Talk:Open Music Model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Yahoo! music comparison

I'm not sure how relevant the comparison with Yahoo Music is, so I think I'm gonna remove it sometime soon if nobody has a good reason for it to be left in. I was just looking at their site, and from what I can tell, their plan has a lot more in common with the Napster pay service than with the open music model. You pay the $5 a month fee and you can download and play songs on your computer, but you have to pay individually for each song you want to burn to a CD. And if you want to play the songs on an mp3 player, you have to pay an additional monthly fee, and if you unsubscribe then the songs won't pay any more. So like with the new Napster, you're essentially just renting the songs. Anyway, with that reference, I'm concerned that we'll either be providing misleading advertising for Yahoo, or misinforning people about the alleged impact of the Open Music Model on commercial distribution schemes like Yahoo's. (I don't have any reason to believe that the $5 a month rate in both systems isn't just coincidental.) Generic69 21:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The specific suggestion of a $5 per month price point is what is interesting as well as its subsequent adoption by Yahoo two years later. Doesn't seem coincidental considering that research showed $5 was the optimal point. -- Kzm 06:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)