Jeremy wrote:
] RealNetworks made a direct appeal last week to Apple
] Computer, its Internet music rival, suggesting that the two
] companies to create a "tactical alliance" to form a common
] front against Microsoft in the digital music business.
]
] But if an alliance with Apple could not be struck, Real might
] be forced to form a partnership with Microsoft.
]
] "Why is Steve afraid of opening up the iPod?" asked CEO
] Rob Glaser.

Why should Steve bother opening up the iPod since Real has never (until now) done anything but reject deals from Apple?

inignoct wrote:
] Am I just being a snob? Do people still care about Real?

RealNetworks Rhapsody subscription service is excellent. Neither Apple nor Microsoft offer anything like it.

Jeremy wrote:
] inignoct wrote:
] ] Am I just being a snob? Do people still care about Real?
]
] RealNetworks Rhapsody subscription service is excellent.
] Neither Apple nor Microsoft offer anything like it.

[ Hm... that's true... i tend to discount subscription services, perhaps unfairly. Snobbery it is ;) -k]

inignoct wrote:
] Jeremy wrote:
] ] inignoct wrote:
] ] ] Am I just being a snob? Do people still care about Real?
] ]
] ] RealNetworks Rhapsody subscription service is excellent.
] ] Neither Apple nor Microsoft offer anything like it.
]
] [ Hm... that's true... i tend to discount subscription
] services, perhaps unfairly. Snobbery it is ;) -k]

Perhaps your self-assessment is correct -- only you can know. But to my view, it seems contrary to fact to conclude that subscription services are somehow inferior to those with pay-per-use business models. Cable/satellite television is a large and profitable business all over the world, and it follows a subscription model (along with a much maligned but highly successful pay-per-view service). In a manner of speaking, broadcast television is also a subscription service. Plenty of newspapers and magazines are highly successful with the subscription model. Professional societies such as IEEE and ACM sell subscriptions to technical journals. For many years, firms in the music industry (BMG and Columbia in particular) were quite successful with subscription-based mail order services. Book clubs remain popular, as do wine clubs.

Jeremy wrote:
] Perhaps your self-assessment is correct -- only you can know.
] But to my view, it seems contrary to fact to conclude that
] subscriptions services are somehow inferior to those with
] pay-per-use business models.

[ I guess i wasn't so much discounting subscriptions as a business model in all venues. I certainly agree that it's a widely used and often successful method. Businesses love it because it's guaranteed revenue, revenue they can count on month to month. People like them, when they do, because they recive a regular and consistent service. Mostly, I'm just turned off to them in this particular context. I don't care to subscribe to music, because I prefer to own something, rather than just pay usage fees for an impermanent access to whatever's available at the moment. That's why I call it snobbery, because I have precise desires for how I consume music that differ from other services. I'm mildly overstating the issue by using a word that people consider negative... i don't take it that way. Most people are snobs about things they like a lot or spend a lot of time with... I'm not a High Fidelity level snob, or anything...

That being said, I'm about to cancel cable, downgrade phone service and ditch some of the other monthly costs that eat into my bank account -- subscriptions have a nasty tendency to become assumed costs, so I try to be careful that I'm really getting what I'm paying for (i.e., i don't watch $50 worth of tv a month).

I'm sure for lots of people, the subscription model is great, even for music, I'm just not one of them. -k]

inignoct wrote:
] Mostly, I'm just turned off to them in this particular context.
] I don't care to subscribe to music, because I prefer to own
] something, rather than just pay usage fees for an impermanent
] access to whatever's available at the moment.
]
] I'm sure for lots of people, the subscription model is great,
] even for music, I'm just not one of them.

I really like music, and I like to explore music. I can say without hesitation that I consider the $9.95 Rhapsody fee to be a great value.

Too often, there is a rush toward false dichotomy. There is no reason why one must choose exclusively between a subscription service and the purchase of albums or singles. Rhapsody actually offers both.

There is a world of difference between subscribing to XM or Sirius and subscribing to Rhapsody. Rhapsody also has "radio stations", but its primary feature is the direct-access album library. I certainly appreciate a talented DJ with good taste, but exploring a vast, deep library on my own can also be rewarding.

I think a lot of people share your view with regard to music subscription services. In some (many?) cases, that view is overturned after a few weeks' worth of interaction with the service. Real recognizes this, and that's one reason why they offer a free trial of Rhapsody.

It has the potential to change the way you think about music. Not everyone is ready to face that possibility. To quote from Tarantino, "If my answers frighten you, then you should cease asking scary questions."

Jeremy wrote:
] Too often, there is a rush toward false dichotomy. There is
] no reason why one must choose exclusively between a
] subscription service and the purchase of albums or singles.
] Rhapsody actually offers both.

I certainly agree with that.

] It has the potential to change the way you think about music.
] Not everyone is ready to face that possibility. To quote from
] Tarantino, "If my answers frighten you, then you should
] cease asking scary questions."

Well, in that case, perhaps I'll try it. I've had eMusic and mp3.com accounts at various phases in my past, but maybe i've been unfair. It certainly can't hurt, and it may change my impression of the class of products, as you rightly point out.