Slashdot Mirror
iTunes Music Store sells 275,000 Tracks in 18 Hours
physicsnerd writes "According to this article on Billboard.com, Apple's iTunes Music store sold 275,000 tracks in its first 18 hours of operation. The Register.com estimates that this netted Apple just under $100,000! Not too bad for a 99 cents store."
Impressive considering the connection problems people were having. Remains to be seen what usage will be after the hype settles down.
Can't wait for no DRM? That is like saying you can't wait until Best Buy gets rid of those pesky cashiers. Why don't they just trust me to leave an appropriate amount of money for the goods that I walk out of the store with?? They are treating me like a criminal. Wah.
Now all that needs to happen is for Apple to go out and get a massive catalog of Indy music they can represent, give profits to the artists and kill the big record labels.
this is funny AND true. ever stepped into the huge conglomerate music stores of late? same music they were selling last year, just with different band names, and song titles......
The state of music today would certainly allow Indy to take over, just because of creativity alone. Apple would be wise to catalog Indy music. (and those profits of 100,000 would be ten fold.)
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
Once they roll this out for Windows or Linux, I'll have a hard time fighting the impulses. It's only 99 cents, right? Cheap! 15 or 20 tracks later, I'll realize I just dropped $20.
Apple may very well succeed because of the low investment necessary... and because at only 99 cents, the instant gratification may get addictive. Smart move on their part.
According to Fortune: "The iTunes Music Store will initially offer 200,000 tunes, paying the record companies an average of 65 cents for each track it sells."
Apple gets $.99 for singles, but less for albums (I bought a 20 track album fo $9.99)... and I'm sure that they need to pay the credit card companies some percentage, and then pay Akamai for the servers, and Amazon for the one-click patents... so I doubt they make more that 15 cents per song on average... but that's still a good margin... but more like $40,000 than El Reg's $100,000 estimate
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Well, from what I've heard (I can't use the store since I'm stuck with Windows), you can recommend artists. So, go recomend all of your favorite independant bands. Hopefully, Apple will decide to pick some of them up.
If Apple starts selling Indy music, then they can either do it at a lower price, higher profit, or both. Without the record labels in the way, set Apple's cut at $.33, the musicians' cut at another $.33, and that makes for a $.66 song. Pretty good competition for the RIAA, really.
Of course, then they'd have $6.66 albums.
Yes, it will take some time before we see some real numbers. Still, it's just the Mac part of the market (and just the U.S. part of the Mac market at that) - iTunes for Windows will be released later this year, and I would hope that Apple would expand beyond the U.S. market. With these additions this could add some serious gross revenues to Apple's bottom line.
Or, you burn a CD of the music you purchase... the disc is a normal CD and you rip the music to MP3. Pretty simple actually.
Pooty tweet
This is a big story outside the 'geekosphere'. How do I know this? The other day, my father said 'So, what do you think of this new music thing that Apple is doing?'
!?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Why you would need a MAC to get music quickly over the net either means A) You are an idiot, B) You are an APPLE SHILL or C) You are likely both
How about D) He actually likes the idea of some money going to the artists, rather than stealing the music.
[Tracks drop to $0.49]
'Yea its cool and all but I want DRM free music for $0.19'
[Tracks drop to $0.19, DRM free]
'Sure, thats cool and all but I want to be able to buy multiple tracks with a complex pricing algorithm that determines how mcuh to charge be based on my average usage across a limited period of time, plus the moon phase'
[Tracks do the above]
'Ok ok, I give up, I am just shooting holes in anything that is out there because its easier then admitting that someone MAY have gotten something right.'
I can not even count how many people, WITHOUT EVEN SEEING THE SERVICE, have sat around bitching about it. Its hilarious. Now, days later, they are all using it quietly.
This is a good thing. Someone had to take the risk of trying something like this, and now that we have this initial success the record labels really have to reconsider some of their decisions regarding internet distribution.
Most of us may not agree with the use of DRM and AAC files, but progress is best made by a series of compromises. Considering what the music labels really want to shove down our throats, I think Apple has provided a pretty consumer-friendly compromise. Now that they have set this precedent, I think we can feel a little more secure that things can't get any worse, but hopefully better.
Now they just need to begin the slow process of removing the big evil record labels from the picture by offering independent artists that are self-produced or produced by small labels. Of course since becoming redundant is the real fear held by the RIAA and their ilk, this "compromise" may be harder to achieve.
Because some of us actually want to reward the artists for their hard work. How would you feel if your employer just stopped paying you? Would you feel appreciated and want to continue with your work? Are you that much of a samaritan?
I didn't think so.
Pooty tweet
Geez, there is always one! They could price it at a penny, and someone would say - that's just too expensive, maybe at half a penny I'll buy!
The point is that for $20 I can get the EXACT 20 songs I want. Not $15 for 3 songs I want and 10 I could care less about. A regular CD cost (street price) $12 - $17 new, usually $8 used. Even buying used, if you like less than 8 songs on the disk - you are paying more than Apple's service.
I think they should increase their bitrate 1 notch - to better compete with CDs. But the price is pretty fair.
I think the significance of this it that major distributors have signed on to a service that isn't locked in to Microsoft-proprietary file formats. If the Apple store is successful, more distributors will be signing on to this, or looking into other ways to get online.
Yes, Apple's music comes with DRM. I don't think major distributors will sign up without it. Apple's model is less restrictive than many of the current online music sellers. Consumers haven't seemed willing to pay for music that's severely locked down. Apple's venture will show distributors whether we're willing to pay for greater freedom with our tunes.
I really don't think we're going to get a DRM-free future. Sad but true. Unless Apple fully documents their DRM technology so that other companies can build devices that can play these modified AAC files, we may be trading Microsoft's proprietary lockdown for Apple's. I want open formats for everything--including DRM technology.
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
Whether you buy the music online or from Best Buy, so long as the producer makes the same amount of cash, they dont give a shit. Really.
.com bust. You can fault them for a lot of things, but not for being pragmatic when it comes to doling out investors cash.
What slashbots keep saying, though, is that the RIAA should "wake up" and invest billions in a new eCommerce infrastructure that they must maintain, because it might be profitable. Why would they? Especially after the
Build it and they will come. Apple built it, and they came to the tune of $100,000. I'm sure setup costs were at least a magnitude of order greater than that, and they're still in the hole. But so long as it's Apples gamble, the RIAA could give a shit. They're out to make money. Whether they make it from online sales or from plastic spinning discs, they dont care.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Evidently you've missed out on the self-checkout lanes which are starting to become popular.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
> How about 'an open format' ?
Concidering everyone else is still stuck on MP3, which is not open at all (and is even more expensive than AAC to use) you can hardly fault apple for this.
Their option is no worse than what anyone else is using.
Its amazing, apple offers many features that everyone conciders great, and on this one feature they do basically the same thing (use a closed format like everyone else), and thats the feature that gets bashed.
MP3 is closed, and requires licencing to make encoders or decoders.
redbook (audio CDs) are also closed format and requires licencing (Though i dont know about the costs for that one)
AAC is closed.
Seems to be you should be bitching at EVERYONE that isnt the 0.01% of the population that uses a computer and OGG, not just apple.
Yeah big fuckin deal. NSync's "Celebrity" album sold 900,000 units on its first day. That doesn't make them or their product good, or say anything about their longevity in the marketplace.
Wonder how many people will actually do this.
I fully plan on buying a Mac for my next system. I now can safely say I have no reason to stick to Linux, because I can still operate just as well using the BSD tools. I'm not a desktop programmer, so I don't care about that.
This is just one more perk to owning a Mac, and I'm fully ready to start becoming a full-fledged, card carrying Mac whore.
The only issue I have with Macs is their cost, but I think I can cope by having a pretty damn cool, commercially supported, end-user Unix system.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Do you think the megastores would keep selling the same thing as last year with a fresh coat of varnish if it weren't, you know, selling?
Are you sure this crap isn't exactly what the market wants, even if it's not what you and I want? That creativity doesn't actually make sales in the music biz?
Because it sure looks that way to me...
(Consider not just music stores, but also just what it was actually possible to find on Napster, for instance. Creative, new, indy music? Not really. The latest Eminem & Britney Spears collaboration piece? For sure!)
Do you have a
Here's something that I'd like to know (I don't have a Mac and can't use the store) - does the ASM track which music you've bought in the past so that if your hard drive blows up/gets stolen/damaged/or anything else which causes your music that you bought and downloaded to be lost you can download the songs again?
$45 per U Colocation Special
I think this is going to be a major "stye in the eye" of all those who claim that Napster et al are nothing more than common theves. When people are clammoring to buy a product that can be stolen fairly safely, I think that's saying something (read; most people don't mind anteing up for what they use).
Interestingly enough, this could VERY easily be viewed as a Very Good Thing by all the IP-based companies. Proof-positive that people will climb over each other to buy your product if you just let them but they'll obtain it by other means if you don't.
But will the RIAA & company view it as such? No. Why? Because what they want more than revenue is control. Because control, in their current model, is equivalent to a sustainable business. When they start loosing control of how the product can get to market, when they lose their status as the so-called gatekeepers of IP whose ass you must lick to be heard, they're screwed. You can't abuse people when you aren't the only game in town.
Then it becomes a buyer's market. Which, trust me, is the last thing these people want.
My
Limekiller
I notice a lot of people who haven't used it are complaining about the low bitrate .aac's. Well, I actually bought a Live Phish track today that I have also ripped at 192k mp3 and level 6 ogg. I listened to all three with my MDR-EX70 neodymium driver earbuds, and guess what? They all sounded pretty much the same.
Apple owns a portion of Akamai, doesn't it? If anything, them using their servers is probably a lot less of a cost factor than one thinks.
And the Amazon 1 Click charge also gets factored into their Online Store sales as well and hopefully its not a Per-Click Charge.
It will seem like pennies but 100 pennies equal a dollar and so forth.
The iTunes Music Store is a nice service and something I've been waiting for and hoping someone developed.
And just about anyone that says $.99 is too much, they're probably expecting to get everything for free. And if they're expecting that... they're probably pirating music.
I'm probably going to get flamed for this... eck.
TW
Television is dead. Long live That Weasel Television
...of this conflict with the Kazster crowd.
Somehow, if people don't make purchasing something as convenient and cheap as you expect it to be, you have the right to take it.
In the case of utilities with true monopoly on the electric power coming into your home doubling their price in a two month period, I could see the justification in say altering your meter to cut the price back down to where it was. This wouldn't seem unjust to me.
In the case of charging too much for music (not food, not power, not water, CDs), and not making it available online with massive bandwidth and high-bit rates for cheap, I can't really see how this entitles you to buy one copy and distribute it to 400 people, any more than waiting five minutes at the QuickMart entitles you to a free magazine.
How does this work?
True, it doesn't facilitate theft, but then you have to compare that against the 4 or so cashiers that you didn't have to hire.
Live web cams
With this announcement, it has been unequivocally proven that RIAA missed the boat big time.
This is what happens when an industry fails to innovate. They can play the blame game all they want, they lost because they didn't keep up with what consumers wanted.
Apple did and is going to win this round.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
Call me devil's advocate, but for a business to succeed it has to do one thing - make money!
Without DRM, you can't restrict free trading of files on P2P networks. What will prevent all those AAC files from iTunes appear on Kazaa... the business model will fail that day.
Apple has taken a sensible approach to DRM. They allow you to burn the AAC files to CDs as data files and as audio CDs. The latter will play in ALL players.
Now Michael Robertson (of mp3.com) is bitching that users won't be able to play it in MP3 players... fine enough. MP3 SHOULD CEASE to exist.
Better formats like Vorbis are not picking up just because every Joe is making MP3 players.
Apple, for one, will succeed in doing one thing - making those Joes realise that there is something *else* than MP3 too!! When the HW mfgrs will realise that, they will look for major alternatives... sure 8 out of 10 will go to AAC/WMA/RM route, but 2 will also do Vorbis, and there it will break the ice.
Today every DVD/CD player comes with MP3 support just because they are oblivious to the fact that something else exists... they just don't want to go to desk and design a decoder chip for anything else... Apple is poking them and shouting "wake up"... This is a Good Thing (TM). In the process if Apple makes some money... well good for them. Things have to start somewhere.
Finally... get over with that "mp3 is word of god" thing. Sure you don't want to give up your existing player... but some time down the line when you'd be seaching for your next player... you'd definitely want a choice besides MP3.
- mritunjai
If you haven't noticed, you can burn the AAC files to CD. Then, pop the CD back in and rip the MP3s off.
AAC sounds fantastic. I usually rip MP3s at 160-192 kbps, using VBR. This makes very nice sounding MP3 files, and I can't tell the difference between the MP3 and the CD. The only draw back, is that they are kinda large, but with a 20 Gig iPod, I'm not too worried.
AAC actually sounds as good, as far as I can tell, as my MP3s do. So all this talk of "low bit-rate" and "DRM-sUckS!" is ridiculous. If you don't like the DRM, burn a CD (or 10 before changing the playlist), and re-import it as MP3s and never think about AAC again.
It's only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything...
Gee, this guy sounds like a sore loser.
He has clearly mentioned the disadvantages of the service (as have many others). However, he completely failed to mention the major disadvantages of his own failed service, and how the Apple service attempts to form a balance.
Clearly he has not learned from his own failures. Not a good businessman.
There are consumers and there are copyright owners. The goal is to be fair and reasonable to both. MP3.com failed in this mission. Napster also failed. Gnutella fails.
We all see the advantages and disadvantages. Now it's time to see if this is merely a step (or a leap) closer to a workable solution.
Even aside from your odd sentence structure, the word "quickly" must mean something really different to you than it does to the rest of us. Maybe it means "slow and frustrating"?
You mention P2P stuff, but you don't seem to have looked for anything less common than Britney's latest hit... I had a little Limewire phase, but dang it if I have the time to hassle with that.
But I agree, the parent was a Pollyanna post. I also gotta notice that a lot of people bought music on this service fast. Maybe you should be wondering why instead of flaming away, you know? Hint: the answer is not "Those Mac people will believe anything 'cause they're zealots." Maybe it has something to do with Apple seriously thinking about how to hit the sweet spot so they could satisfy the customers and the labels. You think?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
At the self-check out lane at my grocery store, the conveyor belt actually detects an object passing through (there is a scanner halfway down the belt). If you haven't scanned it, and it detects more objects than you scanned, it stops, backs up and calls an employee.
Apple's DRM only makes it more difficult for the masses to share the music after purchase. What Apple and the Music industry is banking on is the impulse buy. They have priced these songs at such a level that people don't think twice before just purchasing a $.99 song. The impulse buy is the entire concept behind this store. It's just as easy now to acquire the song for "pennies" as it is to go download it over your favorite P2P.
Apple is betting that they can watch the actions of the people who are using the service, and figure out how to make it even better. Right now they're tracking customer tendency, and with the customer data being completely real-time and digital, they can analyze and react. They're banking on making it easier and more attractive than P2P sources.
I wouldn't be surprised to see AAC at 160kbps, a Windows version of iTunes 4 (it's already being worked on), and a slightly lower price per song, in the near future.
This is a serious assault on the idea that you couldn't use online music distribution. Take it serious, stop judging it, and see if it works. Even if it fails, it's bound to show us the path to making it effective and viable.
It's only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything...
This, IMHO, is the key to the success of online music. I have NO intention of ever buying a Tears For Fears CD. But I would pay 99cents each for a couple of their tracks.
If everyone slowly builds up their personal "Greatest Hits of My Life", in this manner, the industry will continue to rake in the cash required to support the development of the next generation of Britney the like.
Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
How can PC users see the store - as in the contents? I'm thinking if I could browse the contents from a PC (I know I can't buy anything), they might have me running out and buying a tasty new Imac from the Mac Store down the road in minutes.
However, until I see otherwise, I'm going to assume it's packed with Britney and the Dave Matthews Band and the like.
'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
I guess I am a Corporate Rock Scumbag.
There is no reason for it to exist other then 'Its not apple'.
Think real hard on these two lines.. see if you can spot the flaw.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Get back, Troll!
Apple has several products in the sub-$1000 range.
*sigh* back to work...
The point is that without the paltry DRM that they did implement, the record lables would not have given them song one to sell at their store. This DRM implementation is about the fairest and most lenient compromise that you will ever find. I mean, come on! All it really does is add a few extra steps between the user and a totally DRM-free file. This is just to prevent casual copiers (which make up the vast majority of listeners) from making copies without thinking about it. And it prevents people from easily making thousands of CDs to sell.
If you really want to remove the DRM then, as others have said, it is very easy to do. And you can burn as many damn CDs as you want with these files! DRM not fair? Please! About the only thing you cannot do is copy a file to more than three computers. That's it. And you can even do that if you burn then re-rip it. So quit yer whinin'!
But if even this does not satisfy you, then by all means stick to Kazaa. I'll probably still use P2P services for those odd Pogues, Coil, or Webb Wilder tracks that I cannot get from the iStore. But if they ever get around to adding them, I'll pay for them.
There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
...and neither does Apple. You want to burn 1000 CDs of your new track? You can. You may have to make a slight alteration to your playlist every 10 burns, but you can do it.
You want to copy your new file to 1000 computers? You can do it. Just burn it to a CD, then rip it off as an MP3, OGG, or unprotected ACC. The loss in quality is absolutely negligable. And you can then even more easily burn it to 1000 CDs.
This DRM scheme amounts to little more than a gentle, one-time reminder that you shouldn't do those things. But it by no means prevents you from doing it. What more do you want?! Oh, yeah- free music.
There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
> the Linux based MP3 player in my car?
mpeg 4 is an open standard. I'd be genuinely suprised there wasn't something in beta on sourceforge ALREADY to add ACC support to Linux players. Knowing the Linux development community, I say give it a week, two at most, and the answer will be yes.
> Does it seamlessly integrate into my Sun Workstation?
Nope. If you have a Sun Workstation at home, then you're most likely NOT in Apple's target market. And Apple's hardly alone in not supporting every OS under the sun (no pun intended). Basiclly Netscape/Mozilla, RealPlayer, and gnu are the main ones who go for that strategy. Most everybody else supports only the "big two" or even only windows.
> Can I burn the audio to CD?
Yep. You have to change your playlist around after the 10th CD burn. But you can change it back later.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
I run a house label out of chicago [Olive Records, Inc]
What would it take to get apple to pick up independant labels? Vinly sales are really low lately and it would be nice if we could get another source of rev.
The arguement against OGG for compatibility can be used against ACC too. The only player that is compatible with the new service is the ipod, the ipod is perfectly capable of playing OGG, so there is no reason why Apple couldn't use OGG from a customer perspective. The real reason why they didn't use OGG is because it didn't have a DRM layer built in.
However, it is ridiculous that there should be *any* loss at all; I've paid for the music, so I should be able to listen to it with any software I choose, without losing quality.
I felt the same way about my vinyl. It's ridiculous that there was a quality loss when I taped them to cassette.
Seriously, I'm not sure where this whole concept of "I am entitled to master-quality recordings that I can copy an infinite number of times" comes from. The fact that you can copy a digital version of a song with either zero or very little quality loss is actually quite new.
Relax. Not that long ago, you wouldn't have been able to copy music without a very LARGE loss of quality. Right now we are in a flux where the companies and the market are tugging back and forth.
Eventually the companies will provide what the market wants in a digital music product. This is just the first step.
DRM is not sensible if ties you to one vendor or platform. You can only play purchased files on Apple computers and Apple players, unless you want to burn CD's. This is only a sensible approach if you live in a world where all your computing products and mp3 devices are made by Apple, for most of us this is not the case.
Not good arguments. If you really want a cd to carry around, burn your apple bought tracks to a cd. If you really want the liner notes, cd case, and album art, then hey be my guest and go buy yourself a cd. If you're old enough to remember though, when CDs first came out, people bitched that the covers were too small, nobody would buy tiny liner notes and cover art. My point is, what is more portable than a computer file. When you really get into mp3s you'll see how wasteful even a CD is. It's too damned big, heavy, and those cases are a hindrance!
that this is only from Mac users, who are >5% of the total PC market. $100k in less than 18 hours from less than 5% of the market.
Supposedly, Apple is already working on iTunes for Windows. Just imagine what that number is going to be when they roll the Windows version out.
Da Blog
Yep. One great thing about digital distribution is that an album can sell 500 copies and still be profitable! In the long term, this will be good for niches,
For another example, check out CustomFlix, who does on-demand DVD replication and distibution. I've made a tidy bundle selling the DVD-R supplement for my book through them. It hasn't sold anywhere near the 500 copy minimum that a mass-market duplication would have required, but I started netting a profit from them after selling the first SIX copies.
http://www.customflix.com
My video compression blog
The reason why this service is and is going to be popular is because it's easy. This is Apple's strong point. They can take something very confusing, an operating system for example, and make it simple, easy and even fun to use. When you compare iTunes/their Music Store/iPod etc. to a File Sharing servent, iTunes wins because it's easy and fast to do. Something you make not realize (since your probably a "geek" (no offense)) is that some people aren't good with computers, they don't want to learn how to use Kazaa or other complicated P2P proggies. Granted, there are some out there that are relativly easy to use, but iTunes pretty much wins there. It's another reason why people go and buy Albums in stores, because it's easier to do than start up Kazaa and sit infront of a computer all day with pop-ups, spyware etc. fighting to find the file you want and all the while frightened that the **AA might bust down your door and throw you into the slammer.
So, to sum up, iTunes is strong because:
- It's damn easy to use
- There aren't fake files, low quality files, files with virus's, mislableled files
- It's morally correct
- It's addictive (impulse buys)
Even if those files went into Kazaa, what would it matter? Do you seriously think everyone who is on iTunes would go on Kazaa if everything on there was on there for free? I doubt it.18 hours nets $100,000, after a year that's around $46 million (US).
Of course it probably won't stay at that rate, but it's even money if it goes up or down.
I'd call that a big success, and a big bullet in the back of the head of the argument "people won't download music and pay for it".
Screw you RIAA. Get going on your server farm, we're waiting to DL from you too.
So where is the backup to data CD funtionality on iTunes? The only way you can do is manually.
Um... try selecting "Data CD" as the type of CD to burn in the CD burning preferences of iTunes 4? Amazingly this "confusingly titled" option makes iTunes burn a - get this - data CD. Wow!
--- What?
Absolutely. I also live in toronto (well, for 2 more days ... alas my job is ending.) By car, it takes me 9 minutes to get to work. No more, no less. If I take TTC, it takes me between 18 and 33 minutes to get to work. Yes, I have timed it.
Convenience is only part of it. I am willing to pay more for the certainty of knowing things will turn out how I want them.
This could explain how people would be willing to pay a small fee to get the song they want NOW with certainty that it is not cut off, the wrong thing, poor quality, a fake, etc.
There is some quotation from a famous writer or something that says, "It seems to me that the only truly modern convenience is speed" or something to that effect. Who said that? (And no, a google did not instantly turn up the answer for me.
So how does paying $18 for 18 songs at 99 cents a pop differ from paying $18 for 18 songs on a music CD?
In the first case, if your hard drive crashes, you lose your music. The music is in a lower quality audio format. etc.
99 cents a pop is way too much for this format.
Try 25.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I read somewhere that Apple is working with the equivalent of the RIAA in each region to provide the iTunes service. As each country has an individual 'RIAA' to deal with all of us not in the US have to wait.
Go out and get sailing!
Amazon's 1-Click patent is much-maligned because it is infact fairly broad and simple. It basically covers the act of storing your credit card number so that you don't have to enter it every time you want to buy something. It is possible to literally click once and have something purchased.
You'll note that with every other online store, you have to re-enter your credit card information every time you buy, even if they store your name, address, etc.
I think the music store is what Apple had in mind when they licensed 1-Click. I mean, obviously, few people can afford to impulse-buy Apple's hardware, or a lot of the accessories they sell, but they certainly can afford $1, and it's no doubt very convenient to not have to pull out your credit card info every time you want to buy one song.
The convenience factor is definitely a big selling point, and I expect to see more convenient purchasing options built into Apple's software.