BW: subscription iTunes not likely

Truth be told, I don't get this intransigence. The best way I figure it is that iTMS having a subscription model (in addition to long term lease as they do now) means exactly what? Just as many Pods would be sold, possibly maybe even more than now. iTMS may see a slight decline in "purchased" music.

A pal of mine got XM when he bought a new car... and lemme tell you. It's great. Quality seems much better than FM, you get tons and tons of channels, everything is always pretty fresh, and it's just music without commercials. There even are some channels with "personalities" if you like that.

The money is in the players, not in the "purchased music." That's what they are telling us and that is what all the financial results point to.

While I would not go subscription myself (although it's very tempting, my only issue is it's priced a tad high for my cash flow), I see zero negative issues to iTMS offering one. I think it would keep sales of hardware cooking, perhaps spur some hardware advances I really want to see (personally, I'm looking for a 128M buffer on the hardware side).

We could also have another interesting discussion over hooking up with a satellite service (XM or Sirius).

All the music you could never listen too. So you have unlimited Music, as long as you continue to pay your rent, most people can only listen to a certain amount of music. I can buy what I like and listen to it 5 years from now and never pay another dime to Apple. And on top of all that, don't people have to pay to burn? Subscription is just a shot in the dark to create a successful business model.

The subscription model has been touted by the major labels since the late 90's. It sucked then, and it sucks now. Apple is right to hold off on a subscription service for now.

paulc writes: "(personally, I'm looking for a 128M buffer on the hardware side)".

I'm confused - the iPod's built-in 20 minute music buffer is not enough for you?

At some point I think music FM, talk radio and something of an on demand music library will be packaged in the correct way and then it will work. I don't think it will be an iPod - which is really a storage device. It will be a phone or something that is meant to buffer on demand content. This may require a subscription of sorts, but it will be more radio-like than iPod like.

I'm confused - the iPod's built-in 20 minute music buffer is not enough for you?

technically its 20-minutes if you use 128kbps AAC-encoded music (or maybe MP3). But if you do higher bit-rates, or even apple-lossless (hey, I'm not saying I understand it, but people do do such things), the 32MB buffer can't even hold one song, so it ends up buffering a lot more often, causing the disk to spin and kill battery life (plus more likely to hear skips as you're wasting your life working out).

I can buy what I like and listen to it 5 years from now and never pay another dime to Apple. And on top of all that, don't people have to pay to burn?

Great, but what, if after a month, you realize that the "Macarena" is really a stupid-assed song you never want to listen to again. Now you either have to toss it (waste of .99 cents), or keep it around taking up space, but marked for never playing.

You're point is great when talking one or two songs or 10-15 songs. But what if you want to choose from 100,000 songs. You feel like trying different genres at different times. What if you're usual is to spend $50 a month on music (5 CDs a month, not too farfetched for a lot of people into music)? I could get a subscription for $10 or $15 a month (depending if I want to put it on my music player). You spend $50 a month. Guess what, after a year, you've paid $420 more than I have for the music you're listening to. If you stopped buying CDs, you still got "your" music, and I am still spending $15 a month. But it'll take me two-plus more years to reach the $600 level, and I've been listening to all the music I care to in those last two years, while you're stuck listening to your "Abba Greatest Hits, Volume 2" CD over and over.

And while you're limited to the CDs you've bought, I can listen to anything I can download. So in essences, for my $15, I can not only match you on your $50, but i can listen to twice as much (or three or four times, as much as I can) new music as you can. And I'm ignoring that savings and benefit.

Sure, you "can" do more with your music (say, like add it to iTunes or make some stupid mix CD), but how often do people do this? And let's say there's 10 songs a month I want to do something with, so I need to "buy" them, vs. "rent" them. Guess what, that's still only $25 a month vs. your $50.

My point is that, just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean there's not a market for the service. Esp. those really into music and differing music tastes (the teenager/20 year olds).

And if you still keep thinking that subscriptions are stupid and no one could possibly want one, may I just point out that the same exact thing could (and is, by me!) be said about ringtones. Spending $$$ to download a freakin' music sample to use on your cell phone when it rings. Who'd spend money on that? No one! What? What do you mean it was a 3 billion dollar business last year? That can't be right....