Samsung's Best HDTV's - Click HereSubscription music's future, Part 1
Will Apple ever adopt a subscription music model for iTunes?
(Credit: Corinne Schulze/CNET Networks)
Rhapsody launched the first high-profile subscription music service in December 2001, in the middle of a revolution. The first
iPod had just hit the shelves, streaming Web radio sites like Live365.com were in full bloom, and the masses were just warming to the idea that they could preview and discover music online. A service like Rhapsody, which promised subscribers unlimited access to its growing music catalog, made music junkies salivate. It also pointed the way to a brave new world where people no longer needed physical or virtual media.
The future didn't go quite as planned, however. Because the illegal-but-free P2P world offered the most music, when Apple finally added an online store to their iTunes music software, Rhapsody's subscription music revolution--which has since included Yahoo Music Unlimited, MTV's Urge, Napster, Zune Marketplace--had started to lose momentum.
Rhapsody is the current king of the hill for subscription music, but without iPod support, where can it thrive?
(Credit: Real Networks)Today, the only remaining outlets for subscription music are Rhapsody, Napster, and the Zune Marketplace. iTunes, in contrast, is now the No. 2 music retailer in the nation. Many factors contributed to the subscription music stall, not the least of which is the fact that the most popular MP3 player in the world is deliberately incompatible. Can the model survive?
At the 2008 Macworld expo in January, Steve Jobs quieted iTunes subscription service rumors by proclaiming that people don't want to rent music, they want to own it (unlike movies, which they should rent through iTunes, of course). Jobs' logic is that because people listen to a favorite song hundreds of times throughout their life, a file that might expire doesn't make sense. For companies like Rhapsody and Napster, the million dollar question is, "Is he right?" The answer is more complicated than you'd think. I would never be so bold as to call Mr. Jobs a liar, but I think his Macworld statement is misleading.
The subscription vs. purchased music debate presents a false choice--a black and white view of a world without accounting for all the mess in between. While it's true that most music consumers do just fine purchasing music a la carte through iTunes, Amazon, or eMusic, the idea of a coexisting "celestial jukebox" isn't any less potent. It's like saying the iPod and FM radio can't coexist. The concept of DRM protection for purchased music is clearly dumb (and still practiced by iTunes, by the way), but the real reason iTunes will be the last service to adopt a subscription music model is because it doesn't have to. Apple's existing music retail store is already enjoying a charmed existence without a subscription music option rocking the boat. Why the hell would Apple open up an all-you-can-eat buffet in a restaurant already raking it in on overpriced entrees?
What will the playing field of digital music look like five, 10, or 20 years down the line? The only predictive statement I'm willing to make is that the people of tomorrow, like the people of today, will want choice--choice about what music they want to hear, where they want to hear it, what devices they want to hear it from, and how much they want to pay for it.
So now you know my position. In the second part of Subscription Music's Future, I'll outline areas for subscription music's growth, talk with Rob Williams, SVP of music software for Rhapsody, and go under the hood of Microsoft's marketing logic for Zune Marketplace.
Donald Bell is CNET Reviews' senior editor for MP3 players and portable audio, and one half of the MP3 Insider blog and weekly podcast. He also likes getting his hands dirty with digital audio tools for musicians and DJs. 
Donald Bell is an electronic musician, a veteran record store employee, and a fearless hardware hacker. He's also CNET's Senior Editor for MP3 and digital audio.
Jasmine France is CNET's resident digital audio doyenne, writing and editing product reviews, crave blogs, and feature stories on all things MP3. And if you need advice on headphones, she's your girl.
1. When I die, those CDs I bought won't be valuable to anyone.
2. Spending 15 bucks a month for all I can eat music, vice paying 10 to 25 for a single new CD costs much more while giving me less.
3. I don't copy CDs for friends because they buy their own music.
4. I get to listen to an entire album (full length tracks), and then delete the tracks I don't like from my library.
Renting works for me because I pay less for my entertainment and get more from the investment.
Subscription services are dead in the water. The iTunes purchase model is now the number 2 music seller, including brick and mortar sales, in the United States.
But, that's not because Jobs was right and people really do want to own their music. Noooo. It's much more complicated than that. So complicated, in fact, that only the analyst can truly understand it.
It always makes me laugh to see the wizened little gnomes sitting on their mushrooms.
1. Service offered only in the USA, a small fraction of the total internet market
2. Payment by credit card only, leaving out a lot of their potential younger customers
3. Unstable pricing and uncertain future for subscription services (compared to stability of iTunes, for example)
4. Poor customer service, causes a lot of users to become fed up and leave
Over the past 6 years I have tried many digital music services, and I can honestly say Rhapsody provides the best experience. To Ronpadz's point, Rhapsody, through its well developed information architecture, allows a user to easily become exposed to new genres of music. I guess, to a certain extent, you can say the same for iTunes, but Rhapsody stands out because you can actually listen to an entire song before making a commitment. One other benefit of Rhapsody that gets lost in the conversations about iTunes vs. everyone else, is Rhapsody's jukebox-like features. If you wake up on a Saturday morning and have the urge to listen to new music in it's entirety, you would have to spend a considerable amount of money if you were using iTunes. Rhapsody's subscription service gives you unlimited access to a multitude of music genres and if you have a wireless music player that is compatible with Rhapsody you can seamlessly stream this huge music library through your home stereo. If you haven't tried Rhapsody, you're missing out. By the way, I don't work for Rhapsody.
1) - Not all music is supported. I couldn't download a lot of my favorite music / comedians because they don't take part in Napster's subscription service.
2) - Portability - Subscription services give you the illusion of making your music portable. It is not. You can play it on your computer and on your MP3 player... that's it. Want to play it in your car?...have to buy an an adapter. Want to play it in your home? Better have another adapter to hook up to each audio spot in your house. Want to listen to it at a buddy's house and share it with him. Have to buy a portable Jukebox that the player fits into.
Now you have all this extra equipment that you'll need a bag to tote it all around in. Then I thought to myself... why the F didn't I just buy the music so I can burn a CD and OWN the it.
Now I own all this hardware I'll never use to support my $15 subscription I no longer have.
I have multiple computers/devices I put music on. Work computer, home computer, and of course an iPod.
The subscription service limits where I can take my music or forces me to stick with just a portable player. Plus, since my car only has a CD player (no aux jack yet) I can burn the music I can't live without to CD take it with me anywhere.
Lastly, since the debut of Amazon MP3, I have to admit I go them first for new music now. Not only is the entire Amazon catalog DRM free (iTunes is slowly converting in addition to the price reduction) their prices are significantly lower on older catalog items. Do a price comparison on Fela Kuti between iTunes and Amazon to see why.
re: #2: What's all this additional equipment you're talking about? All you need is a subscription-compatible player and an FM transmitter. Who doesn't have an FM receiver in their home and car? If you're lucky enough to snag one of the semi-legal, over-powered transmitters from a few years back, you can very well reach every FM radio in the house.
Good point, but don't they essentially achieve the same goal through format upgrades (vinyl-tape-CD), copy-protection schemes, legal intimidation and re-issues (greatest hits, best of's, remasters, box sets)?
I have a laptop that I would like to use occasionally for loading tunes into my MP3 player when I do not have access to my home desktop PC. But so far my experiences have been problematic - when I was on holiday using my laptop, for some reason I could not load songs into my MP3 player.
Also when I tried to install the client software on a second laptop, the Rogers Yahoo system would not let me listen to more than the 30-second samples even though I was able to login successfully.
Another poster said: "Music subscription services are the worst thing possible for consumers, but the best thing possible for Big Music. You see, if you get used to paying $15 a month for music, Big Music knows they can kill off purchases altogether and thus keep you locked in to pay them money for the rest of your life." I don't think that will EVER happen. There are millions of people out there who download music from iTunes, Amazonmp3 and the rest of the sites that offer downloads of music for a price, and I don't think "Big Music" wants to lose that revenue. So, I think there is a place for all of us out there who like the subscription service AND the ones who like to download.
And in case you didn't know...Rhapsody has a download service also should someone want to purchase mp3 tracks and burn them to a CD. If you are a subscriber, those tracks are 89 cents. 99 cents if you're not. So it's comparable to iTunes charges.
I love Rhapsody and so long as they continue adding music and I can listen to as much as I want, I'll be a subscriber.
If I'm in the mood for BTO I want to go to my Stereo/iPod or whatever and use the menu to look up BTO then hit play. Exactly like it was in my own library. If a subscription costs the same as or less than my own collection updates I would be a lot more tempting.
A service should be designed to go out and get all license updates automatically, plus maybe throw in a monthly reminder at boot-up (on both the PC and the portable) that it's time to sync the portable.
The 'stream-only' or 'bookmark-only' option when adding music to the library should be dropped IMO. This just adds to the confusion for new users who try to play or sync a song without internet connectivity and can't understand why the music isn't really 'on' their computer. At least provide a conspicuous indicator next to each 'stream-only' track to remind the user that it won't be available for offline playback.
But if you are somebody who really likes to explore music and constantly listen to new things, a subscription service is hands-down the best way to go. I actually didn't realize I was that type of listener until I tried out Urge (and later joined Napster). I used to buy maybe 15-20 CDs or so a year, and that (and CDs I already owned) was the bulk of what I listened to. Now, I listen to dozens of different bands that I had never heard of before, that I never would have been exposed to (or even knew I'd like). Today, if I hear a snatch of a song on the radio, in a commercial somewhere, or just hear someone mentioning a band that sounds interesting, I can immediately download their album (or all their albums) and spend the next couple weeks checking them out. My music library now has hundreds of albums that I can listen to whenever I feel like it, with more added every week. If I had to buy all these tracks, I'd be listening to maybe 10% of what I listen to now. (And when I do want to make a mix for myself or somebody else, I just pay for the songs that I DO want to own, the same way anybody would on iTunes.)
For anybody who just likes music and likes to constantly explore new things, subscription services are really revolutionary. The ONLY reason more people don't use them is because Apple doesn't support them--so owners of iPods (who make up the vast majority of portable music player owners around the world) are excluded from checking the subscription model out. If they could, I'd bet good money that a whole lot of them would take advantage of it, for the same reason I did.
- by jtklein March 4, 2008 4:20 PM PST
- The real old model, hear it on the radio, buy the single or the album, was not killed by technology but BIG music`s mass production of junk. Napster or any other file sharing network did not hurt CD sales. It was poor content. Rhapsody, I-Tunes, et al are at the mercy of the content providers and have forgoten that people over the age of 30 buy and listen to music. I have looked for music on these sites and have come up empty handed too many times. It`s off to the next record show.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (50 Comments)