In Reply to: People Pay For Access, Not Content! Oh no, not AGAIN! posted by Ivan303 on September 6, 2014 at 10:10:20:
People pay for the access in order to get the content. The content is, in fact, the motivator. Nobody would pay for Netflix (or the internet connection to access it) if they weren't able to access content that they wanted.
The notion of access vs. content is really about content vs. unlimited content. Of course unlimited content is attractive/motivating, but it's a function of price. At price x there are thousands of people who are willing to pay for it. At price y there are millions. At price z there are hundreds of millions. The question is does the math add up?
What if unlimited access to music were $500/mo? Would that still be what everybody wants?
Dave
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- To a certain extent it's semantics - David Smith 10:34:48 09/06/14 (10)
- From your original post on the link below.... - Ivan303 10:52:12 09/06/14 (9)
- RE: From your original post on the link below.... - David Smith 11:05:10 09/06/14 (8)
- And yet of the FIVE differing plans offered by Spotify... - Ivan303 11:10:59 09/06/14 (7)
- RE: And yet of the FIVE differing plans offered by Spotify... - David Smith 11:21:00 09/06/14 (6)
- Actaully, the reason I started paying the $10/month. . . - Chris from Lafayette 13:57:29 09/06/14 (5)
- And you'd pay PLENTY more for Lossless FLAC... - Ivan303 14:44:16 09/06/14 (4)
- Looks as if Qobuz is going to have some competition in the CD-quality streaming wars - Chris from Lafayette 20:03:35 09/06/14 (3)
- Don't tell David Smith.... - Ivan303 20:33:49 09/06/14 (2)
- Yeah - I noticed the "deal" that US listeners will get compared to UK too [nt] - Chris from Lafayette 12:07:00 09/07/14 (1)
- Yeah, maybe QOBUZ will be cheaper once it comes to the US... - Ivan303 16:03:42 09/07/14 (0)