Replies to post #67991 on Apple Inc (AAPL)

[Tex]

re music rental

Execs at Universal and other labels believe a subscription service could prove more lucrative for them than iTunes' prevailing model of charging consumers 99 cents per track because it would increase consumption of music. It would also entitle the labels to a share of monthly payments, in addition to small licensing fees each time their songs are played.

I'm not sure there are more than 24h in the day; how would it increase my consumption? ;-)

More seriously, if the labels are sharing in the rental and get a per-play bonus for their tracks, it seems likely that the renting company would get squeezed badly by audiophiles eating all day and all night from the buffet, driving up bandwidth costs, driving up per-play fees, and so on. Apple's model let's everybody know where they stand.

And how do you count per-play? My wife hears Tom Waits and demands I skip it; he gets a few seconds, max. Does his label get a bonus just because he came up at random off my playlist? (On Zune's three-play counter, that would be "yes".) Which reminds me: the wife isn't here, I'm free to play Tom Waits ....

Take care,
--Tex.

[pdq]

Re: subscription
I think there is at least one good reason for Apple to adopt a subscription model option for iTunes, and that is college kids. Many colleges have struck up arrangements with subscription-style services in an effort to discourage old-style Napster stealing over college networks (which the schools could theoretically be liable for).

At some colleges (like Penn State) the school actually pays the monthly fee for the students out of the student activity fees. Good deal for (new) Napster, (who I think they use) and okay deal for PC-using students, but it's a stinker for Mac users, who are forced to pay for this through their fees but can't use a PC-only service. And I can tell you from personal experience, neither administration nor IT gives a rats ass about this situation.

But if there were a Mac-compatible subscription service, then it seems like they'd be hard-pressed not to offer it to Mac users on the same free basis as Napster. In fact, if it were competitive in cost, Apple could probably pretty much take this market, given their mind-share in digital music.

Smarter folks than I would have to figure out the details...but then, Steve's a pretty smart guy.