Good Idea, Flawed Approach

There's a move in the online music sales arena to try to convince people that subscriptions sales of music is the way to go.

It's not a bad idea, but the time for this market may be too early. Why? Because people love the iPod, want the iPod, already OWN an iPod. And if you have an iPod, you use the iTunes music store.

USATODAY.com - Napster aims to sack Apple iTunes

So for Napster and others to succeed, they have to both convince you that you should rent your music AND that you should throw away your beloved iPod AND buy another, clunky, ugly music player.

I don't think it will work. Before the iPod, before iTunes music store, I used to pay $9.95 per month to emusic.com. At that time they let me download and keep all of the music I wanted. They had pretty good libraries of jazz and classical, which I loved, and next to no pop, which was fine with me. I really built up my library during that year or so I subscribed. Then they changed their mind, limited the number of songs I could download, and I dropped them.

I don't buy a lot of music, but over the years I've acquired plenty. Legally, mind you. Bought it. My iTunes library is nearly 30 gigabytes and I haven't ripped all of my CDs into it, let alone converted some holdover vinyl records. My aging, 5 gig original iPod is still chugging along - I'd love to have a new 60 gig Photo iPod, but can't justify it just now. So I have plenty of music. Most people do. I'd consider a subscription service, but what I really want is an easy way to buy music, inexpensively, one song or album at a time.

Oh, I can already do that? Right, iTunes has that covered. And there's no fucking way I'm giving up my iPod. So where does that leave Napster? Right where most internet companies that buy Superbowl ads. In next year's "What every happened to?" news paper columns.