Jobs Says People Don't Want to 'Rent' Music

eldavojohn writes "PhysOrg is running a piece on a recent speech by Apple CEO Steve Jobs about DRM free music. While we know that Jobs is a self proclaimed proponent of DRM free music who's not all talk, he's now said that 'by the end of this year, over half of the songs we offer on iTunes we believe will be in DRM-free versions. I think we're going to achieve that.' Jobs pointed out what's obvious to us, the consumers, but isn't obvious to the music industry — 'People want to own their music.' He also dismissed subscription based music as a failure, and claimed a lot of other music labels are intrigued by the EMI deal."

It *is* obvious to the music industry

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

The music industry aren't complete idiots. They know people don't want DRM'ed music, just like they knew people didn't want to pay inflated prices for records for 30+ years. That's not the point though. It's not about what we want, it's about what they want, and what they're willing to do to get it. Whether they violate racketeering laws, buy legislature, or lie straight to the faces of their customers every second of every day, it's not because they're stupid. It's because they're greedy crooks.

Depends on Their Purpose

[servoled]

I spend more than I probably should on music, but I still pay for one of those subscription services. Why? To audition new music. Lots of times I'll hear of something new, and listen to the album (lots of times a 30 second sample just doesn't cut it) on the subscription service to decide whether its worthwhile to buy the album. Other than that, its fun to go through stuff I already own and randomly follow the recommendation links they provide to see if I stumble on something good.

Now, I certainly wouldn't want to use the subscription service as my only source of music... primarily due to the limited selection, mediocre encoding quality and limitations of where I can listen. However, I'd say its worth its worth the $10 to be able to audition full albums of most stuff without trying to track them down on some p2p system.

Jobs' Perspective in Context

[jonathanbearak]

I think Jobs' perspective should be put into context.

First of all, iTunes DRM is not designed for a subscription model. Re-engineering would be required, including firmware updates for older iPods, to enforce the subscriptions.

Moreover, not all songs are typically available via the subscription model. Jobs continues to make an issue about variable pricing for songs, with the DRM-free option being the one exception. Yet, consider how they are planning to implement this: by a preference in which the user selects which kind of music s/he prefers to buy.

Some have said a subscription model would require a whole new iTunes Store -- a separate store, with rentable tracks. This is not really true -- users could be presented with a "Buy Song" or "Rent Song" button where applicable.

A subscription service is "not out of the question," he says, but it doesn't look like it's in Apple's interests -- they would bear the price of increasing download costs, unlike the record companies.

DRM-free music, on the other hand, allows for seamlessness. Users can download music, copy it between iPods, computers, and friends' computers without a hassle. Rentable tracks would lend themselves to the opposite kind of experience.

Ownership

[Manos_Of_Fate]

The trend lately to lease, license, rent, etc., rather than own, annoys me to no end. If I'm going to buy something and not own it, there better be a really major advantage somehow(i.e. I rent an apartment/house and someone else is responsible for its maintenance.) But with music, software, etc., I just don't see how leasing is beneficial to anyone but the seller. Also, I'd like to apologize for using up this page's allotment of commas.

It's much more complicated that than.

[demonic-halo]

Ok.. so you got the major record labels together.. how do you agree to split the revenue fairly?

You'll have to work out a system probably based on who ever gets the most plays, which song is most popular, etc... And of course not all artists are worth the same, correct? You got songs many years old, competing against songs that are just released. Then how do you factor in the appreciation premiums? I'm sure a Antoni Bachelli is worth much more in the eyes of the people than a Britney Spears.

Then you'll get a system where the independent artists will get totally screwed. Their play percentage is much lower than the big record labels and of course they don't have the big wigs and high price lawyers on their side. At least with song purchase models it's easy to map where that 99 cents should go to.

Re:Typical arrogance from Steve Jobs

[Wordplay]

I think was modded down unfairly. I've been a Rhapsody subscriber since the launch of the service, and I'm extremely happy with it for all the reasons listed. In fact, I'm strongly considering switching from iPod to Zen Vision to get the To Go service.

Too expensive

[CastrTroy]

At 1.29 (last I heard) for the DRM free version, it's even more worth it to just buy the CD if you want DRM free music. Personally, a file transfered over the internet isn't worth that much to me. I don't know why people pay so much for music from iTunes when the CDs are only marginally more expensive. For my downloaded music I use eMusic. They don't have everything, so I still buy some CDs. However, eMusic's price of about $0.30 for a song is much more to my liking. I've always said it should be a quarter a song, even when iTunes first came out. Because when you cut out the entire distribution chain, as well as the physical media, the cost of the songs should be really low. And since from what I hear the artists don't make any more from iTunes (sometimes less) than they do from CD sales, I can only assume that it's lining the pockets of the production companies, who frankly, don't really deserve any more money.

Re:That makes no sense

[zrobotics]

Another problem with subscription systems is the choice of music. If I'm paying for a monthly subcription, I want that subscription to cover ALL my music costs. The reason I would pay for a subscription would be so I wouldn't have to buy any CDs. The problem is, am I going to be able to find Tiger Army, Sick of it All, and Thelonious Monk songs that haven't been re-released on CD? Would I be able to listen to them in my car without some fussy adapter?

The reason I would buy non-DRM songs would be so I could burn them to CDs, listen to them in my car, lend them to friends occasionally, etc. If I use a subscription service, I listen to music under conditions demanded by the service. The company I rent my music from demands that I listen to the music using my PC, or a mp3 player (which needs to be reconnected every month to verify the subscription status). That is simply too much of a sacrifice to be worth it to me.

So yes, it would be more convenient to get my music from a subcription. I wouldn't have to leave the house, and I could listen to new music without spending any additional money. However, this model is incompatible with the way I, personally, listen to music. It takes more time, and I listen to less "new" music, but I appreciate the music I do listen to more thoroughly. If I buy one or two new albums a month, I will listen to them very often. If I download the equivalent of twenty albums a month, I only give the music a cursory listen. I find that I have simply acquired too much music to listen to. I don't have enough time to absorb all the content, to listen to it enough to actually enjoy it. That's why I spend more money, and more time, buying music at record stores than downloading/pirating/subscribing to it online.

Re:Renting in general

[JeffT59]

I agree, I am always finding new music with my Rhapsody membership. If I am in the mood for certain music I listen to it, if I had to pay for the music by the track I would not. I enjoy the Rhapsody stations, if I find an artist I like, I just add them to my library. I guess I am renting my cable tv stations, once I stop paying they all go away. Same goes for XM or Sirus. If you listen to the same 10 albums you listened to in high school subscription services are not the way to go. If you like discovering new music they are.

Re:Depends on Their Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

I wrote part of a paper about a new way of pricing that I think would solve your problem and many others. I think downloading and listening to a song once should be extremely cheap, around 1 cent even. Then each time you listen to a song it charges a slightly increasing amount, 4 cents for the second listen, and ten cents for the next 10 listens for example. At any point you would have the right to pay the difference between the cost of the track and the amount you had paid to own the song. Otherwise, after 12 listens and 1.05 spent you would own it automatically.

If this happened you would probably not need a subscription service for the purposes you say you use it for, though other people might if they regularly listen to a lot of music. For example, the maximum average cost per hour of listening would be $1.50 if each song is 3 and a half minutes, which would only happen if you listened to each song exactly 12 times. Still thats a lot less than the current maximum cost of over $17 for iTunes purchases. Of course it'll never work unless they finally make iPods able to track what you listen to, or (somewhat more likely) let people make plugins for the player on the iPhone and another store does it.

Honestly even if they don't want to sell music this way, I wish they'd add that feature because until then my last.fm stats are useless. Right now the stats only show me which songs I need to upload to my Zen because I've been listening to them a lot at home, which means I haven't been listening while walking to school or driving.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Mr. Jobs, stop misleading us

[gnasher719]

'' The First-sale doctrine, which is both case and codified law, says otherwise. ''

I think with music with DRM the situation is similar to the situation when you bought wallpaper: You are allowed to resell it, but it is difficult once the wallpaper is on the wall, and the manufacturer doesn't need to help you.