61–70 of 306 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A CD might have 10+ tracks on it, but it's a fixed bundle of 10+ tracks chosen by the artist, so of course the per-track cost on a CD is going to be lower than for individual tracks.
Don't items usually cost more if broken out individually?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A CD might have 10+ tracks on it, but it's a fixed bundle of 10+ tracks chosen by the artist, so of course the per-track cost on a CD is going to be lower than for individual tracks.
Don't items usually cost more if broken out individually?
Another song I loved by an artist I loved was available for sale, but on a tiny third-party music distribution site I'd never heard of, and for $1.50. $1.50 is a lot to pay for a song And then OP wonders why everyone is making free services plastered with ads instead of charging.
Show me ads to monetize my free consumption of your service, but if I'm willing to pay (as many definitely are), allow me to subscribe to disable the ads. Why isn't this model more common? Is it because advertisers tend not to want to advertise on a platform where people can opt out of their ads?
Another song I loved by an artist I loved was available for sale, but on a tiny third-party music distribution site I'd never heard of, and for $1.50. $1.50 is a lot to pay for a song And then OP wonders why everyone is making free services plastered with ads instead of charging.
A 45 RPM single in 1962 was $1.00. That would be $5.60 adjusted for inflation today.
The lack of self awareness is outstanding. And astounding.
Another song I loved by an artist I loved was available for sale, but on a tiny third-party music distribution site I'd never heard of, and for $1.50. $1.50 is a lot to pay for a song And then OP wonders why everyone is making free services plastered with ads instead of charging.
A 45 RPM single in 1962 was $1.00. That would be $5.60 adjusted for inflation today.
The lack of self awareness is outstanding. And astounding.
I feel old. This article begins by pining for the good, old-fashioned 'net of 2012. I know that I'm not the most attentive person on this topic, but honestly I don't feel like the big picture has changed much in years. Services like Twitter started up, grew wildly, and then looked for some way to make money for pretty much that whole time. Social networks sprout up; some make it, some don't. Big companies do some coo…
Another song I loved by an artist I loved was available for sale, but on a tiny third-party music distribution site I'd never heard of, and for $1.50. $1.50 is a lot to pay for a song And then OP wonders why everyone is making free services plastered with ads instead of charging.
Everyone is chiming in on this point, so I don't think I wrote it clearly enough. I would be willing to pay $1.50 for a song if it were through a known party, like Amazon Payments or PayPal. I've bought lots of music through Amazon. I'm not going to risk $1.50 to an unknown website. Additionally, my expectations as a consumer have been set to pay 99 cents per track, so to me, in the current atmosphere, $1.50 seems li…