Reports say that Apple's new cloud music service may start off free but will end up charging customers as they become hooked to the service.
Apple is mulling over charging $20 a year and Google $25 a year for cloud storage after a free introduction, CNET revealed. This would be in addition to any subscription service monthly fee.
"It's generally accepted that consumers prefer to own their tunes rather than renting them and there are some who suspect that the cloud is a way for the Web stores and the labels to charge consumers to access songs they already own," writes Greg Sandoval.
Amazon is allows a 5GB limit and then starts charging $20 a year. Although it's unknown if Apple (or Google) will follow suit, it seems that downloadable music is becoming a thing of the past -- subscription services like iTunes want you to rent a virtual locker/library and only listen to music there.
Music industry execs want to emulate the Netflix model of an $8 monthly fee and unlimited use of the company's extensive database, but is music really the same as a DVD? Many people, including me, would say no. You follow a certain group or artists because you like their stuff and generally want to keep it. Your goal is to own their songs.
Perhaps this says something about the quality of Hollywood films, but for most DVDs and films, it's just something to consume and throw away.Seriously, how many people really want to own bad B-movie "Skyline," but will rent it on a Saturday night?
