Actually the article gives three ways that the industry can capitalize their product. The author just prefers a tax on all as opposed to a use scheme. The biggest problem with all of these is that, once implemented there is no incentive for good music unless the artists are compensated by download - which only the apple plan could do as they have a controlled portal. The problem is that the record labels distribute the funds and there is as far as we know no way to force them to pay their artists by download. I can see the musicians strike now to renegotiate contract based on the new business model.

As to the tax concept, I have no confidence in a poll to catch non-traditional music; contrary to the author’s supposition the indie would be very unlikely to appear in any random group or even non-random group. There is nothing to keep the record labels from setting up the same deal with non-Apple companies, that is where the apple idea is different than the Microsoft issue. Microsoft controlled the OS and would not allow the OS to be loaded without the other MS products. In addition if you manufactured and released with someone elses doc or spreadsheet program installed you wouldn't be allowed to preload windblows.

There is a huge difference between building dominance by creating value and building it by extortion, as long as the record labels are free to sell the same deal to other manufacturers of MP3 players this has no unfair benefit to Apple.

The last plan where an online MP3 store or file sharing site store offers a flat fee subscription is only a good business model if the record companies recognize that they are better getting less / song but getting every body who downloads to pay. It is also true that this scheme would make the lawsuits against pirates more defensible as there would be a universal viable way to obtain your music for a reasonable cost