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."

RE: RealNetworks Seeks a Musical Alliance With Apple (or Else!)