You know, I had that exact same thought as I was writing this; that if the record companies wanted to encourage digital piracy, this is the way to do it. Who on earth would spend money on a device loaded with music, only to have to continue paying some record company long after they’ve purchased it just to keep using it?

I think the c|net articles have really nailed the crux of what the issue is, as much as I’ve written about in my own posts — that the record companies are so wild eyed pissed off over consumers even having the ability to digitize their music into MP3 files, and then at Apple for creating this ‘cult’ product which everybody owns, which has taken them out of the profit trough. But like the IBM analogy I made in my entry — how many iPods can Apple realistically sell before the market becomes saturated? The money is then in the software - “the music” - which Apple provides thru iTunes, or from our own CD libraries or another digital source.

These record industry people make the argument that it’s about access, that subscriptions give people “access” to all this music, but it’s a bullshit argument because listening to music is such a personal experience. Why do I want to pay a subscription fee to have access to music I’m never going to listen to? But I can spend .99 for my favorite song and listen to it hundreds of times over and I’ll always have it, and be happy every time I listen to it! It isn’t about ‘discovering’ new music either, because the way iTunes is set up, you get all kinds of recommendations which you can sample and if you like it, you buy it. I’ve probably bought more music because of iTunes than I ever have in my entire life. That’s real sales and real money to the record industry.

The pay-per song model from iTunes, Amazon, and others works! And you’re right, it’s actually restored revenue streams. I’ve long argued that record companies need to open their entire libraries. Why they won’t is beyond me.

I thought it was pretty funny in the c|net articles how the record industry can’t wrap their heads around how Apple created this need in consumers to have an iPod. They say people don’t want a music player, they want the music — No, we want both. There’s a reason why no other company’s MP3 player can make a dent in Apple’s iPod sales. They own this market. It’s truly amazing what Apple has been able to do in convincing us that the iPod is the ultimate lifestyle accessory — and the record companies are in total denial over that one.

This will fail. Why? Because everyone who has tried to make music subscription models work has utterly failed because there’s no demand for such a service. The whole world works on the balance of supply and demand, and if the consumer wanted subscriptions, it would have already worked. I don’t think even Apple has enough ‘juice’ to sell this one.

Thanks hon! Nice to see you here!

xoxo,
nina

lmao! A wedgie huh? Well, that might not be a bad place to start! The man certainly needs “something”!

Thanks!

xoxo,
nina

Part of me almost wishes they would, since the result would a return to the good bad old days where “piracy” was the main delivery channel for digital music.

The reality of the business is and has been for some time now that music sales are a loss leader; the real profits are in the concert tours, merchandise, and other media tie-ins.

The iTunes/Rhapsody/Napster pay per song model has actually restored some direct earnings on the music itself. It would be more or less typical for an American media giant to act penny wise and pound foolish.