Rumored iTunes subscription would be a bargain

Repeat after me: it's just a rumor. Record company sources deny it. But if the anonymous tipster who e-mailed Mac Daily News is telling the truth, and Apple is indeed going to offer an all-you-can-download iTunes subscription service for for $129.99 a year (or $179.99 a year with Mobile Me), other subscription services will have a hard time surviving.

Let's review for a moment, shall we?

eMusic.
Cost? The cheapest plan $143.88 per year, but only for 30 downloads per month. No unlimited plan available.
Works with the iPod? Yes, because the downloads are non-DRM-protected MP3s.
Chance of survival? Only with price cuts and a more generous subscription plan.

Zune Pass.
Cost? $179.88 per year.
Works with iPod? No.
Chance of survival? Yes, but only because Microsoft seems committed to losing money on the Zune for as long as it takes to make a dent in Apple's market share, and will probably follow with a price cut.

Rhapsody to Go.
Cost? $179.88 per year.
Works with iPod? No.
Chance of survival? Slim. Subscription-music fans tend to like Rhapsody, but once there's an alternative that costs less and works with the most popular MP3 player in the world, I imagine a lot of those fans will reconsider.

Napster to Go.
Cost? $179.40 per year.
Works with iPod? No.
Chance of survival? Given all the other problems Napster's already facing, an iTunes subscription service could be the last straw.

[Prince2k3]

I'm totally down! Sounds like a bargan to me.

[wfannon]

Why do Zune, Rhapsody, and Napster subscriptions all cost $179.88? Is there something magic about that price? Is it some kind of legal limit?

[bourgtai]

Divide it by 12 and you'll get the monthly price of $15.

[MattRosoff]

I was wrong--it's just Zune and Rhapsody. That's $14.99 a month times twelve months. Napster is only $14.95 a month, which makes the total 179.40.

[totorototoro]

Only $6.67/month with a MobileMe account? That is the killer price point, right there (assuming Apple gets their MobileMe problems ironed out)

[onlyauser]

needs to be less expensive still. growth will be slow and flat until then.

[stanorlaski]

Given that cell phone manufacturer's are the largest suppliers of MP3 players in the world, not Apple, given the right conditions and price and strategic agreements they can all certainly get their share. Verizon and Rhapsody have joined together, but it is not well publicized or understood by the public

[bourgtai]

After the initial shock of the per-year pricetag wore off and I divided that into months, it really did become obvious that iSubscribe would be one of the cheapest ways out there to download music.

[michialt]

I usually prefer to buy my music on CD's, but $130 a year unlimited might actually convince me to sign up...

[stevesancarlos]

Don't get me wrong. I've been a Rhapsody subscriber since virtually Day One. But I have to believe this is close to a "non starter" for Apple. NONE of these other subscription services have anything close to a viable business model that has yielded a profitable business model. Although I prefer to RENT as well as BUY. I don't know how many other folks do. NOW, your post said something interesting...an all you can DOWNLOAD plan. None of these other services have that. They have an all you can RENT plan, but you never own the music. You have access to it for as long as you are a subscriber of the service. eMusic is a notable exception. For a set price per month, you get XX DOWNLOADS per month. You own the music. Yes, the iPod is the most popular music device on the planet. But how many people are going to want to sign up for a contract that shuts off their music if they stop paying $129.99/yr?

[ofmyony]

I believe that they are saying you would own the music, this is perfect. I would never rent music. I believe there should be ad supported format where you can find music on services like Pandora. Pandora needs to help the music industry succeed and not use them. I recommend that Pandora insert a purchase button on the artist tab where the music just gets downloaded to your Itunes player, how cool easy as pie. You must of course have a paid Itunes subscription if not you will pay the dollar fee. I think it would be great I would do it in a second, ease and value who would not! Apple should talk to Pandora and get it worked out. Or apple should buy Pandora because the software is perfect for integration with Itunes.

[stevesancarlos]

Don't get me wrong. I've been a Rhapsody subscriber since virtually Day One. But I have to believe this is close to a "non starter" for Apple. NONE of these other subscription services have anything close to a viable business model that has yielded a profitable business model. Although I prefer to RENT as well as BUY. I don't know how many other folks do. NOW, your post said something interesting...an all you can DOWNLOAD plan. None of these other services have that. They have an all you can RENT plan, but you never own the music. You have access to it for as long as you are a subscriber of the service. eMusic is a notable exception. For a set price per month, you get XX DOWNLOADS per month. You own the music. Yes, the iPod is the most popular music device on the planet. But how many people are going to want to sign up for a contract that shuts off their music if they stop paying $129.99/yr?

[jbuberel]

I am currently a Rhapsody.com subscriber and really do enjoy the service. For an iTunes subscription service to be interesting enough for me to switch:<br /><br />1. The tracks would have to be DRM-free. Highly unlikely, I would guess.<br />2. Apple would have to allow third-party systems (Sonos, Slimdevices) to work with my subscription.<br /><br />Right now I am listening to tracks from my Rhapsody.com account on my home stereo system as they are streamed to my Slimdevices box over WiFi. No PC or computer needed. This in effect gives me a home stereo juke box with about 3 million tracks available on demand. Hard to beat that.

[supergoodnachos]

I'm calling BS on this, iTunes is doing very well with current pricing model, why would they lower it so much? Either the price will be higher, it wont be unlimited, there will be some extra crappy DRM attached, or some other catch.<br /><br />I have used eMusic in the past and they still have a lot of smaller independent bands that are not on iTunes, and everything is DRM free, to me those are 2 big pluses. I think they could still survive as a niche player catering to more indie/underground music fans, although I don't know if they can make any money.<br /><br />Either way, any lowering of price by Apple should help consumers in the long run.

[FS1982!]

If this rumour was true it could be quite a scary thing especially if iTunes was able to keep DRM alive. Tons of people (including myself) would plop down or be tempted to plop down $129 even with DRM. If enough people did that Apple could very well control a ridiculously huge media market eliminating not only other music sites but large chunks of profit from walmart, best buy, circuit city etc. depending on if movies were included. Even the beloved netflix may be in danger. If this does happen expect a lot of happy Apple consumers but a very unhappy entertainment industry and entertainment distribution companies.

[thriftyT]

This is most certainly not a bargain.<br /><br />Imagine yourself 5 years down the road when you're not buying a lot of new music at all.<br /><br />All of the sudden, you're stuck paying $10/ month just to maintain your music library. If you fail to pony up, POOF. "Your" collection goes bye bye.<br /><br />This is simply a form of legalized extortion. Don't go for it.

[shenlon]

Could we perhaps review our history for a second? Does anyone remember why iTunes was such a cool idea when it first came out? The reason was because at the time, the legal music downloads at the time came from subscription services. It was Steve Jobs' revolutionary idea to price each song at 99¢, with albums at around $9.99, and leave it at that. People were thrilled at the opportunity, and it was wildly popular from the very beginning. iTunes has grown very large since then, but there's no reason for Apple to forget iTunes' roots. Making it into a subscription service would be a very BAD idea.

[rebel_scum]

It's only a deal if it's something you want. The rumour is that only HALF the iTunes library would be available via the subscription service, and it's a pretty safe bet it's not the "good" half. I highly doubt the most popular titles will be available.

[user_nam3]

There are still a few problems:<br /><br />1.) DRM<br />2.) Torrents are still cheaper<br />3.) Torrents are still faster (download in bulk)<br /><br />If Apple lowers the price a bit, gets rid of DRM and allows me to download discographies and albums on the spot without paying for dupes of songs I already have they might have something here.

[hailtheface]

Sorry, but this is a rumor of the worst kind. Any of you that think Apple would actually come out with a service that offers more for less are sadly mistaken. I certainly know Apple has had its successes over the years, and an unlimited subscription to iTunes would undoubtedly be a success, but to think that it would be less expensive than ANY alternative out there is just plain silly. Look at EVERY product Apple has put out. Comparable notebooks of the PC variety can be had for roughly 60% of what Apple charges in terms of speed, specs and hardware. Ipods are about twice as much as you can find any other mp3 of similar storage. And the iPhone, well I have a cell phone that does everything the iPhone can do and a little more for $30 a month, and the phone itself was free. I'd still rather have an iPhone, but certainly not at five times the price. That's the thing, people justify spending two, three, four, even five times as much for something just because of the OS, or the quality of the hardware. Certainly, Apple might come out with the best unlimited all you can eat type subscription, and it will be good, but don't for one second think it will be cheap.

[mnovickar]

I can't see myself paying $130 dollars for music.<br /><br />Videos: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.chilipress.com/videos.php" target="_newWindow">http://www.chilipress.com/videos.php</a>

[a_binaran]

there are some of us who thanks to pitchforkmedia like emusic.com and will not leave it. then some of us do not like apple control period. i will buy stuff not on emusic.com from the bands themselves (which is the best), amazon.com, or insound.com. true i perfer the more odd things that are less common, however i will not use apple itunes ever. <br /><br />i will admit emusic does need to fix something. they need to give more money to the bands and labels to bands based on who is downloaded the most. they send the equal amount to all all labels.

[elektrobank]

If the tracks were DRM free and included all the albums, not just selected ones, I'd sign on in a minute. Even at double that price I'd take it. I signed up for Rhapsody a while back, but it sucked, most of the bands I listen to weren't available as part of their subscriptions, and they couldn't play on my iPod. I used to spend hundreds of dollars a year on CDs before napster came along. For me, Napster wasn't about getting music for free, it was about being exposed to new artists and discovering new bands and genres I never knew existed. The artists deserve to get paid and I don't think anyone has a problem with forking over the money, I just think we're all so used to variety and ability to explore and sample tons of different music, that for most of us, a subscription service is the only way the record companies are going to start getting our money again, and they'll probably capture even more of our dollars this way than CD sales ever did.