I don’t plan on subscribing to Apple Music when my free trial of the service runs out. It’s not really something I care to pay $10 a month for. I’m not an avid music listener; I sometimes put some hip hop on in the car, but that’s about it. For me, paying $10 every month for access to a large library of music that I don’t plan to use to the fullest extent just isn’t worth it, and I prefer to own what music I do listen to.
I also hate the idea of subscription software, like Adobe’s current Creative Cloud offering. Like my music, I’d rather own my software outright than pay a monthly fee to have access to it. The same is true for just about every other subscription service that’s out there.
So it might surprise you to find out that I think Apple should get into the TV and movie subscription business. What’s more, I’d be willing to pay every single month for access to that service. Why the difference of opinion on this topic? Keep reading and find out.
Screen vs. Speakers
One of the big differentiators between movies and music is the type of content that each one presents. Movies (and TV shows) tell a story that’s typically intended to be best received on its first viewing. In other words, once you’ve seen a movie or a show, you know what’s going to happen, and some of the drama, suspense, or surprise is taken out of it. Sure, you may say a movie is “just as good” on the second or third viewing, but in most cases, that’s just not going to be the case.
Music, on the other hand, doesn’t rely so much on drama and surprises to draw people in. A song or album truly can be “just as good” every time no matter how much you listen to it. It’s a whole different medium.
It makes sense to want to build a library of songs you enjoy, create playlists, and listen to the same songs many times over. With movies, unless it’s a real favorite, most people prefer to watch one just once or twice. The same usually goes for TV shows. One can binge-watch a series once, move on, go back and re-watch it again later, but eventually the show will get old.
So there’s a big difference in the “use case” for music versus movies and TV shows. How does that tie in to the idea of a movie subscription service?
For starters, it helps define how people would use the service, and what types of features it should offer. While Apple Music needs the ability to add songs to your library and create playlists, the chances of someone wanting to create a playlist of movies (aside from a Netflix style queue) don’t seem very high. Apple could forgo the parts of Apple Music that caused so many problems (the management) and opt for something much simpler.
Here’s what I propose: a streaming service that lets subscribers choose any movie or TV show from the iTunes Store and watch it. Subscribers could watch unlimited movies and TV shows whenever they want.
If that sounds an awful lot like Netflix, that might be because it is. The big difference between the two competitors then would be content. Apple has a much larger selection of new and current shows that Netflix just can’t match. In the same way that Apple Music subscribers are able to listen to new albums on release day, subscribers to this service would be able to watch new TV shows the day after they air, and new movies the day they release on iTunes.
By The Hour
“But, Mike,” I’m sure you’re thinking, “It’s not quite the same! Movies and TV shows are so much more expensive than music!” Glancing over the prices on the iTunes Store, you’d think so, wouldn’t you? Actually, as it turns out, that’s not the case at all.
To demonstrate how music is, in all seriousness, much more expensive than a TV series or movie let’s do a little bit of math. Bear with me here, because this is going to take a little time to explain, but it’s an important point in understanding why a service like this makes sense.
First, we’ll establish some basic references to use in our formula.
I looked at the prices of a few popular recent movie releases to determine what a likely price might be for a new release. Here’s what I found:
- Avengers: Age of Ultron – $20
- Ant-Man – $20 (pre-order)
- Straight Outta Compton – $15 (pre-order)
- Mad Max: Fury Road – $10 (limited-time price)
- The Imitation Game – $10
Given these numbers, it’s safe to say that unless a movie is set at a special price to drive sales (like Mad Max above), $20 is a reasonable asking price for a recently-released action blockbuster.
Based on the average lengths of movies and songs, let’s assume that every song is exactly four minutes long, and that every movie is exactly two hours long.
Now, let’s say you’ve got two hours to kill.
Assuming that you want to listen to a nice mix of artists and genres and don’t want to hear any songs repeated during your listening session, you’ll need to buy 15 songs to fill up your hour. At $1.29 a pop on iTunes (not buying full albums to ensure a mix of styles and artists), those songs will cost you $19.35 for one hour of listening.
The total you have to spend on music for two hours will come out to $38.70.
If the songs are shorter than four minutes, that price goes up even more. At three minutes a song, you’ll spend $25.80 per hour, or $51.60 for two hours.
Now compare that to a movie. Our two-hour movie costs $20 and fills up our entire break. That’s $18 lower than the price for enough music to fill the same period of time—nearly 50% cheaper.
The gap grows as those movies get cheaper. Picking up Mad Max: Fury Road would save you even more money, and grabbing a slightly older release like The Imitation Game would cut your price in half again—about a quarter of the total music price.
Let’s bring TV shows into the mix. I looked at prices for the most recent full seasons of four different shows on four different types of networks featured on the iTunes Store home page to get an idea of pricing:
- The Walking Dead – cable drama, 16 episodes – $43
- The Blacklist – broadcast network action/drama, 22 episodes – $40
- Homeland – premium cable drama, 12 episodes – $31
- Rick and Morty – half-hour cable comedy, 11 episodes – $21
Because TV shows have to make room for commercials, most episodes don’t come out to exactly 60 minutes. For The Walking Dead and The Blacklist, the actual runtime per episode is 43 minutes. For Homeland, it averages at around 50 minutes. Rick and Morty runs 22 minutes.
Using these numbers, I came up with the actual price-per-hour for each show:
- The Walking Dead – $2.40
- The Blacklist – $3.65
- Homeland – $3
- Rick and Morty – $5.40
The obvious outlier here is Rick and Morty, which is mostly due to the fact that Apple charges the same price for a 22-minute episode as a 43- or 50-minute episode.
For these same prices, you can get anywhere from 1-4 songs—not even enough to fill half an hour. Thus, it can be concluded that TV shows and movies actually cost a lot less than music per hour.
But of course, none of these are actually sold “by the hour,” so what does it matter? Quite a bit, when you’re talking about streaming. With the current model, your inability or unwillingness to pay for those additional songs or episodes can put a stop to your purchases.
With streaming, the only limiting factor is the amount of free time you have to watch your show or movie. If you have two hours, nothing can stop you from watching two full hours of TV
In essence, streaming media is being sold “by the hour.” You’re not paying for an individual movie, or episode, or even a season pass. You’re paying a flat rate for an all-you-can-watch entertainment buffet. Every episode and movie you watch makes the subscription a little more “worth it.”
So how does the fact that movies and TV shows are cheaper by the hour than music play into this? Well, basically it means content providers will be missing out on less money when people choose to subscribe instead of buy. When you listen to an hour of streaming music instead of buying, that’s $19.35 that could be divided up between Apple, the label, the artist, and other contributors. Instead, a much smaller number is shared between the involved parties.
For content with a lower overall cost to you, like a TV show, Apple, the studio, and other involved parties are missing out on a much lower number in the ballpark of $3, or $10 for a movie. That loss can likely be made up for by factoring in the number of people who will watch a show they might have skipped before because it now costs them nothing to do so.
There are some other interesting factors that would come into play with such a service that don’t impact the music industry. For example, people can’t watch movies while driving or at work, though many choose to listen to music at these times. As a result, there may not be enough hours in the day for movie and TV streaming to reach the same levels of usage that music does.
It could be argued that less content being streamed at the same subscription fee as a music service (or a higher fee) means a larger piece of the pie for those who get paid, which helps negate potential losses even more.
Financially, it seems there’s less risk in putting movies and TV shows on a streaming platform than music. With services like Netflix already doing just that with great success, slapping Apple’s logo on a similar offer could be just thing we need to push the cord-cutting movement into the mainstream.
Apple vs. Netflix
A service like this makes even more sense when you consider the launch of the major Apple TV revamp next month and recent rumors that Apple is trying to get into producing original content. Launching original shows like House of Cards was a big step for Netflix, and taking that same step could help Apple set itself apart from the competition.
So how would a service like this be priced? I’m not sure. Apple Music is $10 a month, and Netflix has three plans at $8, $9, and $11. It seems like $10 could be a competitive price point for Apple as well, though I’ll also say that I’d be willing to pay a bit more than that.
While some may suggest that Netflix’s price is possible because the service doesn’t carry all of the latest titles, and that Apple streaming those titles would allow them to boost the price, I’m not convinced. After all, Apple managed to keep its own music price competitive while still making better content deals than Spotify and others.
Whether premium cable networks like HBO and Showtime got on board with this idea could also impact the cost, but with each of those networks already offering their own standalone streaming platforms, their compliance wouldn’t be necessary to make this service a cord-cutter’s dream.
In fact, if Apple released this service next month, I’d strongly consider dropping Netflix immediately. The only thing holding me back, ironically, would be Netflix’s original content. That’s the reason Netflix makes shows, after all: to lock people in so they don’t want to leave. Maybe that’s why Apple wants to create its own series, too. I certainly hope so.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
i would gladly pay for such a service, they could make something like unlimited streaming of movies and TV shows from 2 years back or older and 5-10 new movies every month for 15 dollars
An interesting idea, but I just don’t think putting limits like that will help them compete with Netflix.
well, if you get to see 5-10 of the newest movies, it’s more than Netflix gives for a similar price, that would give Apple the edge in this battle
True, it would be a big edge over Netflix where movies are concerned. For TV shows maybe not so much. People (in my experience) tend to watch more TV shows than movies.
“Like my music, I’d rather own my software outright than pay a monthly fee to have access to it.”
But, Mike. You do not own the software that you pay for. You purchase a license to use it.
But I know what you mean, and I feel the same way, and I do the same thing.
It’s not possible the way cotent windows work today. Trust me, I want it too.
I’ve been saying this for the last 2 years! I would GLADLY pay £20-£25/month for access to all of the iTunes movies to stream.
Would be a good service, surely movies and tv show sales are down just as music purchases is for Apple. With the likes of moviebox, showbox etc people wont be willing to buy movies anymore.
I could not agree more with this. I’ll gladly pay a 10$ or 15$/month for a less buggy and more legal version of PopCornTime. The Movies and TV shows industry has entered the era of globalization a decade ago, they just still refuse to realize it (as a French guy, it’s pretty obvious that the industry is led by US productions). Apple may have some issues to deal with it.
Excellent post! Excellent comparison on prices. I’ve never looked at it that way (or any other way really, I simply pay the price tag if I want it), but your comparison makes sense – from a customers’ view. I wouldn’t know if ‘the studio’s’ would agree here, but boy, you do make a point.
I’d pay $1, maybe $1.50 per TV show… anything above that and we’re looking at finding these shows “elsewhere”. TV is often a watch one time thing (unless you are saving the better shows, like Band of Brothers, to watch again later) Music you often listen to again and again. Your $1 per song value is better than paying your $3 recommended TV show.
$1 to watch once, $2 to own. I might buy that. But what of stations like CNN… how do you pay for a couple hours watching the latest of their scare the world milk tragedy to the last drop type content?
I’ve been paying well over $100/month for DirecTV until last year. I’d consider $75-ish for all content available each month. Anything more and why would I give up cable/satellite. It has to compete on cost and convenience.
Getting TV and movies free is still WAY too easy. You’re competing against this as well.
Hmmm, live news isn’t really something I considered here. It’s not a type of content iTunes currently offers, but I agree it would be nice to see a way for cord-cutters to get that, too.
Maybe Apple needs their own Beats1-like 24 hour news station. Then another for tech news. Then another for another type of news…
Nice post, by the way. I love the idea and I’m not into Apple Music but am into movies, Apple TV, Netflix, and very little cable TV.
I suspect Apple will pair On Demand streaming with their Live Channel streaming service. So you’ll gain access to On Demand content from the Channels you subscribe to.
That would put them more directly in competition with SlingTV than Netflix, but I could see it working well. I think I’d subscribe to that if it was more reasonably priced than cable.
Yeah, for sure. I think it’s probably the more exciting bet moving forward, but a lot probably depends on rights negotiations. Library content has to be easier to do than live broadcasts and catchup
What holds me back is that I don’t want to subscribe to a bunch of different services. I want to subscribe to ONE service that provides EVERYTHING, and I’d pay a premium for that service. Current and old: all music available, all TV shows available, all movies available, all sports available — regardless of who makes them. Put all that together on demand and I’ll gladly pay, say, $50 per month. But it has to be EVERYTHING. That matters so very much to me. The payment scheme to various providers can be from monitoring what is actually being streamed and how many times.
Ok, I would seriously pay a lot for this. More than Apple Music for sure. This plus the live streaming deals that Apple’s apparently negotiating right now would basically be this cord-cutter’s dream. I probably wouldn’t feel the need to keep Hulu and Netflix around. And I wouldn’t feel the need to have many live station streams if we had access to move on-demand iTunes content – just the basics would work fine for me. I’m positive I would watch a lot more than I currently do.
During the Apple TV Siri demonstration in the keynote, I noticed that, when an iTunes movie was searched for and called up on the screen, the only option was to “play.” Not purchase or rent, just play. Of course, it could be a movie that the user had already purchased, but still, I thought that was kind of odd and interesting, since the demonstration seemed to be that of someone using the interface for the first time.
I’d pay a lot more too, but if they want to compete with other similar services, they’ll have to keep the price down. It’s a conundrum for Apple.
I will say it again: content rights don’t work like that. Everything in iTunes is in the rent/buy window, and in order to have unlimited access to a content library, you need content in the subscription window. This is the reason why you don’t see that kind of service anywhere. Even Apple has limits. (Truth in advertising, I work in content merchandising.)
Fun that you like looking at the math behind all of it, but your premise might be a little shaky. Perhaps one reason the music artists and content owners are willing to do a subscription model is that they get $0.02 per play. Couple that with the premise that most people will listen to a good song repeatedly (not necessarily back to back, but think about it–how often do you repeat music?). $0.02 per repeat. For good music, it’s not long before they’ve earned back the $0.99 retail cost, and I’d wager a good track can often surpass the $0.99/user.
Now enter longer-format media. The same approach doesn’t quite work. If given an infinite library that’s continuously updated, how often is the typical person likely to repeat the same movie or tv show? I’d wager the frequency is far less than it is for music. Just the time required to complete a movie ensures it can’t be repeated as often. If the library is filled with blockbusters and great content, then the user has less incentive to repeat.
One day we’ll probably have a licensing model for new-release movies and TV (not quite netflix). But you can’t expect a studio to warmly embrace the same licensing math that’s been applied to music, just because it works for music. Different medium, different user consumption patterns. The cost will necessarily be higher.
I agree there are differences, like higher production cost, but I feel that with services like SlingTV and Netflix setting the pace, it seems content providers are indeed willing to get in on this type of service at this price point. There seems to be some precedent.
I would subscribe instantly! Netflix user here, but for movies they kinda blow (at least in my Country). I watch more shows than movies too though, and a lot of them are Netflix shows, so iTunes would probably have a hard time to compete… But I would love to have access to all the movies iTunes has to offer.
I Would Pay 40€ if Apple added músic movies Tv shows and live sports. Apple should get in business with mayor leage world wide. Iam a apple share holder! So I want them to dominante the Future Tv world. Love The idea to live in Apple World. MacBook iPhone Apple TV and Apple Car! Perfect life!
I can assure you new content will not be released via an all you can eat Netflix model. The current pricing models allow a long revenue tail, the benefit of this tail is it provides revenue over significant time. The downside is that it’s a diminishing return, with high revenue streams at release and shrinking from there. Music content owners screwed themselves a long time ago by cutting bad deals, movie studios will do everything in their power to not make the same mistake.
A service like this needs to compete with Cable rather than Netflix, and the prices everyone is talking about are far too low for that. For one sports will be a required component, ESPN will eat up ~$6 of the subscription fee right off the bat. Netflix is able to be $10 because it’s designed to be an augment to your television viewing, it doesn’t have the selection to be a replacement. Once you have the selection and quality to be a replacement you are going to be looking at more like $40 a month, at least.
I think for sports, the solution would actually be standalone apps that go on top of this type of service. Like an ESPN app that you can subscribe to separately from the movies/TV series plan, or an MLB app, NFL app, etc. The iTunes Store doesn’t carry that type of stuff. This service I’m thinking of is specifically regarding the material that’s available for sale in the iTunes Store.
I almost agree. I favor a mix of owning music, movies, and TV shows. With Netflix, I can watch a lot of movies and TV shows any time I want. But there’s a problem. When he content license runs out, those movies, and TV shows are gone. If I buy my favorites from iTunes, I won’t lose them. I only buy DVDs now when the content I want isn’t available as a digital download. I like the idea of streaming music, but mostly for the purpose of discovering new music. I’m a happy Adobe Creative Cloud customer, and I like always having the most current version of the software. With a perpetual license, I’m stuck with the version that I bought. Adobe has been very aggressive about releasing new versions, and they’ve done so at a faster pace than they did before they started Creative Cloud. That’s a good thing.
I can see the merit of having the latest version, but to me, I’d be happier using a version that’s just one or two years out of date (and still functional) if that means I don’t have to pay in perpetuity for it. Eventually those monthly payments aren’t going to be worth it anymore because you will have paid out so much that you could have just bought the apps and been done with it. That’s my primary issue with Creative Cloud.
And you make an extremely valid argument against Creative Cloud. In my situation, it works for me, and it works for most of my customers.
Ultimately I’m hoping for something like this… A family plan which would share the following;
1. Apple Music
2. Unlimited Movies and TV Shows
3. Unlimited (or reasonable limits) for iBooks
4. Extra iCloud Storage
One service for all your content. One bill. No hassle.
Unlimited streaming to recent films via iTunes will never happen. Netflix has more muscle than anyone in this space, and they can’t get a deal that people would pay for.
Apple has way more muscle than Netflix, even in this space, because of the power of the Apple brand. People may be on the fence about something from Netflix, but when Apple offers something integrated into all of its devices, people will give it a try, and if it’s executed well, they’ll stick around. That’s how iTunes managed to become what it is today: Apple used the strength of its brand to make deals other companies couldn’t. That’s why Taylor Swift is on Apple Music, too. I think they could make it happen for movies and TV.
Besides, even Netflix is starting to get some better deals now. A new Disney deal kicks in next year that brings Disney, Pixar, Marvel, and Star Wars movies to Netflix. Big content providers are willing to get on board with these types of services, provided the company they’re working with has a successful track record. Netflix does, and so does Apple.
The 5 movies you just listed are some of the blockbusters and priced accordingly. If the average streamer would want to watch those within a month and 5 other new blockbusters next month, that means you’d have to pay the price of those 5 blockbusters every month or the service is loosing per-movie revenue. And no one wants to pay that 75$ every month.
That being said, I think a service like this could make sense to the movie and tv companies. Streaming music services hasn’t quite killed music piracy, but it has made an enormous dent in it; it’s simply not worth the effort anymore. Being able to play practically any track whenever in a simple way is just that convenient.
Services like Netflix, HBO, Showtime and all the other competitors has made a dent in the movie/tv piracy for sure, but nothing like the music part. And I guess the smart consumer simply takes turns and subscribes to whatever network they want untill they run out of interesting content and then move on to the next service. But the whole pricing model on movies needs work. First of all, digital distribution should be cheaper than physical copies. Of course the companies save som money by not having to print the discs and covers, but a costumer feels like there’s more value to something you can hold in your hand. And the price schedule where movies get to a quarter of the price within a year just makes people feel like they’re walking a fine line as to when they should buy the movies.
So what we’re really proposing here is that the movie companies accept the lower rate, so the new avengers movie would be streamed/bought for 5$ rather than 20$ but then keep that price for a couple of years before eventually dropping it to a legacy level of 2$. Then it would make sense to give people a subscription service like this for around 20-25$ a month.
now, this is only 1/3 of the originally suggested price, but I still think it would be a good deal for every one. Sure, the movie makers would get paid less per watch when the movie is new, but a lot more people would actually watch it. And having a service where you can watch practically anything in a simple way could cut of piracy in a similar level as the streaming has done to music, which I personally believe would avtually make the movie companies more money in the long run than the model they’re using now.
And for the ones who talked about sports and news, I agree that these are things to consider, but they are seperate services. Charge people 25$ for the movie/tv show package, 7$ for the sports package (depending on the level of content they can provide), 6$ for the news service and bundle it all up in a 35$ package. If I were in charge of such a project, I would look into advertising as well. I don’t think people will mind spending 5 minutes of watching commercials before the movie hits the screen or 1-2 minutes between tv-show episodes, if it saves them 5-10$ a month on their subscription.
So there you go, content providers: free-to-use bussiness plan. Looking forward to getting the finished product 😎😎
I’m pretty sure Apple has tried to nail exactly this kind of deals with the content companies but they couldn’t get it to fly just yet. Blockbusters revenue is just way too much to justify a flat rate in iTunes. I think we’ll get there eventually. My guess is that prices of movies in theaters will likely go up a bit and that going to the movies will be really a night out for which we want to pay significantly more (including some food, drinks etc.). Movies and TV shows in our homes on the other hand will be regarded as just one of the many options which we can fill our spare time with and has to compete with music, internet (social media), games etc. In that regard you’re totally right. Money isn’t the limiting factor. It’s time. And to win the battle for our spare time content companies need to put down a competitive offer. So the cost per hour where you came up with isn’t as far fetched as it initially seemed. It will take a long time for content companies to acknowledge this though.
I would sign up and drop Netflix immediately!
Problem is that here in New Zealand we don’t have TV shows available in iTunes, but i suppose I could find ways to access the US or Australian library, or I could simply make do with movies..
Come on Apple, you can do it!
There’s one huge aspect of television that’s not mentioned here: Sports. How will Apple handle the likes of ESPN, Fox Sports, B1G Network (or other conference network), NFL, MLB, NHL or NBA networks? Whether they’re available will greatly affect whether I sign up for Apple’s streaming service.
This will never happen for any semblance of a “reasonable” subscription rate. I’d randomly guess at a price point north of $50/month for this to even make remote financial sense for those involved. Studios have NO incentive to do this kind of deal with anybody. Not with Apple, not with Netflix, not with anybody. Ever. Studios don’t green-light millions—and often hundreds of millions—of dollars on productions so they can give them away for pennies on the dollar. A certain saturation point has to be reached and profits realized before that happens (if ever), and time is the main driving factor in that equation.
The reason Netflix (vs. the likes of Apple, Vudu, etc.) doesn’t stream the latest and greatest is not because they don’t have the ability to do so; it’s because it is simply not financially feasible for them do so at a “reasonable” price point considering the fees they pay to license those movies. Of course, everybody would sign up for such a service at a sub $20/month price point.
This is like saying if McDonald’s did an all-you-can-eat daily lunch for a fee of $10/month, you’d sign up right away. At best, you’d be considered “naive”, and at worst, “not the brightest bulb in the room” for such a suggestion.
Considering Netflix, Hulu, and even Amazon all offer a similar service for movies and TV, it would be nice for Apple to do so.
Many people have moved away from CDs and DVDs… For music you often want on many devises and so streaming music on the go is not ideal, but streaming movies is. Most people use the same TV…of course if you are at a friends house you can log into your device and stream from that…a movie lasts longer and is best viewed on a TV…so having Apple Music on the TV isn’t that great (unless you watch music videos)
I’ve tried Apple Music, but I’m more of a TV and movie fan.
Currently I live in Japan. Amazon are launching their prime video service this month. I’m very excited. Paying 1 monthly payment for fast shipping, same day delivery, free books, music, and soon to and movies — it’s a much greater deal than Apple.
The idea of renting music and movies is very outdated. We want immediate access… I also don’t want to waste money on discs that get scratched, fill the place up, and often only get watched once. And the problem with downloading is that the files are so big.
As for companies losing out. Actually, if priced right, they’d actually make money because less people will download illegally.
Great analysis! Thank you!
Personally I can’t stand exclusive deals. I’m not going to subscribe to more than one service so these kind of things mean we miss out on some content. I’d rather they compete on quality of their service and user interface.
All TV and Movies put into one pot, any company can package how they want (user interface etc) and sell for the same price. I don’t know what that would have to be to be feasible but could see two, maybe three tiers.
All content 1 year old or older £10 p/m
All content including new releases £15 p/m
With Sports +£? p/m (all sports all around the world including NFL, Basketball, Premier League etc any sport show on TV)
Possibly even charge a little extra for 4K/3D £5 p/m
If they could include Sports somehow I would love that. The current SkySports model is a rip-off. £45 per month or £7 per game (premier league).
I don’t agree with the way the value has been worked out in this article. I currently buy maybe 1 movie a year. 0 TV shows but would subscribe, the same was/is true for music. I never bought music but I now subscribe to Spotify.
YES, It’s time for this. Apple Music is bland mostly because it’s nothing more than a product someone else created and they copied. Apple could revolutionize TV by being first to open the gates to full catalog and shake up the industry like only Apple can.
Why is everyone so into steaming/subscription services. It seems like a step back from downloads and a worse deal for the consumer also. Not to mention limitations of Internet connectivity etc…
Sometimes I feel things like this take off just because it’s seen as the cool thing to do when in reality it’s not!
Couldn’t disagree more. I’m spending a lot less on music than I used to, and I have infinitely more variety available. I’m discovering and enjoying music I never would have bought, but because it doesn’t cost me anymore I give it a chance. $10 a month to have essentially the entire world of music just a click away is a bargain.
Mike, there is a huge fallacy in your argument. You are assuming that every TV and movie title currently for sale or rent in iTunes would still be available if they suddenly switched to a streaming model. What on earth makes you think the studios would make those titles available for streaming? If they don’t allow Netflix to stream them, why would they allow Apple? This literally makes no sense.
I appreciate the vision, but content rights don’t work like that. There is no way that customers could stream unlimited movies/tv from the iTunes store. Everything in iTunes is in the rent/buy window, and in order to have unlimited access to a content library, you need content in the subscription window. This is the reason why you don’t see that kind of service anywhere. Even Apple has limits. (Truth in advertising, I work in the content merchandising market today.)