Decius wrote:
] Hrm... I'm posting this because these were my thoughts upon
] hearing about the Apple service. 99 cents a song is still too
] much money for disposable, low quality MP3s. I'd rather pay a
] flat rate subscription.

First, a nit. The Apple music service uses AAC, not MP3. Apple claims the quality is better, although the WSJ review that I read seemed to indicate they're selling 128kbps tracks. If so, that is pretty lame. Why not 256 kbps? It's still not CD quality, but why skimp on what's nearly-free disk space?

Second, on the business model. I agree that 99 cents is too high. I think they'll pass the threshold for the typical consumer when they offer the latest releases AND an extensive back catalogue for 50 cents per song or five dollars per album. Ultimately, the fee schedule should be progressive. By this, I mean that I should be able to buy the album a song at a time for 50 cents each, over time, and if the album contains more than ten tracks, I get the rest for them for free after buying the tenth.

Like you, I would prefer a flat-rate subscription service. Again, I think that the best way to do this is with a progressive fee schedule. You'd pay 50 cents per song or five dollars per album until your monthly fee reaches the flat-rate ceiling. After that, it's all you care to have.

Of course, some users will try to download the entire back catalogue in the first month and then return only rarely for the new stuff. A reasonable limit to the "all you can grab" flat-rate model might be 720 hours of audio per month, which equates to 24/7 streaming of a single channel for the entire month. For 128 kbps audio, this works out to roughly 40 GB, which would take three days to download in bulk over a 1 Mbps link.

Jeremy wrote:

] If so, that is pretty lame. Why not 256 kbps? It's still
] not CD quality, but why skimp on what's nearly-free disk
] space?
]
From my A/B/C comparisons over the past couple of days, 128k AAC seems VERY close to CD quality, although discerning ears could hear some compression artifacts in the form of slightly less presence and very high (15-20kHz) frequency material (The "shimmery bright" frequencies). I think probably that the choice of 128k was due more to bandwidth considerations than ones of storage...

] album. Ultimately, the fee schedule should be progressive.
] By this, I mean that I should be able to buy the album a song
] at a time for 50 cents each, over time, and if the album
] contains more than ten tracks, I get the rest for them for
] free after buying the tenth.
]
The average album (12-14 tracks) comes out to being roughly the same price as a store-bought CD. I would prefer more of a discount myself, as well as some kind of upper price limit or some such. I have a number of 60-70 minute albums that have over 20 songs. You'd end up spending a bunch more for a full album in those cases.

I think the pricing strategy is slewed toward the majority of the radio-listening, album-disoriented public that is going to buy songs rather than full CDs. Apple's attitude seems to be that people who are really "into" music or specific artists are more likely to purchase the CD anyhow, and I really don't think I can argue with that point of view. Following on the above, I don't think that APPL intends to target this service to the people who are doing the majority of the file sharing. They're looking for people who want to buy songs they like without having to shell out $15-$18 on the full-length CD.