Oh, **** that.
The first time you don't pay your fee, you no longer get to listen to "your" music. You cancel, you no longer get to listen to "your" music. And if the company you're paying decides to shut down the service, you no longer get to listen to "your" music. Ask former customers of the defunct subscription music services from Yahoo and
Microsoft how
that works.
At least if you cancel your magazine subscriptions, you still get to look at old copies you kept. Can't do that with an "online music subscription."
Save the $13 a month. In the long run you'll be glad you did.
And I googled "subscription music" and came up with this article from last Monday: http://technologizer.com/2009/02/06/please-world-like-subscription-music-wont-you/
From that link: I found
this story at CNet:
Over at CNet, Greg Sandoval has a good story up on subscription music services such as the one that Microsoft offers for its Zune devices. They were supposed to be a big deal, but the idea never spawned any breakout hits. Yahoo and others exited the business, Rhapsody and Napster are niche successes at best, and it wouldn’t be the least bit surprising to see Microsoft say bye-bye to it at some point as well. Meanwhile, Apple has sold billions of non-subscription, buy-it-and-own-it song downloads.
From that link: I found
this story at CNet:
Ring's statement made a big impression on me. The recording industry obviously continues to work the subscription angle, which is more than 5 years old, because a better way to boost profits hasn't come along. Label honchos aren't ready to discount anything--not when the margins on 99-cent downloads are so slim.
I was under the impression that eventually the download would replace the CD as the music sector's main sales unit. I assumed that instead of packaging a dozen songs together on a disc, the labels would just be forced to sell those songs individually. That isn't what they want to do, according to Ring.
Ring made clear subscription services are not the only business model Universal Music, the largest of the four top record labels, is exploring. Universal execs will continue testing strategies until they find one, or a combination, that works. . . .
I asked the panel, which included Cory Ondrjka, a vice president at EMI's digital unit, and Michael Spiegelman, head of Yahoo Music, how much longer the sector would try to breathe life into subscriptions. Anyone can see consumers just haven't warmed to the idea of renting songs.
There isn't a single music-subscription service selling music from the top labels that generates significant revenue. Yahoo couldn't make a go of it and got out. Napster and Rhapsody, RealNetwork's subscription service, continue to appeal to niche audiences. People just don't like the idea of losing their music if they stop paying fees.
Subscription music makes sense if and only if you're running a company with huge amounts of corporate overhead whose primary business is distributing music. For anybody else -- musicians, fans, the world in general, you in particular -- the idea is too stupid for color TV.
Never rent music.
