazon has proven, DRM free MP3 sales are quite possible, so anyone can offer a competing music store. As Windows Media Player, and iTunes too, has proven, bundling isn't an advantage (otherwise everyone would be using Windows Media Player and not iTunes!). Apple hasn't used one monopoly to create another, since they introduced all their products in a pre-monopoly state and made them popular through sheer force of effort.

As an example; look at AppleTV. Their iTunes and iPod monopoly hasn't done anything to help it, and they haven't done anything anticompetitive to give AppleTV a boost.

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

That is my point, they aren't. Toyota developed a hybrid Prius several years ago, and found it was a success and started offering hybrid versions of their Camry, Lexus, and Highlander vehicles to the point that today, the only viable hybrid vehicles are Toyotas (a local monopoly in hybrid vehicles). Sure there is competition in the Ford Escape and Honda Civic, but those are a tiny portion of the market.

In the same way, Apple had a non monopoly player, the iPod, in 2001, with which they bundled iTunes. In 2003 they released a PC version with iTunes, and it was still non-monopoly, and they also offered iTunes free for anyone to download (Mac or PC), and in 2004 they offered a store that was not tied to the iPod because anyone with iTunes could play it. By 2006, when they could be argued to have a monopoly, it was because people actively preferred the iPod, and when in 2008 it is clear that iTunes is the #2 music retailer in the US (world?), it was not because of the iPod (since only 20 songs per iPod were calculated to be iTunes purchases), but because it offered features that people wanted! The ability to buy individual tracks simply, to copy and burn to CD, and to backup without any license finangling, made the iTunes store popular.

At no point did they use one monopoly to create another. The iPod has always been bundled with iTunes, and as far as I can tell, retailers are free to bundle alternatives if they wish (at one point, before writing iTunes for Windows, MusicMatch Jukebox was bundled with iPods), just like today retailers are free to bundle Netscape, Opera, or Safari with Windows PCs.

Yet the point of Microsoft's conviction is that at one point Microsoft made actions to prevent people from bundling Netscape or AOL with Windows in order to deny Netscape any traction and to promote IE. Apple has not done anything like that with the iPod or iTunes, so it's hard to call them "anticompetitive". What you are accusing them is attempting to BE competitive by offering more features at a better price than the competition.

Again, bundling is great; Nintendo does it with Wii Sports, Microsoft does it with Windows Media Player and IE, or versions of their XBox with Halo, Sony does it with versions of their PS3 with MotorStorm. Bundling is fine as it is straight competition.

It is when you use one monopoly, like the iPod, to prevent a competitor from entering another market, like music stores, that this becomes sour. And until we find proof that Apple told WalMart to kill their music store so that Apple would continue to supply iPods to them, there has been no proof nor allegations that Apple has acted uncompetitively.

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

No, the crux of my argument is that Microsoft used their Windows monopoly to threaten Compaq into not bundling Netscape, by suggesting they would terminate Windows licenses if Netscape was bundled on Compaq machines.

Apple is not bad because they have not threatened anyone with their iPod monopoly in order to further their iTunes or iTunes store efforts. They didn't stop WalMart from selling (or even opening) a music store to compete with iTunes by withdrawing iPods, they didn't stop Amazon from opening and selling music, competing MP3 players, or competing software, by withdrawing or raising prices on iPods.

So you explain why Apple is bad, maybe you know more than the other poster. Everything Apple has done is fair game; Nintendo bundles Wii Sports with the Wii, Microsoft bundles Zune software with the Zune, IE with Windows, and WMP with Windows. Why is it wrong for Apple to bundle iTunes or offer a special subscription plan to iPod owners?

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

Yes, that explains why Microsoft entered the market with the Zune, why Creative and SanDisk continue to undercut Apple in price, and why Sony continues to create Walkmen, right?

Re:As long as

[aliquis]

They don't, just get a player which supports AAC and buy the non-DRM-version.

Or well, the deal, yeah, maybe, but I guess Apple could let other manufacturers use the same technique, or Amazon and/or whoever will start to offer similair services aswell.

iTunes and iPod aren't the only music stores and music players available.

Re:As long as

[aliquis]

Yeah because noone else offer music players or music.....

Re:As long as

[Lars T.]

Explain in your analogyhow Toyota are leveraging a monopoly in one area to suppress competition in another.

(I am now figuring that you are vexatiously misunderstanding the issue, or are honestly not ever going to be able to figure it out- I quit!) Gees, his point is that YOU haven't shown were Apple is leveraging a monopoly in one area to suppress competition in another. If the seller of the MP3 player of your choice doesn't provide you with such a deal, that isn't fucking Apple's fault.

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

Except for the fact that Amazon could do exactly the same thing. Offer a lifetime subscription; nothing is stopping them!

That is the point of anti-competitive, it prevents competitors from competing. This does not prevent Amazon from offering a similar service at all.

In the Microsoft case, it wasn't IE that was the problem, it was withholding Windows licenses from Compaq and IBM that was the problem. Again, Apple has done nothing with their iPod monopoly to hurt Amazon. If they made iPods incompatible with Amazon MP3s or withheld iPods from Amazon you would have an argument. As it stands, bundling is not illegal nor wrong, even for monopolies.

Re:As long as

[Lars T.]

There is nothing wrong in having or acquiring a monopoly as long as you didn't do anything anticompetitive/illegal to acquire it or to have it.

Apple would be maintaining their monopoly by making the 'all you can eat' deal iPod-only. Wait a second, are you saying that Apple should speak for all makers of MP3 players, and force them to pay some sum to the music industry, else they are abusing their monopoly? Or is your point that Apple should be forced to make their products less perfect (which you probably claim anyway) just so others get a "fair chance"?

Re:As long as

[Naughty Bob]

Because Napster and MSFT aren't the same company.

Re:As long as

[Naughty Bob]

You are the first (of about 30 posters) to understand the issue. Have one more beer on me.

Re:As long as

[IdahoEv]

Resellers are free to raise prices; lowering prices would lead to losses and that is not illegal nor prohibited by Apple either.

Yes, Apple does prohibit lowering prices by reseller. Apple publishes an MAP (minimum advertised price) for all of its products, and will revoke the license from any Apple reseller who undercuts the MAP. The MAP is the same price that the Apple store (online or brick and mortar) markets the product.

This is why Apple products are identically priced no matter where you buy them. Within a country, that is; they set different MAPs for different countries.

Re:As long as

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Except there is nothing anticompetitive about Apple's bundling. Microsoft got in trouble because they threatened to terminate Compaq's Windows licenses for bundling Netscape.

Microsoft got in trouble for numerous antitrust issues. The closest one, however, is their bundling of Windows Media Player with Windows. There certainly is something anticompetitive about antitrust bundling. Do you really think iTunes would be as popular as it is if Apple had not bundled it with every iPod? Apple is clearly gaining benefit from this action at the expense of other companies in the market, benefit above and beyond what the merits of iTunes itself would merit.

See, and this is why it's important to use Microsoft as an example correctly, Microsoft got in trouble for using one monopoly, Windows, to leverage another, Internet Explorer. .

Microsoft has been in trouble for using their OS monopoly to influence numerous other markets and discussing them all would be a very long process. Since it is the EU investigating Apple right now, lets look at that case. Microsoft was called out for leveraging a monopoly in "desktop operating systems" to gain and advantage in the markets for "server operating systems" and "software media players." MS was ordered to pay fines. In the first market they were ordered to publish all documentation needed for other server OS vendors to communicate with their desktop OS, including APIs, protocols, and file formats used by Windows Server. In the latter market MS was ordered to offer a version of Windows without Windows Media Player.

So they bundle iTunes with iPods, how is that any different than Nintendo bundling Wii Play with their Wii?

Haven't we been over this enough times with regard to Windows? Nintendo does not have a monopoly on game consoles. They can bundle anything they want with the Wii. Apple, however, may have a monopoly on portable, digital music players and if the courts find that they do, then bundling items from another, preexisting market is illegal.

See, the point is that when Apple started bundling iTunes with the iPod, seven years ago, they weren't a monopoly.

That doesn't matter. The market existed. Once Apple is found to have a monopoly, they must cease bundling.

They "grew" their monopoly honestly, and in the same vein, they do the same thing everyone else is doing; the Zune comes free with their Zune Jukebox, Sonys come with SonicStage, Creative Zens come with MediaConnect (or whatever they are called), etc.

It doesn't matter how Apple obtained their monopoly. Obtaining a monopoly is not illegal. Leveraging a monopoly into another market is illegal. Apple bundles iTunes with Mac OS X. Microsoft bundles WMP with Windows XP. Why is the former action legal while the latter is not? Apple doesn't have a monopoly in either the software music player or desktop OS markets. MS does have a monopoly in the desktop OS market.

The big difference is that Apple ALSO provides iTunes free to both Windows and Macs, regardless of whether they own an iPod or iPhone.

Again, this doesn't matter. MS provides Windows Media Player free for the Mac, but they still were convicted. Microsoft provided Internet Explorer free for the Mac when MS was convicted of bundling IE with Windows, yet they were still convicted.

So to reiterate; Apple hasn't done anything wrong other than be the most popular MP3 player, music store, and jukebox.

The point is not that they are the most popular. If Apple is found to have monopoly influence in any of those markets, then they are responsible for making sure they are not leveraging it into the other markets. It is a matter of what is legal, not "right". It is also a matter of what actions undermine a free, capitalist market.

As Amazon has proven, DRM free MP3 sales are quite possible, so anyone

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

Now we have some interesting conversation points:

Nintendo doesn't yet have a monopoly with the Wii, so bundling Wii Sports is not a problem.
When Apple introduced the iPod, they obviously didn't have a monopoly, so bundling iTunes was not a problem. Are you saying, now, seven years later, that bundling iTunes is a problem? I'm not 100% sure if a monopoly is in of itself illegal in Europe, but again the point is that when iTunes was first bundled, neither iPod nor iTunes store was even close to a monopoly.

Also, I thought the EU investigation regarding Apple was due to non-uniform prices across each store, and had nothing to do with bundling, monopoly, or anti-trust. As best I can tell, the case was brought up by Novell in 1993 (more here) because Microsoft extracted a license fee for every PC shipped even if Windows was not installed on the system. That is not "bundling" or "tying", which is the point brought up here. Later a ruling was made that said Microsoft had to offer an unbundled version of XP so competitors (like Apple!) could create their own products that OEMs could bundle, instead.

Are you arguing then that Apple needs to sell an unbundled version of iPods so competitors have the ability to write their own software... such as the Zune manager, Windows Media Player? Or that OEMs need to have the ability to bundle iPods with their own software?

Anyway, I'm sorry for the tangents, it's getting hard to read/write/respond. If you wish to "reboot" the conversation, I'll restate my position:
Apple is doing and has done nothing wrong.
People have and could write other managers for the iPod; at current count, there are 13, including ones for Linux, Windows, and Mac. As far as I know, Apple has no prohibitions for any reseller to include "freebies" with their iPods, such as alternative managers.
Apple has not prevented any competition; Amazon has a DRM free music store and continues to sell iPods, CDs, and competing MP3 players and WalMart and Best Buy continues to sell iPods, CDs, and competing MP3 players. Apple has not raised the price of iPods on any of them, nor threatened them (quite the opposite, WalMart threatened the licensors with not selling music/DVDs due to the threat of the Apple iTunes store!)
Apple has not raised any barriers to entry: their pursuit of DRM free music has actually enhanced competition, thanks to Amazon's DRM free store
Apple has no monopoly in music distribution since WalMart is currently the number 1 supplier of music

All Apple has done is tie (and not exclusively) iTunes to the iPod, and now the rumor of iPod subscriptions, and neither of those are anticompetitive since other competitors can do the same thing (Zune, Zen, Sony).

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

Neither of you has shown how Apple is suppressing the competition.

Name a competitor and how they are or would be hurt in an anti-competitive (as opposed to competitive) manner.

Zen could offer a similar deal. Pay the licensors up front for an unlimited plan. Zune could do the same thing. So can Sony. Apple hasn't stopped any of them. The only thing you bring up is that a Zen user cannot use the iPod deal.

Just like a Mac user can't use NetFlix's download service.
Or how a Mac user can't use the Zune media player.

Re:As long as

[geekoid]

"..they aren't getting any bites because Nokia already pays $80 for the same priviledge. "

It is not true that they aren't getting any bites. They are in negotiations.

Nokia does not have the music power that Apple has, not even close.
That's not to say they'll take 20 bucks, just a factor to consider.

Re:As long as

[geekoid]

Sp for 14.99 a month, you don't get to get the music, or you do get to keep the music.
By keep the music, I mean I decide to stop paying 14.99 and I still get to listen to the 1000 songs I downloaded, and burn them to a playable CD?

Re:As long as

[geekoid]

"The idea of a subscription service is that you keep paying for it to hear all the music you want."

But that's not what they are talking about, or so the article(and others) seem to imply.

Apple wants to sell iPods. You know, hardware. So this is a value add for them. Keeping that in mind, I can see where it wouldn't be your typical subscription model. Also, the average purchase is 20 songs, per device. So it's a guarantee of the average song purchase in money.

Since you paid a one time cost up front, you don't really have anything to 'cancel'.

Re:As long as

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Nintendo doesn't yet have a monopoly with the Wii, so bundling Wii Sports is not a problem.

Yup, but more than that we don't know that they ever will have a monopoly in the future.

When Apple introduced the iPod, they obviously didn't have a monopoly, so bundling iTunes was not a problem.

Correct; so long as you pay attention to the tense.

Are you saying, now, seven years later, that bundling iTunes is a problem?

Yes, because while it is fine that Apple shipped them bundled, if Apple is declared to have a monopoly, then Apple should (theoretically) be ordered to stop bundling them for future sales.

I'm not 100% sure if a monopoly is in of itself illegal in Europe, but again the point is that when iTunes was first bundled, neither iPod nor iTunes store was even close to a monopoly.

Having a monopoly is not illegal in Europe. You're missing the point that bundling isn't illegal, bundling when you know or should be reasonably expected to know you have a monopoly is. Think of it like this. Shooting a firearm is not illegal. Shooting a person with a firearm is illegal. If John went to the range an legally fired a gun at a target, does that make him immune to prosecution if he goes outside and fires a lot of rounds in the air. Does it make him immune to prosecution if he shoots the gun while he knows it is likely to hit another person?

Just because Apple's bundling in the past was legal, does not mean continuing to bundle in the future is legal, or even bundling while they have a reasonable suspicion that they have a monopoly is legal.

Also, I thought the EU investigation regarding Apple was due to non-uniform prices across each store, and had nothing to do with bundling, monopoly, or anti-trust.

That was a different investigation entirely one in which Apple was mentioned, but the courts were considering fining only the music industry companies. Apple was investigated in the US in 2006, which went nowhere. Then they were investigated by the EU beginning in October of 2007, and just recently they are being investigated again in the US (as of Jan 2008)

Also, I thought the EU investigation regarding Apple was due to non-uniform prices across each store, and had nothing to do with bundling, monopoly, or anti-trust. As best I can tell, the case was brought up by Novell in 1993 (more here) because Microsoft extracted a license fee for every PC shipped even if Windows was not installed on the system.

The original complaint was from Novell and they were paid compensation. Additional complaints from Apple and RealNetworks addressed bundling the media player, and statements from Sun with regard to tying of their server OS also were included in the remedy. Here's a link about the media player ruling. The releveant excerpt is:

The decision, handed down by European Competition Commissioner Mario Monti on Wednesday, requires Microsoft to offer two versions of its Windows operating system: one with the Media Player audio/video software and one without it. The ruling is intended to prevent Microsoft from shutting out rivals in the media software market, including RealNetworks and Apple Computer, by bundling its Media Player software with an operating system that is used on more than 90 percent of the world's PCs.

You'll note it specifically mentions the bundling of media player and Windows.

Later a ruling was made that said Microsoft had to offer an unbundled version of XP so competitors (like Apple!) could create their own products that OEMs could bundle, instead.

That was part of the same case, as noted above. It has also been widely viewed as a useless measure that has not addressed the problem. RealNetworks is expected to soon file suit in the

Re:As long as

[shark72]

It's a subscription -- when you stop paying, you don't have access to the music any more. This is why I use it to listen to new stuff that I probably wouldn't buy and stuff that I probably won't miss terribly. If it's good enough to keep, I'll buy it -- on Amazon MP3 if iTunes or Rhapsody don't have it in DRM-free format.

As covered before, I used be a huge iTunes fan, for the reason that I want to keep my music, and have it easily transportable to my iPod. Getting the Squeezebox Duet, and thus shifting most of my music listening to the living room, has (much to my surprised) shifted my value equation by 180. I can sit on my sofa and listen to just about any artist, any album. My girlfriend loves it, and it's a great party tool. This might be one reason why Apple is reportedly considering going in this direction... they're trying to move music enjoyment to the living room, and there may be other people like me for whom a subscription service is much more palatable in this environment.

Re:As long as

[james-heidrich]

i think you need to cite you sources. Monopolies are illegal, whether acted upon or not. please, prove otherwise. - James Heidrich

Re:As long as

[Eddi3]

This is Apple we're talking about. Do I even need to say it?

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

Actually, now that you mention it, iPods are no longer bundled with iTunes. At least my iPhone didn't have it. Look at the new iPod cases, they are way too small to have a CD. You have to download iTunes in order to use it with your iPod.

So back on topic: EU can't accuse Apple of bundling iTunes if iTunes doesn't come with an iPod.
The only place I've read where the EU is investigating Apple is over nonuniform pricing across the EU (here) and has noting to do with bundling. Also, the US isn't investigating Apple, either, it is a lawsuit filed by Thomas Slattery in California.

Can you tell me otherwise? I would like to know.

So regarding tying: Users still have to download iTunes. They aren't bundled, they aren't forced, they aren't tied. You can buy an iPod and use a third party product if you wish. Can you restate all your arguments with that fact in mind?

Re:As long as

[2nd Post!]

The FTC says it isn't illegal to have a monopoly.

Re:As long as

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Actually, now that you mention it, iPods are no longer bundled with iTunes.

That is interesting, but hard to confirm without going down to an Apple store.

You have to download iTunes in order to use it with your iPod. So back on topic: EU can't accuse Apple of bundling iTunes if iTunes doesn't come with an iPod.

According to Apple's Website, you have to have iTunes as a system requirement for using an iPod. So while they may not be bundling, they are not necessarily in the clear for tying. Remember, Microsoft was ordered to provide public documentation on all the APIs for communications between their desktop and server OS's. I don't think Apple publishes their APIs for communications between the iPod and iTunes so that other software can have the same level of functionality. Nor does Apple license Fairplay for use by others (one of the ways they communicate), with the exception of a few phone deals. Apple would have to publish an API and either license Fairplay or stop using it altogether if they wanted to be in the clear on that count. Further, Apple might have to provide support for devices accessed by other software, although not for the software itself.

The only place I've read where the EU is investigating Apple is over nonuniform pricing across the EU (here) and has noting to do with bundling. Also, the US isn't investigating Apple, either, it is a lawsuit filed by Thomas Slattery in California. Can you tell me otherwise? I would like to know.

Slattery filed a case in 2005, but I thought it died or was settled, although I don't see any proof of that. I believe I read that Stacy Somers had started a class action lawsuit over iPod/iTunes availability to third parties with antitrust allegations in early 2008, and requested the DoJ look into it. I did not hear if there was a response yet.

As for the EU, Consumer Affairs Commissioner Meglena Kuneva spoke publicly about compatibility issues being an antitrust concern (after the pricing agreement with Apple over differential pricing in different territories, which was more aimed at the music companies than Apple) then just the other day Philip Lowe (head of the commission) spoke in Munich with regard to her statements and said they were "looking into" whether competition was healthy or not given Apple's domination with the iPod, but also mentioning new entrants like the Zune. I'd provide a link, but it is a subscription article. I'm sure Google will give you other references. The crux of that matter is if they feel competition is broken and how they define the market.

So regarding tying: Users still have to download iTunes. They aren't bundled, they aren't forced, they aren't tied.

I don't think you understand the term "tying" as it applies to antitrust law. MS was convicted of tying because not all the protocols for communication between their server and desktop were documented and available to competitors. MS paid a lot in fines because they were slow to deliver, they were not complete and usable enough, and then they were not licensed freely enough for low enough price. Compare that to Apple's public docs on communications between iTunes and the iPod. It is very similar, right down to competitors reverse engineering the formats and attaining partial compatibility. Microsoft was convicted in the US of tying because they used a nonpublic API for MS Word, which they did not provide to Corel (then makers of WordPerfect). Tying doesn't mean you can't use one of the products without the other, it simply means your product gains an advantage over others in functionality or even time to market over the competition.

More damning by far is the state of music services. Right now Apple still sells DRM'd works via their service and will not license that DRM (sans very few exceptions) and will not support other DRM. This gives Apple a clear adv

As an Ipod owner

[TheNinjaroach]

..who has never paid for any music from iTunes, this is one hook that I would consider biting (besides the hardware I'm already stuck with)

Re:As an Ipod owner

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I don't like iTunes much at all but I would definatly go for this, if I owned the music and the premium wasn't too much (and I didn't have to buy a new iPod to get it).

Re:As an Ipod owner

[DJCacophony]

(and I didn't have to buy a new iPod to get it)

Are you serious? Of course you'd have to buy a new ipod to get it. Getting people to buy shit they don't need is half of Apple's market strategy, and the other half is vendor/DRM lock-in. This idea conveniently satisfies both missions.

Free?

[flynt]

"free access to its entire iTunes music library in exchange for paying"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Free?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure in this case it means "Unrestricted".

Re:Free?

[Itninja]

It's the 'libre' type of free, not the 'gratis' type of free. Or, for the home school kids out there, it's free 'as in freedom', not 'as in beer'

Re:Free?

[tick_and_bash]

I realize you did this for the free karma, but for those that didn't read the summary, let alone the article, your comment is misleading.

The article doesn't answer the key question for the average consumer:

Will older models of the aforementioned devices will be allowed this access?
Would I be required to pay the premium as I have an older model in order to gain access?
DRM?
etc.

Couldn't be bothered to click through to the Financial Times article that the above story links to just in case there was additional information.

Re:Free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it is neither.

You are neither getting a product free of charge (gratis), or having unlimited access with the ability to use the music freely forever, like you would expect when purchasing a DRM-free mp3 or CD (libre).

Re:Free?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

it's free 'as in freedom', not 'as in beer'

Are you on crack? DRMd music is not free as in freedom.

This scheme is nothing more than a pay-up-front subscription service - one copied from Nokia at that.

Re:Free?

[EPL0c0]

Inconceivable!

Re:Free?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Couldn't be bothered to click through to the Financial Times article that the above story links to just in case there was additional information. Couldn't be bothered to read your whole comment, so I'll just post here without knowing what you're talking about.

Isn't that about the same as what you posted? For all you know, those articles answered your question...

Re:Free?

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM-free MP3s, CDs and the like are not "libre" or "free as in freedom", not in the slightest. "Free as in freedom", at the very least, would imply that you're able to freely redistribute share the tracks with anyone; in other words, at the VERY least, the equivalent of a cc-by-nc-nd license. And that's the minimum - the traditional standard definition would be more along the lines of cc-by-sa or something even less restricted than that.

The fact that there aren't any technological measures that keep you from copying something doesn't mean it's "free as in freedom". Heck, using that definition, even Adobe Photoshop would probably be "free as in freedom".

Re:Free?

[mweather]

"It's the 'libre' type of free" So no DRM?

Re:Free?

[fermion]

Free does not mean one can do whatever one wishes. In most of the free world, we are free to express ourselves, free to move, free to love who we wish because we make an implicit civil contract to not do other things. We are free to move around as we wish, but if we move into someones house, then we can lose that freedom. We are free to express ourselves, but if that expreess results in a murder, we may lose our freedom. In the case of this deal, we pay for the right to listen to all the music in the library, on the device, with no other restrictions. Unless one is advocating extreme freedom, where one is free to impose beliefs on other people, free to murder other people, and free to take other people property, and other are free to do the same to you, then this is not such a bad deal. You are of course free to reject the deal and just enjoy rockin to the rhythm of the rain.

Re:Free?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

In the case of this deal, we pay for the right to listen to all the music in the library, on the device, with no other restrictions.

So, how is this DRMd music more free then the music from say the DRM-free music from emusic? To qualify as free, I think it should at least allow you the same rights you have under copyright law.

No matter how you try & justify it, DRMd music is not free in any way, shape or form.

Next.

Great for the consumer.

[Higaran]

But I don't know if it will fly, but then again, with a proper payment model to the record labels I think they may take it. I could see them say yes to having a song or album put into the unlimited use catagory once it is 6 months or a year old or something like that. I don't see them agreeing to this with new releases since that kind of is their bread & butter, find the next big thing, sell the krap out of it and move on. Apple is a big player in the music industry but I don't think they have enough power to force the record companies into anything.

Big companies are the supplier...

[nebaz]

The real question is not whether the big music companies will go for it, but rather, who will be the first to one get smart and agree to offer it?

I disagree. Big companies still supply the music. The ITunes store would go out of business overnight of all of the labels pulled their songs from it. There are still some indie bands out there, but in terms of sheer scale, the big companies still hold many of the cards. Granted, it would be foolish of them to cut up a revenue stream, but the big companies still have the product to sell, and their input should not be dismissed.

Never going to happen with me, friend

[elrous0]

I will NEVER give any one company the power to switch off my entire music or movie collection with the push of a button, or because of a computer error, or because their company went bankrupt or got sold.

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[sunking2]

Yah, cuz without my music I'd be nothing! You can have my music when you pry it from my cold dead hands!

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[Anonymous Coward]

Try less Pompous Nerd Indignation and more RTFA...

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[businessnerd]

If you had read the article, then you would know that what Apple is proposing, is unlimited physical downloads that never expire. That means they cannot switch off your access, and if your hard drive crashed and killed everything on it, you could simply re-download your whole collection. If the company went bankrupt or sold, then as long as you still have the software or the device that can play the file format, then you are fine. This is not the same as other subscription services like Napster.

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[Hatta]

As long as you still have to ask Apple permission to play your DRM'd files, they can switch off your access.

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[QuantumRiff]

Of course, I mean you would be paying a $20 price premium on your ipod to have all the music you could ever want.. Why would those greedy bastards want to pull the plug if I get a new player, and make me pay a whopping $20 again!?!?!

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[vertinox]

I will NEVER give any one company the power to switch off my entire music or movie collection with the push of a button, or because of a computer error, or because their company went bankrupt or got sold.

I dunno. I like the way Netflix works and I could see the same for music because there is a lot of movies I know I might like but I haven't seen them so I don't know if its worth the purchase.

So if I watch a DVD that I got from netflix that I really liked, I could go out and buy it if I wanted to add to my collection. If I just bought it in the first place, there is always the chance I might not like it and it goes on the shelf for all eternity taking up space.

The same could be said for music and as long as the fee is cheaper than actually buying the music then I wouldn't mind it if it were as a trial basis. Then if I really liked it I could go and buy the CD.

Currently the only way to "try out" music is to download it off pirate sites and thats not a good way to support musicians.

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[Jonny_eh]

With a subscription model, look at it like you're renting music every month. In that case, I could care less about DRM, as long as it worked.

Do you get pissed off when you have to return a DVD to netflix or Blockbuster?

You should only expect DRM free if you actually BUY the music. But if you in fact get DRM free with a subscription, that's great too!

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[2nd Post!]

It is a good thing then that Apple is such a strong proponent of DRM-free music. Now we just have to wait for all the music in the iTunes store to be DRM free...

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[Britz]

And that is what won't happen. The music WILL be drm'd. If Apple goes bankrupt you still have the files, but can't play them anymore.

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[dlsmith]

This is a much better article on the subject: ; also see the linked Financial Times article.

The idea apparently being proposed is that you get to permanently keep a small number of the tracks you download. The claim in the Ars article that you will be able to play *everything* you download indefinitely is ridiculous. There is no way that makes sense for the labels -- it amounts to selling out their entire back-catalog business for a one-time fee.

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[dlsmith]

Repeating myself, because Slashdot ate my URL.

This is a much better article on the subject: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/apple-will-listen-to-universals-music-subscription-pitch/?ref=technology; also see the linked Financial Times article.

The idea apparently being proposed is that you get to permanently keep a small number of the tracks you download. The claim in the Ars article that you will be able to play *everything* you download indefinitely is ridiculous. There is no way that makes sense for the labels -- it amounts to selling out their entire back-catalog business for a one-time fee.

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[gnasher719]

I will NEVER give any one company the power to switch off my entire music or movie collection with the push of a button, or because of a computer error, or because their company went bankrupt or got sold. My understanding is that you would be able to download music to an iPod which would be playable on that specific iPod, and nowhere else. So there would be no check with a server, no possibility to turn it off from the outside, intentionally or by mistake, and no way to share that music with anyone else. On the other hand, the music would be gone when the iPod is broken.

I would expect that iTunes would keep at least a list of all your music, and possibly the files (even if it cannot play them), so if say your iPod is stolen and the insurance company paid for a new one, you can easily fill it again with exactly the same music that you had before.

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple goes bankrupt you still have the files, but can't play them anymore.

Wait, so iTunes on my Mac will stop working if Apple goes out of business??

Does that mean my Walkman will also stop working if Sony goes under?

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[mxs]

If you had read the article, then you would know that what Apple is proposing, is unlimited physical downloads that never expire. That means they cannot switch off your access, and if your hard drive crashed and killed everything on it, you could simply re-download your whole collection. If the company went bankrupt or sold, then as long as you still have the software or the device that can play the file format, then you are fine. So you are saying they are offering the songs without DRM ? Since otherwise, you just blatantly lied and misrepresented.

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[xhrit]

Microsoft's urge went out of business when MTV pulled out, and all the songs I downloaded to listen to in my Zune stopped working. Good thing Microsoft was kind enough to make a nice popup window to tell you that if you subscribe to rhapsody you could download everything again.

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[elrous0]

iTunes on my Mac will stop working if Apple goes out of business?? No, but all your DRM'ed songs will stop playing.

Re:Never going to happen with me, friend

[Lars T.]

Who would have thought: It isn't "Apple is in discussions with the big music companies about an 'all you can eat' model for buying music", it's actually "Apple Will Listen to Universal's Music Subscription Pitch" (and not kick them flat out ).

"Getting it"?

[rrohbeck]

You can use that term when they have DRM free content.

Re:"Getting it"?

[FusionJunky]

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305567

?

Re:"Getting it"?

[Firehed]

Applies to maybe a quarter of the tracks on iTunes (as compared to 100% on CDs and services like Amazon's MP3 thing).

In any case, it's irrelevant. DRM-free is naturally incompatible with an all-you-can-eat subscription service. Stop paying, stop getting. Until it could be streamed live from anywhere at any time, it'll work as downloading an encrypted version.

Re:"Getting it"?

[7Prime]

Amen... sounds like the writer of the artical was paid to say that. There's nothing to "get" people aren't asking for this. In fact, iTMS, as it stands, is a pretty great model right now, all they need to do is get more companies on board with the DRM-free scheme.

Re:"Getting it"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The recording industry will never get it. Even if they start offering DRM-free music downloads, they still won't get it. The point is that, besides having 90-year copyrights on all of the music that's been produced before now, the recording industry doesn't serve a purpose anymore. Electronic duplication is free. Online distribution is free. Editing and mixing are practically free, requiring (at most) $45 software to do whatever you need. Marketing and promotion, thanks to Myspace et al., are now free. And finally, people have started to become active critics and consumers of music, so there's no need for industry execs and "hit-makers" to pick out which singers, bands, and songs are going to be popular (partly because it doesn't cost anything to distribute bad music internationally, and partly because people can find out what they like for themselves rather than relying on someone else to filter out the junk).

The established recording industry as it now exists is a dinosaur and on the way out. It's just a matter of time before they get on the acceptance stage.

Re:"Getting it"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like iTunes Plus?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/05/30itunesplus.html
Hell, it's even a higher bitrate than the DRM tracks.

Re:"Getting it"?

[aesiamun]

Distribution will never be free...unless you don't mind your listeners being subjected to massive amounts of annoying advertising or their email being sold over and over again.

$45 software doesn't do much without the computer, you might need to buy that. Oh and the materials for a decent sound recording room.

It's still not something everyone can just jump into free 'free' or next to free.

This is just Subscription model 2.0

[poetmatt]

We've all seen this before, and it doesn't work. Nobody wants to pay for all you can eat when it isn't. If you are paying monthly for permanent access to their entire library going forward, lets talk. I'd pay 100 bucks for that.
But to pay 100 bucks to use it "unlimited" as long as you are DRM'd? No thanks.

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[dreamchaser]

From the article: "It would allow downloading of any song at any time so long as the purchaser still owns the device, and the songs would be yours to keep."

If they are really yours to keep then I'm not sure it's such a bad deal. At the very least it's just another choice people have.

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[Cheesey]

Yeah, Napster offers this service already. For £10/month you get unlimited access to their song library - so long as you don't mind the Windows Media DRM and total lack of support for non-Windows platforms. So Apple shouldn't have too much difficulty in their negotiations, since Napster has already paved the way. It'll be the same service, plus support for Macs and iPods. This is hardly a revolutionary new idea.

With this kind of service, DRM is a big turnoff. But I am not sure how this service could possibly be offered without DRM. The need for a special client program is also a turnoff: why not just provide the catalogue on a website and rely on the media player for DRM authentication?

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[Carthag]

I could part with a hundred bobs for unlimted access to the iTunes store, that's chump change.

Who cares if it's DRMed? It's not like Apple is going under, and for a one-time fee of 100 dollars, I wouldn't have to buy any other music (aside from the stuff I would want to truly own, without DRM, which isn't that much).

This is all ridiculously academic, though.

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[JazzyMusicMan]

They still aren't offering me a better deal or incentives than my current "Pay Nothing For All I Want" bargain

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[mc900ftjesus]

It is not your music when it's encrypted with their DRM.

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"We've all seen this before, and it doesn't work. Nobody wants to pay for all you can eat when it isn't. "

a.) There are two million 'nobodies' subscribed to Rhapsody right now.

b.) Cable/Satellite TV already uses that model, only it's not on-demand. Not only is that successful, but they're throwing ads on top of it! Heh.

The big problem with it isn't the business model, it's getting people to wrap their heads around the idea that it's not the same as iTunes. Music subscription isn't a music store, it's an on-demand music service. Those are two very different concepts, but not entirely unlike comparing television shows on DVD to being a cable subscriber. Amusingly, just like in the cable/DVD example, the two models aren't mutually exclusive, either.

If you're curious, I can tell you more about what why in some cases subscription would be preferable to purchase. In the mean time, however, I hope you'll accept my suggestion that subscription is merely a 'less' version of purchase. There's a whole different set of pros and cons.

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[7Prime]

I don't trust it. Subscription services always have a catch. I'll keep buying CDs or even DRMed iTMS content before I sign my life away to a subscription service.

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[7Prime]

Napster's a terrible example. They're library is crap. They haven't paved the way to anything but complete and utter failour. Napster (in its current DRM state) is even older than iTMS, and Apple was smart to completely ignore that business model. If Napster has tought anyone anything, it's what NOT to do.

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I hope you'll accept my suggestion that subscription is merely a 'less' version of purchase. There's a whole different set of pros and cons. Crap. That sentence is missing an important word. I meant to say subscription's NOT a 'less' version of a purchase. It's like comparing Coke and Dr. Pepper, not Coke and Diet Coke.

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[poetmatt]

I meant to reply earlier, but I got a funky 550 error on my mobile device. I had a really long written thought out response.

First, I want to thank you for your reply. Rhapsody is exactly what I had been thinking of, I just didn't want to mention it because I forgot if it's even legit or not.

Your 2 million number, where exactly does this come from? I seem to remember rhapsody having problems getting people to sign up at first and I never tracked it after that because it seemed the same as napster and everywhere else. Sure, pay monthly, but when it stops you're cut off and you don't keep what you have let alone the DRM in the process. Lets face truth here. Just because the RIAA and other music industries refuse to change on this topic does not mean its a good way to do business.

Cable/satellite TV does not use that model. How can you compare a subscription service to music, to cable/satellite's on demand? They do it as a complementary part of their digital service. It does not encompass their entire service. Difference there.

Subscription is not a "less" version, its a "rental". I don't "buy" in order to "rent"....the two terms are contradictory. Consequently, the value that the music industries perceives on their music is not the same as my perceived value. Until this changes I will continue to send checks directly to artists and request them to just burn me a legit copy without labels, etc. I get pretty good responses doing this with major labels even.

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Your 2 million number, where exactly does this come from? I went to Wikipedia. It said something like 1.2 - 2 million people, that was back in 2006. I've been a subscriber since 2003. It's not a fly-by-night operation.

Cable/satellite TV does not use that model. How can you compare a subscription service to music, to cable/satellite's on demand? They do it as a complementary part of their digital service. It does not encompass their entire service. Difference there. That's not how I see it. If you shut off the Cable, for example, you lose it, it's gone. If you haven't purchased the content or found some way to record it, it's all gone. (With DVRs taking over where VCRs came in, this point's even more important than it was say 4 years ago.) TV/Cable operates on a consumable model, and that's exactly the intent of a music subscription service. Lots of people are stuck on the idea of having the music permenantly, they're not considering the idea of a consumable model where they're paying for a stream of music they want to hear as opposed to building a collection.

Subscription is not a "less" version, its a "rental". I don't "buy" in order to "rent"....the two terms are contradictory. Consequently, the value that the music industries perceives on their music is not the same as my perceived value. That's fine, but I think it supposes that you'd only listen to music you'd want to pay for up front. That doesn't work for me, for example. There's too much crap out there. When there isn't crap, it's often stuff that I'd want to hear once or twice then be done with it. Then there's stuff I just plain have no idea if I want it or not. I pay $10 a month. With that, I have an entire collection of music to listen to whether I'm at home, work, or even if I stay at a friend's house or something. I don't have gigs of stuff I need to keep backed up. If something catches my fancy, I've got it playing 10 or so seconds later. If I feel like exploring and want to try out bands I've never considered before, done, no risk on my part. There's even a bunch of comedy albums there I've been having fun listening to.

To me, it's not as simple as 'rent or buy', it's a matter of having an entirely different set of pros and cons. The fact that I don't have a multi-gigabyte archive to frequently back up is a major pro. Or, the fact that I don't have different selections of music on my laptop, desktop, and work computers is another. Sure, it'll be gone if/when Rhapsody goes under. It's not a big deal to me because I've gotten my entertainment value back out of them. In some ways, I'm getting more bang for my buck than I am with my cable service.

Well that's how I feel. Different strokes for different folks, yadda yadda yadda. I just wish my cable service worked like Rhapsody does.

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[poetmatt]

I do agree we have different preferences and as said. No need to beat the already dead horse on that one.

Wikipedia indeed does have a similar number mentioned, although I wonder how many are because best buy automatically signs people up for rhapsody trials in their stores.

Other than artists I choose I pretty much stick to Pandora and try out music that is similar to my preferences when they suggest, and hit the bay up to see if an artist is worthwhile/worth contributing funds to. This is my form of listening streamed, and it's free with a lack of control (which was shoved down Pandoras throat if you read up on their press releases). So yeah, we have different preferences :) I don't want a collection, but if 10 years from now I want to look back on all my music I've listened to and play a shuffle to see what I liked back then and/or just enjoy, I intend to do that.

Nobody can say they don't have a music collection, it's just a matter of question of what form it's in. You have your own music collection, albeit somewhat mental on artist preference and not so much stored on data.

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[xhrit]

"so long as the purchaser still owns the device" sounds like they are tying the drm model into the specific device. 3 to 5 year lifespan on an ipod; once the battery dies, throw it away and get a new one. pay the one-time fee and download as many songs as you want for it.

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[aesiamun]

It's never YOUR music unless you make it yourself.

Copyright pretty much makes it sure it will never be YOUR music.

Re:This is just Subscription model 2.0

[geekoid]

Can I burn the music to disc and play it in any player I want? Rip it back as an unencumbered mp3?

What?!

[Anita Coney]

"Finally, it looks like the industry (or at least Apple) is 'getting it'"

Apple has the most successful internet music distribution system available. From the millions of iPods sold to the billions of songs sold on iTunes. And needless to say, everyone else who has tried the "all you can eat" music pricing model has failed.

So please inform me exactly what Apple is finally getting! Thanks. I won't be holding my breath.

Re:What?!

[jandrese]

Maybe they're going to try an "all you can eat" model with a music selection that doesn't completely suck?

Re:What?!

[richmaine]

Amen. I personally *FAR* prefer Apple's current model. Objective data (sales) suggests that I'm not the only one.

With the current model, I buy just what I want and then I have it forever. Yes, even if Apple goes out of business or otherwise changes their mind.

Even Apple's current DRM'ed stuff has a far less painful DRM than any other I've seen. I haven't actually ever wanted to do anything with it that I wasn't allowed to do. Plus Apple allows you to burn to a completely un-DRM'ed cd. No DRM at all would be nicer, but every other version I've seen strikes me as worse than Apple's.

It is also true that I don't buy huge amounts of new music. I'm sure that any premium would end up with me paying many times more than what I'm paying now, for the same music.

I'd say that anyone who thinks that such a change would constitute "getting it", doesn't "get it" themselves. At least, they don't "get" me.

Re:What?!

[internetcommie]

I'm not holding my breath either. The current iTunes model works just fine as far as I'm concerned, though a few upgrades such as better quality files, no DRM, fairer deals for artists and more reasonable pricing would certainly be welcome.

Subscription services, on the other hand, demand that I either pay even if I don't download any music that month, or else go through the process of canceling, and in many cases I can't even browse their selection so I can tell if I they have any music I am even interested in before paying. Apparently most don't.

I don't mind paying for the music I download, but I do mind products I want being bundled with products I don't want, and I do mind paying and not knowing what I get or if I get anything at all for my money.

And I really hate it when somebody assumes that because I own a certain product such as an iPod, then I obviously also engage in certain behaviours, such as illegally downloading music, or buying music from the iTunes store.
If Apple thinks that I will want to pay an extra $20 for my iPod and then download 20 songs from iTunes, they are most certainly not "getting it". They are losing it!

Re:What?!

[*weasel]

Given that Apple doesn't talk about things like this, if they are in negotiations with the record companies then it must be the record companies who are leaking this information.

Which is probably why the rumors are heavy on the fairy-tale customer-facing product and the investor-pleasing record-company-facing revenues, and really light on the implicit restrictions and technical questions. I'd imagine the RIAA simply figured out that while $x/mo doesn't work for consumers, "$Y for as long as you own the device" does. (even when device turnover rates are used to ensure mathematical equivalence)

The only thing Apple seems to be 'getting', is pushed by the record companies to offer some of those seductive 'recurring revenues' that Napster/MS/et al keep promising.

Re:What?!

[bigstrat2003]

TFA says that the fee may be monthly, or a premium on top of the iPod cost. It might not be a subscription.

Re:What?!

[Anonymous Coward]

So please inform me exactly what Apple is finally getting!

I told ya so's from the handful of people who own iPods but would prefer a subscription model. Personally, I'm concerned that the smaller artists will be screwed. I wonder if they'll divy up the money based on clout, or the music you actually listen to? I mean, with subscriptions, you're likely to download a lot of crap you'd never listen to just so it's handy when your friends want to listen to radio trash. You've got a 160 GB iPod, why not? More likely, you'll be listening to the obscure long tail stuff than any of that pop culture junk anyhow. So you download a larger portion of stuff you'll never listen to, and the musicians you actually listen to won't get paid as much. For instance, I like Pink Floyd. They're an old established band, lots of works. I'd download their entire collection, just in case I want to hear it sometime, but I doubt I'd listen to more than one or two songs a month. On the other hand, I've listened to Blond Redhead's song 23 111 times since I purchase it on 1/30/08 according to iTunes. Even if I downloaded the entire Blonde Redhead collection, they simply don't have nearly the number of tracks that Pink Floyd has. Does that then mean that Pink Floyd makes four times as much money as Blonde Redhead, yet I listened to Blonde Redhead 50 times more frequently? As it is now, the only Pink Floyd I have is from old cds I ripped. I don't plan on buying any more, even though there's quite a lot of it that I don't have. It's just so played out.

Re:What?!

[Decius6i5]

And needless to say, everyone else who has tried the "all you can eat" music pricing model has failed.

Whoa, do you mean that Rhapsody has gone out of business!? Oh, wait, no they haven't. Not at all.

So please inform me exactly what Apple is finally getting! Thanks. I won't be holding my breath.

How snarky! Steve, is that you??? I'll try to be equally arrogant in how I explain this to you.

I'm sure you realize that a hardware device is not a music distribution service. They are actually two completely different things. If you understand the difference between these two things, surely it must follow that some people might select an ipod because they think the ipod is the best MP3 player hardware out there, but still be unhappy with Apple's distribution system... They might prefer if they could use their ipods with a subscription service instead.

Steve Jobs has insisted in the past that no one would want to use a music subscription service. Clearly the fact that Rhapsody has not, in fact, failed, proves that both he and you are wrong about that (assuming that you are, in fact, different people). Some people want to pay two dollars for a DRMed file that could easily be wiped out by a hard drive crash, but personally, I'd prefer to be able to listen to any song that I want to whenever I want, and I wish I could do it on my ipod. Sure, its more expensive than buying audio files, but I'm willing to pay for it. Its unfortunate that Apple does not allow such a service to be sold on their hardware.

Basically, what Apple is finally getting is that Steve Jobs doesn't actually know what is best for everybody. I'm glad you didn't hold your breath. It took a long time to type this all in. If you had done it you'd probably be dead by now.

Re:What?!

[Apotsy]

People who know nothing about making money off content creation love to spout off about who does and does not "get it".

Usually they only say someone "gets it" if they give away all their shit for free (as in beer*), so I'm kinda surprised to hear it in this case. Either way that statement is really dumb, as is usual whenever it appears.

*Free Stuff(tm) is pretty much all anyone ever really wants when they go around proclaiming who "gets it" and who doesn't. They don't want Free as in Freedom, they don't want reasonable prices, they don't care if the creator gets any compensation, they just want everything ever produced given away at no cost. Gimme, gimme, gimme! If you don't, you don't "get it"!

Re:What?!

[uniquename72]

Please read the other comments about what the "it" in "getting it" means before both being a dick and making a fool of yourself.

Oh -- too late.

Re:What?!

[Apotsy]

LOL, not really. No adequate explanation has yet to be offered, and as the post I was originally replying to pointed out, the subscription model hasn't exactly caught the world by storm.

So let's hear your take on what "it" is, along with some evidence that it would do better than the current iTunes model, which has propelled it to be the #2 music seller.

Re:What?!

[Paradise Pete]

For instance, I like Pink Floyd. They're an old established band, lots of works. I'd download their entire collection, just in case I want to hear it sometime, but I doubt I'd listen to more than one or two songs a month. On the other hand, I've listened to Blond Redhead's song 23 111 times since I purchase it on 1/30/08 according to iTunes.

They could have itunes tell them what you've actually listened to, rather than just downloaded. Though of course there would be some objections to that.

The first line in the article contains a key word

[antifoidulus]

that got dropped out of the summary, "may". Its still rumor at this point, maybe you shouldn't be trying to pass it off as fact.

Why should I care?

[WillAffleckUW]

I buy my music CDs directly from the band and rip them into MP3s already.

Re:Why should I care?

[Bud Dickman]

Spoiler: There will be stories that appear on Slashdot that you do not care about. Not everything will apply to you, you egomaniac!

DRM'd? Check Techdirt

[ruin20]

Although this seems to go against what is mentioned in the article, techdirt broke this story about six hours ago. From their site http://techdirt.com/articles/20080319/015959582.shtml :

While this would get a lot of attention, you only get access to the music for the lifetime of the device or subscription (if you didn't pay a lump sum). While there's a small concession that you'd get to keep 40 to 50 songs after the device died or the subscription ended, you'd lose the rest of the songs. In other words, despite Steve Jobs' supposed dislike for DRM, this music would be quite DRM'd. Limited subscription plans have been around for ages and they've never gone very far because of those limitations. People know better by now, and so should Steve Jobs.

Re:DRM'd? Check Techdirt

[argent]

Yeh, I can't imagine this happening without DRM... this would basically be a subscription model. Not only that, but they'd have to add additional restrictions to iTunes to prevent people from burning (or possibly even playing) the music. I really don't think this would be a good thing, over all, it would mean a serious reversion of Apple's DRM policy.

Re:DRM'd? Check Techdirt

[Otter]

The two articles seem to agree, or at least not disagree: the iPhone-only service would be subscription-based, while the iPod/iPhone would be ownership with DRM'd files.

(I will commend you for having read two articles, which is two more than any other posters seem to have looked at!)

Re:DRM'd? Check Techdirt

[writertype]

Techdirt didn't "break" this story. Neither did ArsTechnica. The FT did. Both articles cite the FT, so why can't Slashdot?

This is the real reason newspapers are dying: fucking blogs take a story, add a few sentences of pithy commentary, and other fucking blogs cite the blog instead of the original source.

Oh, and in case you're wondering whether the "40 to 50 songs" detail was original reporting -- no, it wasn't.

Re:DRM'd? Check Techdirt

[ruin20]

The difference is that this article suggests that you keep ALL the music when the subscription ends, where techdirt is stating you only keep 40 or 50 tracks. Now if I were let loose in a music buffet, I'd have myself more than just 40 or 50 tracks. And since I don't use Itunes or Ipods I can't state for certian, but I thought there was some form of copy restriction on fairplay drm'd music that causes the file to autodelete if the copy limit is exceeded. So the question is how much music will they let you keep?

Re:DRM'd? Check Techdirt

[Otter]

I think the 40 or 50 refers to the iPhone deal, whereas the one linked here is about the ownership one. The whole thing seems like speculation, though.

Re:DRM'd? Check Techdirt

[SanityInAnarchy]

Yeh, I can't imagine this happening without DRM...

I can.

To beat piracy, you must provide better service, not worse. As long as there are Flac torrents out there, I will never buy DRM'd AACs. But when I do find a band I like selling Flac downloads, I buy them.

Understand, DVDs almost do not count anymore, as CSS has been braken everywhere for years, and every new scheme is more desperate and futile than the last -- yet NetFlix still makes money. If Apple provided this service without the DRM, they would still make money, so long as there was new and interesting music.

it would mean a serious reversion of Apple's DRM policy.

Well, as the other article shows, Steve Jobs habitually lies about this kind of thing. Probably half of Apple, never mind the rest of the world, assumed that Apple was going to stay the course with PowerPC, right up until the Intel macs were released. Steve had to know about this, yet he let the Apple.com site continue to spew BS about the G5's "intel-crushing performance"... Again, right up to (and maybe a bit past) the point at which they went Intel.

Re:DRM'd? Check Techdirt

[argent]

You actively think anyone's going to go to a subscription scheme without DRM?

To beat piracy, you must provide better service, not worse. As long as there are Flac torrents out there, I will never buy DRM'd AACs. But when I do find a band I like selling Flac downloads, I buy them.

That's got nothing to do with my point about a subscription scheme. I find bands I like from streams, from old fashioned radio, from samples that bands themselves put online. You don't need a subscription scheme to let people know what bands sound like. You do need to get rid of DRM. Which is why a subscription scheme is a daft idea... it's even more dependent on DRM. Labels are beginning to see that DRM is holding them back, the last thing we want is to give them the idea that it's got a place again.

Re:DRM'd? Check Techdirt

[SanityInAnarchy]

That's got nothing to do with my point about a subscription scheme.

No, but the bit about Netflix does. Netflix physical DVD rentals rely on no more DRM than CSS, for which the crack takes up less space than this post. They basically rely on people not knowing how to rip and burn DVDs -- except there are one-click programs to do exactly that.

The reason you keep your netflix subscription is, you want to have something new to watch. (Or something old that you haven't seen yet.) And that's why you'd keep a subscription to any DRM-free service -- because they'd bring you new content. If they stopped doing that, you could cancel your subscription.

Which is why a subscription scheme is a daft idea... it's even more dependent on DRM.

Except it really isn't.

It'd be tricky to do, but it could certainly work, and it would make money. The only downside is, no one would buy individual songs or albums ever again, so it'd be difficult to get the producers sold on such a model. Right now, DRM'd stuff is seen as somewhat safer, as there's always that looming threat of losing your entire collection if you stop paying for it -- which means that either revenue keeps coming in, or people lose the music and have to start buying CDs again.

Re:DRM'd? Check Techdirt

[SanityInAnarchy]

Oh, to clarify...

You actively think anyone's going to go to a subscription scheme without DRM?

Are you talking about artists or customers here?

Labels won't. Artists might -- after all, look at Radiohead and NiN. Customers will, for the convenience.

Re:DRM'd? Check Techdirt

[argent]

Are you talking about artists or customers here?

I'm talking about the labels. That is, the ones who are contracting with Apple. What artists and customers want to go with doesn't really matter, since they're not direct parties to the contract.

Pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are they talking about?

Re:Pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

About not being a cheap-ass, scum sucking mofo who'd steal a grade schoolers lunch if given the opportunity.

How much money...

[Darundal]

...would this add to the price of the iPod?

Re:How much money...

[Tink2000]

RTFA and see!

Silly Apple...

[morari]

I only pay a monthly fee for broadband, which allows me unfettered access to ANY song I could ever hope to have... I have yet to see any DRM on it either!

Re:Silly Apple...

[Infonaut]

I only pay a monthly fee for broadband, which allows me unfettered access to ANY song I could ever hope to have... I have yet to see any DRM on it either!

Can you take your broadband with you on the bus, in your car, taking a walk, on a plane, to a friend's house, or to the office?

Re:Silly Apple...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I only pay a monthly fee for broadband, which allows me unfettered access to ANY song I could ever hope to have... I have yet to see any DRM on it either!

So, you don't have Comcast?

Re:Silly Apple...

[egyptiankarim]

Silly Devil's advocate:

Uhh, yeah. I hold my tape recorder up to my computer speakers and then put the cassette in my WalkMan ;)

Re:Silly Apple...

[ZJVavrek]

"Analog hole? Yeah, that's what I stick the microphone in, right?"

Re:Silly Apple...

[morari]

No, but I can put the byproduct on lower priced, large capacity media players than anything Apple pushes.

Re:Silly Apple...

[MrMickS]

No, but I can put the byproduct on lower priced, large capacity media players than anything Apple pushes.

Never mind the quality, feel the width eh? You almost had an argument but then you put 'pushes' on the end which infers that Apple is doing something dirty.

free music for life?

[iamhigh]

Then the owner can make unlimited music downloads from the iTunes Store for the life of the device. Once downloaded, the tracks are yours to keep, even if you get rid of the original iPod or iPhone. Crap. There is NO WAY record labels are going to let me download and keep forever every song I want. Wouldn't this bankrupt the music industry??? I buy an ipod for $200 and for the next 5-10 years I get free music? This must be only for playing on portable devices, ONLY. If they let you burn this to CD, it will never work.

Re:free music for life?

[Registered Coward v2]

Crap. There is NO WAY record labels are going to let me download and keep forever every song I want. Wouldn't this bankrupt the music industry??? I buy an ipod for $200 and for the next 5-10 years I get free music? This must be only for playing on portable devices, ONLY. If they let you burn this to CD, it will never work

Several things would make this work:

1. - Apple and the labels would no doubt want to make this a bundled feature of all iPods/iPhones sold - so the total revenue is greater than what they currently get with a la carte pricing.

2. - Apple would continue to introduce new cool iPods/iPhones that create new sales as well as upgrades from old ones; with the built in download price, so it would be a steady revenue stream.

3. - If this works then Apple could extend it to the Mac as well as offer it to iTunes users on Windows as well.

It also gives labels a way out of the RIAA file sharing fiasco as well - they get a steady revenue stream and create a bunch of legitimate users who may be less inclined to share the music since they can already get it for "free" easily.

Re:free music for life?

[geekoid]

No.

Bear in mind, people who keep their iPods for 5 years are in the minority.
Nad, contrary to /. group think, new music comes out all the time. Some of it is even enjoyed by large numbers of people. Shocking, isn't it.

I think someone's a bit naive here...

[argent]

Since the average iPod owner buys about 20 tracks from the iTunes, Apple wants to make the premium about $20, arguing that it should cover the average consumer's downloads.

I think this is a bit naive (and I don't think it's Steve Jobs): people tend to eat more at a smorgasbord than if they have to pay for each entree, and this effect would be even greater when they have room for thousands of entrees in their digital stomachs. :)

Re:I think someone's a bit naive here...

[globaljustin]

this effect would be even greater when they have room for thousands of entrees in their digital stomachs. :)

Not at all!!! Most of my friends only download 10 or so songs from iTunes.

They usually buy cd's at Musicland or FMV and rip them to iTunes.

They would still pay the $20 a month fee just in case Brittany Spears, Nickleback, and Metallica release new albums all in the same month.

They never use myTunes, and love DRM because it's the only fair thing for consumers.

Re:I think someone's a bit naive here...

[drtsystems]

Except think of it from their point of view: unlike an all-you-can-eat buffet which the more you eat the more it costs the restaurant, digital downloads of songs already paid to record and produce cost (near) nothing (sure there are bandwidth costs but that is fractions of pennies per song). So as long as Apple/the music companies make the surcharge more than the average amount of songs downloaded per ipod, they are making money. So everyone downloads 50 gigs of music for their ipod... so what? Then apple and the record companies have still made more than they would have if everyone only downloaded an average of 20 songs per ipod. It is really similar to the idea of radio (internet and traditional); the station pays a flat fee and can play any music they want.

Re:I think someone's a bit naive here...

[vux984]

people tend to eat more at a smorgasbord than if they have to pay for each entree, and this effect would be even greater when they have room for thousands of entrees in their digital stomachs. :)

Right, but think of it this way:

Its like PPV TV, right now you pay per show you watch. Suppose the average person with PPV service buys 6 movies. And the network broadcasts the movie in a timeslot regardless of how many people 'buy it'.

So the costs of providing ppv is fixed. It costs the same to broadcast the movie if 0 people watch it, or 100, or 100,000.

Similiarly the ppv revenues are fixed too. The average person watches 6 movies. If there are 1 million people, they will 'sell' 6 million PPV movies.

So Apple is saying, how about you just keep doing what your doing, broadcasting your movies; so your costs don't change, and we'll provide you revenues of an average of 6 movies per customer, so your revenues stay the same too. The only difference is, lets let the users watch any ppv broadcast instead of just 6.

It costs you the same. You make the same amount of money. And the customers will love it.

At least that's the theory... and its a good one. But it has problems:

The problem is that the assumption that revenues are fixed is BOGUS. If customers are locked into paying for the average number they watched in aggregate at the time the program was instituted (e.g. 6) what happens if the broadcaster thinks the quality of movies has gone up and thinks the average user would be paying for 8 now if they still had to pay for each? What happens if the customers think the movie industry has lowered the qualify of movies now that its sales are gauranteed... so if they were still paying, they'd only pay for 3 now.

Obviously monitoring how many movies the customer actually watches is pointless, because its assumed the customers are watching more than they'd pay for 'a la carte'.

So how does the market self regulate pricing?

I cynically anticipate the worst... the quality of the movies goes down while simultaneously the broadcaster endlessly whines that if customers were paying for each they'd be buying more now, and justifying it by asserting how many movies customers are watching in the all-you-can-eat system -- so the rate must go up.

Re:I think someone's a bit naive here...

[argent]

So everyone downloads 50 gigs of music for their ipod... so what? Then apple and the record companies have still made more than they would have if everyone only downloaded an average of 20 songs per ipod.

Not if you're only surcharging them $20 per iPod. You're making the same amount, and losing sales from other channels even faster than you were before you introduced this program. That's why the $20 figure is naive. Even the $80 figure seems a bit iffy.

Re:I think someone's a bit naive here...

[argent]

I don't think you're arguing with me. Instead, you're making the $20 figure seem less attractive to the labels, because they'd lose the CD sales. Don't forget, what Jobs seems to be asking for is $20 surcharge, once, per iPod. Not $20/month.

Re:I think someone's a bit naive here...

[martinX]

That metaphor reminds me - it's lunchtime. Mmm, falafel roll and coke.

Re:I think someone's a bit naive here...

[FredFredrickson]

I'm going to reply to both you and the guy above you.

So the costs of providing ppv is fixed. It costs the same to broadcast the movie if 0 people watch it, or 100, or 100,000.

unlike an all-you-can-eat buffet which the more you eat the more it costs the restaurant, digital downloads of songs already paid to record and produce cost (near) nothing (sure there are bandwidth costs but that is fractions of pennies per song).

For every view, or every listen- the content owner gets royalties. Even with Rhapsody- albeit a small royalty. The fact is, you pay $15/month for rhapsody and for each time you stream a track, Rhapsody sends $0.03 to the content owners. Every time. The idea is that you listen to less than you spend.

Same with pay per view (although easier to do math with), for every television playing an event, that adds to the royalties. However, it is fixed in the fact that there will never be so many viewers that the station goes upside down, because it's proportional to the number of viewers (and they all paid per view). But still, the cost of 0 vs 100 is different. Royalties... just nitpicking anyway. Sorry.

Re:I think someone's a bit naive here...

[vux984]

Same with pay per view (although easier to do math with), for every television playing an event, that adds to the royalties. However, it is fixed in the fact that there will never be so many viewers that the station goes upside down, because it's proportional to the number of viewers (and they all paid per view). But still, the cost of 0 vs 100 is different. Royalties... just nitpicking anyway. Sorry.

Your missing the point. Royalties are specifically excluded from the cost equation because that's what we are talking about changing the model for.

Are we agreed that Excluding royalties; it costs a fixed (and small) amount to broadcast a PPV movie?

Now its true that for each person that 'buys' it, there is a royalty that gets paid to the rights holder. But after a few years of monitoring sales the cable company observes that it pays an average of x$/month in royalties, and made y$ in profit for itself.

So now, its proposing just upping the cost of its cable box by z$ by an amount big enough to make the same y$ ppv profit and pay the same $x ppv royalty, but without tracking ppv sales, and just letting everyone watch any ppv movie.

Its true that people will watch a lot more PPV movies if this were to happen, but the cost won't go up because the cable company has negotiated not to pay the per viewer royalty, but rather to pay the rights holder a fixed x$. Where x$ was the average royalty they were getting before the change over.

Re:I think someone's a bit naive here...

[FredFredrickson]

So now, its proposing just upping the cost of its cable box by z$ by an amount big enough to make the same y$ ppv profit and pay the same $x ppv royalty, but without tracking ppv sales, and just letting everyone watch any ppv movie.
Except the studios will want tracking, and will require royalties on numbers. What we're really doing is proposing to up the cost of the service to smooth over the possible high and low download counts so that they'll always make $y profit. It's really a gamble, and it kinda works out like insurance. As long as everybody's contributing, and not everybody downloads MAX/Month, they'll make money.

And no, the record companies will never take a fixed rate. They will demand royalties.

Apple's ultimate plan

[icyisamu]

1. Get music available for purchase online.
2. Get music available for sale without DRM. Slowly getting done.
3. ??? (Get all the music available for a month by paying a premium)
4. Profit!

Isn't this the first time you get to see what the "???" really is?

Never bought ANYTHING from iTunes

[c.r.o.c.o]

And I'm not about to start now, even under an unlimited option. About a year ago I realized I have pretty much all the old(er) music I ever wanted, starting with classical and ending with happy hardcore, and all of it in mp3 or flac. At this point I actually started replacing the lower quality mp3s with flac, just for the hell of it. :) Given the slashdot audience, I'm sure there are many in my position.

And there are much better sources for new, independent music than iTunes, where the money goes straight to the artists, or at least a much higher percentage of it.

So why should I even care about the iTunes news? It's still DRM music, it still ties you to an iPod and most likely it will still be overpriced. It's actually guaranteed to be overpriced compared to torrents or other sources.

Re:Never bought ANYTHING from iTunes

[Tink2000]

It's still DRM music

Yep, sure shows you don't use ITMS. Nice jeorb there.

Your completely anectdotal post? Not so much.

Re:Never bought ANYTHING from iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually guaranteed to be overpriced compared to torrents

Ok, let's pretend that we care about legal options and actually paying the artists we like. Is it overpriced compared to them? Let's see some comparisons, since you're clearly an expert on the subject.

Re:Never bought ANYTHING from iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy Hardcore? i smell a jap fanboy! Go back to your 2nd life son where happy hardcore REALLY matters because it sure as shit doesnt matter in this life. Yes im anti iTunes but im also Anti Happy Hardcore. It just reminds me of the ultimate fagcore. Pwned

Re:Never bought ANYTHING from iTunes

[base3]

Any monthly subscription they offer is going to be DRMd. Just because Apple offered up some non-DRMd tracks on iTMS doesn't make the OP wrong.

Re:Never bought ANYTHING from iTunes

[geekoid]

What postion is that? the "whaaaa... nothing good comes out anymore, it must be the industry. otherwise it would mean my taste is loosing relevance. whaaaaaa?

Re:Never bought ANYTHING from iTunes

[geekoid]

"And I'm not about to start now,..."
then why the fuck would you post here..oh wait, attention. Why don't you just put on a silly hat and jump up and down yelling 'look at me'?

No, instead you spread ignorance and lies.
The world is worse for your post.

Are you kidding me?!?!

[Godsized]

Its insane to think this is the right way to do things. Seriously if it was Microsoft would of owned music all ready. It has been what they have been pushing all along, for nearly a decade guys. And you havent bought it, in all those years. Yahoo music offered it, Real offered it... the list is endless. The majority of the public have paid for very lil music. I know 4 billion is a big number, but if you compare to 120 million ipods sold, that is 34 songs a device. This is simple math and doesnt really mean much but that means in the whole time we own that device we have purchased 34 songs for it. the average ipod has way more songs on it :) We have massive media collections as it is, that is what is on our ipod. This is a good option for some ppl, but not for many.

Re:Are you kidding me?!?!

[assassinator42]

Does Yahoo even offer it anymore? I know they offer a subscription service where you can listen to the music on a Windows PC, but they seem to have removed all mentions of transferring to portable devices using Janus. They did offer the service for $5 a month including transfer to portables, which doesn't seem too bad.
Apple would definitely have the market share advantage. If they can get it working with all iPods rather than just the current gen, they'd have a definite simplicity advantage over Microsoft whose "Play For Sure" is anything but.

Re:The first line in the article contains a key wo

[randyest]

While the article summaries here often leave a lot to be desired, let's give credit when it's due.

The article:

A report by the Financial Times (registration required) cites unnamed executives who say that Apple is in talks with record labels to offer access to the entire iTunes music library for a lump sum price.

The summary:

Apple is in discussions with the big music companies about an 'all you can eat' model for buying music that would give customers free access to its entire iTunes music library in exchange for paying a premium for its iPod and iPhone devices.

The post title:

Apple Mulls Flat-Rate "Unlimited Music" Option

Sounds good to me. Maybe this will help you:

mull /ml/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -verb (used without object) 1. to study or ruminate; ponder. -verb (used with object) 2. to think about carefully; consider (often fol. by over): to mull over an idea. 3. to make a mess or failure of. [Origin: 1815-25; perh. identical with dial. mull to crumble, pulverize; see mull4] --Synonyms 1. consider, weigh.

Sweetness

[ChinggisK]

I never saw the big deal about not "owning" your music. As long as I get to listen to the music I want to when I want to, I don't care who owns or doesn't own it, so I'm perfectly happy with my unlimited subscription to Napster. That's the one thing that's always kept me from buying an iPod- I like to be legal about things, but I don't want to pay $.99 a song to do it. If they were to offer a subscription or even a one-time pay $100-$200 thing for unlimited music forever, I know I'd be all over that, and I'd be purchasing my very first Apple product.

Re:Sweetness

[dlsmith]

I never saw the big deal about not "owning" your music. As long as I get to listen to the music I want to when I want to, I don't care who owns or doesn't own it, so I'm perfectly happy with my unlimited subscription to Napster. If I could afford $150+ a year for unlimited access to Napster's comprehensive library, then, sure, it's not so important that I "own" it (although there are still some long-term drawbacks). But I typically spend more like $30 a year. So I prefer to have unlimited access to a limited library. I can even reduce my budget to $0 a year and still be fairly happy with the selection.

Still no Zappa.

[a whoabot]

They still don't have any Zappa albums on iTunes except for this one, I don't know what the heck it is: http://ax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/browserRedirect?url=itms%253A%252F%252Fax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net%252FWebObjects%252FMZStore.woa%252Fwa%252FviewAlbum%253Fid%253D209492520%2526s%253D143455

Re:Still no Zappa.

[MsGeek]

Heh. I have Zappa in MY iTunes.

The trick to that is to own the CD. Used CDs work just as well as new ones, and mean that the RIAA get exactly jack and shit from your pocket. Then rip, mix, download to your iPod...bliss.

I also have The Beatles in MY iTunes as well. Same deal.

The only thing I get from the iTunes store is podcasts. For free. Bwahahaha. If there is a song I am itching to get, and I can't find the CD at Second Spin or Amoeba Records in Hollywood, then maybe I'll break down and buy it from the iTunes store. So far there's been no song compelling enough to do that with.

This would be, in a word, terrible...

[sterno]

As a consumer, I'd love to have a limitless supply of music any time I want it. But this model seems to guarantee the destruction of what little power remains in the hands of artists. Today, a music label makes money from finding talent, marketing them, getting their music published, etc. Yes, they rip off said talent, and yes, they often find one hit wonder pop crap. But, having said that, it at least provides a model where artists get paid in proportion to the how much music they sell and, theoretically, how popular they are.

The trouble I see with a model like this is that the incentive for music labels would suddenly become a volume business. Basically just fill up the jukebox with as much crap as possible. In fact, realistically, would they have to do much of anything in terms of artist development and promotion? Apple sells a pod, then the music label gets a cut, and some smidgen of that cut ends up in the pockets of some artists. Wouldn't the label benefit from having a lot of small artists they pay nothing to?

Seems like, at the end of the day it empowers the large labels, damages the independent labels, and reduces, yet again, the money that goes into a musician's pocket.

Re:This would be, in a word, terrible...

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to give the artist money? Go to a show. Buy a cd at the show. The band gets all that money. They get a pittance if anything from the record companies.

Good for Buisness bad for Music

[tilandal]

Sure, Apple and the Big record labels stand to make a killing from plans like these but how exactly do the Musicians get payed? You know, the people who make the music. Musicians already make next to nothing on the $0.99 you pay to download a track off of iTunes. Downloading isn't killing music. Greedy record labels are killing music.

I don't own an ipod

[Ralph Spoilsport]

so what do I get out of this? Why can't I have "total" access to the library?

RS

Re:I don't own an ipod

[greyhueofdoubt]

I know you're trolling, but still I thought I'd respond: You don't need an iPod to use iTunes or listen to music you bought from iTunes. And, AFAIK, the DRM-free iTunes tracks will play on other devices.

Bye now,
b

Re:I don't own an ipod

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Argh. I wasn't trolling. I was asking an honest question. I don't DL from iTunes music store, and I don't have an iPod. I just looked at the statements at face value. If the iTunes Music store allowed me to pay (x) dolars for infinite DLs, I might consider it.

RS

Music Industry feels "Entitled"...

[kuwan]

The other side to this that News.com is reporting is that the music industry feels entitled to a cut of iPod sales. The key piece from that article is as follows:

At this stage in the game, the music industry feels it is entitled to something.

Entitled to something!? Are you kidding me? Entitled to a middle finger up their ass maybe. Certainly not entitled to stealing the profits of another company's successful product.

I'm not sure it's Apple that's thinking about this but rather the Music companies trying to push this on Apple. What they'd really want is a monthly fee from you every month of every year for the rest of your life. Oh and if you decide to stop paying, well then you're shit out of luck. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick with paying for the music I want once and keeping it forever.

Re:Music Industry feels "Entitled"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Another gem:

The days of allowing Apple and other device makers to earn enormous profits off the backs of music artists is over, said the source.

That's rich. The record companies accusing Apple and other device makers of making huge profits off of the backs of the poor starving artists.

Too little, too late

[Anonymous Coward]

All of these models are just too little, too late. The recording industry had years to come to it's senses, and instead opted to purchase legislation and prosecute.

I, for one, already have an unlimited free music library; it's called the internet.

I look forward to the demise of this industry.

I buy CDs. Why should I pay this premium?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I buy my music on CD and rip to 256Kbps AAC. I don't buy music from iTunes, and I see no reason why I should pay even more for an iPod than I normally would in order to cover a RIAA tax.

Re:I buy CDs. Why should I pay this premium?

[Higaran]

I hate to say this because I know it sounds kind of bad, but it's because then you'd be a sucker, and your only buying in ipod just for the sake of having an ipod. If your doing it that way, then buy a diffrent mp3 play and don't pay as much riaa tax.

Zune & others have had this for some time now

[aapold]

Quite honestly, its why I have a Zune, I want the freedom to not care about what I'm downloading. I go to get a song there may be 4 versions of it plus a half dozen live ones, what the hell, grab them all and decide later which ones I want to delete from it. I'd agonize endlessly over each purchase if I did it in any other way. I've already calculated, despite paying the $14.95 monthly fee for about a year and a half now i'm way way way ahead paying for it this way given the amount I've grabbed without worrying about it.

Re: Paid in proportion to ______

[TaoPhoenix]

There's a serious opportunity for alternative payments for upsell-value.
Special editions, signed copies (ebay-food), etc make far more money than the "starter-CD".

There are other chances for innovation here.

All you can eat AppleTV?

[alop]

If only they would give me an option to do AppleTV like that... Think about it, you pre-pay for NetFlix, it takes about a day to get a movie, you send it back and get more. AppleTV could do the same thing, maybe make the expiration dynamic, tied to when you get a new movie. I'd pay for that.

This Wouldn't Work

[DigitalisAkujin]

What would stop me from getting an unlimited account for one month, downloading the entire iTunes catalog, and then canceling the service?

Even if they DRM the music I can still stream rip it. I mean after all, the data still has to be transmitted to me and stored on an iPod somehow.

Re:This Wouldn't Work

[el_chupanegre]

Because like all of these 'services' nowadays there will be a deliberately vague 'fair use' statement. Nothing to stop you downloading 1000 tracks per month though (unless that's covered by the fair use) and canceling it when you have all you want.

Re:This Wouldn't Work

[myz24]

Well that would just be unethical...

Ok, to be completely serious you'd probably recompress the music again, only to reduce quality further. What you speak is possible and is with any music "service."

Re:This Wouldn't Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the music collection isn't a static thing. Content is constantly
being added to the iTunes library. You could, in theory, download
every track they have in a week. But then, two months from now, you'd
be out of date. In my experience, iPod owners tend to be people who
like to stay current and keep up with trends -- including music.

Re:This Wouldn't Work

[superdana]

The iTunes catalog is probably 20 terabytes. It would take you 3.5 years to download that on a 1.5 Mbps line, not considering overhead.

Re:This Wouldn't Work

[Loconut1389]

At some point, someone has to decide that old music isn't worth anything special and hopefully you'll subscribe for the new music. If there's no new music you like, then the industry is the problem.

Re:This Wouldn't Work

[pandrijeczko]

What would stop me from getting an unlimited account for one month, downloading the entire iTunes catalog, and then canceling the service?

It's called "a contract".

Even if they DRM the music I can still stream rip it. I mean after all, the data still has to be transmitted to me and stored on an iPod somehow.

So in other words, you're going to pay a proportion of each track you buy to have it DRMed license only to rip the DRM out afterwards? ***FANTASTIC*** I really can't keep up with you youngsters these days! And there's "silly old me" just feeding my credit card number into Amazon occasionally and getting a boring old CD through the post with no DRM on it in the first place.

Re:This Wouldn't Work

[DigitalisAkujin]

I have 15 mbit FIOS. That's 1920kb / second download speed.

20 TB is approx 21474836480 KB.

It would take me approx 517 hours or 21 days at best conditions. So ok... double it. I pay for two months. Pretty sweet deal.

Re:This Wouldn't Work

[drew]

Have you ever tried it? Go right ahead- You can "listen" to 25 free songs a month on Rhapsody and see how it works out for you. I'd pay for a service like this if there was one that worked with my music player, but stream ripping from a subscription service isn't worth my time and trouble, even if it's free. You'll get better results by looking for bands' MySpace pages.

Re:This Wouldn't Work

[vakuona]

Well, nothing. Given that most music is old, and not really selling well, they wouldn't mind. They don't make that much of it anyway. Your broadband provider might though. 2 million songs at approximately 4Mb each is like 8TB.

I think a hybrid model might be more useful though. Access to the catalogue for a monthly fee, and the new releases (from the past 2 years say) as normal.

No, they aren't

[iniquitous]

Finally, it looks like the industry (or at least Apple) is 'getting it'. No, they aren't. Not for me, anyway. I still buy CDs because I want lossless music* in a format that I can do whatever I want with. If I want a copy in my car, on my portable music player (i.e. any music player, not just on an iPod), in my home stereo, on my laptop, on my phone... at the same time... I can because I have the music in a format that places zero restrictions on its use.

I don't want a subscription to a service. I want to pay for my music and be able to use the purchased music wherever I want whenever I want for the rest of my life sans the company I bought the music from.

I'll start buying music online when companies like Apple offer me lossless, DRM-free files that come in (or at least can be converted to) an open format. Oh, and for less than $0.99 a song (I pay about that much for CDs, but I also get album art and the music already on a "back-up disc").

* I know that CDs aren't truly "lossless," if you consider that any digital format is ultimately an approximation of the real thing. I also know that there are higher quality formats available that go far beyond 16-bit, 44100 Hz. But, at the very least, CDs are always going to contain more information than lossy encodings when the encodings themselves are sourced from CDs.

Re:No, they aren't

[mr_matticus]

I still buy CDs because I want lossless music* in a format that I can do whatever I want with. If I want a copy in my car, on my portable music player (i.e. any music player, not just on an iPod), in my home stereo, on my laptop, on my phone... at the same time... I can because I have the music in a format that places zero restrictions on its use. I don't understand this line of argument.

Setting aside, for the moment, the problems of extracting excerpts from protected audio, if you have an end-to-end system, what restriction exists on your legal use of music?

Take your chosen device (we'll go with an iPod, since Apple is the topic, but any mp3 player would do). This iTunes music is available on all your devices (iPod, phone, computer). Playing it in your car is a simple matter of connecting your iPod/phone to your car. Your home stereo just needs to be connected to your computer or iPod. The technology is not yet ubiquitous, but you can bet it will be.

If you've got an iPod and unlimited access to the catalog, DRM seems like a fair trade given a lack of a subscription fee. There's no way a CD is price competitive at this scale, even if the price of an iPod goes up $100 for this. The remarkably lower price for acquisition solves the whole access situation, allowing everyone to enjoy all the music they care to for a price unimaginable even 20 years ago. Having to pay a one-off fee of ~$1 to get a DRM-free copy to exercise full fair use and personal use rights isn't really an evil.

Just look at the pure math. $100 for unlimited access to DRM music plus $1 per song to make fair use excerpts (hypothetical numbers). We'll assume that you will acquire a library expansion of 1000 tracks. Now, let's say you want to make commentary or engage in criticism or parody as guaranteed by your fair use rights on, say, 50 tracks per year. Your total cost to do this: $100 + 50($1)=$150, and that's just for the first year you own your iPod. The second year, the annual cost to do this drops to $50.

Under the current "purchase" system: 1000($1) = $1000. You pay for each track, even though you're probably never going to exercise fair use rights on 99% of that music, unless you're a reviewer or comic making parodies.

The DRM problem of making "backups" for your "legitimate" use is nonexistent if you have unlimited access to the library at any time to re-acquire your library following a hard drive crash or what have you. You could even save further money by not having to back up that content (just the library file so you could know what to download again).

Ultimately, having a flat-fee access to the library solves most of the problems of DRM, and correcting the others through "legacy" means (purchasing single, DRM-free tracks) would still be tremendously cheaper than our current system, where music prices are artificially high because of the need to balance distribution (the copyright holder's exclusive right) and fair use (the purchaser's exclusive right). DRM is problematic only because it prevents lawful backups (unneeded under the Apple plan), it prevents copying to multiple listening locations(unnecessary with synergistic devices), and it blocks fair use excerpts (attainable by paying $1 per track where you want to exercise this right, instead of what we have now: having to pay $1 per track because you might potentially want to do these things).

Free (after flat "admission" fee) music with no 'fair use' rights vs. costly music providing rights most people don't exercise. People who are fundamentally opposed to not having those rights can continue to purchase tracks/albums individually. Sounds fantastic to me. Like most customers, I just want to be able to listen to my music and want the lowest price. If I can get unlimited music for $100 in exchange for giving up fair use rights, I'm all for it, as long as there's a path to exercise those rights if I choose to (e.g. buying the DRM-free track for $1 or so).

Re:No, they aren't

[greyhueofdoubt]

You might want to try out Amazon's music download service. It sounds like it would work for you, at least for music that you can stand to listen to in 256kbs.

Their catalog used to be limited, but I'm finding more and more good stuff on there. Amazon is the best thing to ever happen to iTunes customers- not only is it a better deal in and of itself, it is also forcing Apple to improve its own service.

-b

Re:No, they aren't

[pandrijeczko]

If you've got an iPod and unlimited access to the catalog, DRM seems like a fair trade given a lack of a subscription fee.

Even though, like the parent, I'm a CD buyer and have never paid for a single downloaded, I was understanding your argument until you reached this point.

People have always shared music. No, I don't consider that it's acceptable that "sharing" on the scale of Bittorrent or Usenet happens and I have over 1200 original CDs in my collection that proves I'm more than happy to pay a fair price for a good piece of music.

However, by purchasing a CD, I reserve the (very important to me) right to play it to a group of friends or lend it to them if they want to hear it in the comfort of their own homes. The music industry might even benefit from another CD sale or two.

I also reserve the right to format change that music in whatever way I please - what I do with that CD for myself is none of the music industry's / RIAA's / BPI's business and they know it; that's why nobody's ever been taken to court for ripping their own CDs.

DRM stops those rights I've reserved - I can't (practically) lend it to someone else to listen to and I can't format change it either. Plus I no longer own anything, I just "rent" it.

If there was a protection system for music such that you could do anything with it apart from upload it to the Internet, it wouldn't bother me. I might even support it on the basis that if I take the trouble to buy every CD, why should a whole load of other people get it for free?

Unfortunately, DRM does that but also affects me. Some of the reasons I buy music for are taken away with DRM. So not only do I have to accept that even though I don't copy music for other people, I am treated like someone who does, but also some of the reasons I buy music for in the first place are taken away from me. Plus, with DRM, if someone somewhere deems that I've listened to the music for long enough or enough times, they can use DRM to just stop me listening to it until I pay more money. (I believe the Mafia used to have a similar policy with small businesses and protection money and they were criminalised as a result.)

So please stop being so naive - if you pay for music, DRM is bad. It may be being touted as a weapon against piracy but, as usual, it's real use is to target the honest saps like you and me that already pay for our music and squeeze a bit more money out of us - that's it's prime goal.

Don't support DRM and don't buy DRM-ed products because ultimately all you are doing is making music a whole lot more expensive and restrictive for you.

Re:No, they aren't

[mr_matticus]

People have always shared music. No, I don't consider that it's acceptable that "sharing" on the scale of Bittorrent or Usenet happens and I have over 1200 original CDs in my collection that proves I'm more than happy to pay a fair price for a good piece of music. That's exactly the point. You can pay to buy the track for $1 just as it is now and share it with a few friends if you'd like--a reasonable personal use.

If everyone has access through their device to an unlimited library, there is no need to "share" your music with them--they can get it themselves.

I also reserve the right to format change that music in whatever way I please - what I do with that CD for myself is none of the music industry's / RIAA's / BPI's business and they know it; that's why nobody's ever been taken to court for ripping their own CDs.

DRM stops those rights I've reserved - I can't (practically) lend it to someone else to listen to and I can't format change it either. Plus I no longer own anything, I just "rent" it. And the problem is...?

DRM music is a different set of rights. It's unequivocally a lesser set of rights. But it's not the only game in town. If you have the option of a flat per-device fee to have unlimited access to a tremendous library, or to purchase a DRM-free track for ~$1, where is the problem?

Your rights are preserved in your choice of which product to buy.

Some of the reasons I buy music for are taken away with DRM. That's just it. You wouldn't be buying music per track anymore.

If you want to, you're free to do so. But if you just want to listen to music for your own use and don't care about mix tapes or critical excerpts, what's the problem? So long as the option to buy it in the DRM-free form exists, what is the downside to unlimited access to millions of songs for a one-time fee? There is exactly zero chance of a flat fee for lifetime, DRM-free, unlimited access. DRM is a fair trade for an unlimited listening library.

Re:No, they aren't

[TLSPRWR]

DRM stops those rights I've reserved - I can't (practically) lend it to someone else to listen to and I can't format change it either. Plus I no longer own anything, I just "rent" it.

If you do become interested in downloading songs and music, you may want to look into Apple's iTunes Plus. Depending on the artist / record label, they offer their content in the iTunes Plus format, which is a higher bitrate than the regular downloads and... get this... DRM free. When you download it, the song is in AAC format, but you can convert the song easily to MP3 within iTunes. Browsing around the iTunes store, you'll sometimes see little [+] marks next to the price, indicating it's iTunes Plus format. According to the FAQ page, Plus is now regular price ($.99) for individual tracks and for albums.

Granted, there's not a huge advantage to purchasing songs through iTunes rather than buying CDs, but should you find yourself needing to purchase a single song and don't want cumbersome DRM or lock-in, give iTunes Plus a shot. I still buy CDs, too, but Plus can be a good way to get just the songs I want.

Finally

[PacketScan]

I think it's about time that apple has though about doing this.
And where do i sign up ?

Pay For a Month

[Anonymous Coward]

Download non-stop and cancel your account after a month. I would pay the premium once a year.

Patent Trolls

[vistic]

I can't wait to find out who will claim this violates their "unlimited music distribution model" patent.

It's just a matter of time.

I don't think so...

[DeadDecoy]

I don't know about that. While the big music companies are entrenched and, well ... big, they are still losing their viability as a business. Look at how hard RIAA picks fights with p2p clients. The role of having some physical medium for your music is diminishing as electronic copies are far more convenient and cheaper to distribute/share. If all of the big companies left music, Apple could always adapt by consolidating all of the Indie musicians available through the internet and offer a convenient method customers with their favorite (substitute) genre; see Pandora Radio and music genome project. Having the latest album of B. Spears or 50 cent on a dinky piece of silicon for 20$ from the RIAA isn't as appealing as it sounds. If anything, the big companies NEED Apple's vision right now before they become extinct.

Labels Already Don't Like iTunes - Never Happen

[CodeBuster]

The music labels already don't care very much for Apple and its iPod + iTunes monopoly. They are losing control of paid distribution (never mind P2P) to their new gatekeeper and key master, Steve Jobs. The following quote is excerpted from an article posted earlier today, How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything Wrong

But not everyone sees Apple's all-or-nothing approach in such benign terms. The music and film industries, in particular, worry that Jobs has become a gatekeeper for all digital content. Doug Morris, CEO of Universal Music, has accused iTunes of leaving labels powerless to negotiate with it. (Ironically, it was the labels themselves that insisted on the DRM that confines iTunes purchases to the iPod, and that they now protest.) "Apple has destroyed the music business," NBC Universal chief Jeff Zucker told an audience at Syracuse University. "If we don't take control on the video side, [they'll] do the same." At a media business conference held during the early days of the Hollywood writers' strike, Michael Eisner argued that Apple was the union's real enemy: "[The studios] make deals with Steve Jobs, who takes them to the cleaners. They make all these kinds of things, and who's making money? Apple!"

The labels have already locked themselves into Steve's golden iHandcuffs with DRM on the iPod + iTunes platform with fixed price songs so they will be very careful before they give over even more power to Apple to run their business, or what is left of it anyway. I do not see them agreeing to a monthly subscription for the entire iTunes catalogs, such a move would signal complete and utter desperation on the part of the music labels.

Re:Labels Already Don't Like iTunes - Never Happen

[slriv]

That's kind of a crock.

First of all, it's income they wouldn't likely have otherwise, so they are happy about that. They want more income, and all this raising of hands and outlandish statements are a means of trying to get a bigger slice.

Second, they do maintain control over what is sold through iTunes, regardless of what they might say in the public, so Jobs isn't their master (although he possibly should be, given their stupidity). They, the majority of labels, enforce the DRM which actually hurts iTunes more than helps it for people who choose to use other devices. Not many people, likely, buy an iPod because of their existing iTunes library of music. Most average people, I presume, use iTunes because they bought an iPod.

Labels are dealing with the reality that their control over music is falling away because the world is changing and people do in fact have more options available to them.

I still maintain that music should be free and used as a means of getting people to see the artists perform. CD's and hard-media should still be sold and a profit should still be taken from it, but the content itself has no more value than the mp3 that I got off some random download site. That does mean the super-stars will have to tighten their belt (one less bentley in the garage, oh my), but it will truly free the artist and the public.

In other words, musicians are paid for their performance. If they want to get rich, use the profit from performance and cd sales to market their brand (their name or whatever). Kiss is a grand example of this. Kiss isn't music, it's a brand. I doubt they make a ton of money on cd sales anymore, but their is a whole generation of people who out of nostalgia go see their shows and buy their stuff.

Re:Labels Already Don't Like iTunes - Never Happen

[Lars T.]

The music labels already don't care very much for Apple and its iPod + iTunes monopoly. They are losing control of paid distribution (never mind P2P) to their new gatekeeper and key master, Steve Jobs. The following quote is excerpted from an article posted earlier today, How Apple Got Everything Right By Doing Everything Wrong
...
The labels have already locked themselves into Steve's golden iHandcuffs with DRM on the iPod + iTunes platform with fixed price songs so they will be very careful before they give over even more power to Apple to run their business, or what is left of it anyway. I do not see them agreeing to a monthly subscription for the entire iTunes catalogs, such a move would signal complete and utter desperation on the part of the music labels. You know, your point would be so much more convincing if this wasn't actually an idea Universal is trying to sell to Apple.

Re:Labels Already Don't Like iTunes - Never Happen

[CodeBuster]

I realize that Universal is playing up the downside to try and get a better deal from Apple, but it is pretty clear that the labels need Apple more than Apple needs the labels so I doubt Apple will be swayed by what Universal says to the press. The iTunes music store is not really making a mint for Apple, the hardware sales are where Apple is making their money and the iPod plays MP3s downloaded from the file sharing networks or ripped from CDs just as well as music purchased from the iTunes store. Apple is in a stronger negotiation position than the music labels for any deals going forward, at least for the foreseeable future anyway, and everyone (i.e. Apple, the music labels, wall street, the public, etc...) knows that.

Re:Labels Already Don't Like iTunes - Never Happen

[geekoid]

"The music labels already don't care very much for Apple and its iPod + iTunes monopoly."
it's not a monopoly, and last I heard they where pretty happy with it, but that they wanted more.

"...gatekeeper for all digital content."
so, so stupid. Look, there mad because the RIAA/MPAA are screwing them, but they are afraid to say that.

There is NO reason why a entertainment company can't do the same thing. They could even make it better.
No, the **AA saw an easy way to make money, and went for it and by default brought the peopel who signed deals with the **IA. They could drop the **IA from all future products but I don't think they have the balls to do so. They signed a deal with the Devil and are getting exactly what the devil told them they would get.

""Apple has destroyed the music business," "
Complete fear mongering. Apple isn't making most of the money, the industry is.

And finally, the real deal breaker, the proof that says the has beens are fear mongering:

The label don't have to do more business with Apple. DId Jobs hold a gun to someones head and force them to allow the Beatles to be released? The music industry can cut Apple loose anytime. They haven't, why is that? oh yeah, because they are making money hand over fist. the **IA that is. These CEO's wanted to give all the work. risk, and responsibilty to another company, and just collect theur 'Phat L00tz', and now it's biting them in the Ass.

Also, you can not destroy the music industry, but you can certianly change it. When that happens the dinosaurs die.

Re:Labels Already Don't Like iTunes - Never Happen

[CodeBuster]

I think that you misunderstand the point of the post...

it's not a monopoly, and last I heard they where pretty happy with it, but that they wanted more.

Here is the problem: The music labels don't want to release non-DRM content (i.e. MP3) if the can possibly help it. If they want DRM on the iPod then they have to go with fairplay which means using iTunes (no other DRM is supported on iPod). They cannot create their own online music store with DRM and have it work on the iPod (the most popular player on the market by far).

Now, personally I and most other people on Slashdot think that DRM is lame and that it doesn't solve the problems of the music industry, but that is my personal viewpoint and I am trying to explain this from the point of view of the music labels, wrongheaded though their point of view may be. The music labels are stubborn, they want DRM and no DRM is anathema to them, it just doesn't fit in with their world view (i.e. they don't get it).

Look, there mad because the RIAA/MPAA are screwing them, but they are afraid to say that.

That doesn't preclude them from being displeased with BOTH the MAFIAA, to which they pay membership dues, AND Apple. In this case they were talking about Apple.

There is NO reason why a entertainment company can't do the same thing. They could even make it better.

Either they do it with no DRM ala MP3 (which they refuse to do...see above) OR they forgo compatibility with the iPod, the most popular portable music player in the world and the Walkman of this generation, for whatever DRM they do chose. Most labels are unwilling to do either, MAFIAA or not, and so they complain.

No, the **AA saw an easy way to make money, and went for it and by default brought the peopel who signed deals with the **IA. They could drop the **IA from all future products but I don't think they have the balls to do so. They signed a deal with the Devil and are getting exactly what the devil told them they would get.

Yup, beware of the contract that you sign with Apple and read the fine print.

Complete fear mongering. Apple isn't making most of the money, the industry is.

I am not so sure. Apple gets $150 dollars plus for each iPod they sell and they have sold tens of millions of them. How many of those iPod owners buy 150 songs from iTunes at 99 cents apiece? Probably not very many.

And finally, the real deal breaker, the proof that says the has beens are fear mongering:

Of course they are exaggerating, that is what any party in any negotiation attempts to do in order to improve their bargaining position. They fact that they are exaggerating doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have the upper hand in their dealings anyway.

The label don't have to do more business with Apple. DId Jobs hold a gun to someones head and force them to allow the Beatles to be released?

Does Steve really care if the Beatles are available or not on iTunes? How many people who own an iPod and want the Beatles in their playlists haven't already ripped their CDs in iTunes or downloaded what they wanted from the file sharing networks? Either way Steve has benefited from more iPod sales. Meanwhile the music labels cannot release DRM Beatles on the iPod independently without submitting to Steve and iTunes. Steve has them right where he wants them and they both know it.

The music industry can cut Apple loose anytime.

And release their music without DRM or NOT on the iPod? Not likely.

They haven't, why is that? oh yeah, because they are making money hand over fist. the **IA that is. These CEO's wanted to give all the work. risk, and responsibilty to another company, and just collect theur 'Phat L00tz', and now it's biting them in the Ass.

Less work by the music labels == less profit...makes sense.

Also, you can not destroy the music industry, but you can certia

One-time payment less than 2 months of Rhapsody?

[steveha]

Rhapsody is an all-you-can-eat music service. I have Rhapsody and I love it.

Rhapsody costs $12-$15 a month (depending on your options), and you can listen to the music as long as you keep paying the monthly fee. If Apple can actually talk the big labels into granting unlimited lifetime downloads of music, that you can keep, for $20... I'll be stunned. That's a huge value there. Even at $80 that's a huge value.

I could see the labels going for a $20-per-iPod tax, maybe. I can't see them going for a special model that costs $20 extra. You just know that anyone who buys the $20 extra model is going to actually use the service. Maybe the statistics show that currently the average customer buys $20 worth of songs, but this all-you-can-eat plan slices away any future chance of that dollar amount going up. We're talking about an industry that is pricing CDs at $20... can Apple really get them to do this?

P.S. If you have never tried an all-you-can-eat music service, I suggest you try the two-week free trial for Rhapsody. You will probably see the appeal. It's easy and fun to find new music. Sometimes I don't make up my mind whether I like something until I play it all the way through a few times; it's nice to be able to do that.

http://learn.rhapsody.com/

Disclaimer: I don't work for Rhapsody but I do work for the company that owns it.

steveha

It's already active...

[HerculesMO]

Just use Amazon's service.

You own what you buy, no DRM too. And it's relatively cheaper.

Hey Apple, ask EMusic before you try this

[ObjetDart]

Years ago EMusic had an unlimited download model. It almost destroyed them.

The problem is that once you make it unlimited, a small but not insignificant percentage of users will immediately attempt to download the entire iTunes library. Hey, disk space is cheap, why not try, if there's no additional charge per track?

The only way this might work is if Apple doesn't have to pay even 1 cent to the record companies per download for people who download tracks under the unlimited plan. At least that way their only cost bandwidth.

iTunes tax?

[CleverDan]

What if I want to buy a new iPod and put RockBox on it? Will Apple put out a 'naked' iPod, or will I still have to pay this new iTunes tax?

Re:iTunes tax?

[Bieeanda]

Logically, they'd have a new version of iTunes set up to offer you the opportunity to sign up by using your credit card and iPod serial number. That way they don't have to screw around with the boxed product that's already in storage or on shelves, worry about confusing the consumer with roughly twice as many virtually identical devices (different only in sticker price and bundled 'free' downloads) and have the opportunity to snag owners of previous-model iPods.

On the other hand, there's the iPhone and its associated long-term subscription. It should also be noted that Apple considers iPods to be disposable. When they say that the 'subscription' is good for the life of the device, you have to ask if they mean 'until it breaks down' (unlikely) or 'until the warranty expires' or 'until we phase your particular iPod style out'. I suspect that they'd just raise the sticker price on new iPods and keep track of free-download eligibility by querying a device's serial number through iTunes.

Re:iTunes tax?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's okay, you can't put Rockbox on the new iPods anyway. God bless my 80GB 5.5G.

Implications in Canada

[dstone]

Playing this out to its logical (but not necessarily intended or ethical) conclusion in Canada...

1. The Canadian Copyright Act allows one to make a copy, for personal use, of someone else's music.
2. There is no DMCA equivalent to prevent the breaking of DRM in Canada.
3. For the cost of an iPod plus the $20 Apple buffet fee, a single pioneering Canuck could download infinite iTunes.
4. The other 31,000,000 Canadians could leech his entire music collection for free.

The true North, strong and free. Free as in Apple Hefeweizen.

Re:Implications in Canada

[Mordaximus]

You forgot step 5. Where the single pioneering Canuck winds up in jail for a very, very long time for distributing copyrighted materials.

Re:Implications in Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point being made is that if the law permits me to make a copy of Doug's music (and it does), and the law permits someone else to come along and also make a copy of Doug's music (and it does), then it's not clear when 1 or 2 or 10 or 1,000 friends all making copies of Doug's music turns Doug into a distributor or law breaker.

The hard line would say "1 is enough" but that's just stupid because the law is designed to allow at least 1 to do so, or it wouldn't be on the books.

Re:Implications in Canada

[Registered Coward v2]

You forget steps 5 and 6:

5 - Apple doesn't offer it in CDN to prevent such redistribution

6 - CDN changes its law.

"Getting it?"

[7Prime]

Getting what? I've never seen any outcry for any service such as this. I think it sounds downright horrid. Not to mention every other subscription service has failed misserably. I chose iTunes specifically because they stayed away from this kinda corporate bullshit.

There's no "listening" going on, this is all internal ideas, and they're not going to benefit anyone but the music corporations and Apple. Be careful what you wish for...

Welcome to eMusic, circa 1999

[msimm]

Does anyone else remember when eMusic offered a flat-rate all-you-can-eat service? I found myself listening to a huge variety of music I'd ordinarily avoid, like jazz and blues. It's a very nice way to sample a lot of music and honestly a 30 second clip *is not* a reliable way to review unfamiliar music (or genres).

As long as Comcast marketing isn't involved...

[Raineer]

As we all know the definition of "unlimited" can be quite varied in the world today.

Last night I was in Applebee's with my son and we were reading the latest promotion for "a year's worth of free ice cream!!!" While one would not expect unlimited or maybe even daily ice-cream supply...I was surprised to find it was not even weekly. A "years worth of ice cream" is one scoop per month, for a year. Printed right on the card. At seven years old my son already knows to distrust marketing.

Only rumor about another Subscription model

[guidryp]

This is largely rumor and speculation, so none of these "details" reflect anything concrete, not to mention it is not even clear that this is any different that any other subscription model.

First paragraph FTA: "or it could come as a monthly charge. " Which is like every other lame pay to play your music model.

Also it doesn't matter what Apple wants,the industry is not going to let you fill your 60GB ipod for a one time fee of $20.

When the dust settles Apple might run of those subscriptions models, but that has already been rumored for quite some time and who cares anyway.

The choice between two evils...

[stardude82]

I currently have the Yahoo! subscription service and will probably not renew my subscription since they got sold to Rhapsody. Let my remind everybody that Rhapsody is owned by RealPlayer.

Re:The choice between two evils...

[Anonymous Coward]

What have they done to you lately? Old versions of RealPlayer were spyware-like but they cleaned up their act.

And if you are a Mac or Linux user, you use Rhapsody as just a browser plugin like Adobe Flash. You can install Rhapsody on Linux without even needing to enter your password... completely unprivileged code, so even if they were evil it's not like it could do that much.

road runner

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't road runner offer that service for 10 bucks a month? i haven't used it so i cannot attest to what they have, but im sure ive seen it advertised on tv.

fair disclosure/conflicts of interest

[yoha]

Everyone commenting on this thread should state whether they have downloaded music or movie content, within the last 30 days, from a source not authorized by the producer of the content. This disclosure should be made without qualifications or caveats (i.e. "I only downloaded it to sample" or "I intend to buy it later" still count as unauthorized d/l's).

It's just my hunch, but the free as in freedom or beer advocates are just worried about paying for something that they used to get with a five finger discount.

My disclosure: I have not downloaded content from an unauthorized source.

Re:fair disclosure/conflicts of interest

[pandrijeczko]

This disclosure should be made without qualifications or caveats (i.e. "I only downloaded it to sample" or "I intend to buy it later" still count as unauthorized d/l's).

I download it to sample from Usenet or Bittorrent. I own 1200+ CDs. The music industry does well out of me and because I've heard any CD before I buy it, I do well out of it, I don't own a bad album and I think CDs are reasonably priced as a result.

I never have, and never will, pay for a download. Music is important to me, it's not disposable because I don't listen to "cheap-to-produce" plastic crap in the charts. If they stopped making CDs tomorrow, I would buy no more music. It doesn't worry me, I've a big enough collection to last me a lifetime anyway.

My disclosure: I have downloaded content from an unauthorized source. But I've pumped around £12,000 into the music industry through my CD purchases over the years.

Re:fair disclosure/conflicts of interest

[geekoid]

I have, but not in the last 30 days.. oh wait, it's illegal to distribute, not download...bwaaaa bwaa bwaaaaaaaa

Don't believe me? look at all the cases, everyone is because of 'distribution'. usually because sharing is the default option in tools like Limewire.

You could also actually read and try to understand Copyright, but that might actually lead to you learning something, and have to drop your preconceptions.

The Deal Apple and the Music Industry Should Make

[OakLEE]

The solution seems simple to me. Apple et. al., should charge $20-40 per iPod for 2-3 year unlimited access to the DRM'ed iTunes catalog, then allow users to buy permanent rights to individual songs DRM free for $ 0.25-0.50 per song.

Music companies get the best of both world, i.e., the steady income from subscriptions plus the ability to benefit from a mega-hit via direct sales.

Users benefit since they can try before the buy, and only buy music they really wan to keep. Additionally 2-3 years is the expected life of most iPods anyway, so most users won't be inconvenienced when the subscription goes out. They will simply buy a new iPod, or alternatively, they could be sold another term subscription.

The actual numbers make sense since according to Silicon Valley Insider, the music industry makes only about $20 in downloads per iPod anyway.

Finally, the cheaper, DRM-free purchase ability will separate those of us willing to pay a fair price for music we'd like to own from those just looking to justify their own personal piracy. (Personally, I think this group does the majority of the complaining hear on /.)

As long as no one (Apple, consumers, and the music industry) gets too greedy, I think working out a deal for unlimited subscriptions could be the detente everybody needs.

Anticompetitive behavior

[Mr2001]

In the first case, Apple may have a monopoly in MP3 players. However they have done nothing anticompetitive [...] Anticompetitive means it hurts Apple but it hurts their competitors more. You mean like how Apple has refused to license their DRM system to competitors, which would boost iTunes Music Store sales but also open the iPod up to competition?

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[mcmaddog]

Apple is primarily a hardware company and makes most of its money selling hardware like the iPod, iPhone, computers, etc. They created the iTunes store to spur more sales of hardware while forgoing any real profits from selling the music, so it would hurt Apple, and it's investors, to license their DRM. Most people believed that MS's PlaysForSure and their hardware manufacturing partners would beat Apple to a pulp, but instead Apple produced a whole product that more people apparently appreciated and Apple have been at least momentarily rewarded with a majority of the "mp3 player" and music download markets. Just because it's not how you would like it to be doesn't make it anticompetitive.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Mr2001]

Apple is primarily a hardware company and makes most of its money selling hardware like the iPod, iPhone, computers, etc. They created the iTunes store to spur more sales of hardware while forgoing any real profits from selling the music Then look at it the other way: licensing FairPlay to other music stores would boost hardware sales, but Apple refuses to do that too, and in fact has gone out of their way to prevent Real from selling DRM'd music for use on iPods.

Just because it's not how you would like it to be doesn't make it anticompetitive. You're right. It's not anticompetitive just because I don't like it, it's anticompetitive because it promotes vendor lock-in and artificially raises the barrier of entry for competitors.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[2nd Post!]

How do you reconcile your viewpoint with Apple's continued push for DRM-free music, which they and Amazon both happen to sell?

DRM free music encourages no lock-in and no barrier of entry; it's something people have dismissed for years as unrealistic, yet it's something Apple has somehow managed to pull off. On the flip side, licensing FairPlay to other music stores would have actively discouraged DRM-free music because FairPlay would have become the industry standard AND propped up iPod sales.

Yes, not licensing FairPlay is anticompetitive, but with the explicit (and in hindsight, correct) intention of promoting DRM free music as a benefit to consumers.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Karlt1]

Anyone can sell music for the iPod -- just not DRM'd music. Emusic, Amazon, Walmart, and MagnaTunes all sale music compatible with the iPod. No one is stopping any other manufacturer from selling an MP3 player that supports subscription music from the major labels and in fact, Sandisk, Microsoft, Creative, and Archos all sell devices that support subscription music from Rhapsody and Napster.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Mr2001]

Anyone can sell music for the iPod -- just not DRM'd music. Emusic, Amazon, Walmart, and MagnaTunes all sale music compatible with the iPod. Yes, now they do, because (coincidentally) now the labels have changed their minds. But for several years -- when iTunes Music Store wasn't already so entrenched -- the only way to sell the popular tracks that people wanted to buy was to use DRM.

That meant no one else could sell those popular tracks except Apple, which gave iTMS a boost over competing stores, and now the same thing's happening with video. Try finding a store that'll sell you DRM-free, name-brand movies and TV shows to put on your iPod: it doesn't exist. Copyright holders won't let them be sold without DRM, and Apple won't let anyone else sell them with DRM that's iPod-compatible.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Mr2001]

How do you reconcile your viewpoint with Apple's continued push for DRM-free music, which they and Amazon both happen to sell? Well, I have my doubts as to how sincere that push was. I suspect they were as surprised as the rest of us when the labels started to cave... but that's beside the point.

Even if Apple honestly didn't want to have to use DRM, there was still a period of years where the only way to sell the tracks people wanted to buy was to use DRM, and Apple exploited their position to prevent anyone else from selling those tracks for the iPod. The same thing is still happening today with video DRM.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Lars T.]

Apple is primarily a hardware company and makes most of its money selling hardware like the iPod, iPhone, computers, etc. They created the iTunes store to spur more sales of hardware while forgoing any real profits from selling the music Then look at it the other way: licensing FairPlay to other music stores would boost hardware sales, but Apple refuses to do that too, and in fact has gone out of their way to prevent Real from selling DRM'd music for use on iPods. So you're point is that Apple is a Monopoly, but if they stopped being one, they would sell even more iPods.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[2nd Post!]

So are you saying it was the DRM that made the iPod popular? Or was it the DRM that made the iTunes store popular?

Because in that period of time if you divided the number of tracks by the number of iPods, you get something like 20 iTunes tracks per iPod.

In comparison, you get something like 20 to 50 CDs and untold number of P2P downloads per iPod too.

In any case, it's hard to argue any sort of "monopoly boosting" effect since at that time Apple had neither a monopoly in music nor iPods; even today they are the #2 retailer behind WalMart (in music).

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[2nd Post!]

The problem with your assertion is that at the time, 2004, when DRM was prevalent and the iTunes store was tied to iTunes and iPod, neither the iPod nor the iTunes store had a monopoly! Apple's DRM existed because they did not want to license a competitor's DRM (makes sense) and they did not license the DRM because there was no reason to license it (the iPod didn't have anything close to a monopoly in 2004, since they had only like 40% of the market).

Today that is not true; yet at the same time, today it is okay to sell DRM free music!

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Mr2001]

So are you saying it was the DRM that made the iPod popular? Or was it the DRM that made the iTunes store popular? The latter. The iTunes store's popularity was boosted by the fact that it was the only online store that was able to sell name-brand music for the most popular MP3 player - thanks to Apple's refusal to license FairPlay to anyone else.

If they hadn't used that anticompetitive practice to lock people into iTMS, who knows, maybe other stores would've gotten popular enough that we'd have more than one place to buy all those TV episodes today. Maybe even some real price competition!

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Mr2001]

they did not license the DRM because there was no reason to license it No reason? People were offering them money for licenses. That seems like a good enough reason, if we assume that Apple likes money, which seems like a fair assumption. There was no reason for to refuse except to stifle competition.

(the iPod didn't have anything close to a monopoly in 2004, since they had only like 40% of the market). You might want to double-check that figure. The NPG Group said the iPod and iPod Mini had an 82% market share of hard-drive based players during 2004, which was up from 64% the year before and 33% the year before that. The nearest competitor was Creative, with a whopping 3.7% market share.

If you include flash-based players, then the number drops to 42%, but I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that a separate market. (And even if you consider them all together, Apple still had over 4 times the market share of their nearest competitor.)

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[2nd Post!]

There is actually one good reason to refuse to license FairPlay; to prevent DRM from succeeding.

After all, in hindsight, Apple is right that DRM is a bad idea. Apple continues to advocate DRM free music, and in 2008 Amazon operates a DRM free store.

If Apple had licensed FairPlay in 2005 then you would have several stores selling DRM music today and probably no one selling DRM free music and everyone would be screaming about how FairPlay is even MORE locked to iPods.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[2nd Post!]

Hmm, I would argue it was the price, ease of acquisition, ease of use, ability to burn to CD, ease of backup, and ease of transfer that made the iTunes store popular, in addition to being playable on the iPod.

After all, in 2003 when the store was opened, no other competitor allowed you to burn to CD, play on 5 computers, an unlimited number of iPods, or the ability to back up the files via drag and drop copy. The competitors only allowed you to play on a single computer, you had to copy license files to another computer if you wanted to transfer tracks to another machine, you had to back up both licenses and music, and you had no ability to transfer to an iPod at all.

Perhaps if the competition had all those features, or had released those features earlier, the competition (Plays4Sure) might have succeeded. Since P4S was released after the iTunes store, they had plenty of chances to get it right but didn't. Even worse, was license requirements that prohibited non Microsoft formats (such as AAC!) on P4S devices.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Mr2001]

The competitors only allowed you to play on a single computer, you had to copy license files to another computer if you wanted to transfer tracks to another machine, you had to back up both licenses and music, and you had no ability to transfer to an iPod at all. Heh. You had no ability to transfer to an iPod because Apple refused to license FairPlay! That's Apple's fault, not Microsoft's. (You can blame the labels for refusing to let the music be transcoded to a DRM-free format, but that doesn't absolve Apple.)

Even worse, was license requirements that prohibited non Microsoft formats (such as AAC!) on P4S devices. Er, MP3 was certainly supported, despite being a non-Microsoft format, and AAC is supported on at least some PlaysForSure devices.

Furthermore, what keeps getting lost here is that Apple is still doing the same thing today. The iPod is unquestionably the king of the market now, and Apple is still using their FairPlay lock-in to prevent other stores from selling video content for it. (Again, you can blame the studios for insisting on DRM, but that doesn't let Apple off the hook.)

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[2nd Post!]

Well, if Apple continues to exert a stranglehold on FairPlay for video, when they ask for DRM-free video in a few years everyone will gladly do it so they can avoid being yoked to a single vendor. This is exactly what happened with music, after all.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Mr2001]

There is actually one good reason to refuse to license FairPlay; to prevent DRM from succeeding. Yes, how noble of them. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that refusing to license FairPlay also hurts the competition and encourages people to use Apple's store (which, in turn, encourages studios and labels to sell their content through Apple's store), because Apple is all about charity.

Of course, if that were true, they'd also be pushing for DRM-free video.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Mr2001]

Somehow, I don't think many people -- or the courts, if it ever gets that far -- are going to give Apple a free pass on the grounds that their anticompetitive actions were done for a noble purpose.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[2nd Post!]

No, my mistake. In 2003, you had no ability to transfer to an MP3 player at all! Apple was the first to allow that. So this is irrespective of licensing because Microsoft's DRM didn't allow it where Apple's DRM did.

Today, yes, MP3 and AAC is supported, as is Ogg and others, but in 2004 when the first P4S devices and stores showed up, the contract said no to non-Microsoft formats!

And yes you are right about video content, but I use the history of music to back up my support for Apple's refusal to license FairPlay for video:
In four years, when Apple has attained dominant control, they can push for DRM free video and get it because the content owners are sick of being yoked to Apple. If Apple licensed FairPlay, it would only increase, not decrease, Apple's stranglehold on the market, so Apple's refusal to license FairPlay still smacks of "benign despot".

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[2nd Post!]

Then you tell me, why did Apple push for DRM free music? As I said earlier, it was features and not FairPlay that encouraged people to use Apple's store: The ability to synch to unlimited iPods, 5 computers, easy backup, and burn to CD. Since they were the only store to offer that, for nearly a year, don't you think that would give them a huge boost in users?

And what will happen in four years when Apple is #1 video distributor and the MPAA is sick of Apple's control of the market, and Apple asks for DRM free video, don't you think they will get it? Much like how last year labels offered DRM free music because they learned that DRM allows the key-holder to control the content, the consumers, and the profit?

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[2nd Post!]

Does it help that iTunes isn't bundled with the iPod? That you have to download iTunes to use it? Because all the packaging for the iPod, and iPhone, is much too small to have a CD and the iPhone doesn't have any kind of "storage" mode where iTunes is stored on the phone itself (I know because I have one).

The last iPod I purchased in 2006 also didn't come with a CD, and I already had iTunes.

So a lot of the "bundling" arguments are moot because the user has to manually download iTunes!

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Mr2001]

Does it help that iTunes isn't bundled with the iPod? That you have to download iTunes to use it? No, because bundling is beside the point here. This isn't like Microsoft shipping IE with Windows, where competing browsers still work but they're less convenient. It's a case of leveraging the monopoly position of one product (the iPod) into pushing another product (tracks from the iTunes Music Store) by preventing competing products from working. If you chose not to download iTunes, that didn't negate iTunes's advantage, it just meant you couldn't buy name-brand tracks from any online store.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[2nd Post!]

You mean "you couldn't buy brand-name tracks from any online store except Amazon.com or eMusic." I mention Amazon because it has all the labels and eMusic because it is the #2 online store right now.

So you say it is an issue where the iTunes service/subscription would prevent competing products from working, except that there are already online competing services that work, today.

Unless you are even more narrow in describing competing products as "subscription services relying on DRM"?

In which case, your argument is that FairPlay DRM prevents other competitors from offering a limiting subscription service for the iPod, correct?

If that is your argument, then yes, that is anticompetitive since Apple doesn't license FairPlay to other stores.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Mr2001]

Then you tell me, why did Apple push for DRM free music? My cynical theory is that they saw how unpopular DRM was with their customers, but didn't want to give it up, so they took a stance they didn't think the labels would follow. They claimed in public to be opposed to DRM, betting that the labels would never agree to sell DRM-free music. Then the labels called their bluff.

I don't think we'll see similar behavior from movie studios anytime soon. Studios have been in love with copy protection for decades, from Macrovision to CSS to AACS. Apple can continue to oppose video DRM in public, confident that the studios will keep insisting on DRM. That way, they get the best of both worlds: positive mindshare from customers who think Apple's on their side, and increased sales from preventing customers from buying video content anywhere else.

As I said earlier, it was features and not FairPlay that encouraged people to use Apple's store: The ability to synch to unlimited iPods, 5 computers, easy backup, and burn to CD. Since they were the only store to offer that, for nearly a year, don't you think that would give them a huge boost in users? It was probably a factor, but not the only one. You can't overlook the fact that iTMS was the only store that worked with what was by far the most popular player.

If you owned a portable music player, chances are it was an iPod, and that meant every competing store had a huge barrier to overcome before they could court you: any songs you bought from them would've had to be burned to a CD and re-ripped in an iPod-compatible format, costing you time and audio quality. It simply wasn't feasible for any other store to compete with iTMS for iPod owners' business, and iPod owners were (and still are) the biggest part of the market.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Mr2001]

In four years, when Apple has attained dominant control, they can push for DRM free video and get it because the content owners are sick of being yoked to Apple. If Apple licensed FairPlay, it would only increase, not decrease, Apple's stranglehold on the market, so Apple's refusal to license FairPlay still smacks of "benign despot". We don't know they'll be successful... movie studios have shown even more stubbornness than record labels. In any case, anyone who's been accused of abusing their monopoly position can usually come up with some argument for how we're all really better off that way, but that doesn't excuse their anticompetitive actions. They don't get a free pass just for saying that stifling competition today will put them in a better position to increase competition tomorrow, because in the meantime, they're still raking in profits with no competition.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Mr2001]

So you say it is an issue where the iTunes service/subscription would prevent competing products from working, except that there are already online competing services that work, today. The existence of competition in the present doesn't change the past, and if you recall, this started with someone saying Apple has done nothing anticompetitive.

I don't know how well eMusic stacks up today, but in the era before DRM-free sales were widely condoned by record labels, eMusic's selection was a joke (and you couldn't even hear the punchline until after you signed up and saw that they didn't have anything you wanted to download).

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[2nd Post!]

It also didn't help that no other store allowed burning to a CD for nearly a year!

But again, that was the case of the music companies requiring restrictions that made competition impossible. You can't fault Apple for that in 2003.

You can certainly fault Apple for it in 2007, but again that is nearly moot as more and more music becomes DRM free. We will have to see what happens with the subscription (if offered) before we cast judgement.

Re:Anticompetitive behavior

[Mr2001]

But again, that was the case of the music companies requiring restrictions that made competition impossible. You can't fault Apple for that in 2003. Why not? The labels may have created the DRM problem in the first place, but Apple had an opportunity to solve it, and they deliberately chose not to. In fact, they went out of their way to interfere when someone else tried to solve it (that is, when Real reverse-engineered FairPlay to sell their own tracks to iPod owners).

Apple deserves as much blame as the labels here. They fought hard for it!

Re:The first line in the article contains a key wo

[shark72]

"mull /ml/ Pronunciation Key"

Correct. Further, as much of the info was provided by Apple insiders, this is known as the "mulled apple 'sider" scenario.

Ebay

[tkrotchko]

"What happens when the music you buy turns out to be music you don't actually like all that much? "

You sell the used CDs on places like Ebay or Amazon or to your friends, or to people on Craig's list. When the music not locked via artifical DRM solutions, you can do what you want with it.

Re:Ebay

[jordyhoyt]

you can do what you want with it. And when I'm renting my music, I don't have to do anything with it, I don't want to try and sell CDs for less than I bought them. Renting is much more cost and time efficient.

Steal?

[Anonymous Coward]

About not being a cheap-ass, scum sucking mofo who'd steal a grade schoolers lunch if given the opportunity.

We like open source around here. So you can keep your Hollywood shit. I, for one, am not interested in their offerings at all. I think you're confusing theft with a -failure to earn-

Re:One-time payment less than 2 months of Rhapsody

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't work for anyone remotely affiliated with Rhapsody, but I wholeheartedly agree.

There are a few annoyances with Rhapsody. For instance, its search is anything but intelligent (I just did a search for "American Pie"... the Don MacLean version everyone knows is the 4th one down). It also, in Real Player fashion, offers to be the default player for just about every type of media, though you can tell it not to in an obvious place in the installer.

But it just works. As a legal service, they don't have everything, but it seemed bigger than other ones I've tried. The corporate network nazis are okay with it, not so okay if I have a bunch of mp3s on my hard drive, since they have no way of identfiying who they're from. As you might imagine, it uses behind-the-scenes DRM, but since its streamed, you can install the client on multiple PCs, and listen that way. If you actually buy a track (which you can do for $0.89/track or sometimes on a per-disc basis) you can burn it to a CD within the software. There's other goodies like album art, music videos, etc. which are nice to have. And I haven't used iTunes for a long time (why would I?) so I can't recall, but Rhapsody is good about telling you, "Yup, we found that album, but we don't carry its music".

The all-you-can eat model is more useful than you might think too. It makes discovering new types of music easy, and in conjunction with Pandora is great for those times where you want to expand what you listen to. Likewise, its almost a reference for music - since its pretty hard to describe music.

I group it with my DVR as inventions that I'm surprised haven't caught on more with people. I've made many converts by just showing it off.

And for the record, I hate realplayer.

Re:The Deal Apple and the Music Industry Should Ma

[gnasher719]

The solution seems simple to me. Apple et. al., should charge $20-40 per iPod for 2-3 year unlimited access to the DRM'ed iTunes catalog, then allow users to buy permanent rights to individual songs DRM free for $ 0.25-0.50 per song.

Music companies get the best of both world, i.e., the steady income from subscriptions plus the ability to benefit from a mega-hit via direct sales. My idea would be quite similar, except that you would get unlimited access to the iTunes catalog for that one iPod, no matter how long it lasts. That means there is no contract, nothing to renew, no overhead. No surprise that your music stops working after three years.

Won't Anybody Think Of The Chil... Bandwidth?!

[nick_davison]

if your hard drive crashed and killed everything on it, you could simply re-download your whole collection. And on that fun 20GB/month tiered access plan the cable companies are looking to roll out, it'll only take you eight months to "simply re-download" that 160GB iPod Video's collection. Of course, you could always get the high end, more expensive, 40GB/month plan - then it'd only be a third of a year.

Or you could run up against the hidden bandwidth cap and have your service disconnected in just a few hours for "abuse of service."

It's a great idea but falls apart as you get away from tiny iPhone flash drives and get in to the proper hard drive based models.

Re:One-time payment less than 2 months of Rhapsody

[pandrijeczko]

Rhapsody costs $12-$15 a month (depending on your options), and you can listen to the music as long as you keep paying the monthly fee.

Radio costs $0-$0 a month (no other options), and you can listen to the music as long as you have ears that work.

Re:The Deal Apple and the Music Industry Should Ma

[pandrijeczko]

The solution seems simple to me. Apple et. al., should charge $20-40 per iPod for 2-3 year unlimited access to the DRM'ed iTunes catalog, then allow users to buy permanent rights to individual songs DRM free for $ 0.25-0.50 per song.

I don't listen to songs, I listen to entire albums. I also listen to a lot of Tangerine Dream's music where many of their older albums have only two tracks on them - "Side 1" and "Side 2" as a legacy from LP days - though each track is 20 minutes long. Does this mean I'll get an entire Tangerine Dream album for $ 0.50-1.00 (by your calculations)?

Music companies get the best of both world, i.e., the steady income from subscriptions plus the ability to benefit from a mega-hit via direct sales.

But I don't want to "subscribe" to music. I want to buy it, know it's mine and take reassurance from the fact that I don't have to keep paying for it.

Users benefit since they can try before the buy, and only buy music they really wan to keep.

Since most music fans, like me, only like a small proportion of the music they hear, then by your "solution", I have to pay to listen to a lot of music I know I won't like. And that's a benefit?

Additionally 2-3 years is the expected life of most iPods anyway, so most users won't be inconvenienced when the subscription goes out.

No, they'll just have no access to their music when their iPod dies. Yet when the CD player in my hifi dies, I can still listen to the CD in my CD-ROM drive or in my car. Or on the portable CD player. Or in my wife's car. Or my laptop.

Finally, the cheaper, DRM-free purchase ability will separate those of us willing to pay a fair price for music we'd like to own from those just looking to justify their own personal piracy.

I already do this - it's called ***BUYING MUSIC CDS*** of which I own 1200+, all original, all mine. So please do NOT make the dangerous assumption that anyone who is unwilling to buy an iPod, accept DRM or pay for a download is automatically a software pirate. When YOU have downloaded and paid for 12000+ songs from iTunes, we can start talking on the same level because you'll then be getting close to putting as much money into the music industry as I have over the years.

You make the assumption that your "pick and mix bag of musical sweeties" model for music for everyone who listens to music when in reality, it just satisfies those people who've sold their souls to the devil by buying into the iTunes model of DRM-ed rental music.

No thanks. I'll keep my CDs and keep buying them as long as they make good ones.

there may be a solution

[AlgorithMan]

The problem is that once you make it unlimited, a small but not insignificant percentage of users will immediately attempt to download the entire iTunes library. Hey, disk space is cheap, why not try, if there's no additional charge per track?

if iTunes used P2P technology for distribution, this might not be such a big problem...

Re:One-time payment less than 2 months of Rhapsody

[Anonymous Coward]

0) Radio does not let you queue up your choice of songs in your choice of order.

1) Radio does not let you listen to the same song over and over if you are trying to decide whether you like it.

2) Radio has ads between the songs.

3) Radio doesn't have a database that links the various songs and artists. I have discovered new artists via Rhapsody: click on "similar artists" links to artists I know I like, listen, repeat.

If you don't want Rhapsody don't get it. But man, radio is not exactly a 1:1 substitute.

Earth calling all the raving loonies!!!

[pandrijeczko]

Many of the posters in this topic are either staggeringly naive, gleefully sucking on Jobs' barbed member while they type their comments, eating vast quantities of psychotropic mushrooms, just plain "off their trollies", thicker than two short planks or all of the above.

So rather than dealing with each of the speculative prattlings of these loonies, let's just deal with fact (i.e. that small part of your existence outside your iPod screen):

1. Who truly believes that you'll be able to go into an unlimited download service without signing a contract that ties you in for a year or two?

2. Apple is NOT a charity and Steve Jobs is no more your friend than Bill Gates. As CEOs of their respective companies they have one remit - to make as much money as possible for the shareholders. Therefore, neither will give anything away for free if they can avoid doing so.

3. Even me, a lowly techie, knows enough about business to know that once you've sold a person something, the best next step is to keep that person spending money with you, especially on a regular basis. Hence the creation of a falsified rental model for music to make sure you keep pumping that money backing in. Something you previously purchased & owned (e.g. a CD) is now being loaned to you - the longer it's loaned to you, the more money you will end up paying for it.

4. Microsoft's monopoly on desktop OSes is no different to Apple's monopoly on music distribution. Both are BAD for the consumer. Deal with it.

5. DRM facilitates both a rental model and creation of monopolies. It too is bad.

6. Just because someone doesn't pay for downloads doesn't make them a music pirate. You may have heard of these things called "compact disks" that old wierdos like me still buy because we like putting things on shelves in plastic cases, arranging them alphabetically and reading sleeve notes while we're sat on the toilet burping our colostomy bags. If there's an iTunes subscriber out there who has downloaded and paid for 12000 individual tracks of music, then I will happily bow to that person's superiority because that's about as many legal tracks that I've also paid for across my CD collection.

7. Again, being a doddery old twat, I am happy for music to be "interactive" enough for me to occasionally want to shake my walking stick in the air in time to it or sing entirely in the wrong key to it. However, being an old fashioned type of bloke, I thought that the reason I handed over my money to that spotty student in the record store is because he would give me a CD as a finished product. i.e. I take it home, put it in my CD player and that's it. But apparently not. Now, as part of the overall music experience, I now have to find this desire to prove I am somehow more proficient than both the original musicians, sound editors and producers by pulling songs off the CD, putting them in a different order and possibly mixing up one song with another so that I'm allowed to put the letters "D.J." in front of my name. WHAT'S WRONG WITH JUST SITTING DOWN, LISTENING TO THE ALBUM FROM START TO FINISH WITH A NICE CUP OF TEA AND THEN FINISHING THE EXPERIENCE WITH A SIGH AND SAYING "AHHH. THAT WAS NICE."???

8. I don't want to witter on about cures for diseases, people starving in Africa and Gore-Made Global Warming because I quite enjoy being a lazy fat capitalist with lots of money to spend on nice shiny things. But a small white box of electronics with a little colour screen and a pair of headphones is just that - so let's not get all "hoity toity" over status symbols and little Apple logos, okay? Because, believe me, the more effort you put into posing around the local Starbucks with one of those things, the more the rest of us put an effort into thinking you're an utter twat based on a little-known scientific law called "The Conservation Of Dickheads".

Re:Earth calling all the raving loonies!!!

[MrMickS]

Hey as a doddery old fart in Internet terms I'll bite on some of these.

2. Apple is NOT a charity and Steve Jobs is no more your friend than Bill Gates. As CEOs of their respective companies they have one remit - to make as much money as possible for the shareholders. Therefore, neither will give anything away for free if they can avoid doing so.

Apple is in the business of selling hardware. This rumoured move is seen as feasable because it counters the move from Nokia, especially with Nokia signing up EMI to their programme today. Apple would be crazy to not to be in a position to respond should Nokia start eating into Apple's iPod business. Incidentally Apple doesn't issue dividends as far as I am aware.

4. Microsoft's monopoly on desktop OSes is no different to Apple's monopoly on music distribution. Both are BAD for the consumer. Deal with it.

Erm ... how does Apple have a monopoly on music distribution. I can still go down to the shops and purchase CDs. I can still rip those CDs. I can still put the resultant [music format of choice] files on to my [music player of choice]. I can even buy my music from other online retailers. I can subscribe to Rhapsody. I can .... I guess you see the point here.

5. DRM facilitates both a rental model and creation of monopolies. It too is bad.

DRM in itself does no such thing. Its perfectly possible to have a DRM scheme that maintains rights without creating a monopoly.

6. Just because someone doesn't pay for downloads doesn't make them a music pirate. You may have heard of these things called "compact disks" that old wierdos like me still buy because we like putting things on shelves in plastic cases, arranging them alphabetically and reading sleeve notes while we're sat on the toilet burping our colostomy bags. If there's an iTunes subscriber out there who has downloaded and paid for 12000 individual tracks of music, then I will happily bow to that person's superiority because that's about as many legal tracks that I've also paid for across my CD collection.

This is a fatuous statement as it misses the point that people are making. Of course, if you rip from CD you aren't a music pirate. The point made is that people that download music without going through some sort of music sort are pirating music. Yes, there are exceptions to this, but the vast majority of music obtained in this fashion is pirated.

You sound bitter. That's a shame because life is finite and wasting it on vitriol seems a waste.

Re:Earth calling all the raving loonies!!!

[pandrijeczko]

Apple is in the business of selling hardware.

Agreed. But if it is just hardware, then how come the specifications to its iTunes software have not been at least licensed to third party music player vendors so they can connect to it? Imagine the scenario of buying a music CD only to be told it can be played on a Sony CD player - it's essentially the same thing. The same could be said for OS X which is only usable on the Mac platform.

Erm ... how does Apple have a monopoly on music distribution.

Accepted - to a point at least. However, you've also countered your own argument because you've made a comparison between CDs as a completely open method of music distribution to iTunes which, by virtue of its file format and DRM, is a closed method of distribution (linked to a specific player). This fact alone puts Apple in a very strong position of becoming a monopoly using specific hardware linked to specific software with specific formats - except for the hardware, exactly the way MS became a monopoly. And please don't use the argument that you can load MP3s onto an iPod because you can also load RTF files into Word and CSVs into Excel - that part is irrelevant.

DRM in itself does no such thing. Its perfectly possible to have a DRM scheme that maintains rights without creating a monopoly.

DRM is based on the assumption that most people who currently pay for music do not have the technical skills to bypass it but can be squeezed for more money on the basis that the media they buy is either platform or time limited - in effect, a subscription model.

You sound bitter. That's a shame because life is finite and wasting it on vitriol seems a waste.

Not really. As a CD buyer, there's currently more interesting music out there for me than I could ever possibly listen to so I'm pretty happy with my lot. But it does annoy me that most people get lured in by these pretty little gadgets without realising that one of the basic aims of them is to take away ways of playing and using music that they previously took for granted purely because a few fat blokes want more money.

Re:Earth calling all the raving loonies!!!

[geekoid]

"...Tunes software have not been at least licensed to third party music player vendors so they can connect to it?"

Becasue it's primary use is to sell Apple iPods, not anybody elses hardware, and other companies want to make money from music sales, where as Apple seems to want iTunes to be simply a value add to the hardware they want to sell. Vertical applications work best in the scenario.

"But it does annoy me that most people get lured in by these pretty little gadgets without realising that one of the basic aims of them is to take away ways of playing and using music that they previously took for granted purely because a few fat blokes want more money."

Wow, how do you get that from iTunes?
How does this take anything away?

I ahve an iPod. It was a gift from my wife. It's an older one now, but it is very nice as far as durablity and use. I would call it high quality. A term I don't throw around easily.

I ahve yet to see where I have been locked into any music, at all. Can you please share with me why I am, apparently, not allowed to buy CDs? burn music to play on other devices? Burn mp3s from CD's I own? Is there something that says I can't play independant music?

Your spouting the same old crap people ahve been spouting for years. Still as wrong as the day it was first uttered.
I ahve been buying music one way or another for over 27 years. Other then the type of plastic the music is printed on, and where I buy my music, not much has changed.

"without realising that one of the basic aims of them is to take away ways of playing and using music "
that part of the sentence is just so mind boggling stupid and insulting, I don't know where to begin addressing it.

Most consumers no there are people in the industry that want us to pay every time we listen. really, it's been that way forever and it's not new.

"take away ways of playing and using music "
Then why are there more ways then ever before to play and use music? Why did they license to other companies that don't do that?

That's nice that you buy CDs, so do I and it's very quaint. The only reason is for the rare selection I can't get online and that I don't already have.

reminds me of when cassettes where phasing out 8-track. There where peopel in the industry that didn't want blank cassettes to be sold, wanted money for each one sold, and want to sell fewer tracks for more money. Yes, the sky was falling then to.

These dream of they control all music all the time will never happen. The market is way to nimble for that to happen.

Re:Earth calling all the raving loonies!!!

[pandrijeczko]

Becasue it's primary use is to sell Apple iPods, not anybody elses hardware, and other companies want to make money from music sales, where as Apple seems to want iTunes to be simply a value add to the hardware they want to sell. Vertical applications work best in the scenario.

iTunes is a music distribution method tied to a specific piece of hardware - it's like buying a CD and only being able to play it on a Sony CD player.

Your definition may be correct but it's irrelevant. It still the same behaviour that allowed Microsoft to become a monopoly.

I ahve been buying music one way or another for over 27 years. Other then the type of plastic the music is printed on, and where I buy my music, not much has changed.

If I buy a CD myself, I can lend it to a friend to listen to, for example. The same was the case with LPs, cassettes, etc. If I buy an iTunes song, unless I give my friend the player, I can't let him listen to it. Therefore more restriction has been placed on music as a result of the distribution method that is iTunes. Or am I missing something and iTunes now lets you download DRM-free MP3 tracks that you can give to that friend on, say, a USB stick to listen to on his (possibly non-iPod) music player?

Most consumers no there are people in the industry that want us to pay every time we listen. really, it's been that way forever and it's not new.

Yes, but it's never been enforceable until now - with DRM. You are missing the point entirely, I'm afraid. DRM is a workable method to enforce more restrictive use of music and iTunes backs DRM.

Then why are there more ways then ever before to play and use music? Why did they license to other companies that don't do that?

There are more ways to play music but the usage (e.g. changing formats, loaning to others, more restrictive public broadcasting rules) has changed.

I have no idea what you are asking in the second question.

That's nice that you buy CDs, so do I and it's very quaint.

"Quaint" is your opinion only, it has no relevance to the argument. A CD gives me complete freedom to enjoy and use music the way I consider fair usage - in other words, I don't copy it or upload it to the Internet but I can play it as long as I like, as many times as I like, rip it how I like, etc.

There where peopel in the industry that didn't want blank cassettes to be sold, wanted money for each one sold, and want to sell fewer tracks for more money.

Perhaps this has more to do with technical limitations of the formats? I never used 8-track, I just know it was a bigger physical tape than cassette. I do remember recording onto the likes of C60, C90 and C120 cassettes and that, generally, the longer the tape you used, the worse the quality of the recording got and the quicker it degraded. So maybe by restricting the size of an album allowed shorter but better quality recordings to be made.

This is no different to the 76 minute limit of audio CDs where a lot of stuff is being remastered now with additional tracks because CDs have the space to do that.

These dream of they control all music all the time will never happen. The market is way to nimble for that to happen.

Believe me, I hope you're right. I've nothing against people wanting compact players and MP3, OGG, etc. are all great open formats for portability of music. But DRM is evil, it restricts how you use music (as I said earlier) meaning that there is intrinsically more freedom (and better music quality) in buying a CD than buying music from iTunes.

And, yes, I'm old-fashioned but with a CD you get something physical that you don't have to backup regularly and won't lose if your iPod breaks or a hard disk crashes.

Re:Earth calling all the raving loonies!!!

[pandrijeczko]

Let me throw a couple more questions for you to ponder also since you are defending iTunes and I am attacking it:

1. You've admitted that you still buy CDs. Therefore iTunes does not have the range of product that is available on CD which is therefore one major failing of it. (Incidentally, I am the same - most of what I listen to is quite obscure and I source virtually all of my CDs online so I do take your point entirely.)

2. I'm a lot more discerning in what music I buy these days but it used to be the case that I'd get bored with some albums and sell them on, whether privately or on eBay. So what happens with iTunes music? Are you able to do the same when you get bored with it?

The points I am trying to make here is that the limitations of iTunes (and any other DRM-protected media distribution method) are far more than they have ever been before with other distribution methods. And we all got so used to the older methods that we've taken for granted what we could do with music before.

If people understand those restrictions and still want DRM-ed music, then fine, we're in a capitalist supply-and-demand market and people should be allowed to buy what they want.

But I say to you again, iPods, mobile phones, PDAs, etc. etc. are sold as these pretty little fashionable gadgets that makes you cool if you have one and a total jerkoff if you don't. But the fact is, they all have these restrictions that are kept hidden from the advertising campaigns because a lot of people are too stupid to check these things out first.

Re:One-time payment less than 2 months of Rhapsody

[pandrijeczko]

0) Radio does not let you queue up your choice of songs in your choice of order.

No, but then I bow down to the greater experience of the radio DJ who is paid to put the songs in a reasonable order. I don't need to have everything "my way", sometimes I just want to sit back, relax and let someone else entertain me.

1) Radio does not let you listen to the same song over and over if you are trying to decide whether you like it.

Good point though I'm more of an album person than individual songs. If a track grabs me then I go find out more about the artist and album it's from, then try to check out the album in its entirety before buying the CD.

2) Radio has ads between the songs.

Most of it, yes, the BBC here in the UK, no.

3) Radio doesn't have a database that links the various songs and artists. I have discovered new artists via Rhapsody: click on "similar artists" links to artists I know I like, listen, repeat.

I just use Amazon. There's enough reviews and people's lists on their site to find something interesting. Plus I don't always listen to similar music anyway, a prefer a bit of variety.

DRM == getting it?

[vanaeken]

Obviously this scheme is heavily dependend on DRM. Since when, on Slashdot, DRM == getting it?

The maths

[Mr_Silver]

Buy an iPod at 20, die at 80, total life = 60 years.

60 years x 12 months x $20 per month = $14,400 over your entire lifetime on music purchases.

$14,400 / 99c for each song = 14,546 songs.

Assume an album has 12 songs, therefore 14,546 songs = 1,212 albums.

1,212 albums over 60 years = 20 albums a year.

So, in order for this deal to work out for you, you'd have to:

• Purchase consistently more than 20 albums a year till you die
• Hope that Apple doesn't go bust
• Hope that when your player dies, you can transfer your music
• Hope that Apple are still in the same business 30+ years from now

drm anyone... :)

[topologicalanomaly47]

As long as it's bound to a device and DRM-ed this music is extremely LIMITED.

Re:The Deal Apple and the Music Industry Should Ma

[OakLEE]

First in general, you're not the "average user." PricewaterhouseCoopers has a very nice industry report from which I'll reference for data. It's a pay service, so you'll have to take my word, but if you want to pony up it's all there.

Most music listeners nowadays are prefer buying singles to albums. This is especially true of younger than 25 listeners, who make up almost half the music market. More than 40% of music revenues nowadays are generated by online downloads (e.g., iTunes, Amazon) and that number is growing rapidly (for reference it was 10% just two years ago). This is the state of the music business, singles and downloads are the future, not albums and CDs.

What I proposed is a compromise that caters to this future, try-before-you-buy and cheap singles. The latter will feed off the former, and I feel the majority of users will get a good deal. The fact that you don't is not indicative of the plan's total worth as you are not the average user.

You're perfectly welcome to continue with your habits. No one is stopping you from buying CDs. But that said, the world isn't perfect. You can't please everyone, hence the term compromise. To analogize, if you tried to build a speed bump that won't ruin the front end of a Ferrari Enzo, you would end up with no speed bump at all. You're the Enzo. Take it as a compliment.

Re:The Deal Apple and the Music Industry Should Ma

[pandrijeczko]

Most music listeners nowadays are prefer buying singles to albums.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. Certainly in record stores I've been into, the album racks far outweigh the singles ones although I do accept that for downloads the proportion of singles to albums is higher - or at least singles to non-single album tracks.

If 40% of the music sold is downloaded, that implies 60% is bought on CD which, based on the above, people are more inclined to be buying albums becaue that's what high street stores/online retailers stock the most of - or am I missing something?

This is especially true of younger than 25 listeners, who make up almost half the music market.

I'd also argue they're also the same people downloading most of their music for free from BitTorrent due to less disposable income than someone my age. Just because they're listening to it, doesn't mean they've paid for it.

You're perfectly welcome to continue with your habits. No one is stopping you from buying CDs.

Agreed. But there seems to be this general tone to postings in here that if you're not downloading from iTunes then you must be downloading it free and illegally. I'm merely demonstrating that you can be a legal music enthusiast without owning an iPod.

Another Apple Innovation!

[TheAncientHacker]

Rhapsody has it. Zune has it (as one option). Napster has it.

How much do you want to be that when Steve Jobs makes the announcement, he'll position it as Yet Another Apple Innovation?

And the Apple fans will not only believe it but parrot it ad nauseum.

99 Cents

[kellyb9]

I, for one, don't really mind the current model. The reason I stopped buying cd's was because they were far too expensive. 99 cents per song seems somewhat reasonable to me, and with Apple's ridiculously weak DRM, it's not really much of an issue handing off the music to other people.

Lossless

[duffbeer23]

While this would be cool, it's still a far second, IMHO, to getting 100% CD quality, lossless files. I'd even tolerate DRM if I knew I wasn't paying the same money for downloads that were inferior to the off-the-shelf product.

That $20 figure is irrelevant.

[argent]

The actual numbers make sense since according to Silicon Valley Insider, the music industry makes only about $20 in downloads per iPod anyway.

That figure ignores lost sales from people who would never dream of using P2P but will happily download legitimate "free" music instead of buying CDs.

WRONG

[2nd Post!]

The court of law found that Microsoft violated anti-trust laws not because they yoked IE to Windows, but because they threatened to withhold Windows licenses (abusing their monopoly since Compaq could not get it from anywhere else) for bundling Netscape with their PCs.

You keep messing this basic fact up. Microsoft was found guilty because they used their Windows monopoly to prevent vendors from bundling Netscape; not guilty because they bundled IE. It's detailed QUITE promonently here and here. Read your own sig. You sound like a fool.

Microsoft audited IBM with a very real consequence of not licensing Windows in time for the back to school season, because they were developing a competing product called OS/2.
Microsoft threatened to withhold Windows licenses from Compaq for placing Netscape icons instead of IE icons on the desktop.

Both would have seriously hurt Compaq and IBM if they could not sell Windows PCs, at the time.

This would be akin to Apple withholding iPod shipments from Amazon while they did a patent audit of the Amazon store to ensure none of iTunes patents were being violated. This has not happened. Nothing even similar has happened.

The best argument you can bring is that this is like Microsoft bundling IE, yet that was not wrong. It was the manipulation of their WIndows licenses (and by analogy in this case, iPods) that was the violation.

MacNN claims this is all a myth...

[MoonFacedAssassin]

http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/08/03/20/unlimited.itunes.a.myth/

Personally I feel this would be a great thing for business and the consumer, but the artists may see plenty of drawbacks especially after getting used to 7 years of the current business model.

Re:MacNN claims this is all a myth...

[geekoid]

Dear Artist - Don't sign the contract if you don't like the deal.

YES YES YES

[Anonymous Coward]

I want Rhapsody-like service on my ipod!

I've been subscribed to Rhapsody for years, and have always been annoyed by this digital divide.

I'll sign up in a heartbeat.

Kind of sucks for Rhapsody, though. However, I feel no love is lost since they can't seem to figure out a 64-bit OS.

Re:The Deal Apple and the Music Industry Should Ma

[OakLEE]

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. Certainly in record stores I've been into, the album racks far outweigh the singles ones although I do accept that for downloads the proportion of singles to albums is higher - or at least singles to non-single album tracks.

If 40% of the music sold is downloaded, that implies 60% is bought on CD which, based on the above, people are more inclined to be buying albums becaue that's what high street stores/online retailers stock the most of - or am I missing something?

Growth rate, which I alluded to but forgot to mention. Digital download sales are growing at between 25-30% per year in revenue stream while CD's average less than 5%. They are the future and among them most people buy singles. Hence digital downloads of singles are the future in terms of music distribution. Also, most people that do buy CDs, don't buy them from record stores. Wal-Mart, Amazon, Best Buy and Target are the largest sellers of CD's and make up in aggregate over 2/3 the market. I live in California and the only prominent record store chain I can think of that still exists is Amoeba, which caters primarily to second hand music sales and really hard to find indie label material--a sizeable but decidedly small segment of the music sales market.

I'd also argue they're also the same people downloading most of their music for free from BitTorrent due to less disposable income than someone my age. Just because they're listening to it, doesn't mean they've paid for it.

Yes, except for I was citing statistics on digital music "sales" not just downloads. The under 25 crowd also historically is the one that buys the most new music and generates the sales needed to make new albums hits. Older people tend to have fixed musical tastes and already have a huge backlog of music (for example you have 1200 CDs), thus they generally feel less of a need to go an purchase more music.

Agreed. But there seems to be this general tone to postings in here that if you're not downloading from iTunes then you must be downloading it free and illegally. I'm merely demonstrating that you can be a legal music enthusiast without owning an iPod.

Yes there is, but it's usually not in direct reference to people that buy CD's like yourself.

I personally think a majority of users on /. that download music illegally do it purely out of greed and spite for the music industry (perfectly understandable, especially the latter). They will never pay for music, regardless of if it ever becomes reasonably priced and of reasonable quality. They are just purely out to "stick it to the man." It's the same crowd that refuses to download DRM free songs off iTunes and Amazon because they aren't in Uncompressed 7.1-Channel 192kHz DVD Audio form and justifies piracy on that count.

They just don't want to pay for music, and I'd like to see them admit it for once, and not hide behind excuses. Let's just call a spade a spade.

Stop it

[geekoid]

The musicians signed the contracts. They want more money, they should have negotiated for it.

They make next to nothing from the 18 dollar cd I purchase.

Quite frankly, I'm getting sick of the 'poor musician' when there the ones that can make the change.

"What's that, you're making us live up to the contract? you bastards!"

A big "meh"

[MeditationSensation]

Lately I have been downloading FLACs off torrents, and ripping to FLAC from used CDs. I don't see why I'd want to do anything else. Keep in mind I've tried iTunes, Emusic, and Amazon's MP3 store. None of them had lossless. All of them had artists missing that I wanted.

Re:One-time payment less than 2 months of Rhapsody

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't need to have everything "my way", sometimes I just want to sit back, relax and let someone else entertain me.

Actually, Rhapsody has something like that too. It's called "Channels" and I guess they have DJs queue up the music. Or maybe it's random. (I just pick my music usually so I don't really know.)

If a track grabs me then I go find out more about the artist and album it's from, then try to check out the album in its entirety before buying the CD.

Well, I do the same thing, it's just that I use Rhapsody to do it. And I like the database aspect: look up a band I like, then look at the "related" or "similar" links. I have found new bands I like that way.

I found a few bands by looking at the "Top 40" lists on MP3.com, back in the day. Now I am doing the same thing on Rhapsody, looking at the top lists in various categories. I have found some new bands that way too.

I just use Amazon. There's enough reviews and people's lists on their site to find something interesting.

Sure, that works. But if you do it with Rhapsody, you can actually listen to the music once you find it.

No-one is paying me to push Rhapsody on you; if you can find some other all-you-can-eat music service, that would work too.

Cheers.

ekoo

[ekoo]

do you like online games .i want to share a funny game with you.it is named runescape wow power leveling .if you are a beginer you may try wow power leveling .i am sure it worked.