I don't see the analogy. I still own lots of music and don't rent it at all (unless you count listening to the radio). It hasn't gotten any more expensive to own music, either, digital tracks and CDs are still readily available and inexpensive.
The analogy imply that things are really good! The price of renting is so low, that even holding the price of purchasing constant people don't think it's enough savings to bother purchasing. People get to experience a wide variety of things, because the commitment is low. Multiple competing services aim to make consuming music (or housing) very easy.
The real analogy is furniture rentals for low income people. Paying 10x what something is worth for low quality alternatives and an inability to escape a cycle of being stuck renting when people want to buy.
I'm like you with music, but I feel obliged to point out that folks like us are outliers today. So the GP is correct in the sense that the majority of things are moving from ownership -> renting (though there'll always exist some die-hard holdouts).
You're right, and that is an important dimension to consider -- thanks for pointing it out!
I was coming from a perspective of ownership erosion, precipitated through the continuous encroachment of corporate rent-seeking behavior (because that leads to consistently growing revenue streams).
