[mac_the_knife]

From reading everyone's posts, I don't think anyone's reaction to subscription is "we don't want it to exist." At least, it's not mine.
I think, however, we can have debates about the commercial viability of subscription, without it being primitive or fear-based. We can try to predict, or maybe just guess, whether Napster/Real will achieve their objective in winning customers over from iTMS. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I also don't think that debating or even doubting subscription services means that I support the "one size fits all" business model.

[mahenry]

well, it didn't take me long to wonder if the clock in the portable can be hacked.
someone should look into what happens when you're out of sync for 30+ days.
do you lose the media on the portable? or is it just unplayable.
what if the battery dies?
what if it breaks and you have to send it away? will the fixer be a pal and sync it every once in a while?

[cantthinkofaname]

Couldn't agree more...
There are three main reasons subscription based services have not worked:
1) Users have not easily been able to move the downloaded music to a portable device. It either requires an additional fee (such as this "Premium Service") or a specific music player capable of playing those files.
The digital music download market is driven by hardware, NOT by the service. When shopping for an iPod, Rio, Zen, etc; - no customer walks in the store and asked, "This looks great, but does it work with Napster?" Customers are more concerned about the appearance, the weight, the capacity, etc; of the music player than they are about a download service. This is because they can get music from CD's or their preexisting music collection.
2) Customers become reluctant to purchace anything if they know it can be taken away from them if they do not keep paying. Someone mentioned magazines subsciptions. The difference with magazines is that Time or Newsweek won't knock on your door to take away your older magazines if you don't renew. There are some similiarities to subcribing to digital cable (HB0, Showtime, etc;) but customers don't consider these things personal. Music is a personal item people buy - a song can lighten your day, motivate you when you excercise, or remind you of an event. If all of that music is taken away from you because you didn't keep paying for it, it would tick you off.
3) People still use programs like Kazaa, Limewire, etc; to download music. One of the reason's people use these programs is the ability to download something on a whim, something trendy. Say you're a rock fan, but you're hosting a party and need some dance music for the ladies :-) You can download the music per track on iTunes, but this could be expensive. You wouldn't be caught dead with a Kyle Minogue CD, so you're not running to the store to buy that either. The party starts in an hour, so what do you do? Jump on Kazaa and download away. No need to set up an account, no need to pay for anything. Sure, you could argue that if you signed up for a subscription service you can download as much as you want, but the point is if you don't like the music (such as dance in the example above), why pay for a service that would provide you with an unlimited amount of crap? It's just as easy to get it for free, then delete it before your friends see it on your harddrive :-)
Just my two cents, I'm sure someone will disagree. The concept of a subscription service isn't bad, but it just doesn't meet the majority of consumers needs.

[robertRoss]

In reply to:

---

How else do you explain these off-the-planet strategies?

---

Have you ever heard of cable television? Satellite? Subscription based each of them...

[robertRoss]

In reply to:

---

Yeah. Subscription services...what a joke. Who's going to pay to rent media when they can own it?

---

Indeed. Not to mention cable and satellite subscriptions. Or am I in the minority and most people are still on antenna?

[RobertDupuy]

I don't think anyone is, or should be, against having another choice in the marketplace, offering something different.
With that said, while Napster is doing no harm over there, I have my doubts about a subscription model.
As one commentator has already said, this isn't the way people are accustomed to getting music.
To me its a no brainer... I would never consider for a moment purchasing a subscription...I spent about $8 last year on iTMS...no need to spend $180 at Napster to replace it.
Personally I think if you are spending $180 a year, you are a bit of a wasteful spender anyway. Radio is free, the library is free, (some might point out stealing is free). In the old days, we'd borrow a friends CD for that matter.
Why spend so much money on music? well....to answer that, people waste money all the time.... what napster has to do, is not envious...convince people to give up control and options, supposedly to save money...when in fact, its the more expensive choice over being truly thrifty (like turning on a radio)...
they have to talk about $10000 purchase, which noone is doing anyway, and try to appeal to people on a budgetary level...people who aren't really budget minded in the first place.
As some have pointed out, there is a precedent...people buy HBO, because they won't rent movies after that....then of course, they do rent movies anyway. But, that budget appeal has probably hooked more than one on an HBO subscription.
good luck to napster.
It probably is a good choice for some people...and if it is so incredibly successful, I agree Apple will mimic it (why not)...they are only doing iTMS as it is now, because its what people want.

[RobertDupuy]

In reply to:

---

Indeed. Not to mention cable and satellite subscriptions. Or am I in the minority and most people are still on antenna?

---

Most people are not on antenna, but I'm not following your logic, antenna was for getting programming off the radio waves, and cable delivered it via cabling...antenna vs. cable was just the medium in which the programming was delivered, it had nothing to do with owning vs. subscription. Cable was a pay service and off-the-air was usually advertising based or in the case of PBS based on donations or government subsidies...again, how you are making a corallary, boggles the mind.
If you want to look at an actual example of owning vs. renting vs. subscription... could look at VHS/dvd movies as an example.
Owning wasn't an option but for the wealthy in the early days...the prices were in the stratosphere. Now ownership of movies is fairly common, and people don't ever rent movies that they own, so it has cut into rental.
Now, we are just beginning to see places like Blockbuster move into subscription models...the rental marketplace is hurting, but the reasons for that are varied...time will tell if subscription saves Blockbuster...but even if it does, I seriously doubt we'll see any reduction in ownership of dvd movies...which will just continue to rise.

[b_baggins]

Right. The one MOST POPULAR PLAYER ON THE PLANET.
You forgot to add that part.

[Skillz]

In reply to:

---

If the subscription based music service is so wonderful then why:
1. In the 3 years sense the first subscription service went on line not one company has yet to make a profit. They have all lost money.

---

Umm, has any company, even Apple, made money from selling just the music? Last I heard Apple makes money from selling the iPod, not the music. Since it is the player that drives profits you might not be justified in blaming the subscription service model itself for those companies going out of business.

In reply to:

---

But there has been one point made I think is interesting to expand on. Why is it only music that we get upset about ownership of and subscribing to. I don't see the same compassion toward T.V. yet we spend millions subscribing to cable. Movies. Netflix and similar business models are taking a bite out of the old style of video rentals. So why is it really only music that people feel impassioned to the point of theft (usernet, bit torrent, etc.)

---

One reason music is more of an issue for theft is because it is easier to download a 3 MB music file than a multi-gigabyte movie file.

[jmincey]

"From reading everyone's posts, I don't think anyone's reaction to subscription is 'we don't want it to exist.' At least, it's not mine."
The feeling I get from those above who oppose music subscriptions is that it's DOA as an idea. With the exception of a couple individuals, people here are not debating the merits of a specific implementation of subscriptions but instead contending that the idea itself is misguided -- irrespective of the buying habits of the market. Now even so, this is no crime of course and I would agree it's a perfectly valid topic of discussion. But the tenor of some of the posts above is one of mocking the idea.
It strikes me that if Apple had first championed subscriptions, then we would see an instant about face in some of the participants in this thread and then it would be the "ownership" of computer files which they would find problematic. So it's the mindless cheerleading for Apple I object to.
Most of all, I object to the delight I detect in people who learn that a subscription-oriented company falters or fails. I object to the idea that because one person doesn't care for subscriptions, therefore it should not be available to anyone else. I take it this attitude does not include you, but I get the feeling it characterizes others in this thread.
"I think, however, we can have debates about the commercial viability of subscription, without it being primitive or fear-based."
You are right of course in this statement and in fact in your entire post above.

[mac_the_knife]

In reply to:

---

Umm, has any company, even Apple, made money from selling just the music?

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the iTMS on its own has been profitable at least for the past quarter or two.

[macnews]

What Napster and the others who support the subscription model don't get is how people aquire their music.
1. The notion of spending $10,000 to get 10,000 songs assumes you NEVER buy an albulm.
2. Most people will probably NEVER have 10,000 songs. I know some of you who are reading this might but I would hazard to guess the average person doesn't. BUT this does play a part in a bit...
3. A subscription service requires you to ALWAYS pay to use your songs. This is the major flaw in their thinking. Sure, I'm not going to plop down $10k for 10,000 songs but then again I'm not going to spend $180/year in music either (15*12 approx, 179.40 actual). Might there be a few years where I would do that - sure, when I was 18-20 I might have spent that kind of money. On average, however, I don't spend that much per year. The great thing with the a-la-carte model is those years when I did spend that kind of money I STILL have those songs despite the fact I haven't spent that kind of money in years.
4. Some people acknowledge they need to take care of their music medium (LP, tape, CD, etc) if they want it to last. Those who really want a certain albulm to be around will take care of it. Under the subscription model you need to pay $180/year to "maintain" that same albulm OR, heaven forbid, do exactly what iTunes does and allow you to buy that albulm a-la-carte! So at best you are paying the same price (or really close to it) and at worst you could be paying 179% more.
5. Lastly regarding how people aquire music a subscription model DOES cost more. Say you DO spend $180/year on music. Without a subscription, that $180 buys YOUR music forever. Under the subscription model you pay once $180 per year for that music, then must PAY AGAIN if you want to keep any of that music forever. Do you like being "taxed" twice?
The "this player holds xxxxxx many songs" is a marketing gimic. I would love to see Apple come out with a ballsy campaign showing how many songs the average person owns and why the iTunes model is thus truly CHEAPER than ANY subscription model.
Sorry for the rant this just drives me nuts because they are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

[missinglina]

I don't think people are getting aggressive or defensive about the fact that the subscription model is different, but because Napster is openly saying that this is how people should get their music, and that the iTunes way is inferior, so folks are just explaining then why the iTunes model of owning each song you buy is better.
If subscriptions make money, I see no reason why Apple wouldn't also offer it as a choice.
I think we are willing to pay a subscription for sattelite tv because that media is consumed in a different way. just like when you go to the movies. when you come out, you don't own the movie, but you've consumed it by being entertained by it. a song, on the other hand, is something that you want to go back many times and in many different settings, so it's nice to own it. i wouldn't pay someone $8.00 to allow me to go sit in and listen to a new album and then just walk out the way i would with a film. i want to take the album home!
i agree with those that say that for people who are into the latest from the pop,rock and rap world, etc., that the subscription model would be enticing. a lot of the new music you wouldn't want to go back to listen to after you mature anyway! (just a joke)

[jmincey]

Whether the Napster subscription model is right for you depends on your buying habits. If you purchase at least 10-12 CDs per month, (assuming an average price of $15-$18 per CD), and especially if on average you purchase more than this, Napster might make economic sense for you. Like anything else, this is about thresholds. We can't evaluate the viability of subscriptions in a vacuum.
Consider how checking accounts work in banks. The features you get, the interest rate you get, and the cost of the account -- these all depend on your typical USE. If on average you maintain a certain balance, or if you write few checks in the course of a year, then one account may be more suitable than another. But in evaluating this one cannot reach a determination until AFTER one looks at one's own usage.
And so it goes for music subscriptions. Talking about its merits apart from how one listens to and purchases music is foolish.