apple, universal records and feels free
For years now I’ve been pitching the idea of “feels free” and I’m sure that I’m not alone in proposing the idea as one solution for the drop in music sales that the music industry is currently enduring. It’s a simple concept - buy an iPod that is pre-loaded with say, the latest Gang of Four recordings, and expect to pay a small premium if any to the price of the device - perhaps a $299 iTouch becomes $329 if it includes 500mbs of free music that’s yours to keep, not rent. I feel that the music fan would embrace that idea more easily than a subscription “all you can eat” buffet model that unfortunately I hear Apple is in talks with Universal Music over. The NYT’s Bits blog starts out with this line - “A music industry exec I know tells me there is truth to the report in the Financial Times that Apple is considering tying an all-you-can-eat music subscription to some of its iPhones and iPods.” Personally I’m trying to get away from my monthly cable bill for instance by using online TV and just buying or watching the things I actually want to watch and I’m certainly not interested in buying a subscription to music that I won’t ultimately own….
March 20th, 2008 at 6:06 am
dont like the idea of not having possesion, but most people treat music as if it were clothing, throw out the old and bring in the new. I still think that once we buy a song digitally we should always have access to it and not rely on transporting the files with us as if they were tangible.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
no thanks to subscriptions…. I’d never bite at a rental music situation but then I’m probably not the target itunes consumer.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I find myself buying A LOT of 90’s songs in itunes that I only listen to once. I bought four tonight. I would SO rent those.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
no. just. no.
March 21st, 2008 at 9:29 am
Nilina, I have one word for you - Emusic.com also tracks from Amazon are cheaper than iTunes…ok that’s about 10 words…