TightWind is written by Kyle Baxter. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

TUAW published a rumor that Apple may announce an unlimited iTunes subscription, where for $129.99 a year, subscribers can listen to as much music as they want.

This rumor is not exactly new, and TUAW’s “source” is merely an anonymous tipster who does not work for Apple. Despite Erica Sadun’s calling it “brilliant,” a music subscription is not new, either — there are a number of similar services already available.

Yesterday, Michael Mistretta posted a unique take on an iTunes subscription service. Michael points out that the flaw with paying for each song or album is that it discourages music experimentation. I am much less likely to buy music from a band I have never heard if I must pay a full $10 first, and I may not even end up liking them. He then argues that an iTunes subscription would solve this by allowing you to listen to as much music as you want — subscribe for a year, and listen to as many new bands or artists as you please, and buy any CDs that you particularly enjoy.

Michael’s point is right, but a music subscription is the nuclear option in this case. It is a solution, sure, but it ignores that music is fundamentally different than other media in the process of solving a rather small problem.

Unsurprisingly, Jobs explains it well:

People don’t want to buy their music as a subscription. They bought 45′s; then they bought LP’s; then they bought cassettes; then they bought 8-tracks; then they bought CD’s. They’re going to want to buy downloads. People want to own their music. You don’t want to rent your music — and then, one day, if you stop paying, all your music goes away.

And, you know, at 10 bucks a month, that’s $120 a year. That’s $1,200 a decade. That’s a lot of money for me to listen to the songs I love.

I just bought Beck’s new album, Modern Guilt, a few days ago, and I like it a lot. Between my car and home, I have listened to it ten times now, and I bet in a few years, I will still throw it on every once in a while. Good music is timeless that way — it does not get stale. The Ramones’ first album is as good today as it was the first time I heard it. Music is something special, because it can be consumed over and over again and be just as satisfying as the first time. Music is personal, and stays with you.

A music subscription ignores this. If I downloaded Modern Guilt through a subscription service, just to have the option to listen to it in the future, I must also continue paying the subscription. I have every intention of listening to this album in 2015, and to do that, I would have paid almost $1100. Insane.

And worse, I would not really own the music. I would be tied to a service, completely dependent on it, to listen to my music. If it fails (as several subscription services have), my music, and investment, disappears. I could not switch services if I wanted to.

I could just buy the album outright if I decide I like it enough, but if I am just going to buy albums that I like anyway, then the service is not very valuable. At that point, this music subscription service is more of a sampler service — “Pay $130 a year, listen to whatever you want, and buy what you like” — and I do not think that is worth $130 a year. I would end up buying all of the same albums as usual, and pay an additional $130 each year. No thanks.

Easy Solution

So I do not think a subscription service is the answer, but Michael’s point still stands: it is difficult to find new music on iTunes.

There is a simple answer here. Rather than create an entirely new payment model for iTunes, Apple could, if negotiations with labels permit (which is an admittedly big if), extend its song preview from 30 seconds to 2 minutes or even the full length of the song. You could listen to as many songs as you want, and know whether you like it enough to buy. Easy.

Video is Different

Movies and TV shows, except for the very best, are watched only once, and sometimes two or three times. Video is boring after watching it a few times.

Which makes it perfect for a subscription service. We already consume most of our movies and TV shows through a subscription — cable TV and Netflix, with movie rentals and an occasional visit to the theater thrown in. And here is where Michael nails it:

iTunes has an incredible amount of media—what if for one set monthly fee, I could download all the music, TV shows, and movie rentals I want (with one rental at a time)? All this in combination with audio and video podcasts that are already free.

All of a sudden, iTunes becomes your one-stop place for any type of content. iTunes becomes your media center. Goodbye Rogers cable TV. Goodbye Blockbuster. Hello iTunes.

If Apple offered an affordable monthly subscription which makes all of iTunes’s movies and TV shows available, I would drop Netflix and cable and subscribe in a second.

So a music subscription cannot stand on its own, but an all-inclusive subscription certainly could. It would be an incredibly powerful subscription. Watch whatever TV show or movie you want, and listen to whatever music you want, too, from your home theatre, computer, iPod or iPhone, for a reasonable monthly fee. That is hard to resist.

I am not sure if Apple would go in this direction, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than a music-only subscription, as TUAW hopes for.