Slashdot Mirror
Portable MP3 Hardware Sales Up
prostoalex writes "In December of 2002 only 12% of US music downloaders owned a digital music player, while for this year the number has increased to 17%. Jupiter Research expects the sales of the digital music players to double this year, while another research agency notes a remarkable shift towards paying for music. Even the music industry tends to agree that online music stores are a boon and expects the Web sales to really take off in 2004." (And the sales of Ogg-capable hardware are up, too, since there finally is some.)
is that >4/5 of music downloaders still only listen to that music on their computers - ? When MP3 playing portable cd players (whew, that's long), for example, hardly cost more than one's that don't..
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
I just bought one of these. (page in swedish sorry) Very nifty, you hang it around your neck, it only weighs 15 grams. Great when you want to go running and 256 MB is more than enough for a jogging run.
If these number go up after the Pepsi million song giveaway with Itunes. Supposedley it will be on during the superbowl, so that would be a big target audience.
I'm sure the RIAA is quaking in their boots hearing this. I keep waiting for them to start to go after MP3 manufacturers because we all know if you use an MP3 player you steal music.
Which had me really interested in the interview with Steve Jobs previously referenced here on slashdot was that music execs thought that 'ripping a CD' equated to theft, not to converting it to MP3s.
To be that out of touch with consumers of your product just helps me feel that market pressures, not lawsuits or 'civil disobediance' of supporting Kazaa and other illegal methods of distribution will slowly convert the morons.
That or we could all hope they die of old age because to not understand what Ripping is they have to be 100+ and never used a computer in their life. Hell my Grandpa new what the internet was and he was 91 when he joked about me finding him a girlfriend online after I met my wife that way. He drove road graters for a living, and never touched a computer.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I'm assuming you mean downloadable videos that you can burn yourself. This will probably happen when your average person's bandwidth gets high enough that downloading an entire movie is no more of a hassle than downloading a CD worth of music is now. Why? Because at that point the online trading of videos will truly begin and the MPAA will have to start looking at a different business model, just as the RIAA is now. Personally, I think the whole of the RIAA are idiots because they really missed an incredible opportunity to drastically reduce their distribution costs. They seem to be just now coming to their senses, but because they waited so long they have to deal with lots of "middle men" and competition.
Just wait and see. When you can download 2GB of data in about 2 hours, you'll start seeing the market open up. And before anybody jumps all over me, yes, I'm aware that there are already "stores" where you can watch streaming video or download and watch, but I don't think these are the same quality as what you would get on a DVD. Somebody correct me (and provide info) if I'm wrong.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Personally even with my 1.5MB/s DSL I do not consider that a feature I'm looking for.
Number of reasons
A) The size of the file to get the quality of Video/Audio that I want. Basically I need a DVD worth of quality at a minimum, which is 5 - 10 GBs of space. I like the extras, trailers, etc. So to get this, I'd need to 'want to watch a movie' maybe a day after I decide to get the movie.
B) I'm a collector of sorts. I've got about 700 DVDs that I've impulse bought since 1996 or so. Granted I've only purchased about 700 CDs and a few hundred songs via iTunes. With that many DVDs and the associated data on them, if I wanted to have them for 'instant gratification' I'd need roughly 4.2TBs of storage. That doesn't account for even more stuff coming out over the next x number of years.
Granted newer encoding tech such as MPEG-4 vs. MPEG-2 might help with the storage requirements, but then I'd need to have the movie companies re-encode things like 'Better off Dead' or '*Batteries not included' which about 20 people probably would want, and then I'd need to re-spend money to get them that way.
DVDs have introduced a new phenomenon to the movie industry. People willing to buy them.
I bought 9 video tapes. The first six star trek movies & the original Star Wars trilogy (not that re-done versoin, the THX version)
Just my $0.02.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
There's not one new music selling place that hasn't at least broke even at $0.99 a track? ow long before we see that special "mini Album" by (insert pop star here) for 4.99 for *6* songs?
Of course, Jack Valenti will still be moaning, but the rest of the industry will be looking at him the same way they look at him when he talks about VCR's and rentals... I.e. "what were we thinking?" after having made more money per song by not having to pay hardly anything to distribute it.
-Chris
No thanks. FM does really horrible things to audio quality. If you can't hear it, that's fine, but I can -- even on stock speakers. The most audible area is low bass -- FM radio only transmits 50 Hz-15 kHz.
Note that this is broadcast FM, but AFAIK all of the local-area broadcast devices are subject to the same limitations. Most FM stations do more compression on the signal than this, so it should still sound better than they do.