News

Apple Mulls "All You Can Eat" iTunes Store Option

Wednesday, March 19th, 2008 at 11:35 AM - by

Apple may be considering adding a new option to its iTunes Store that lets users download as much music as they want from the online library. Users would have to pay a premium for iPods that could take advantage of the "all you can eat" downloads, and apparently Apple is already negotiating with record labels over terms of the deal, according to the Financial Times.

The deal would give iPod and iPhone users access to the entire iTunes Store library but without the limitations that subscription services impose.

According to sources close to the negotiations, the deals with record labels are stuck on how much Apple will pay for the unlimited licensing necessary for the service to work. Appearantly, Apple is willing to pay US$20 per iPod sold, but the labels are more interested in something in line with Nokia's $80 per device offer for its similar "Comes with Music" service.

Assuming consumers are willing to pay more for an iPod with unlimited music downloads, the deal could help boost record label sales. If so, that would be good news for record companies since sales have been steadily declining for some time now.

Apple has not commented on the alleged negotiations.

6 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

mahuti said:

member since 09 Jan 2003 with 374 posts, TMO Staff, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:30 pm

If they added $20 to the price of the iPod and it came with unlimited music out of the box, I think it'd be a no-brainer, AND it would make record companies money hand over fist. The iPods prices have come down so much over the years, a little bump back up would be pretty negligible if it meant you could add large quantities of music right out of the box.

Quote this post ↓

brett_x said:

member since 24 Jan 2006 with 322 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:01 pm

How would this be different from a subscription model? It isn't clear from this article and FT requires a subscription to read the full article..

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:24 pm

If it's not a subscription, then presumably it would differ by not having the music expire at any time in the future.

Quote this post ↓

TosaDeac said:

member since 05 Feb 2008 with 16 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:51 pm

Just because Apple would have to pay money to the record companies ($20-$80) might not mean that is the price added to the iPod. In other words, the $20 paid to the record company per iPod might equate to much more than $20 added to the price of the player...they have to account for the lost revenue to the iTunes store! Now if it included videos, then that would be sweet.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 1001 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:30 pm

@brett-X: Of course it is different from a subscription model. Steve Jobs says that we all want to own our music. In a subscription model, you rent the music. In this model, you own the music until your subscription runs out. Make sense?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:35 am

Jobs will now claim that people don't want to own music.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.