OTOH, your use case could be called "outlier" and "a throwback".
Most young kids don't care for owning music at all (not talking about the few buying vinyl, or the slightly more buying digital, I'm talking about the huge majority).
They are OK with streaming like Pandora and Spotify, not to mention they're fine with just YouTube most of them time.
Paying $10 a month for a streaming service (I use Google Music) made a lot more sense to me for than paying $30-$100 a month buying albums.
As a musician, I want to support other musicians (and I know that streaming services are a raw deal for smaller artists, but so were traditional album sales) so I try to go see them on the road (which is where they can actually make money) when they're in Chicago or Madison.
Now, instead of building 'equity' in a music collection that you own, you'll be renting your music at $10/mo for eternity. Which do you think will end up costing more in the long run?
The only downside I have observed is that songs come into and leave Rdio's library constantly due to licensing. It is not unusual to bring up a playlist and find that a song or two on it is no longer available. (Sadly, there is no mandatory licensing scheme for streaming services like there is for radio.)