Cellphone Songs Overpriced?

Carl Bialik writes "Sprint's music store, the first major legal music-download service accessible from cellphones, is charging $2.49 per song because the recording industry and the wireless carriers are engaging in 'a dangerous fantasy,' according to the Wall Street Journal. From the article: 'Since people will pay $2.49 to download a snippet of a song, there's no reason they won't pay that much to download the whole thing. It's an enticing prospect, but one based on the idea that ringtones and downloads are similar. They're not; customers don't see them the same way and won't pay the same price for them, and no amount of wishful thinking will make them change their minds.' Last week, Journal tech columnist Walt Mossberg also criticized the pricing: 'For that kind of money, you'd better really, really, really want to download that new Kenny Chesney song, RIGHT NOW, before you can get to a computer.'"

Comments

Re:Didn't we just discuss this...

[antifoidulus]

I didn't say open source wasn't important, but be realistic, it's not the end-all of technology. However, if you would look at the slashdot headlines, you would believe that just using the words "open source" alone will solve every problem ever created. Also, a lot of the "open source" stuff reported here isn't noteworthy, but slashdot reports on it anyhow. Furthermore, so many other organizations have adopted the word that it has become incredibly diluted, like the "open source energy" website I mentioned in the previous post. However, slashdot still reports what they say like it was a religion.