But like I said, markets surprise people. I’m definitely not going to say I know exactly what the business model will be. But it’s a safe bet that people will find some.

In other words people will continue to pay for music (short of an adoption of an alternative IP model) just for the right to listen to popular music. Sure some people make a point of pride of listening to obscure stuff but most people want to listen to the big acts that are highly visible and their friends like too.

Tim, wouldn’t you agree that flat fee all you can eat systems only work for stuff you rent, in which case you can set a limit to the amount of stuff you can “simultaneously” enjoy. Netflix works because you can only have 2 movies (or 1, or 4) home at the same time. I think people still want to own their music, mostly because, unlike movies, people are likely to listen to the same piece of music much more often (and probably much more erratically) than the movies they watch. People also want to enjoy their music everywhere, whereas most people only watch movies in a single place. So a technological solution (the “here’s this box that lets you listen to movies in your living room through our service” kind of arrangement) isn’t practical for music. I don’t just want to listen to music in my living room. I want it on my mp3 player when I go hiking, I want it in my office when I work, I want it in my car. I want to have it at partys. I want to be able to bring it to someone else’s house. You get the point. This is much easier done when I own the music in an unrestricted format than if you rent it to me, in which case you have to control it. The implementation of the “flat fee” which emusic, audiolunchbox and others have devised is a workable solution, but it supposes that one service must have a large selection of music I want. I’m not willing to pay 10$ a month for the privilege of buying music if I don’t want to buy most of it. Music is difficult when it comes to rentals because ti’s easy to rip and it’s hard to control without frustrating the consumer.

I do agree that in the end, musicians are simply going to offer their music for free (or nearly free) to anyone and everyone to gain awareness. Given what artists currently make off the sale of a cd, they’re much better off giving it away for free if it can ensure a packed audience everytime they have a gig somewhere.

Just today the price of the St. Louid Post Dispatch, went up to 75 cents…

Allofmp3.com did kind of bundle, in that you had to start your account with $10.00, and add increments of $5.00..

In the long run, though, I don’t see any reason to think a price of 25 cents or 10 cents is any more sustainable than $1. The newspaper industry is gradually discovering that it makes more sense to give away content and sell ads than to try to charge for the stories themselves. While I certainly could be wrong (markets surprise people all the time) my guess is that the same thing will happen to music.

As always, an intersting post. But it doesn’t explain one fact that Ihad observed: the site allofmp3.com charged between 8 cents and 20 cents per song, and apparently they made money.

So, i agree that the price will approach zero, but I also believe that the black/grey markets serve information purposes, and in the case of allofmp3.com, it showed the recorded music industry a pricing strategy that will work well.

Now, they will take that information and implement it, I believe…