Comments on: Would You Pay An Extra $100 For An All-You-Can-Listen-To iPod

By: Websoldier.NET » Blog Archive » Madonna’dan dijital dünyaya yeşil ışık!

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:07:38 +0000

[...] her gün birer şarkısını 2$ karşılığında indirebilecekler. iTunes’ın son yaptığı ataktan sonra cep telefonları tekrar dijital-içerik sağlama konusunda konumlarını güçlendirmek için [...]

By: Mac Is King » Blog Archive » Subscription plans could be coming to iTunes

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:20:04 +0000

[...] Financial Times and other sites are reporting that Apple is mulling a subscription plan that would allow users to download [...]

By: Mac Is King » Blog Archive » Subscription plans could be coming to iTunes

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:20:04 +0000

[...] Financial Times and other sites are reporting that Apple is mulling a subscription plan that would allow users to download [...]

By: TechCrunch Japanese アーカイブ » 楽曲無制限のiPodなら100ドル一括前払いも「アリ」？

TechCrunch Japanese アーカイブ » 楽曲無制限のiPodなら100ドル一括前払いも「アリ」？ — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:10:35 +0000

[...] [原文へ] [...]

By: liam

liam — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:24:09 +0000

You said:

“Nokia is offering the music labels $80 per cell phone for a similar unlimited music service, but Apple is reportedly only offering $20. If that’s true, I don’t see the music labels signing on.”

But if you think the number of people who Will buy Ipods compared to Nokia, then you would still make more money out of apple, even though the offering is lower.

I think if this kind of thing was every going to become a reality - only apple have the numbers to keep the record labels happy.

I myself would probably pay up to an extra $200 more for this, sounds like a great idea.

I don’t own an Ipod or anything apple, but I’m quite excited by this idea.

By: Webomatica

Webomatica — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:21:55 +0000

Definitely. I’d be better with that divided into a monthly fee ala netflix.

By: Tim Dearborn

Tim Dearborn — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:47:33 +0000

I am sure I am in the minority, but I don’t buy more than 10 individual songs a year. I perfer to own my music and I want the option of buying my iPod empty.

By: Do you want a premium charge for unlimited music for your iPod?

Do you want a premium charge for unlimited music for your iPod? — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:49:19 +0000

[...] shopper at iTunes. Tuesday mornings are a high point of the week. But, I do have to agree with Erick at Techcrunch that paying $1 a song is getting old. I have racked up thousands of dollars in music from iTunes (I [...]

By: momoy

momoy — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:03:16 +0000

uhmm… erick the zune already has that service and nokia is coming up with that too… and you havent even written about them. i know you’re an apple fanboy but com’on. this isn’t confirmed for chrissakes… it’s okay though you’re one of the most unreliable writer here at techcrunch so i understand.
—–
about the $100 upfront, i dont think the music industry will benefit from that. it’s just too low IMHO. and you can download a lot of free music online so i just dont get it.

By: A Better Place to Play

A Better Place to Play — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:45:12 +0000

It’s the cloud, stupid: why Apple and consumers need unlimited music…

I’m surprised by some of the negative reaction in the blogosphere about the possibility of Apple introducing an unlimited music offering. I don’t think people understand the full implications of such an offering, and people don’t realize what’s bro…

By: LenstR

LenstR — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:35:11 +0000

Another interesting stat for the labels to consider here. My quick 2 minute web search yielded that in 2007, Apple touted 3 billion iTunes songs sold vs. about 100 million iPods sold to date at that time. That translates to just 30 songs per iPod sold, or roughly A MERE 3 ALBUMS PER IPOD. So, apparently, iPod users aren’t really ‘buying’ iTunes songs anyway, so why not charge $100 up front or $5/month instead of having iPod owners spend only ~$30 for 30 songs. It’s win-win, is it not? iPod owners get to discover and listen to tons of new songs they otherwise wouldn’t, and labels get >3X the song revenue.
Subscription music services is one of those things that you don’t fully appreciate until you try it. Just like those who’ve used Netflix realize that you end up consuming (’renting’) and enjoying stuff you normally wouldn’t because it’s all you can eat, albeit with Netflix shipping being a bottleneck you don’t deal with in a music sub service. I used Yahoo Music Unlimited for PC and mp3 player use for a couple years until they started jacking up the prices to over $100/yr at which it was no longer a deal (at $60/year initially, it was).
I normally bought about 20 CD’s/year before mp3’s came on the scene, but with Yahoo, I probably downloaded about 400 albums in 2 years, though most were given just a spin or two. It really changes how you listen to music because you are free to explore whatever you want and try out new genres you thought you might like but for which you never quite wanted to plunk down $15 for a CD.

By: Hagia-Sophia.net

Hagia-Sophia.net — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:26:54 +0000

Subscription looks as a good choice…
Anyone can pay that kind of money for unlimited music…

Even the $10

By: larry

larry — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:17:34 +0000

Tony is right, people would download tons of music if there was no additional cost.

But the music industry might be willing to sign on to something that sounds this crazy. And there are a few reasons -

1. They are fast losing business to pirating software
2. There is potential in the future for an MP3 player that could store all the music ever recorded. (And when that happens, the music industry will be screwed)

By: tywhite

tywhite — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:04:52 +0000

The only way I would buy into any subscription model is if they’re DRM-free mp3s and stay with me after I stop my subscription (which would likely be pretty prompt).
Adding $100 to the iPod price tag might be okay, but do they get DRM-free mp3s? Or are they still AAC crap that I can’t take elsewhere if someone else comes out with a better mp3 player than iPod?
The fact is they’re competing with free. Offering different ways to pay for music may work in the short run, though I can’t see this dramatic a shift really doing much of anything for their bottom line (it just gives them another way to lock iPod users into iTunes, and thus another iPod in two years), but in the long run you have to find a way to monetize free.
You’ve said it yourself many times.

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:12:50 +0000

Erick there’s no way in frick that the music industries would let you pay one time and be done with it. I don’t really like that idea anyways and I’m not sure where you get the idea that “paying once up front is more attractive to consumers”.

I subscribe to Yahoo music for $6/month because it lets me stream unlimited on-demand CD-quality music. Of course, this doesn’t work with my iPhone, but yet I’m still willing to pay $6/month for it because I’ve found it such a good way to discover new music.

I’ve told Apple more than once that I would be willing to pay up to $20/month for an iTunes subscription, because that is the one main flaws with Yahoo’s service - doesn’t work with iPods. I think $20 is too much but I would be willing to pay it. I think $10/month is spot on, and I’m sure a lot more than the average iTunes customers spends each month, so why the hell aren’t they doing it? I’ve heard Steve Jobs say “people don’t want to rent music” - I know that’s true for some people but there are plenty of people like me who don’t care about owning music, just being able to listen to it for a reasonable price. I have spent $0 at the iTunes store, but would be willing to spend up to $20/month if they gave me the option to.

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:10:44 +0000

I think your stats are a little missleading.

Sure, maybe people don’t get more than 10 albums per year on average now, but if I could get as much as I could listen to, then I would get 100s!

I guess the counter point would be that the labels aren’t getting that money now, and having more music in the wild legally with them still getting the same money from it is probably a good thing for them.

By: Joshua Walters

Joshua Walters — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:52:55 +0000

Im a HUGE Zune fan, but I would give my Zune up in favor of an iPod with UNLIMITED music.

Unlike most people, I dont upgrade my player all that much, only when I need more disk space. If I could buy a 160gb iPod, it would take me 4-6 years to add onto what I already have and fill it.

I tend to get a new album once a month or so, as it is now. I could probably use the Zune’s subscription, but I dont like subscriptions, because if you fail to pay, you are screwed, and all the music you have on their isnt of any use until you do pay again.

By: Robb

Robb — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:32:02 +0000

What about us Linux users who can’t get music via iTunes?

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:12:49 +0000

I´ve been a music lover all my life and I would definitely pay an extra 100 dollars ( 2 xboxgames) for unlimited acces to music. That´s a lot of fun for a hundred dollars!!

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:27:06 +0000

I’d pay an extra 100 dollars in a heart beat. For some reason I’m happy to pay up front, but would never consider a monthly subscription.

By: Perry

Perry — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:26:16 +0000

Look at Rhapsody, while apple tries to make a fortress around their own world, Rhapsody works well.

If you like to use new music and don’t want it forever, idea of buying all that music is pretty silly. Obviously works for stuff you always leave on your ipod. In addition, if you have any kids and don’t want to spend many dollars on music they will listen to for 4 months it is also good deal.

Also, Rhapsody lets you have 3 devices for 15/mth, so it is pretty cheap. Anyway, while apple tries to make cool little devices, I’m just worrying about what new music I’d like to listen to as affordably as I can.

But, question, can you dare not to have an IPOD? Sounds the same to me when I have tried both.

By: Pat

Pat — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:50:15 +0000

this makes great sense for Apple simply because the average iTunes user does not buy that many different tunes and a year’s subscription revenue at $10/month would easily outstrip the revenue they’re currently getting from iTunes. Like most people reading this post, I currently pirate most of my songs off the internet and it’s inconvenient, but i cannot afford $2000 to buy all my tunes on itunes and few of us do. A subscription model would be much more affordable and more convenient.

By: Adam Wexler

Adam Wexler — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:46:24 +0000

I think this is a terrible idea for the music industry as a whole. I think you’re asking for a lot of chaos within a chaotic industry if artists, writers and publishers all want to get paid. Would Apple be able to show download results for each and every artist?

If the record labels really cared about the music industry, they would not open discussions with Apple until DRM was resolved. It’s pretty bad times when the two dominating forces in the music business landscape do not even give a rat’s ass about the artists that are trying to make a living.

By: Michael Kimsal

Michael Kimsal — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:27:25 +0000

“I smell a rat in all this - Apple has historically said that subscription models don’t work and that people want to own their music.”

Well, Apple (and Apple fans) continually derided Intel/X86 technology, claiming it was inferior and they were faster with the powerpc arch and all that, then suddenly they switched. Apple does whatever the hell they want, backtracking whenever it suits them, and they basically get a free pass from 95% of the users out there.

By: kevin Kng

kevin Kng — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:21:04 +0000

Paying anything for music is such a barrier to entry in discovering new music. There is no way i would spend hundreds of dollars to own the latest and greatest, completely ridiculous! This, like everything else apple does, will work and it will become a complete social sea change for our culture.