it's not so simple
by
lingqi
·
· Score: 4, Informative
One big hurdle you'd have to jump through first is the "take micropayments."
From a merchant perspective, micropayments SUCKS ASS because the cost of processing such a payment is more expensive than the amount being paid. You end up with the same problem you describe, except now you are forking all the dough to the payment companies.
besides, even if we grant what you imply, that Apple is merely the lesser of two evils - I must remind you that up until now, almost all major distribution channels for music wants to screw you both ways - pump the artists dry AND limit the consumer's rights to their stuff. Apple, if not given any other credit, must be commended on their effort to make sure you can do (for the most part) whatever you want with the music you bought.
not only that, having a central place where your stuff is catalogued and easily purchased is a good thing. It's much less likely somebody will stumble upon your little corner of a website - but much more likely if you show up when they browse through the genre that they like on a major catalogued site. Don't underestimate the necessity of advertising channels, and the distribution / payment channels as outlined in paragraph 2.
I think right now there are two battles - one between the consumers and the labels / distribution / retail channels, and one between the bands and the same. Apple mostly allowed the first battle to be won in favor of consumers - the bands are another battle altogether - and i am sorry to say, unless there are some serious reason why the consumers would care to get involved, the vast majority of them probably wouldn't.
Re:Think Different, Think Nirvana
by
IIEFreeMan
·
· Score: 5, Informative
According to this article from The Register, Apple is giving 65 cents out of the 99 cents to the music industry so effectively they look already thin on margin.
Re:Death to Big Labels
by
baka_boy
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Bands don't get salaries from the big labels -- just as the parent post stated, the usual arrangement is for the label to advance the band a certain amount on signing, and then deduct royalties that would be owed them from that initial amount. In order to start collecting any money after that first payment, a band usually has to go gold within their first two albums released on the contract.
Even worse, most of the promotional and support services you talk about are actaully paid for by the band, again out of their future royalties. Many groups actually end up *owing* the label money after their first album and tour, which only further binds them to the label's "artistic direction" for them.
The only thing you get from a major label by signing with them is a temporary invitation to ride their distribution network to promote your work. Artists pay their own way, and lose all rights to their work in the process. Of course, that's often better than the alternative, since independent groups and labels have effectively no leverage with radio stations and major venue owners, esp. given the current trend of media consolidation
You just have to look at the likely outcome from this week's news about the new FCC relaxation of ownership rules for a chilling view of where we're going. I don't think that Apple is going to turn things around overnight, but any arrangement which gives the indies more opportunity to reach a paying audience is fine by me.
Re:Excellent
by
peter_gzowski
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Emusic? Multi-platform support (including Linux), VBR mp3s at 192kb/s average (encoded with LAME, no less), subscription based (all you can eat for $10 or $15). The only thing they DON'T have is the records of the big ones (unless you think Yo La Tengo and Modest Mouse are big).
-- "Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
Re:iTunes best sellers?
by
Silverhammer
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Blockquoth the poster:
Does Apple or anyone else post iTunes' best selling tracks and albums on a website?
Yes, both the top ten tracks and the top ten albums are listed on the iTMS "front page" (the page you go to when you select the iTMS in iTunes). As of this writing, they are:
Top Ten Tracks:
"Clocks" - Coldplay
"One I Love" - Coldplay
"Miss Independent" - Kelly Clarkson
"Hole In The World" - The Eagles
"Intuition" - Jewel
"Get The Party Started" - Pink
"Unwell (Live Acoustic)" - Matchbox Twenty
"Crazy In Love" - Beyonce & Jay-Z
"Calling All Angels" - Train
"Lose Yourself" - Eminem
Top Ten Albums:
"0304" - Jewel
"On And On" - Jack Johnson
"One Quiet Night" - Pat Methany
"A Rush Of Blood To The Head" - Coldplay
"Birds Of Pray" - Live
"Paper Monsters" - Dave Gahan
"These Are The Vistas" - The Bad Plus
"Greatest Hits" - The Doors
"The Very Best Of Sting & The Police" - Sting & The Police
"The Diva Series: Astrud Gilberto" - Astrud Gilberto
Of course, North American Mac users make for a serious skewed sample group, but, well... you can draw your own conclusions.
Re:Slim Margins
by
clifyt
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Its not that bad -- they already combine a lot of orders. They prebill $1 on your card -- like gas prepay stations and restaraunts do pre-tip.
In the next few days, anything you order gets thrown onto the same bill. Over a 3 day period, I got one credit card charge and one hold. I'm not sure what the magic billing time is as I stopped buying after the third day and waited two weeks to make my next purchase.
That and the fact we are talking a HUGE multibillion $$$ company, they probably have a little better rates than the standard merchant $.20 + 3%. When you deal in this kinda bulk, you can afford to make some demands:P Heck -- my company processes its cards through another company (we have sorta a collective going on between sound design companies) and that alone saves us a lot (since our volume was so low, it was going to cost like $50 a month, $0.50 a transaction and 4% of the sale -- its around the rate you quoted now that we share the billing).
This would probably save them SOME money, but right now I think its not hurting either you or them the way they have these things. I'm all for getting more music -- maybe you could explain this from another perspective -- if you are willing to throw $50 in as a gift certificate you have demonstrated that you are a loyal customer and thus should get a discount...
Re:Excellent
by
dasmegabyte
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I currently use both emusic and Apple's store. I like them both. Emusic's great appeal is that, once you've paid your $20, you can just download anything. So with a fast broadband connection, there's no reason NOT to get anything that sounds even remotely interesting. Furthermore, they have a lot of music that's pretty much impossible to get anywhere...I'm thinking of Edan's full length album, a gem of Boston underground hip-hop which I ordered at two local record shops, neither of which ever got it in.
Of course, I've got pretty much every song I want on emusic at this point, so the pricetag is starting to weigh pretty heavy on me. Being able to download those tracks from Apple at comparable to higher quality, for $.99 or maybe a little less by album, is a viable and exciting alternative. Plus you get the cool album art, and just maybe they'll have the correct track names for Jiker's "An Eh for an Eh, a Toque for a Toque."
Re:Death to Big Labels
by
Graff
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The issue I have with $.99 per song is that it is in most cases above the threshold of value to me. If, for instance, I would like to purchase all 12 tracks from an artist's album I would be required to pay Apple $12. However, I could most likely find the CD on Amazon marketplace or Half.com for $5-6. What is my incentive to purchase these tracks from Apple, considering the alternative of having the CD and the ability to convert the tracks into the format of my choice for half the price?
First of all, Apple has a flat-rate price of $10 per album for most albums, no matter how many songs they have. I've gotten a few albums with 16 or 18 songs for $10.
Second, buying a CD on Amazon or Half.com is not the same as buying on the iTunes Music Store (iTMS). You get your song instantly on iTMS, you have to wait for the other stores. Apple's music comes pre-encoded from original masters, the CD you get from the other stores might be scratched and scuffed up. With iTMS you can still convert the AAC file to another format by either burning the song to a CD and then re-encoding or by using Audio Hijack Pro to grab the song from iTunes.
Third, you might also only want a song or two from an album. With iTMS you would only spend $1-$2 for that, with the other stores you would still spend $5-6. iTMS also does not have shipping costs, whereas the other stores you need to pay to have the items shipped to you on top of whatever you paid for them.
Overall, I'd say it is closer than most people think. Sure Amazon or Half.com might be a bit cheaper than iTMS, but you trade off ease-of-use and instant gratification for a dollar or two of savings. It's up to the individual to determine if it's worth it or not, but I definitely feel that iTMS is a service that is worth it.
Re:Two obstacles: subscriptions and licenses
by
frightenedmonkey
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I went and dug around on the site, and the FAQ states pretty explicitly that you have to already be paying their subscription fee to buy tracks to download. Stated explicitly:
8. Do I have to be subscribed to the All Access subscription plan to burn CDs?
Yes. Only subscribers to the RHAPSODY All Access subscription plan at $9.95 per month, will get the ability to burn tracks for an additional fee per track, on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Plus, what you can buy to burn is a limited subset of what they have available to listen to. Overall, it doesn't sound like a good deal to me. Think about how much you'd have to download to beat Apple's price, you break even at about 50 tracks a month ((50 * $.79) + $10 = $49.5; 50 * $.99 = $49.5), that's a lot of music I'm not going to buy every month. I mean, if you had a bunch of songs you wanted to buy (more than 50), and you could sign up for only a month (I couldn't find a minimum subscription time limitation, but I didn't look particularly hard), then maybe it would be a good thing to use, but it seems like a big hassle to me.
They also offer a $4.95/month plan that only allows you access to the streaming library. But, still, I take CDs I burn into my car, to friend's -- a lot of places where I'm not going to listen to music through my computer, so it's not right for me. Obviously, there'll be some people who'll be satisfied by Real's service, but I'm betting that most will be like me. I guess Apple is, too.
One big hurdle you'd have to jump through first is the "take micropayments."
From a merchant perspective, micropayments SUCKS ASS because the cost of processing such a payment is more expensive than the amount being paid. You end up with the same problem you describe, except now you are forking all the dough to the payment companies.
besides, even if we grant what you imply, that Apple is merely the lesser of two evils - I must remind you that up until now, almost all major distribution channels for music wants to screw you both ways - pump the artists dry AND limit the consumer's rights to their stuff. Apple, if not given any other credit, must be commended on their effort to make sure you can do (for the most part) whatever you want with the music you bought.
not only that, having a central place where your stuff is catalogued and easily purchased is a good thing. It's much less likely somebody will stumble upon your little corner of a website - but much more likely if you show up when they browse through the genre that they like on a major catalogued site. Don't underestimate the necessity of advertising channels, and the distribution / payment channels as outlined in paragraph 2.
I think right now there are two battles - one between the consumers and the labels / distribution / retail channels, and one between the bands and the same. Apple mostly allowed the first battle to be won in favor of consumers - the bands are another battle altogether - and i am sorry to say, unless there are some serious reason why the consumers would care to get involved, the vast majority of them probably wouldn't.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
According to this article from The Register, Apple is giving 65 cents out of the 99 cents to the music industry so effectively they look already thin on margin.
Bands don't get salaries from the big labels -- just as the parent post stated, the usual arrangement is for the label to advance the band a certain amount on signing, and then deduct royalties that would be owed them from that initial amount. In order to start collecting any money after that first payment, a band usually has to go gold within their first two albums released on the contract.
Even worse, most of the promotional and support services you talk about are actaully paid for by the band, again out of their future royalties. Many groups actually end up *owing* the label money after their first album and tour, which only further binds them to the label's "artistic direction" for them.
The only thing you get from a major label by signing with them is a temporary invitation to ride their distribution network to promote your work. Artists pay their own way, and lose all rights to their work in the process. Of course, that's often better than the alternative, since independent groups and labels have effectively no leverage with radio stations and major venue owners, esp. given the current trend of media consolidation
You just have to look at the likely outcome from this week's news about the new FCC relaxation of ownership rules for a chilling view of where we're going. I don't think that Apple is going to turn things around overnight, but any arrangement which gives the indies more opportunity to reach a paying audience is fine by me.
Emusic? Multi-platform support (including Linux), VBR mp3s at 192kb/s average (encoded with LAME, no less), subscription based (all you can eat for $10 or $15). The only thing they DON'T have is the records of the big ones (unless you think Yo La Tengo and Modest Mouse are big).
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
Blockquoth the poster:
Yes, both the top ten tracks and the top ten albums are listed on the iTMS "front page" (the page you go to when you select the iTMS in iTunes). As of this writing, they are:
Of course, North American Mac users make for a serious skewed sample group, but, well... you can draw your own conclusions.
Its not that bad -- they already combine a lot of orders. They prebill $1 on your card -- like gas prepay stations and restaraunts do pre-tip.
:P Heck -- my company processes its cards through another company (we have sorta a collective going on between sound design companies) and that alone saves us a lot (since our volume was so low, it was going to cost like $50 a month, $0.50 a transaction and 4% of the sale -- its around the rate you quoted now that we share the billing).
In the next few days, anything you order gets thrown onto the same bill. Over a 3 day period, I got one credit card charge and one hold. I'm not sure what the magic billing time is as I stopped buying after the third day and waited two weeks to make my next purchase.
That and the fact we are talking a HUGE multibillion $$$ company, they probably have a little better rates than the standard merchant $.20 + 3%. When you deal in this kinda bulk, you can afford to make some demands
This would probably save them SOME money, but right now I think its not hurting either you or them the way they have these things. I'm all for getting more music -- maybe you could explain this from another perspective -- if you are willing to throw $50 in as a gift certificate you have demonstrated that you are a loyal customer and thus should get a discount...
I currently use both emusic and Apple's store. I like them both. Emusic's great appeal is that, once you've paid your $20, you can just download anything. So with a fast broadband connection, there's no reason NOT to get anything that sounds even remotely interesting. Furthermore, they have a lot of music that's pretty much impossible to get anywhere...I'm thinking of Edan's full length album, a gem of Boston underground hip-hop which I ordered at two local record shops, neither of which ever got it in.
Of course, I've got pretty much every song I want on emusic at this point, so the pricetag is starting to weigh pretty heavy on me. Being able to download those tracks from Apple at comparable to higher quality, for $.99 or maybe a little less by album, is a viable and exciting alternative. Plus you get the cool album art, and just maybe they'll have the correct track names for Jiker's "An Eh for an Eh, a Toque for a Toque."
Hey freaks: now you're ju
First of all, Apple has a flat-rate price of $10 per album for most albums, no matter how many songs they have. I've gotten a few albums with 16 or 18 songs for $10.
Second, buying a CD on Amazon or Half.com is not the same as buying on the iTunes Music Store (iTMS). You get your song instantly on iTMS, you have to wait for the other stores. Apple's music comes pre-encoded from original masters, the CD you get from the other stores might be scratched and scuffed up. With iTMS you can still convert the AAC file to another format by either burning the song to a CD and then re-encoding or by using Audio Hijack Pro to grab the song from iTunes.
Third, you might also only want a song or two from an album. With iTMS you would only spend $1-$2 for that, with the other stores you would still spend $5-6. iTMS also does not have shipping costs, whereas the other stores you need to pay to have the items shipped to you on top of whatever you paid for them.
Overall, I'd say it is closer than most people think. Sure Amazon or Half.com might be a bit cheaper than iTMS, but you trade off ease-of-use and instant gratification for a dollar or two of savings. It's up to the individual to determine if it's worth it or not, but I definitely feel that iTMS is a service that is worth it.
Sapere aude!