Subscrever ou comprar a música?

«At the 2008 Macworld expo in January, Steve Jobs quieted iTunes subscription service rumours by proclaiming that people don't want to rent music, they want to own it (unlike movies, which are available for rent through iTunes in the USA). Jobs' logic is that because people listen to a favourite song hundreds of times throughout their life, a file that might expire doesn't make sense. For companies like Rhapsody and Napster, the million dollar question is, "Is he right?" The answer is more complicated than you'd think. I would never be so bold as to call Mr. Jobs a liar, but I think his Macworld statement is misleading.

The subscription vs. purchased music debate presents a false choice -- a black and white view of a world without accounting for all the mess in between. While it's true that most music consumers do just fine purchasing music a la carte through services like iTunes, Destra or eMusic, the idea of a coexisting "celestial jukebox" isn't any less potent. It's like saying the iPod and FM radio can't coexist. The concept of DRM protection for purchased music is clearly dumb (and still practiced by iTunes, by the way), but the real reason iTunes will be the last service to adopt a subscription music model is because it doesn't have to. Apple's existing music retail store is already enjoying a charmed existence without a subscription music option rocking the boat. Why the hell would Apple open up an all-you-can-eat buffet in a restaurant already raking it in on overpriced entrees?» The future of subscription music By Donald Bell on 25 March 2008

«I'm coming around to the notion that an iTunes subscription model, alongside Apple's existing system, could work quite well, especially if it's sold in conjunction with a network-ready piece of hardware. Lesser players in the digital music business such as RealNetworks (RNWK), Napster (NAPS), and Microsoft's (MSFT) Zune marketplace have embraced subscriptions. I used Rhapsody for the better part of a year and was for the most part pleased with it. For $12.99 a month, I could play music on my Mac or PC without paying for an album I ended up not liking. I could take music I was curious about for an extended test-drive. If I liked it, I'd go over to iTunes, buy it, and keep it forever. Rather than trying to compete directly with Apple, Rhapsody has gone a different route, getting itself embedded into standalone audio hardware—notably the Sonos Sound System, TiVo (TIVO) boxes, and some high-end audio gear from Denon. It is in conjunction with audio hardware that I think the subscription model makes a lot of sense. The idea is that the user buys a piece of equipment with a ready connection to an online music store and then pays a monthly subscription fee for unlimited access to many or all of the songs. Apple wouldn't be the first to try to make this work, but it could possibly do it better.» (How iTunes Subscriptions Could Succeed by Arik Hesseldahl Business Week, 28/03/08

«So who's right?  "From our perspective, money is what counts," said Mark Kirstein, a former analyst at In-Stat and iSuppli, and currently head of MultiMedia Intelligence.  Kirstein compiled a ranking based on  annual revenues, and found both Amazon and Spiralfrog in the basement.  "Amazon may be coming up now, but they certainly weren't in the running in 2007," Kirstein told Digital Music News.  "And Spiralfrog's claimed registered user base of roughly 850,000 isn't substantially monetized." But who are the top players?  Kirstein estimated annual music revenues of $1.8 billion at iTunes, $125 million at Napster, and $42 million at eMusic.  Others, including Rhapsody, Zune Marketplace,  and Musicload are all "sub-$40 million" according to the data.»