Before I answer this, I would love for people to clarify which perspective of 'pros and cons' you're trying to get. Both platforms have their downfalls, and both methods are great for different things. Streaming sucks if you desire offline/100% reliable playback (sometimes your cell connection sucks... or your ISP throttles ya in the middle of a streaming session to your fans). Not the only downfall, but the biggest one I personally think of. Buying sucks because..... well, **** tons of money are tossed into storing all that data. And no, not a single smart digital media collector pays to store that data once.... typically it's stored across 2-3 platforms (as not everyone has unlimited bandwidth and access from a home NAS/streaming service). While there are loads of solutions, the reality is that purchased media (either digital or analogue), when needed in multiple places, the simplest answer is "make another copy." This means the value of the storage space for that media goes up every time you make a copy. More of a business perspective, but it's all still relevant....... unless I screwed something up? Not entirely sober right now >.>
But to make my second example a little more clear, I'll use my experience of storing music and video files.... I own a 5TB storage drive (currently out of service, thanks a ton to Seagate), and I was using that to store my media. It was around $120-ish? Let's go with that. So, $120/5 = $24/TB of storage. I had another 1TB drive handy, and that was maybe $50 when I purchased it? On its own, that's $50/TB. Ignoring the depreciation, you can kind of keep track of how much it costs to store your media. For me, I'd say each FLAC album was close to 4-500MB per (mostly various oddball electronic types and few mainstream artists, so typically more data in general in their albums). On my 1TB drive (being the most expensive per TB at purchase), an album would cost me roughly $0.02 to store it. Figure out the cost of the storage on every device I own, record/plot where everything is being stored, and you have the storage cost of each and every file in your possession..... kind of like being your own datacentre!...... which I won't bother doing...... but that's one way to know if owning is more economical for
your uses
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1c4fb/1c4fb4a004ac374ae735c210f8560be0dce354ac" alt="Wink ;) ;)"
not to mention the purchase price of all your media lol
I do enjoy streaming services, but the only ones that really work my purposes
and deliver content I actually want are practically non-existent for how I'd integrate them into my daily routine. There's a reason I'll stick with my CDs, backup drives, and carrying extra storage around somehow. For my personal uses, it's best if I own/have a copy of the music. But I'll still use YT, SC, or a handful other services to stream the things I don't have a coyp of.
There's almost never a cut and dry answer with this stuff, unless you consciously choose to make one better than the other for your personal uses. If you have special tastes in music, or depending on who you want to support financially (royalties are interesting to get into), or even if you like 3-4 services that have all your tastes in music...... how much do you normally spend monthly/annually on music without streaming services? How much can you realistically afford? Monthly, bulk, or annual subscriptions? Will you have to pay for all the bandwidth on your phone bill? Will you be streaming from just one device, and all you're doing is paying to get rid of the ads? They all play a factor, but few really care to acknowledge how big such a small choice can be. After all, you're placing all reliability and availability on companies (not your own choices) that will run into hiccups, and there's nothing you can do when something doesn't work. Oh, and you're 100% reliant on your internet connections (and surprisingly, reliability isn't huge everywhere in 2017).
Or am I just overthinking this one? lmfao