If its $100 for a lifetime and i can listen the songs on my computer i would be completely sold...with or without the DRM :P

Mike918

The only time I ever use iTunes is when I want to download a song that isn't common enough to be found on any popular P2P networks.

99c is a reasonable price to pay.

Rob C

Best part about my Zune is the Zune Pass subscription. I could care less about owning music. Same with DVD, Blu-Ray. I'd never be fool enough to be paying .99 for a single track on iTunes.

kibets

@sumocat: It creates an even bigger steamroller to smash the competition. Jobs might be flighty sometimes, but if he puts this into action, it will push physical music sales even further down the toilet. Maybe then the RIAA will figure things out, and pull their upper torsos out of each others asses.

tamoko

I vote "total domination". Anti-iTunes folks persistently cite the lack of an all-you-can-eat option as the holdout issue for them, which is certainly a valid issue. Take out that roadblock and the other guys get cut off at the feet. They better hope it doesn't happen.

sumocat

@mferrari: "Or, at least, let me buy a nano and if I decide to upgrade to a classic or touch, let the songs be used on those too. I would be O.K. with brand-specific limits, since I think iPods are the only good MP3 player choice at this time. "

That is possible... right? I think it would be stupid for Apple to not let you upgrade your product and not be able to use the music ...

MBPro

I would pay $100 for lifetime free music downloads for my iPod/Phone/Tunes...

eliteeggnog

@Spyrojoe: Apparently it does NOT include Online sales:

[www.betanews.com]

scoobydoo

Looks like 99 Ranch market(bay area) Lunch box Isle.

Do I get a price?

pipper

@Kaiser-Machead:
Good question. So if a company sells hardware packaged with software, and offers free updates to the software, then they have to defer the revenue on the sale triggered by the software. By charging for updates the company can recognize all the revenue up front on the sale. So as soon as anything packaged with the hardware triggers revenue deferral, the company has no reason to charge for software updates any more (except for greed) since they'll have to defer anyways. If the subscription is built into the price, my guess is it would trigger revenue deferral on the hardware and then there would be no purpose in charging for subsequent SW updates. If the subscription is sold separately, then I'd get ready to keep forkin' over your dough.

robbywil

psh. first time it didnt load and when i retype it it shows up.

MBPro

mmm Chinese buffets. No doubt the greasy American kind. With some fobby name.

SUPER DUPER BEIJING/SHANGHAI GREAT WALL OF CHINA DRAGONS BREATH BUFFET

MBPro

mmmmm greasy chinese buffets. no doubt from somewhere that had either "dragon" or "great wall" in the title.

Or maybe "SUPER".

SUPER DUPER BEIJING/SHANGHAI GREAT WALL OF CHINA DRAGONS RULE BUFFET.

MBPro

But I thought "people want to own their music"

Jobs lies again.

xgenius

@scoobydoo: No, they're talking online, although I understand how it's hard to believe. I don't know anyone that's bought music from Wal-Mart online.

Spyrojoe

So now I have one more question:

If iTunes gets a subscription, would this mean that all iPods would be able to be accounted for under a subscription model, thus get updates/new applications for free?

Kaiser-Machead

@MagnoliaBoy: I'm fairly sure that Walmart is only nr.1 in retail music sales, not online.

scoobydoo

So, why exactly is Walmart no.1? Is it die hard loyalists, or are the devices themselves pushing their revenue cycle? Better markup maybe?...

MagnoliaBoy

I'd only pay $100/device if the songs could be stored on a computer (and played on one as well). And I want the songs DRM free, too. This isn't going to happen, but if 1/3 of the device cost is for music, I expect it to be non device-specific.
Or, at least, let me buy a nano and if I decide to upgrade to a classic or touch, let the songs be used on those too. I would be O.K. with brand-specific limits, since I think iPods are the only good MP3 player choice at this time.
I've started to hate my Zune. The software is atrocious.

mferrari

@Kaiser-Machead: Lots of things don't become a success till Apple shows them how to do it.

The MP3 player wouldn't be where it is today without Apple, same goes for USB, WiFi and Firewire.

scoobydoo

these all you can download deals always have lots of restrictions and small print, i hope its not true, apple likes everything to be laid out simple, like their product range or phone tariffs.

speakerwizard

I was going to say the same thing. Has any music rental plan ever really worked? I'm sure my parents would enjoy it because it makes it easy to fill an mp3 player.

thechansen

Jobs has been known to go back on his claims, but I have serious doubts about this. Are comparable services even really successful right now?

Kaiser-Machead

Insightful, even.

matt buchanan

@robbywil: Wow. A truly insighful comment. Thank you.

matt buchanan

From the cited article:

One executive said the research had shown that consumers would pay a premium of up to $100 for unlimited access to music for the lifetime of the device, or a monthly fee of $7-$8 for a subscription model.

Apple, which is thought to make relatively little money from the iTunes store compared with its hardware sales, is also understood to be examining a subscription model.

Subscriptions would work only for its iPhone devices, where it has a monthly billing relationship with customers through the mobile phone operators offering the device, while the "comes with music" model would work with iPhones and with iPods.

The subscription models under discussion in the music industry include the provision for customers to keep up to 40 or 50 tracks a year, which they would retain even if they changed their device or their subscription lapses.

So the devil is in the details, of which there are precisely ... none. Too soon to tell. I'll weigh on and say the lack of a subscription model is what keeps me from going into Apple offerings more than I have. I know it's hard for applets to understand this ... but there really is a business model which allows choice in this area ... subscribe OR own-you can chose. It really isn't that complicated of a proposition to understand. Given the ubiquity of the iPod ... this would seem to be a no-brainer ... some sort of scheme like this would result in an entirely new revenue stream.

lianna_g

I still refuse to rent music.

Machines

any inclusion of a rental or subscription method would purely be apple adopting a 'me too' mentality to compete with the zune pass, and nokia, rather than a true heart-felt attempt at getting it right.

except of course, the zune pass isn't limited to one model from the range, and never will be.

jethrobrewin

DRM-free and an optional 320 bitrate, you could sign me up.

I don't see how artists would benefit though.

illpacin0

This makes no sense. With a Vegas Buffet music subscription, why wouldn't you just download, umm, everything?

And once again Vader is in the cafeteria line without a tray. Mr. Steven's shant be pleased.

sharmanova

Woooooooooooooo!
.
.
.
.
Nevermind, Meh.

Xenocide

@kibets:
you're such a fag

danrod43

I won't buy another iPod player until Apple offers some sort of music subscripton. (And over the years, I've bought a ton of iPods). With roughly 4,000 tunes (most ripped from CD's) in my library, I own most of what I want.

What I want now is the ability to listen to music I wouldn't otherwise buy. I enjoy a Rhapsody subscription at home, but haven't found a portable yet that I would buy for the "to go" service.

VNSROCK

if DRM free and in a more universal format, i will drop zune and get an ipod.

they need to read a page from amazon's book.

keyser