Apple has approved a subscription based iPad gaming service for the first time. Big Fish Games has gained Apple’s approval for its collection of games to be made available to iPad users at a cost of $6.99 a month. Apple introduced its subscription features earlier this year however no other game developer has taken advantage of this business model until now.

When Apple introduced its subscription feature earlier this year, Paul Thelen, the founder of Big Fish, saw it as an opportunity to offer an “all-you-can-eat” service. That lets players jump in and out of different games without having to make a bunch of downloads. While game-subscription services have a mixed record of success, the popularity of the iPad, along with the easy payment method provided by Apple’s App Store, will make the offering attractive, Thelen said.

Initially the service will launch at an introductory price of $4.99 a month. This will increase to $6.99 a month when more game titles are added. Big Fish also plans to offer a free version of its app. This will allow a user to play for a maximum of 30 minutes a day and it will include advertisements too.

Would you use a game subscription model like this?

Source: Bloomberg

Speaking on his company’s earnings call, CBS CEO Les Moonves said that CBS had turned down the Apple TV as a platform for its content. The revelation was revealed in response to a question about CBS’s appetite toward striking deals with new streaming providers that may not have the cash to pay up front for its content. Moonves claimed that CBS had turned down Apple and its Apple TV platform because the offer was based on an ad split revenue source.

This seems to confirm rumors that Apple is trying to secure some sort of Apple TV subscription service however it looks like it is going to be much harder than Apple had hoped. Apple has been slowly adding additional media content to the Apple TV platform; the recent iOS 5 update brought Wall Street Journal Live and NHL content. Hulu Plus is also rumored to be ready to go on the Apple TV but political reasons are cited as holding it back from launch.

Source: Gigaom

CNET drops a big bottle of killjoy juice on recent rumors that Apple might just be ready to rollout their fabled iTunes Replay service -- the ability to re-download and stream content to iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Apple TV and iTunes on Windows and Mac from the iCloud -- or a Netflix-like subscription service.

While Apple has music and now TV available for re-download, at least in the US, apparently they've only got agreements with 4 of the 6 big studios needed to add movies to the mix.

One reason is the HBO window. During specific periods of time--often referred to in the film industry as windows--HBO owns the exclusive electronic distribution rights of films from three of the six top films studios: 20th Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros. Any retailer that wishes to sell physical DVDs from these studios during HBO's window is totally unrestricted. But online retailers are legally prevented from delivering movie downloads from the three HBO-restricted studios during HBO's window and they also can't stream titles from those studios. This means that right now iTunes can't stream a movie to a customer during the HBO window that the customer may have purchased outside of the window.

Broadcast windows are also the reason movies and TV Shows sometimes disappear and reappear from iTunes, Netflix, etc. But the bottom line seems to be, at least for now, that iTunes movie re-downloading, streaming, and subscription services are still a long way off.

[CNET]

Trying to figure out how to easily add holidays and sports schedules into the iPhone or iPad Calendar app? Lucky for us Apple actually solved this problem quite a while ago for Mac iCal users. Simply subscribe to Apple's already built calendars and you'll be all set. Read on to find out how!

Sure, you can manually add calendar subscriptions right on your iOS device, but finding them and tapping them all in can be a pain. iCal on Mac makes it simple, and if you're already syncing, it can save you some time and effort!

1. First, open iCal on your Mac.

2. Next, from the top menu choose Calendar and then Find Subscriptions.
3. Your web browser should open and direct you to Apple's iCal calendar downloads page.

4. From here you can browse from many calendars. Choose the one you want and click Download next to the calendar name.

5. Your computer will ask you what program you want to open the file with. iCal should be highlighted. If it's not, select it and tap Ok.

6. iCal will automagically open and show you the subscription link. Simply click Subscribe. You should now see the subscribed calendar in your side bar and the events should now be added to your calendar.
7. That's it! Simply sync your iPhone or iPad and your calendars will come down. If you have MobileMe, it'll do it by itself with no syncing required.

If you guys subscribe to calendars via Apple, which ones do you use? I find these especially handy for things like holidays and sports schedules as well as astronomy calendars. We live on the beach and sometimes I want to know what time the sun is setting. Sure I can use a weather app but it's nice to be able to set alarms for nights I know I'm going to be around the beach area. How about you guys, any calendars you found that you think are especially cool?

Tips of the day will range from beginner-level 101 to advanced-level ninjary. If you already know this tip, keep the link handy as a quick way to help a friend. If you have a tip of your own you'd like to suggest, add them to the comments or send them in to news@tipb.com. (If it's especially awesome and previously unknown to us, we'll even give ya a reward...)

Today, June 30, is supposedly the deadline for apps like Kindle to remove buttons or links to their external web stores or risk expulsion from Apple's iPhone and iPad App Store. Originally, Apple was requiring developers to not only remove external store links but also match any external sales and pricing with identical in-app purchase options (which would require giving Apple 30% of the price). Apple quietly stepped back from the content and price matching provisions earlier this month, but not the prohibition against external links.

So will Amazon update the Kindle app today with the Kindle Store button removed, will Apple "Sony" the Kindle app, and pull it from the App Store after the deadline expires, or will the Kindle app keep the button and stay in the store (either with Apple's permission or convenient silence)?

Apple makes and markets the competing iBooks and associated iBookstore for iOS.

If you close your eyes, you can almost see the transport ship racing towards the blockade lines...

Apple seems to have quietly reversed course on their controversial subscription policy, which previously required publishers to offer the same price in-app as on the web (or elsewhere), and disallowed them from linking to external subscription offers. Now with iOS 5, all of that is gone. According to MacRumors, the updated guideline reads as follows:

11.14 Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the app to purchase the approved content. Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues for approved content that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app

This doesn't seem to address the other big publisher complaint -- opt-in vs. opt-out demographic data sharing, but it definitely helps them with their bottom line. Basically, things go back to being where they were before the new subscription policy, and Amazon Kindle and Netflix will no doubt be happy.

[MacRumors]

iTunes Match, another iCloud app, will basically function as a locker for your iTunes library. If you have music that isn't purchased from iTunes, it will match the media in your library with content available in iTunes and allow you to stream it to your devices wirelessly. (What happens if something you have isn't available in iTunes? Do you still need to sync it?)

Apple is saying this process will only take minutes, not hours. All the content will be DRM free and have the same benefits of purchased music. Any songs will be matched and upgraded to 256kbps AAC DRM-free files.

This part of iCloud won't be free, however. It'll cost you $24.99/year. I think this is pretty reasonable for what the service will offer. What do you guys think?

Readability, the service that takes the cruft out of online articles and gives you pure, gloriously legible text, has been rejected from the iPhone and iPad App Store due to Apple's new subscription service and its policies. If you're not familiar with Readbility, think Instapaper or the Reader button in the latest version of Safari (which ironically uses Readability's technology!) However, this has far wider ramifications as it suggests all iOS software-as-a-service (SaaS) front ends might likewise be rejected. SalesForce anyone?

Readability, like the App Store's own business model, takes 30% of subscription fees to pay their bills and gives 70% to publishers in payment for the content read. (Because Readability strips out ads, this still allows publishers to make money off their content). Since Apple requires a 30% cut of subscription revenue... well, you do the math. Readability would have to reduce the publisher's cut to 40% or reduce their own cut to near zero. Neither is a workable solution for them.

To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like. But to impose this course on any web service or web application that delivers any value outside of iOS will only discourage smaller ventures like ours to invest in iOS apps for our services. As far as Readability is concerned, our response is fairly straight-forward: go the other way… towards the web.

Part of the problem here is that Apple, no doubt purposefully, hasn't clarified what's subject to in-app subscription policies and what's not. If everything is subject to them than Apple needs the rate to remain 30%, same as app and in-app purchases. If subscriptions are only 10%, for example, almost every app will simply become free and offer a low-share subscription option instead (subscription Smurfberries, as we discussed on the podcast last night).

What this shows, however, are that there are clearly flaws in the current system that either Apple has to address or the market will with more apps like Readability abandoning native iOS apps for the web or other platforms. (Unless a new business model emerges that better leverages iOS' distribution system). Bottom-line content creators, content distributors, and platforms all need to remain financially viable. Readability thinks Apple should split their own 30%, giving content creators 70% of that as well. (Sharing the pain, so to speak.)

What's your solution?

[Readability blog via TechCrunch]

While The Daily was first it certainly won't be last, not with Apple announcing their new subscription service is now available to all publishers.

“Our philosophy is simple—when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app. We believe that this innovative subscription service will provide publishers with a brand new opportunity to expand digital access to their content onto the iPad, iPod touch and iPhone, delighting both new and existing subscribers.”

This obviously raises a lot of questions. Will Netflix have to -- and can they afford to -- give Apple 30% of the subscriber revenue? Sure existing subscribers are exempt but if someone downloaded the Netflix app, Apple no longer allows external linking to websites for subscriptions so would Netflix have to offer the same $8 streaming package in-app and split the revenue with Apple? Or is this service meant to be magazine/newspaper specific and not carry over to video services, which would also include Hulu.

Also, will Apple push this same philosophy to all in-app purchases? They might, given it sounds like that's what caused Sony -- and could cause everyone from Amazon to Hulu -- some consternation. In-app purchases will be lower friction (since outside linking is no longer allowed) for users and with Apple requiring the same or better offers in-app, high-volume goods like eBooks could see their entire profit margin get shifted to Apple. (i.e. Amazon makes 30% on eBooks, Apple wants 30% on in-app purchases. That's not tenable.)

Full press release with all the details after the break, and let us know what you think in comments!

[Apple PR]

CUPERTINO, California—February 15, 2011—Apple® today announced a new subscription service available to all publishers of content-based apps on the App Store℠, including magazines, newspapers, video, music, etc. This is the same innovative digital subscription billing service that Apple recently launched with News Corp.’s “The Daily” app.

Subscriptions purchased from within the App Store will be sold using the same App Store billing system that has been used to buy billions of apps and In-App Purchases. Publishers set the price and length of subscription (weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, bi-yearly or yearly). Then with one-click, customers pick the length of subscription and are automatically charged based on their chosen length of commitment (weekly, monthly, etc.). Customers can review and manage all of their subscriptions from their personal account page, including canceling the automatic renewal of a subscription. Apple processes all payments, keeping the same 30 percent share that it does today for other In-App Purchases.

“Our philosophy is simple—when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app. We believe that this innovative subscription service will provide publishers with a brand new opportunity to expand digital access to their content onto the iPad, iPod touch and iPhone, delighting both new and existing subscribers.”

Publishers who use Apple’s subscription service in their app can also leverage other methods for acquiring digital subscribers outside of the app. For example, publishers can sell digital subscriptions on their web sites, or can choose to provide free access to existing subscribers. Since Apple is not involved in these transactions, there is no revenue sharing or exchange of customer information with Apple. Publishers must provide their own authentication process inside the app for subscribers that have signed up outside of the app. However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.

Protecting customer privacy is a key feature of all App Store transactions. Customers purchasing a subscription through the App Store will be given the option of providing the publisher with their name, email address and zip code when they subscribe. The use of such information will be governed by the publisher’s privacy policy rather than Apple’s. Publishers may seek additional information from App Store customers provided those customers are given a clear choice, and are informed that any additional information will be handled under the publisher’s privacy policy rather than Apple’s.

The revolutionary App Store offers more than 350,000 apps to consumers in 90 countries, with more than 60,000 native iPad™ apps. Customers of the more than 160 million iOS devices around the world can choose from an incredible range of apps in 20 categories, including games, business, news, sports, health, reference and travel.

News Corp.'s iPad-only newspaper, The Daily, has reportedly been delayed. The Daily is digital, iPad-only newspaper from Rupert Murdoch, which downloads a new edition every morning, like a regular newspaper. Recent rumours had said that 'The Daily' would be revealed on January 19th at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art with both Murdoch and Steve Jobs in attendance, however, new sources state that both Apple and News Corp. have made the decision to delay the launch by "weeks, not months".

The problem is said to lie within Apple's new subscription service, which uses iTunes to bill subscribers on a weekly or monthly basis, and sync the new edition everyday. A PR representative from News Corp. has confirmed the delay, however Apple has refused to comment.

Is anyone excited for "The Daily" newspaper? Anyone have any apps that they would like to see this NEW subscription service in?

[All Things Digital]

BBC Worldwide has gone on record stating they'll release a subscription-based iPlayer app for Apple's iPad tablet next year, according to The Financial Times.

The BBC is to launch a commercial version of its iPlayer video on demand technology, using a subscription model on Apple iPads and with the US probably the first to receive the service. It will be available only outside the UK, where the BBC is not allowed to charge for its content, and marks a new stage in the broadcaster’s move to exploit its content around the world.

iPlayer content has been strictly tied down to UK viewers only, so with this expansion to other countries (UK doesn't allow BBC to offer subscription-based services such as this under public funding) we're hoping it comes to the US as an initial select market. Don't start counting down the days, however, as BBC stated the service won't become available until sometime in mid-2011.

Any readers out there excited about this prospective new subscription service? Sound off in the comments below!

[MacStories via Financial Times]

We thought the Back to the Mac event would be Apple's last for 2010 but according to Daring Fireball there might just be one more in December -- a Steve Jobs and Rupert Murdoch powered The Daily subscription newspaper for iPad event:

My understanding is that this initiative is going to launch with a press event, with Murdoch (and perhaps other newspaper and magazine executives) joining Steve Jobs on stage. This is not going to be a quiet launch, to say the least. But “this month” is effectively already over, considering that Thanksgiving is Thursday, so it won’t happen until next month at the earliest.

(The date I’ve heard is December 9, but that’s a Thursday, which would be somewhat unusual for an Apple press event. My guess is that they’re telling people December 9 but it might slip back to Tuesday or Wednesday the week after. Perhaps it will coincide with the opening of the Mac App Store?)

The key, though, is that what News Corp is working on is not an iPad counterpart to an existing newspaper, nor is it an “online newspaper” in general. It’s a “tablet newspaper” — and, at least for now, specifically an iPad newspaper.

Daring Fireball goes on to say this wouldn't be a newstand store the way iBooks is a book store, but it would be an API method where developers could charge subscriptions via the iTunes payment system. (Interestingly, Apple announced in-app subscriptions alongside in-app purchases for iOS 3 but nothing seems to have been done with them -- until now?)

Either way, Jobs keynote or no Jobs keynote, I'm still wondering what content Apple and Newscorp could provide via subscription that users would pay for given the web is free. Would convenience be enough, if the pricing was iTunes low and the experience just as easy?

[Daring Fireball]

Apple CEO Steve Jobs and Newcorp head Rupert Murdoch may just be ready to test the waters with an iPad (and tablet) only "newspaper" called The Daily:

The collaboration, which has been secretly under development in New York for several months, promises to be the world's first "newspaper" designed exclusively for new tablet-style computers such as Apple's iPad, with a launch planned for early next year.

Intended to combine "a tabloid sensibility with a broadsheet intelligence", the publication represents Murdoch's determination to push the newspaper business beyond the realm of print.

Like the Kindle, this new style "newspaper" would be pushed automatically to iPad owners so they could just turn on their device and start reading. Jesse Angelo, managing editor of New York Post is rumored to be coming on as editor.

Several things are true: traditional print news is on the decline, iPad sales are soaring and competing devices in the same class will finally start appearing next year, Apple needs a good subscription content service, and Newscorp needs to find a way to sell premium content to support their news gathering.

If they could line everything up correctly, would you be interested in The Daily?

[Guardian]

PEOPLE magazine is now available for iPad. The application is free to download, but each issue is a $3.99 in-app purchase. However, if you are a subscriber to the print version of PEOPLE, you get the iPad version for free! Unfortunately, there is not a subscription model in place with the app. So subscribing to strictly the iPad version is not an option.

In addition to the content of the print version of PEOPLE, the iPad version offers even more:

• Double the number of Star Tracks pics, plus bonus, iPad-only, photo galleries throughout the issue
• Special celebrity videos
• Movie trailers, TV previews, song samples and other entertainment extras
• Instant breaking news updates on our top stories throughout the entire week

It's great to see big media making a step in the right direction concerning digital distribution. I initially found it odd that PEOPLE magazine did not implement an in-app subscription model, but this decision was likely made because Apple gets a 30% cut from subscriptions. If I'm interested in a digital subscription to PEOPLE magazine, I can subscribe to the print version and get the iPad one for no extra charge. Meanwhile, PEOPLE is getting 100% of my sign-up fee instead of only 70%.

Is this a smart choice, though? PEOPLE would cut the cost of making and shipping prints if they had an iPad-only subscription available to customers. But would these savings balance out the 30% cut to Apple? Also, it's much less convenient for me to sign up for the print version than just a quick tap for the iPad version. I likely may never actually sign up for the magazine even if I intended to. So PEOPLE magazine just lost me as a customer. How many potential customers are being lost by not having an iPad subscription available? These are all things that PEOPLE magazine and Time Inc need to take into serious consideration.

One exciting thing about PEOPLE magazine's iPad release is that it's a good sign that other Time Inc magazines will be hitting the app store soon. It is expected to see the rest of their apps in the next 30 days.

Any PEOPLE subscribers taking advantage of their free digital copy? I purchased the most recent issue and find the app to be very well made. Does availability on the iPad entice anyone to purchase a print subscription? Are you subscriber to a different Time Inc magazine and eagerly waiting the release of an iPad app? Lastly, what are your thoughts on their current business model? Are they making a good choice, or do they need to provided an in-app subscription to customers?

Sound off in the comments below!

[All Things Digital, PEOPLE Magazine - iTunes link]

How much are you willing to pay for magazine and newspaper subscriptions on the iPad? That's a question publishers like the New York Times are literally fighting over, according to Valley Wag.

In their specific case, the old guard in "print" want to charge $20-$30 a month to access the paper online via the New York Times app shown off during last month's iPad announcement. Seems they're afraid it will cut into the traditional print-it, fold-it, put-it-on-a-truck-and-ship-it business. The folks in "digital", however, want to charge $10 since, you know, you don't have to print, fold, or drive it around to get it to the readers (cost for paper and fuel is zero).

That's just the NYT, mind you. While Apple is releasing a standardized, iTunes-based iBooks Store for the iPad, they haven't offered anything similar for newspapers or magazines (yet), meaning even if the Times settles on one model, the Washington Post (or whomever) could settle on something completely different. Atypically confusing for an Apple platform, isn't it?

And either way, there's really no precedent as to whether or not people will pay $10 a month for a digital newspaper, let alone $20 or $30. They certainly will for real world newspapers they can hold in their hand and share around the house and office, but for digital?

Some magazines, like Wired, are showing off and discussing concepts of what their digital version will look like (see their non-iPhone friendly video, after the jump), perhaps hoping the richer, multimedia experience will create a greater perception of value.

While people are used to free content on the web (Wall Street Journal aside), convenience and ease of use did get some off the file-sharing and onto iTunes Music. Could the same work for print? And what price point will let them stay in business and let us keep reading their content?

How much are you willing to pay to read the New York Times or Wired from the comfort of your iPad?

In a guest-post on TechCrunch, MP3.com founder and MP3tunes CEO, Michael Robertson cites a "wide variety of insider sources" when saying Apple will NOT offer subscription services any time soon, but rather leverage their recent acquisition of Lala to take iTunes to the cloud:

An upcoming major revision of iTunes will copy each user’s catalog to the net making it available from any browser or net connected ipod/touch/tablet. The Lala upload technology will be bundled into a future iTunes upgrade which will automatically be installed for the 100+ million itunes users with a simple “An upgrade is available…” notification dialog box. After installation iTunes will push in the background their entire media library to their personal mobile iTunes area. Once loaded, users will be able to navigate and play their music, videos and playlists from their personal URL using a browser based iTunes experience.

This, Robertson maintains, will allow Apple to sidestep new licensing agreements and still provide content to the tens of millions of iPhones, iPod touches, Apple TVs, and (presumably forthcoming) iTablets/iSlates. Lala's involvement in specific, he says, will give Apple a jump-start in rolling out the service, essential in competing with the likes of online-powerhouse Amazon.

And Robertson states flat out we can expect mobile iTunes in 2010.

You want?

MediaMemo is hearing that Apple Internet exec, Eddy Cue, has been tasked with exploring a $30/month iTunes TV Show subscription service:

A so-called “over the top” service could theoretically rival the ones most consumers already buy from cable TV operators — if Apple is able to get enough buy-in from broadcast and cable TV programmers.

Disney, with Steve Jobs its largest shareholder, pops up as among the first to potentially get on board.

Unlimited TV on your iPhone, Mac/PC, Apple TV, and maybe... iTablet with one monthly fee. You want?

(Re: iTablet, sure would make a nifty announcement to go along with the iTablet, like movie rentals did at Macworld 2008 for Apple TV Take 2....)

Spotify [Free with premium subscription - iTunes link] is now available for iPhone (and iPod touch) is now available -- if you live in the UK, Sweden, Spain, France, Norway or Finland.

According to Spotify, if you live in those countries and have a premium subscription, you can enjoy:

• Access to millions of tracks with Spotify�s constantly updated catalogue
• Search and stream music instantly. Browse by artist, title, album, genre, label or year
• Create and synchronise playlists. Updates from the desktop application will be synced instantly and vice versa
• Playlists can be downloaded and played in offline mode when you have no connection, are on a plane or subway, or abroad and subject to roaming data fees
• Listen to tracks and albums in their entirety. Rewind, fast-forward, pause, skip and shuffle
• View cover art for all tracks and albums

So, if you live in one of those countries, and have a premium account, and an iPhone or iPod touch (list long enough yet?) and you try out the Spotify App, let us know how it works for you!

[Thanks James for the tip!]

RealNetworks recently submitted their on-demand music streaming application for the iPhone and iPod Touch to Apple for review. Yes, this is the moment all of you Rhapsody subscribers have been waiting for.

Rhapsody is a subscription based service, $12.99/Month, that allows you the ability to listen to any single song or album on-demand. Current subscribers to Rhapsody can simply log into the app with their existing user name and password and can be streaming music in no time. If you are not a subscriber you will have the opportunity to take the app for a free limited time test drive.

The big question is whether or not Apple will approve this app but given the amount of negative press Apple's app approval process is currently getting, we are leaning towards this one being approved.

Subscription based music streaming is in high demand on devices such as iPhone so it makes us wonder - when will Apple make it's move into the music streaming business? Not that this would be likely to actually happen but Apple could even offer the service as an extra perk to all of us who subscribe to their MobileMe service.

Would you be willing to pay Apple for a service such as Rhapsody or are you perfectly content with current iTunes setup?

[Real Networks Blog via Daring Fireball]

First push-Instant Messenger (IM) apps, now Turn-by-Turn Navigation? Can our long standing dreams finally become reality?

A few days ago we mentioned Gokivo + Yahoo! Maps had made it into the App Store. Now it's joined by:

AT&T Navigator [free - iTunes Link] provides an iPhone front end to AT&T's $9.99/month subscription service.

MobileNavigator Europe ($94.99 - iTunes link) features Reality View Pro, Lane Assistant Pro, Speed Assistant and Day & Night Mode component as well as the opportunity, to show POIs along the route. (See YouTube for the gist)

What's interesting from a user-perspective is the ranger of options we'll likely be seeing: either free or $0.99 up front and ongoing subscriptions, or more expensive up front (will $100 be the price point?) and no subscriptions -- though will we have to wonder about charges for updated maps eventually?

What's your preference?

People don't want to rent their music. So said Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Of course, the Jobsinator also said people don't want to watch video on tiny iPod screens, and we see how far that got him...

So, while 100% unsubstantiated rumor at the moment, The Financial Times (via Apple Insider) is reporting a "tip off" that says Apple is now considering an unlimited music program similar to Nokia's "Comes With Music".

Under the terms of that plan, manufacturers would pay the recording industry a per-device fee (passed on to the consumer, 'natch) that would allow for "unlimited" music over the course of a year. When the year's up, consumers could either renew the subscription themselves or let it lapse and keep "50-60" songs they've already downloaded.

What the cost(s) will be (guesses range from $5 a month to $100 per device), what kind of DRM (digital rights management) will be in place, what quality compression (128-bit like standard iTunes or higher 256-bit like iTunes+ and Amazon MP3) will be used, and basically every and all other details remain to be announced.

It is noted that, because of it's existing cell phone billing arrangement, a more traditional monthly subscription model may also be made available exclusively for the iPhone.

The parties (Apple and the music industry) are reportedly still far apart when it comes to terms, but revenue streams makes for strange bedfellows (hi, AT&T!) so we'll have to wait for another Special Music Event (starring Paul McCartney, of course) to know for sure.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a subscription service. If the music industry had any sense (please, hold your laughter 'til the end...), they would provide radio-like free streams of low bit-rate music with an easy "buy now" button for higher quality. It would allow people to discover music again, just like the iTunes/Starbucks initiative, and give the rapidly dehydrating recording industry their own little sip of water...

What do you think? Buy or die? Rent over spend? How do you want your iPhone music?