Decius wrote:
] He is dead wrong about subscription based services.
] There is a real business there.

I agree completely.

Here's the nutshell comparison:

iTunes: 30 second preview clips, $1 per track, no monthly fee
Rhapsody: unlimited full length "preview", $0.79 per track, $9.95 monthly fee

If I could run Rhapsody on a Windows-based handheld device with an EDGE wireless modem, it could make for an interesting alternative to the iPod. Forget 10,000 songs on demand. How about 422,196 songs on demand?

Jeremy wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] He is dead wrong about subscription based services.
] ] There is a real business there.
]
] I agree completely.
]
] Here's the nutshell comparison:
]
] iTunes: 30 second preview clips, $1 per track, no monthly fee
] Rhapsody: unlimited full length "preview", $0.79 per track,
] $9.95 monthly fee

I wish they supported my operating system.

Decius wrote:
]Jeremy wrote:
]]Decius wrote:
]]] He is dead wrong about subscription based services.
]]] There is a real business there.
]]
]] I agree completely.
]]
]] Here's the nutshell comparison:
]]
]] iTunes: 30 second preview clips, $1 per track, no monthly fee
]] Rhapsody: unlimited full length "preview", $0.79 per track,
]] $9.95 monthly fee
]
] I wish they supported my operating system.

I'm not sure whether you're talking about Rhapsody with OS X, or both iTunes and Rhapsody with Linux.

Rhapsody uses the Windows Media audio codec, and both Windows Media Player and RealPlayer are currently available on OS X. While it is true that Rhapsody currently requires Windows, there does not appear to be a technological reason why the service could not be expanded to OS X in the future. You should be able to run Rhapsody or iTunes inside Virtual PC or VMWare, although I have not tried this.

I doubt that either iTunes or Rhapsody will be extended to Linux. Any ROI analysis would likely find that the cost to port the software, maintain it, and provide customer support would outweigh the increase in revenue.

Decius wrote:
] ] He changed the computer industry. Now he's after the
] ] music business
]
] A mixed bag of clue and deception.

deception is a bit harsh, no? you may think he's wrong about certain things, but he's not decieving anyone.

] He is dead wrong about subscription based services. Cable
] companies, Netflix, XM...

well, those are all nice, but people are dying to ditch that model in many cases
- in cable tv, where you pay, or feel like you're paying, for 400 channels you never watch. comcast is already preparing to launch OnDemand, coupled with a DVR that's less a DVR and more of a temporary cache for your pay per view content.
- XM has yet to turn a profit, even after GM installed it in every single one of their medium to high end vehicles. we'll keep watching. also, i'm not sure radio is comparable. when i listen to what is, essentially, a radio service, i have no expectation of keeping the music, so it's not as galling that i can't. perhaps you argue that broadband (both hardwire and wireless) will make all music essentially like radio?
- NetFlix is a decent one, and one to watch also. I think, on average, people are less interested in building libraries of movies than libraries of music. That may be changing with our generation, if only because the cost has dropped so dramatically.

i also think you overestimate the average person's desire to branch out and try different music. really, they want to be seen with their digital music player, rocking to the new Brittney track. previously they had to buy the whole CD to listen to that song on their discman, then they could steal the one popular track from napster, and now they can buy it and put it on their shiny new ipod or Rio.

i'm very interested to see how it pans out. For myself, i'm utterly uninterested in having my music tied to the existence of a company, or to my having a broadband connection wherever i happen to be.

] that he makes the argument about the need for investment, and
] then he undoes the argument by saying that the core problem
] with the music industry is that it invests too much!

well, i think he was discussing two kinds of investment. the investment an artist puts into their own success and the investment a record company or distributor puts into the success of an artist.

I see it changing like this -- the artist needs to invest more, because they're not signing with a label, so no one's gonna pay for their studio time, or they'll sign with an indie, and go to a cheaper studio with less bling... they're gonna need to spend more time and effort on self promotion, though one would imagine there are technological ways we could help that process. The label invests less, somewhat, because they don't have to pay for artwork or physical media.
The only thing missing from the online music services is the promotion aspect, period. Distribution ... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Jeremy wrote:

] I'm not a professional futurist, but I would offer that,
] historically, "because we've always done it that way" is an
] unsuccessful long-term strategy.

a very good point, and one that everyone in the business of influencing business models should keep right at the forefront.

] I don't know if companies can turn a profit on a music
] subscription service, but I must say that they can be very
] compelling for the end user.

and have been for a long time in television, telephone, etc. it comes down to your use patterns. if you've got fast connections and no restrictions on using them, at home, at work, in the car, and support for various devices and platforms, then we're getting somewhere. if i can buy a track while it's streaming, on any supported device, and then use it on all my devices, that's even better. maybe at that point i can see my mind changing.