Even if the majority did want to rent music *which they don't) can we really trust these a** wipes??

lets say I subscribe to a site and pa $12 a month for all of my music. Whats to stop these execs from upping the price in 6 months to a year to $20, $30 or more?? we know.. FOR A FACT.. that they are greedy. Look at the CD scandal from years ago.. look at the law suits.. look at how bad the artists themselves get ripped off...

And u want us all hooked on rentals? HA! Go check into a psycho ward, Rubinn.. cause u talkin' crazy!

umm, how about... "The Walkman will be obsolete, but there would be a iPod-like device you could plug into speakers at home."

hahaha I was thinking the same thing lol. iPod will evolve in the future it won't be the same iPod of today.

they're trying to copy the MS model where people are "taxed" for music. Basically with this model, everyone in the US of A will be paying for music, therefore consumers would have a new tax-like payment. This is actually illegal, but lawyers can work it out by encouraging a secondary company with an insignificant market-share.

"everyone in the US of A will be paying" a monthly or yearly fee "for music"

Its only $20 per month, until they discover some people will pay $20 per month, PLUS some for some extras...only enough have to fall for it to be profitable, and then thats the new model...and so on and so forth.

You will never get all your music from one source, because there will always be an artist who disputes the system, and puts their tracks out on a different source or by themselves.

SDF - in that case, you're not a music fan, or don't know how to use the internet - I can easily find 20 new CDs a month + the vast back catalog of existing stuff already out there to discover - my only limit is the time to listen to them. If you expect to have it pushed on you, rather than go and find it, then - yes, you'll get the lowest common denominator stuff.

$20 a month is too much? How little value do you personally put on the work of musicians? $10 a month? I mean what does $10 buy you these days.

The main objection, of course, to music subscription is that : 1) It NEEDS DRM to work. That's a very different proposition from the idea of a flat rate 'music tax'. 2) It's for life. Now my experience is that most people buy a lot of music in their late teens and early 20s, then cut down, particularly when they have kids. Of course there are exceptions. I've no idea how many albums/CDs the 'average' person buys in their life, but I am wondering how that stacks up against paying $20 a month for a good few decades when they're not actively buying anything.

Rubin is describing this "perfect world" of music for $20/mo. How much would you bet that the model would change after 12-24 months. $20/mo for "older" tracks and more expensive tiers for newer tracks? The record companies are just greedy b*******.

Remember Minority Report when Tom Cruise has the universe of knowledge available to him, EXCEPT someone's DMV records, which have to be SNEAKERNETTED over to him by someone else?

If this guy really believed in the world of subscriptions and "music everywhere", why would you have to plug your not-iPod into speakers to play this music-everywhere on your home system?

I think the guy's trying to grab a headline. See if his company has anything new to announce in the next week or two and we'll know for sure.

...subscription has failed over and over again for a few simple reasons:

1) it is advanageous to the record companies only, not the fans, not the artists. it is overwhlemingly and consistently rejected by consumers. how long can you keep trying to cram a flawed model down your customers' throats? it is a desperate attempt to keep their complex, archaic, greedy and failing business practices in place.

2) music is a used differently than other media, like movies. you can buy (own!) an album once and enjoy it throughout your lifetime, with ebbs and flows. at times, there might be some albums you listen to almost daily or nightly. then you burn it out and leave it alone for a bit, and re-discover it again. there is some music that is always a part of your life, almost daily. movies aren't like that. very few people watch a movie more than a single time. so they might want to "buy" a few favorites/classics, but it is simply easier to rent them on demand. not the case with music. i want to own an album and own it for life and i don't want to have to re-buy it.

3) the internet makes it easier for artists and producers to market directly to the public, cutting out the overhead of labels that merely control the distirubtion channels and siphon revenue from the people that actually create the art/product. the "new labels" that crop up that are well-suited to the brave new world will likely operate more like amicable collectives of like-minded artists. the dinosaur labels want to build a complex structure of ridiculous DRM and subscription rules tht requires their management/interference.

overall, the artists just want to grow their careers and make their music for their fans. labels used to nurture this. they used to seek out new talent to promote and help them mature a artists - they have lost that vision and they are now paying the price.

goodbye and good riddance!

But the price is all wrong. That's typical.

Please remember making good music takes TALENT, WORK AND TIME. We reward good talent, work and time well spent.

I'm seeing this disturbing attitude that we all deserve music for free. After all, P2P makes it free. An enabling technology doesn't make it RIGHT.

But here's what it's given us: more leverage on the vendors. Since piracy-- I'm sorry, I mean "P2P file sharing"-- is a fact on the LAN, and everywhere else, forget "monthly" anything. Try a one-time membership fee, or a yearly fee. Then leave me alone.

Or:

Give out DRM content absolutely free-- and a choice to get DRM-free, for a reasonable price.

Whatever, don't price it out, or I'll simply get a perfect copy free for whatever time I spend searching and downloading.

And this inevitably relates to movies.

There is free analogue radio and free internet is available through iTunes. If I want to sample music, I can do that but when I'm on the road with my iPod, I want my song collection with me.

Naysayers obviously haven't fully researched (or probably ever used) the subscription model.

The assumption has been that subscription music will fully replace ownership. That's not true at all. It will merely complement it. Currently, each major subscription service allows you to purchase music *if you desire* to burn to CD, store on your computer, or whatever. Personally, I have moved to subscription music (Rhapsody/Rhapsody to go) and I LOVE it. It's already paid for itself many times over. I can store the music on my computer locally and listen to it offline, as long as it knows my subscription is up-to-date. Yes, that means I have to start the program once every so often to update the license (I think a minimum is once each month; that's pretty darn generous), but big deal: it's done entirely behind the scenes and I have never had a problem. Plus, if I desired I could import my existing CDs or MP3s into Rhapsody.

The two biggest complaints that I have is that the user experience for Rhapsody doesn't match that of iTunes (but it's still very nice and easy-to-use), and the actual process of selecting an MP3 player was confusing (there's a lot of options from different companies). This, obviously, would be alleviated with the iTunes/iPod combination. And I think my last complaint would be that I have to boot into XP to use the Rhapsody software.

In addition, I think it's perfectly fair to pay for the tracks that I want to keep should I let my subscription lapse, as well as tracks that I want to burn to CD. In the meantime, I think the $15 is a great value.

I hope Apple is reading: I love my Apple products (I've had many over the past few years), I still think the iPod/iTunes is the gold standard for an excellent user experience. But for the price, I'm quite satisfied with Rhapsody and my MP3 player, and I won't upgrade to another iPod until subscription music is available. IMHO, subscription music would have been a far better feature than DRM-free downloads (DRM has had precisely zero impact on my music, but that's another topic!)

...shouldn't have to be "researched". the main flaw with subscription is: if you want to centralize your music, which is everyone's goal these days, and distribute it to your living room, your car, your portable, a subscription keeps you tethered to your computer and the ongoing payment scenario.

this isn't an "apple thing" for me or most other people. in fact, i don't even buy much from iTunes, except the occasional album or single. i prefer to buy CDs, and rip them at very high bit rates, since i want archival quality and a cetnralized library. seems like iTunes new premium service recognizes this and that might pull me back in. but the bulk of my library still comes from hard media purchases.

the subscription model you described is a nightmare for me. i travel alot. i'm out and about alot. i don't want to be tethered to my computer at all times that i'm enjoying music. so if i happen to be on a road trip and my f****** subscription runs out, and i can't hear my music, i'm never gonna trust that service again. that scenario does and will happen to people.

in the end, it's about the simplicity of hearing something you like, previewing it and then easily acquiring it, forever. same way it works in physical record stores. imagine that... a proven model!

the little flaws you listed are deal-breakers, plus what i described as being chained to your computer, for most people and that's why it doesn't work. and subscription hasn't failed for lack of trying! god knows MS and the labels and every other service has pumped $$$$$ into launching their stinkbombs. URGE dies an awful quick death, didn't it? artists and people simply don't want their music that way. of course, there are exceptions. enjoy, until rhapsody finally folds!

A few things.

- This is commercial free, right. Just like cable was when it was introduced. And, think of your cable bill. How fast has that gone up in - If I only listen to music one hour a month, I'm paying the same as someone who listens to it eight hours a day.

- You must run their software once a month. Now, assuming the software is available for your computer (Mac?, Linux?), do you trust it (think Sony RootKit, et al.)

- How do they determine how much each artist gets? This means they probably download your play history. And what else do they download?

The way I see it, after you decide whether its worth it or not, you need to ask yourself do you trust the industry that will be implementing this system? The RIAA comes immediately to mind. Do you trust them? I don't! Do you want to install anything from them onto your computer? Do you really want to use anything with an EULA written by them? Whatever their EULA is, I can guarantee that you will be giving up many of your rights and handing them over to the RIAA, or some similar organization.

Personally I think I'll take a pass.

rtbarry: Please read my post again. I have an MP3 player for the subscription music, therefore I am not tethered to my computer. I travel frequently as well. If I'm planning around a trip where I won't have access to my own PC for a long time (highly unlikely), then I'd just plug my MP3 player in and renew the license (it's a menu option in Rhapsody). Plus, I'm talking $15/month, and if I were to have purchased the music in iTunes, I would have spent probably $300 this last month alone!

You might like your way of buying and listening to music, but that doesn't mean I do. Yeah, I had to do a little research to understand what I needed, but no more than, say, Netflix - heck, no more than when iTunes first debuted! And let's face it, if Apple does enter this market, they will undoubtedly make it *better*, just like they did with iTunes. That's the point I am trying to make.

Do you trust your mail delivery person? Do you trust your restaurant server with your credit card? Do you trust My iTunes (whatever it's called)? In fact, do you run iTunes once a month at least? Do you order anything online where they do collect data on your purchasing habits? Do you use Google? Oops, do you know if your ISP collects your surfing habits?

Good grief. If you always worry about this, then you probably shouldn't get out of bed (but then again, someone will eventually call the police, and there's something else to worry about...)

I'm sorry I ever offered my point of view.

I trust my postal carrier, but then again some individuals have had their US Mail opened.

News regularyly recommend keeping an eye on your credit cards in restaurants to keep it from getting skimmed.

Yeah, iTunes, credit cards, Google and my ISP all probably track my usage habits.

But, they don't turn around and sue me like the RIAA has been doing to their users.

I think I'll still take a pass.

doesn't sue when you don't steal music. You make it sound like incorrect, frivolous lawsuits filed by the RIAA are the norm, when in fact, they're the exception. Clearly we've strayed from the topic. You continue to spend your money as you please, and I'll do the same. But please provide some factual, researched information, not unfounded FUD.

$240 a year? good grief what a s******. We have yet to see a subscription model succeed for far less. I understand the argument about access to the old songs but then what? There is not that much quality music coming out to justify that cost year after year. Quality ultimately rules, even collectively there isn't much of it out there.

At $19 a month, subscriptions are going to take off and become popular? So, the problem at the moment is that Yahoo et al aren't charging enough?? Subscription music isn't making it at $15 a month.

More telling, iPods and iTunes will be obsolete but Sony products - currently on the ropes and fading fast - will make a miraculous come back? I hope this isn't the 'vision' that Columbia records is paying him for.

Smittie

We already have: 1) Free/subsidized subscriptions today (AM & FM)which I personally never listen to now that I have an ipod.

2) Paid subscription (XM & Sirius satellite radio). I personally will never pay a subscription.

I want to own my music as I find once I like a song I tend to listen to it for many years. Look at the popularity of old music from classical to the best musics from each decade they are still popular and still sell, some better than any recent music which indicates to me that many people are like me. Rubin and his greedy brethren know this and want us to pay for music over and over for ever.

Cut out the greedy middleman, let the big music companies die off, what value do they provide today??? Let the musicians deal directly with itunes, rhapsody, MSN, .... The musicians will make more money and the best music will be available to the consumer, not the hand picked few that big musics decides they want us to listen to and therefore promote.

Maybe this is what the big musics companies are afraid of!

What do these record label guys have, amnesia? How many subscription services have been tried -- and failed? I do have friends who like to have a sub service, and when they hear something they really like, they go to buy it -- on iTunes.

What is in their tiny little brains? I guess they really think they matter like they used to. Only they don't anymore. The first company that bypasses the label conglomerates entirely, and makes their contract with the artists directly, will bring that whole shaky edifice down.

Rubin, Simon, Garfunkle, Spielberg, Katzenburg, Geffen and Sulzberger want you to listen to monthly subscription music on your Walkman while eating your bagel. Nice demographic cross section of "Americans that matter" there NYT. How about having someone from the other 98% of the non-"chosen ones" help discuss "our" digital future? Another wacky idea would be to ask consumers outside of New York City (96% of us in the U.S.) what they want?

But he's got it all wrong now. Reading what these rich guys are saying is they control the keys to the music world and we peasants cannot have it our way. If they decide it's subscription then that's the way it will be. They have lost touch with the real world and it shows with the artists they sign and but their money behind. Gee I wonder why sales are down?

Or are nearly all executives out there completely out of touch with how the consumer likes to watch movies, watch TV or listen to music. You've got NBC wanting to up prices on downloaded content on TV shows that are essentially already paid for by advertisers, they also don't realize fewer and fewer people even watch prime time television anymore, and this whole music subscription service has been beaten to death. You can't as easily make subscription music services work on demand because of the DRM required to do so. I can agree that it makes more sense with TV or Movies, I know with music you can bare to listen to the same songs over and over, but with TV movies you don't; Netflix has available on demand movies on their website, which would be awesome if it worked on a Mac and Apple TV, but it is included in your subscription. Many movies I only need to see once, not so with songs I like. These execs need to start doing worthwhile consumer studies. They think that people would be totally happy with being able to download all they want, which is true, but they aren't wanting to pay a subscription for the rest of their lives.

Subscriptions may have a small part of the picture, but dude, i don't want to keep paying for music just to line your pockets. I want to be able to buy an album or whatnot, sit in darkness for 5 years if that's what i want and listen/view to my purchase without having to know the balance of my checking acct. All this does is alienate people who want to poke at the offerings and not have any further obligation to the vendor.

Rubin is the CO-FOUNDER of Def Jam. Not the founder. Funny how folks leave that kind of stuff out. ;)

Music creation and listening are highly individual and personal activities. The "music industry" wants to turn it into a commodity. A fixed fee for time-based lsitening. No distinction for personal attachment, either to making or listening to the music.

It doesn't work that way for me, and I will NEVER buy into a subscription for music.

NO RICK, the present incarnation of the iPod will be obselete. Just like the last model of every iPod generation is obselete as a new model comes out.

The iPod is like the Mac, if Apple makes it then that's what it's called. The iPhone is already moving toward the notion of music anywhere.

It's only a name for whatever Apple makes and Apple will no doubt make an iPod to do whatever the popular trend is in time.

When Jobs leaves I gotta hunch the next guy will do the subscription thing and kiss the music industry's butt. Not too many people like Steve who are willing to stand their ground and force others hand.

I'm not renting my music!

Someone should tell him that he's describing satellite radio and it already exists.

Guys, how has Netflix changed the DVD rental model? You pay $20/month for all-you-can-eat rentals (unless you're illegally ripping them, which then you deserve to be sued). But, has Netflix prevented you from buying DVD's?

A music subscription is very similar! You pay $20/month for all-you-can-eat music. If you want to keep the music, buy the track or album.

One reason subscriptions haven't taken off is because, admittingly, they are confusing from a hardware ("what MP3 player supports this?") and software standpoint. And, consumers don't seem to grasp the concept that, yes, your music is "rented", but it's always available, even offline, as long as you pay the monthly fee, (like Netflix!) and you can still buy the track or album if you want to keep it. The iPod/iTunes relationship solves this.

This is also not satellite radio, so stop making that comparison. Subscriptions allow you to decide what you want to listen to, not XM or Sirius.

The current model does work (and at the 3 billion tracks iTunes has sold, I don't argue that it does nicely for Apple). But Apple can also do for subscriptions what they did for music downloads. Make it easier and better.

At what point will the arrogant idiots at record companies (except for those who do realize this) accept that Apple pretty much gave these fuckers another shot at life in the industry.

Oh and one more thing… what moron would subscribe. It's been proven IT DON'T work!

Sounds great but to have every song available "online" or however, and stream it to a totally portable and always-good-reception device will not ever work (at least not soon). Even satellite radio has its limitations. Bandwidth for such device will be enourmous if many people are using it continually. Plus there will, i repeat WILL be hackers or software to rip the stream as it comes in, so people will eventually get the songs they want to keep.

seems like the music execs these days are still in denial about who 'runs the music industry'.

the answer is the consumer, certainly not a big wig.

Just produce music the consumer wants and your a success.

produce music nobody wants and you'll have to deliver it to the consumer like radio, which is the point, controling the airwave used to be easy, but todays game is different. Music CEO's want to control what music you hear, yes, the songs that make them more $$, for they are all about greed. Typical contracts pay standard scale which does not benefit the artist but pays .05 cents a song, with your own label you can do much better then that.

iTunes has changed the game and yet the music industry CEO's are gambling on ignorance, anyone now can release original music to the world without involving them and they hate the idea, because they really just want a piece of all $$ in the industry.

Suprising that anyone really cares what these once great record labels do, without contracts these guys will keep pumping out niel sadaka all night long, perhaps tens of thousands of great new bands are waiting for your attention and the music co execs would prefer you ignore all independant artists; so then here's to the private labeler!!

Be sure to check out all the new independent artists on iTunes, tons of new music, no music exec needed anymore...ha ha ha!

It is really amazing how people with power say things that have no resemblance with reality. The truth is that the recording industry is as obsolete as the 8-track.

If Apple had been paying attention, they would have made the iTunes store an aggregator, like Napster was. If every band had their own iTunes store, Apple could have sold them the software, and made more money and did less work. The artist sells direct, the middle-man is unnecessary.

Plus, if you want to make a living as a musician, then go out and play! Stop trying to make recordings and t-shirts an income stream. Nobody in the world gets paid twice for the work they did yesterday, much less for 70 years.

In any case, the posts here clearly show that people have no desire for a subscription service.

www.theappleloop.com

through years of declining sales, all I ever hear from these music exec is what they want. Why is it so hard for them to understand, that if they want my money, they have to figure out what I want.

And I don't want this subscription bs, that's what radio is for,

"Big man, pig man...ha, ha, charade you are"

He might have a slight resemblance to, but Nostradamus he is not!

I know Justin Timberlake is pretty bad, but just how much more expensive does Al Jolson have to be. He's not that much better.

Seriously, I'd be for variable rates if that lowered prices since I listen to a lot of stuff that's unpopular. But you know that's just not going to happen. They're going to run up the rates of the more popular artists.

To the idea of subscription dominance: I'd pay a fair monthly rate to sample the whole world of music. I love being able to do this. But there's a lot more certainty in knowing no one has the ability to change the conditions of my listening to music, rasing rates, etc. if I just buy it. Personally I'd do both if the subscription rate is low enough. There was room for radio and records in the old days. Subscription is in-between radio and owning in an on-demand radio type model. I don't see it dominating particularly for people serious about music but I see a good place for it if it is priced fairly.

To to issue of Rubin: I still think this is someone playing the game of trying to change the future by disguising someone's wishes as a prediction. It's been tried before but you have to have evidence to back it up and I'm not seeing it. In fact it has been said before and it hasn't happened yet.

It stinks to pay $13/mo and Rhapsody is still missing a lot. I keep waiting. Sometimes recent albums don't ever show even after a year of waiting. Some from the 80's that were popular alternative are not there at all. Some bands have only 1/4 of their collection on Rhapsody. Example in case you want to see for yourself: Skinny Puppy (not that I'm a big fan), ITS has probably the whole catalog, Rhapsody has nearly nothing.

Next, there's no player for the Mac, only your web browser. Next, their hardware players are incompatible with the Mac. Next, their music has glitches in playback. The good news is you can hi-jack but the quality is probably no better than iTMS, maybe worse b/c of the frequency of playback glitches.

http://images.macnn.com/macnn/news/0709/rickrubin.jpg

Why is grizzly adams the pic for this article? :D

guest wrote, "$20 a month... for now Rubin is describing this "perfect world" of music for $20/mo. How much would you bet that the model would change after 12-24 months. $20/mo for "older" tracks and more expensive tiers for newer tracks? The record companies are just greedy b*******."

that is exactly right. $20 per month now... and then in a year or two or sooner or later, they want $25 a month. And if you don't like it, you lose all your music! Except it never was your music in the first place. You were renting it. And anyone who knows money, knows you are better off owning over the long term than renting.

Jobs killed subscriptions, Rubin, but they were already dying. People don't want another monthly bill for music, like their electric bill. They do have a point, though, the Al Jolson recording is worth much more than Justin Timberlake's.

Do record company execs have to take Stupid 101 in college? Subscriptions are wishful thinking, that you can take back music you already sold to somebody and make them buy it again.

As opposed to the albums I have wanted to buy from iTunes that are now $12, when it used to be most everything was $10 (That's a 20% increase)? I have found it harder and harder to find a $10 album from the artists that I like, probably leading to why I now pretty much look to iTunes as a last resort. Even at $25, the subscription model makes sense for people like me. (not that I advocate higher pricing "just because"). I have a box full of CD's that I don't listen to (in fact, I can't even tell you what they are) - probably at least $1000 worth, plus it takes up space in my garage. That $1000 covers over three years of a subscription service (at $25/month), plus I can listen to anything else, as my tastes and preferences change.

...i think we found the one guy out there who likes subscriptions! ;-)

jth, i applaud you intelligently pleading your case, but you can obviously see how people feel about adjusting their behavior to accomode the desperate bleating of a dying industry.

maybe i'm missing the beauty of subscriptions, or maybe you're not understanding the limitations imposed by not owning your music. you say you can "buy" the stuff you like, while still subscribing. but i already can buy what i like, from the entire universe of music out there, WITHOUT paying an extra $240/annum, to choose from an inherently limited pool of music.

how does it make sense? what benefit does the subscription part provide again? to hear new stuff? that's what TV, Satellite, Radio, Movies, friends, iTunes previews, internet radio and, call me crazy, WATCHING MUSICIANS PERFORM LIVE, already provide for you.

And thanks for allowing me to give my case without a bunch of name-calling.

I don't think you are missing the beauty of subscriptions, but maybe I think you're looking at it from a different point of view, and I think there's a lot of incomplete information out there.

I have the impression that you would *buy* the music first, then consider the subscription. I, OTOH, would subscribe to the service first, listen to what I want in it's entirety (not 30-second previews), then buy the music I truly want to keep in my collection. There's a lot of music that I like today that I may not like tomorrow (for example, those CD's I mentioned!). And frankly, yeah, there are a few tracks I can't subscribe to. But I, literally, can count the number of times I have seen that on one hand. Plus, how many times have you bought a track or album and thought, "Hm, this isn't as good as I thought?" (and don't say "never", because you and I both know that's not true). Well, with the subscription you haven't lost anything.

What I'm also trying to highlight is that, to me, it's the perfect complement to the traditional iTunes store. Apple's got the hardware, software, and most importantly, advertising finesse.

I know it's a hard sell; it's not perfect, and it requires a different mindset. But to me, for the current $15/month that I spend, and considering that I have ~3 million songs to choose from, the pros far, far, outweigh the cons. In fact, I'd go so far as to say if Apple were to have introduced a subscription service in the past, we'd all be singing a different tune.

...and perhaps Apple will add a complementary subscription component in the future. I just don't know how much value it will add to the process. It still doesn't interest me. But you can bet (hope?), if they do it, it will be done right. I think this is a big part of what you've been saying all along.

But, I doubt that Apple alone could have swung people to the sub model if they had started with it. I feel strongly that one of the reasons for their early, and continuing, success is that they introduced a model that was simple, clear and very comfortable and familiar to music buyers. This amidst a sea of confusion and fear over lawsuits and brower/platform incompatibilities, etc.

So for Rubin to smugly say: iPod/iTunes is obsolete and Apple is doing it wrong is pure bitterness at being on the wrong side of the lines. He should be on the side with music lovers, not the formerly big/powerfu labels that are now gasping for air.