Subscription Based iTunes; Yes/No?

[Jason Tate]

Steve Jobs (Apple) recently said (http://uk.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUKN2546496120070426) "customers don't seem to be interested in" a subscription based model for iTunes. What do you think?

[in10city]

I would stop stealing all together if I could pay $50.00 a month for unlimited downloads.

[Hainzey X]

I would stop stealing all together if I could pay $50.00 a month for unlimited downloads.

same here, minus the 50 dollars a month. maybe 20ish ?

[Speyside]

I'm definitely not interested in it as a replacement for or instead of a pay-per-download service like the existing one, but I'm sure I would sign up for it if it became available and use both services.

I get most of my music from eMusic though anyway. They know how to do it right.

[psykosteve]

iTunes makes up 85% of the downloading market. If jobs was wrong about consumer interests some of the subscription services would make up more that the few % they do.

[TwilightEpidemi]

i would love to pay a monthly fee for a number of downloads on itunes. i think that would stop alot of illegal downloading.

also, i love how apple is pushing for digital rights management (DRM) locks to be taken off of itunes music. that would also make me estatic

[trindaddy]

i dont do much illegal downloding, but if i could pay something in the neighborhood of 30 or 40 bucks per month then i'd be a downloading machine

[azrielen]

If it was reasonable for a student like myself, I would be very interested in a service that allowed me unlimited downloads for a certain amount a month. Hell, I pay $15 / month to play World of Warcraft, I could certainly pay around that much to listen to whatever music I feel like.

[psykosteve]

also, i love how apple is pushing for digital rights management (DRM) locks to be taken off of itunes music. that would also make me estatic


Jobs has been calling for an end to DRM for months. He is one of the only industry leaders calling for ending it.

[Tom Good]

I don't really mind the way it is set up right now. But I can see the logic, if someone wants to actually own the album aside from paying a monthly subscription service, they can go out and buy it.

[Kif]

Subscribing to download music seems ridiculous to me. I don't get how it would work. Are you limited to a certain number of albums or songs per month?

iTunes is fine as it is, and I don't even use it.

[parkerjamison]

i really dont like subscribing to things in the first place, i think the set up is fine now with the 99 cent song or 12.99 album or whatever, but monthly pay is just another expense, for example i could have a month, or couple months like in the summer, where im not really on the computer much im out doors more. thus making that monthly subscription pointless for me.

[PaintMeBlue]

hmmm...interesting. i like it the way it is right now, but if they had a reasonable monthly price, i'd definitely consider it.

[sweetfootaction]

If you want a subscription based system, go to Napster. iTunes is doing their things right (minus the DRM stuff).

I couldn't imagine paying money for music and not being able to keep it.

[HolidayFromReal]

I wouldn't download from iTunes if it was free. I would just get it in better quality somewhere else.

I'd get the iTunes exclusives, but that would be it.

[IAPAI]

It would make absolutely no difference to me. The idea of renting music just isn't that appealing.

[spansen]

i've only ever downloaded like 2 CDs off itunes, i would never use it if it were subscription based.

[lassise]

cdigix does that for students, and its only $2/month but its windows DRM so you cant ipod it (unless of course, you take off the drm protection). www.ruckus.com (http://www.ruckus.com) is free windows DRM and has most bands, signed and unsiged. all you need is a .edu email

[danielscottt]

nope. i like the pay per.

[atticusfinch]

hello no. leave it as is. it's a wonderful business model. i don't like subscription services because you get locked in to a monthly fee. if i want a song randomly for a buck on itunes, then i'll get it whenever i want, and i won't pay 15 bucks a month for one song i MAY download that month.

[radio napalm]

I think it would be a great thing. I mean, look how Netflix has taken off. Similar idea, without the post office. And you get to keep the music.

[notheydont]

I am not a fan of subscription based services ...

[Kram41]

I would probably pay about $30 per month for unlimited downloads.

Not many people (in the grand scheme of things) actually buy more than 3 cds per month, so the industry wouldn't be losing a lot of money on these people only spending $30 per month on music.

Lots of people steal a lot of music, myself included, and I think many of them would go for something like this in the $20-$30 range.

I would even go for a Napster-esque system where you subscribe and get unlimited listens on your computer, but I think you should get discounted purchases if you're a member, like CDs for $5 instead of the regular $9.99.

[captainamazing4]

i agree with the people that say they would pay 20 bucks a month for downloading. it seems like a pretty smart idea to me.

itunes is not very good quality though, so i dno how it would work out

[SpenXcore]

If they got rid of their 128kbps nonsense I'd be all for a subscription based option, that is of course, if they kept the current micro-transaction system as well.

$30 dollars monthly for unlimited downloads would be nice. People would probably be more inclined to dl more music from iTunes if this were the case. The more music you download, the less you'd end up paying per unit. This would cheapen the price of music which would probably be bad for iTunes at first, but the number of subscribers could probably make up for that over time.

[gracky]

i never really use itunes, but if they had a subscription service, I might reconsider that.

the idea of renting music is just preposterous though.

[NationalProduct]

i personally would not do it because i personally don't feel like there is enough great music out right now that would warrant my $50 per month to be honest. Id much rather go spend $1 per track for the music that I personally love and appreciate and spend anywhere from $5 - $$ whatever it comes out but knowing at the end of the year i didnt blow 50x12 = 600 a year and i didnt even use it because there was more quantity verse quality.

[giovanni_c]

Guys, it's not going to be $50/month, or even $30/month if Napster already does this for $15. Yeah, I'd pay every month in a while if it were $20/month or less. And if I could take that subscribed music on my ipod with me (Napster does this too), then I'm really up for it. C'mon Apple!

[rhinitus]

Jobs is wrong...people would LOVE a subscription service, but people would be completely lackluster over one that is monetarily feasible. To be able to make it work, they would have to do one of two things (that other subscription services already do) - either make it really expensive where no one wants to pay for it, or make it cheap but you can only keep it on your computer.

I could be wrong, but Napster to Go allows you to put stuff on your MP3 player right? But it doesn't let you listen on your computer or something? I don't know, they never made it clear enough. The obvious advantage Apple has is that the reason why something like Napster to Go hasn't really taken off is because of the lack of iPod support.

[rhinitus]

cdigix does that for students, and its only $2/month but its windows DRM so you cant ipod it (unless of course, you take off the drm protection). www.ruckus.com (http://www.ruckus.com) is free windows DRM and has most bands, signed and unsiged. all you need is a .edu email

ruckus kicks ass. granted, i strip the drm, but even before that it was kinda cool

[yaksordrpepper]

Yeah, I'm not down with renting music.

[Speed Of Life]

how about offering the monthly service and still allowing people to make the single downloads that would be great for evreyone.

[exthuse]

Yeah, renting music that wouldn't work when my subscription ran out. Sounds good.

[Chemical Love]

If I could pay a monthly fee, I would use iTunes much more and would purchase many more albums.

[frankpistol]

I just buy used cds on amazon

[jharv]

Great, but I'm using Ruckus free of charge at the moment.

[Yanksm2]

all i want is Ruckus for my Mac, and I'll be happy

[mylastnerv]

I have a Zune, and for 14.99 a month you get unlimited downloads to your computer/and mp3 player. They can only be played on your comp or player, but i mean, for the price of effectively one cd, I can just build an amazing music collection. It also lets me hear so much new much, as I just go through the tuesday release charts and just pick up whatever interests me.

That product alone is why I chose a Zune over an ipod. I'm poor. So that saves me ALOT of cash.

[xerovision1]

ewww. so basically you pay monthly to download whatever you want, but then after the month is over the music is removed? or am I mistaken... either way they should just leave it the way it is.

[secondsunrise]

I love itunes and would hate them to be a subscribing music software. itunes has a special feel to it..something that crapster and all those other digital outlets just dont have. Steve Jobs is the man and knows whats up

[animmortalsoul]

Emusic is the only good subscription service in my opinion, because it's the only one where there's no DRM and you actually own the songs. Something like that with more labels would be amazing. Another Napster to Go clone with an Apple logo would suck.