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 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)

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.

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

[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.

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.

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: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.

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: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: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.

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.

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.

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.