Slashdot Mirror


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?"

5 of 355 comments (clear)

  1. As an Ipod owner by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ..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)

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
  2. DRM'd? Check Techdirt by ruin20 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.
    --
    Oh honey look... How cute... an angry slashdotter!
  3. Sweetness by ChinggisK · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:As long as by jordyhoyt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  5. Re:What?! by *weasel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"