New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Just a thought... If the site was up for a subscription of $7/month, how many more people would have joined, and do you think that there would have been less complanits about content?
Although the site is only in its first week (and putting aside the technical issues which should have been sorted during beta testing), it seems that the the upfront fee and lack of content is one of the major causes of disatisfaction. Formally known as Mr_Nos on Housequake
Hate is such a strong word, I'm just disillusioned... | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
I wouldn't call 31 new tracks lack of content.
That's 2-3 new tracks (plus extras) a month. Who else gives you that for less than 7 dollars a month? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PANDURITO said: That's 2-3 new tracks (plus extras) a month. Who else gives you that for less than 7 dollars a month?
Well, as we're talking about downloads, $7 is about what I'd expect to pay for a complete album. If he offers one complete new album every month, I'll be happy. [Edited 3/31/09 2:59am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PANDURITO said: I wouldn't call 31 new tracks lack of content.
That's 2-3 new tracks (plus extras) a month. Who else gives you that for less than 7 dollars a month? I thought the albums were available at target for $20 or less? Paying $77 for the same thing seems weird. By that measure you'd need another 9 albums to make it worthwhile (3 albums @ $20, $80 = 12 albums). | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
kitkatau said: PANDURITO said: I wouldn't call 31 new tracks lack of content.
That's 2-3 new tracks (plus extras) a month. Who else gives you that for less than 7 dollars a month? I thought the albums were available at target for $20 or less? Paying $77 for the same thing seems weird. By that measure you'd need another 9 albums to make it worthwhile (3 albums @ $20, $80 = 12 albums). Exactly my point - the $77 so far has allowed you to download albums available physically for a quater of the price. If the site was $7/month with new tracks, downloads etc per month I'm sure there would be some happier people... Formally known as Mr_Nos on Housequake
Hate is such a strong word, I'm just disillusioned... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
As has been said numerous times, it's too early to call.
There is no use saying Prince has give us three albums already, that's quite a lot of the $77 paid for, when Prince himself has put a price of $12 for the three CD set as a tangible box-set. Even counting digital downloads at the same value means we have $65 to go, but we have 11 months and 3 weeks to go before we can judge. My guess is we'll get a couple of tracks / remixes for the first few months, then nothing. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Nosferatu said: If the site was up for a subscription of $7/month, how many more people would have joined, and do you think that there would have been less complanits about content?
Although the site is only in its first week (and putting aside the technical issues which should have been sorted during beta testing), it seems that the the upfront fee and lack of content is one of the major causes of disatisfaction. But then people would have paid the first $7 and then left the site until something they wanted was up again. He would have lost out unless he released an album a month and only left it up for that month. And doing THAT would have increased piracy. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PANDURITO said: I wouldn't call 31 new tracks lack of content.
That's 2-3 new tracks (plus extras) a month. Who else gives you that for less than 7 dollars a month? every person who makes a normal length album and sells it for regular retail price. but i get your point.  it's time for a new direction / it's time for jazz to die | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
