However, there’s more to the ‘music experience’ than just owning a CD or mp3 and its this value that new music startups have to tap into. Gigs, previews of new materials and a genuine connection with the artist are all premium features of this ‘experience’ that will continue to make money for the artists. The One thousand true fans meme has a lot of merit in it and we’ll see more people trying to help artists find this value in their own relationships with their fanbase over the next few years

1. iTunes does charge differently for songs: $0.99 for most and $1.29 for more popular classics and this price difference is working apparently (can’t find link to story that showed higher prices has not led to lower revenues on those songs). iTunes cound differentiate even more but to keep things simple for the consumer it doesn’t (same reason CD stores in the 80s and 90s largely went with 3 or 4 price points). This doesn’t mean consumers don’t value the content differently.

2. There is definitely a segment of people that don’t care to own music and streaming from the “jukebox in the sky” is fine for them. But there is and will continue to be a segment (including young people) that will want to own what they believe is of value. not just the music but posters, t-shirts and anything else to capture the essense of the artist/song they like. Witness that Rhapsody co-exists with download-only sites quite well.

Quality content is always going to be valued especially in a world where social networks so easily proliferate time sucking junk. That’s why GigaOm and other niche-focused well researched blogs do well. And why “old-world” periodicals like New Yorker, WSJ and NYT are still valued, albeit not in the paid subscriber sizes they had become used to. The trick is to extract the right value (money) from these avid readers and I for one am happy to pay to keep well researched content alive.

Quality content is always going to be valued especially in a world where social networks so easily proliferate time sucking junk. That’s why GigaOm and other niche-focused well researched blogs do well. And why “old-world” periodicals like New Yorker, WSJ and NYT are still valued, albeit not in the paid subscriber sizes they had become used to. The trick is to extract the right value (money) from these avid readers and I for one am happy to pay to keep well researched content alive.

The pay wall worked just fine for him with the Wall Street Journal. The evidence he has, says this might just work. In an increasingly level playing field with respect to online media, for many perhaps being able to share through an established online store such as itunes is an advantage. However, with the equality of access to “publishing” tools, I think also comes some market fragmentation and the ability to buck the trend, where some people might seek to commoditise information, those who can offer a different, more considered perspective or who can indeed offer unique content seek to interest a different audience. Is it a more lucrative audience? I suppose that remains to be seen, but like anything else, I don’t think we should be quite so dismissive of this mentality (as much as I personally would like it to just go away).

Also, were I a fan of the tinfoil hat, I might suggest that certain things like ACTA were a precursor to the end of network neutrality and the ubiquity of services Mr Murdoch provides might mean he’s in a place to position his provision of content quite differently to how we might ordinarily see this move coming.

With respect specifically to the ipad – I think Apple made a huge gamble here, no doubt some developers will look at this and go bananas, but part of what attracts developers to a platform is the installed user base. Apple at some point has to fragment their store (in fact, they really should have done it already) and having applications that really suit a 3.5″ screen blown up to something bigger might not exactly be the best user experience.

In many ways, Apple’s approach with the ipad is totally the opposite of the ipod. With the ipod, they had an advantage because of piracy. Labels were happy to jump on board anything that remotely looked like a saviour, I think book publishers can see the change coming for them too, but I don’t think they’re quite so desperate, nor are they in a market which commoditises an art form on quite so flat a scale. A lot of what will make the ipad work or not is the content and Apple is betting big on the interest of developers on this one. Interest I don’t think will carry through sufficiently because I just think the “gap” this device appeals to is, for many, filled already by a smartphone and a desktop/laptop/netbook. Gen 2 or 3? Maybe. Now? No.

It’s not an argument about which one is more important: we need both.

It is the core source material – the ideas, performances, creative production that has value – i.e., content.

The delivery medium changes nothing except convenience.

Content is king. Technology just carries the content like servants carrying the king’s litter.

To me using any kind of Apple software or products was not just about putting some media company’s content on it, but also my own. I mean GarageBand syncing with iTunes is great in the fact someone can put their own music on their iPod as well as downloaded songs.

It would be nice to see other Apple devices where users can store and present their own media creations. Perhaps some device that can take great pictures/movies, sync with iLife programs and can edit on the go. Like a stylus to edit on the actual screen? If they put Photoshop on it that’d be awesome. Or even better yet, allow the device to wirelessly send images to a printer.

When eBook readers are so cheap as to be disposable (you think that won’t happen?) all hell is going to break lose. The value proposition is going to shift so thoroughly as to dismantle most of these companies. We are coming to a point where value is going to be measured more accurately. I’d love to know what people think the value of News Corp is…

But there is nothing new in this. Journalists have traditionally been paid less than members of the printers union.