iTMS Named Fortune's Product Of The Year

What's next by gid13 · 2003-12-12 13:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

Now as soon as it starts making profits in forms other than increased iPod sales and getting more money in the pockets of artists instead of labels, I might consider thinking about becoming interested in using it. :)

Re:What's next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 13:36 · Score: 5, Informative

You'll like this page =)
Re:What's next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 13:42 · Score: 0

"and getting more money in the pockets of artists instead of labels"

How is someone buying an album fromTower records getting any less money into the hands of artists than someone buying a song on the Apple site? It's astounding how clueless people are about the music industry.
Re:What's next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 13:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Two Things:

1) What's "it"? Why do you, as a consumer, care where Apple gets its profits? Apple is in the business of making money. It so happens that iPod and iTMS are an unbeatable suite of products. iTMS is so good, it works very well on its own, without the iPod. You're not forced into buying _anything_.

2) Apple doesn't need to be worrying about getting more money into the hands of the artist -- that's the artist's and the label's fight. Apple barely nets anything on the music sold. Why should it fork over more to the artist?

If the artists hate their labels, they should leave them and form their own "artist-centric" label. Expecting Apple, a technology company, to whip the RIAA and artists into financially-fair shape, is unreasonable.

Use the tech because it's cool. Or don't. But don't expect technology companies to move mountains.
Re:What's next by ljavelin · 2003-12-12 13:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Right now, like it or not, most popular artists are under contract with RIAA member companies. So they just can't say "see ya" and start producing and distributing music indepentently of the RIAA. It sucks, but of course the artists did sign the contract, so here we are now.

Happily, over time, it is possible for people to sell their product without the RIAA. It will take both time and sales to make it happen.

The best way to encourage that model is to buy music on-line from your favorite independent artist! But remember, don't blame the artists who aren't independent - they're likely just as depressed with their contractual obligations as you are!
Re:What's next by gid13 · 2003-12-12 13:57 · Score: 0

Well, at the very least, I'm not clueless about THAT particular bit.

I've sworn off buying CDs too.
Re:What's next by gid13 · 2003-12-12 14:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

1) Quite a good point. Not much to say to that, really.

2) I don't EXPECT anything. But I'm not buying from Apple or anywhere else until they get their shit together and stop doing what they're doing. However, I think Apple forming an artist-friendly label is MUCH more likely (or at least advantageous) than artists doing it themselves because artists haven't got the money to start it and Apple could split the money gained by muscling out the RIAA (if it somehow could) between themselves and the artists.
Re:What's next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 14:13 · Score: 0

ITunes is a disaster for artists who see little to nothing for downloads. What we need is legalized file sharing as championed by Click The Vote.
Re:What's next by dbirchall · 2003-12-12 14:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, DownhillBattle is nice...
...except that it's largely a crock of you-know-what. :)
The one valid point I've seen on that site is that iTMS is helping the major record labels stay alive, and without it, the labels might have a harder time of doing so. Lots of hypothetical there, and considering that iTMS's 20 million songs sold is still nothing more than a tiny blip in the overall annual U.S. music market of some billions of songs, it warrants skepticism.
As far as the artists not getting much money out of the deal... exactly how is that any worse than what they already had? The labels were screwing them before, and they're contractually obligated to the labels, so it's not like they can just sell direct to iTMS (or anyone else) and make an "end run" around the labels. If artists sign contracts that suck, that may be their fault, it may be the label's fault, but it's certainly not Apple's or anyone else's fault.
And of course it almost completely ignores indie labels that are now getting people's music on iTMS. People who go through those labels are taking home as much as 55-60% of that 99 cents a song. That's a pretty damn good cut of the money.
Basically, it strikes me as the same sort of shrill our minds are made up, don't bother us with mitigating facts rant as that put forth by those guys who decided that just because their iPod battery wore out, all iPod batteries must suck, and it was perfectly okay to go commit acts of vandalism as a result. :)
Re:What's next by Mononoke · 2003-12-12 14:19 · Score: 2, Funny

However, I think Apple forming an artist-friendly label is MUCH more likely...
Not very likely at all.

--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Re:What's next by dbirchall · 2003-12-12 14:20 · Score: 1

However, I think Apple forming an artist-friendly label is MUCH more likely (or at least advantageous) than artists doing it themselves because artists haven't got the money to start it and Apple could split the money gained by muscling out the RIAA (if it somehow could) between themselves and the artists.
Great idea! The Beatles' lawyers will love it, I'm sure. *rolls eyes*
Re:What's next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 14:24 · Score: 2, Funny

You said it dude! I will only start using iTMS if it starts making profit via increased sales in Cascade dishwasher detergent.

Because I love Cascade, and I hate iPods.
Re:What's next by Master+Bait · 2003-12-12 14:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Apple should co-publish with Apple Records. I always wondered why Apple Computer never tried to cozy up with them and be money-making friends.

--
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Re:What's next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 14:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

>>As far as the artists not getting much money out of the deal... exactly how is that any worse than what they already had?

I thought that was the point. iTunes just reinforces the entertainment cartel's pricing model (meaning meager profits for bands), except now I can buy songs a la carte.

>>And of course it almost completely ignores indie labels that are now getting people's music on iTMS.

Indie labels have always made better money per CD. They can get a little more exposure now via iTunes.
Re:What's next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 15:14 · Score: 0

"don't blame the artists who aren't independent - they're likely just as depressed with their contractual obligations as you are!"

Yeah, when a band signs a record contract, depression usually sets in. Are you on crack? Bands are happy when they sign record deals. It means someone's willing to finance their career, so they can quit their day jobs.
Re:What's next by fo0bar · 2003-12-12 15:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes, I love downhillbattle's logic towards iTMS.

You know, I think Wal-Mart is horrible for this country (price fixing, anti-competitive behaviour, etc). This justifies the $20,000 or so worth of merchandise I've shoplifted so far this year.

The big banks are just as bad. They are paying out lower and lower interest rates on savings and money market accounts, and filling their own coffers even more as a result. So that makes it okay that I robbed a Bank of America last month.

And of course, the middlemen in the music industry make buying a CD futile, or at least downloading one from iTMS. I think I'll open up Kazaa again.
Re:What's next by JudgeFurious · 2003-12-12 15:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

Artists haven't got the money? Bullshit! Madonna could start one herself (and this is not an endoresment of the bitch, just pointing out that she's got a lot of money).

MC Hammer (associating this name with the word "artist" is admittedly a reach) could have done it easily except his dumb ass felt that he needed an "entourage", several houses, enough jewelry to tip the planet out of it's orbit, and a car collection first.

They're just two of many who've had the chance to start something like this but instead they get the bucks and say (mostly) "fuck the ones that didn't". Their stories can be seen weekly on VH1's "Behind the Music".

Many successful artists could do this and should do this long before it becomes Apple's responsibility. Let the relative handful who actually made more bank than they can spend start an artist friendly label that gets more money to the person who created the work. Apple will be doing fine to sell the product and get it's (more than fair) share.

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Re:What's next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 15:51 · Score: 1

Well, but why do you care if Apple is making money right now on the backend? If it works for you, use it! If Apple goes under tomorrow, you won't lose possession over your songs.

And I wouldn't be quite so patronizing about those iPod sales. It takes a lot of $.05 profit on downloads to equal the $150+ margin they get on those things individually.
Re:What's next by MouseR · 2003-12-12 16:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually, Steve Jobs himself said that Apple doesn't make a dime per song with ITMS.

The service pays for itself, but any money Apple gets out of it pays for maintenance, infrastructure and bandwidth.

Where Apple gains, with ITMS, is in iPod sales that ITMS generates, and the increased mindshare of Win users that have started to look more at the Apple brand for what it can offer, other than QuickTime.

If you've been on a corporate network with just a few Macs like I have, the sudden explosion of iTunes software running on Windows in the subnet appearing in music sharing list is amazing. Suddenly, 5 times as many people on the subnet are using--every day-- Apple branded software and (in some case) hardware.

ITMS and the iPod have been labeled the best marketing trojan horses any company could have thought of to increase it's mindshare.
Re:What's next by nelsonal · 2003-12-12 16:06 · Score: 1

Well here's a great distribution channel, I can get the funding, find some unsigned talent, and we'll talk. On a more serious note, with new distribution channels becoming more availible, how hard would it be to start a record company? Would a band who's expecting bank for signing be willing to forgo a big upfront payment for better future payments (or likely less upfront) if they don't meet great success? I figure a few hundred thousand should be more than enough to start a shoestring label, but would need some better acts than the local stuff around here.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:What's next by jb_davis · 2003-12-12 16:39 · Score: 2

So their logic is worse than the RIAA's "Every downloaded song is a lost sale." logic?

--
"Well, it took an hour to write, I thought it would take an hour to read."
Re:What's next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 17:00 · Score: 0

They use the images of actors from the Apple commercials. How much do you think downhill.com paid the actors to use their likeness on their website? You don't think downhill . . . ripped off the artists? They wouldn't. Would they?
Re:What's next by the+argonaut · 2003-12-12 17:37 · Score: 0, Flamebait

1) ...Why do you, as a consumer, care where Apple gets its profits? Apple is in the business of making money...

Because as a consumer everybody should care about where and how corporations they purchase from make their money. If more people did the world would probably be a much better place.

2) Apple doesn't need to be worrying about getting more money into the hands of the artist -- that's the artist's and the label's fight. Apple barely nets anything on the music sold. Why should it fork over more to the artist

See Above.

Because Apple sells itself as being about more than just the bottom line. Their whole branding is based on this illusion that they are revolutionizing the world, "thinking differently", etc. The reality is far different. They are sugarcoating life for us. They took the same old plantation system from the pre-digital era and created a well designed, easy to use, flashy system for carrying it online with the iTMS. If Apple really wanted to be revolutionary they would have done it differently. Instead it's just co-opting the appearance of revolutionary while neglecting the actual substance.

Use the tech because it's cool.

Using something just because it's cool has got to be one of the worst reasons I have ever heard to use something. Use a tool because it enables you to get the job done, because it's wastes fewer resources, or because it works better than other tools, but not because you'll look cool while doing it (although if it can look cool at the sam time, I'm fine with that).

But don't expect technology companies to move mountains.

And why shouldn't we? Tech companies (and all other companies for that matter) take a lot more than they give from consumers and communities, otherwise they wouldn't be making that sought after "profit" that they then send off to do-nothing shareholders. Why shouldn't we expect a little more from them then just to sell us crap? Unless of course you're one of those "corporations must maximize shareholder value at the expense of all others" types. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with shareholders getting reasonable value in return for the small risk the original purchaser took when he bought the stock (since every subsequent purchase doesn't add anything to the coffers of the company), but this medieval idea that shareholders are the only ones that matter is pretty perverse.

--
fuck you.
Re:What's next by the+argonaut · 2003-12-12 17:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

If artists sign contracts that suck, that may be their fault, it may be the label's fault, but it's certainly not Apple's or anyone else's fault.

Lots of people get screwed into crappy contracts everyday because there really aren't any viable alternatives. Read your cell phone service agreement, or your ISP's terms and conditions, or anyone of the many click-through agreements for software you've installed. You'll be appalled at the things you have signed away. And really you have little choice.**

It's not really any different for musicians. Yeah, they can give the major labels the finger and go sign with an indie label or if they're really adventurous start their own label. But the reality is that their chances for success in going that route are almost zero. If you think the success rate for bands signed to major labels is pretty low, you should see the success rate for indie artists. Even if you assume and allow for indie artists being "less talented" (which I would argue is untrue), the difference is huge. So really, if you want a chance at being able to make a good living or even striking it rich, you're only choice is to sign with the majors, and get stuck with a bad deal.

---

**Yeah, you can argue that "well you don't have to use the software", but this is pretty bogus. You're only real option is you don't want to agree to the terms is to use a computer or not, or to get a cellphone or not, since almost all software and almost every cell company use the exact same "give us your first-born" terms in their agreement.

--
fuck you.
Re:What's next by MoneyT · 2003-12-12 17:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because Apple sells itself as being about more than just the bottom line. Their whole branding is based on this illusion that they are revolutionizing the world, "thinking differently", etc. The reality is far different. They are sugarcoating life for us. They took the same old plantation system from the pre-digital era and created a well designed, easy to use, flashy system for carrying it online with the iTMS. If Apple really wanted to be revolutionary they would have done it differently. Instead it's just co-opting the appearance of revolutionary while neglecting the actual substance.

Apple does do something different. They treat every one the same. Big lable indie lable, it doesn't matter, you all get the same deal from Apple. Big lables get just as much exposure on iTMS as the indies.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Re:What's next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 18:03 · Score: 0

Not so much +4 funny as it is +4 insightful.
Re:What's next by hamster+foo · 2003-12-12 18:08 · Score: 1

Madonna did start her own record label. Plenty of other artists have too, although I doubt they are much different than the big boys when it comes to contracts and what not. It's a business, and everybody is out to get whatever they can.

--
- b
Re:What's next by dbirchall · 2003-12-12 18:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you think the success rate for bands signed to major labels is pretty low, you should see the success rate for indie artists.
Ah, but this depends on how you define "success." If you define it as "selling ten million records over the course of a career" then yes, it's beyond the grasp of most, if not all, indie artists. If you define it as "making a reasonable profit off your own music," then it might be a little different.
Acts signed to major labels appear to either make vast sums or go broke (or in some cases, both, in no particular order, sometimes more than once). Indie bands get much less promotion, so their "top end" revenue is a lot lower - but there are less people "taking a cut" from that, so they might come out a little more ahead.
Of course, being an indie band is usually something you do in addition to your day jobs; if you're a major label "star" they probably wouldn't let you hold down a "real job" even if you had the skills and wanted to...
Re:What's next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 18:27 · Score: 0

What a fart. This is one of the most meaningless posts I have ever seen.

The only thing that tops this is the stupidity of the morons who modded this up.
Re:What's next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 21:28 · Score: 0

FemiNazi bitch.
Re:What's next by Trurl's+Machine · 2003-12-12 22:42 · Score: 1

As far as the artists not getting much money out of the deal... exactly how is that any worse than what they already had?

Exactly zero point null. The downhillbattle site is pretty clear on this one:
So why does iTunes give artists such a raw deal? Because it's the exact same deal that artists have always gotten from the big five record companies.
I'm afraid the whole downhilbattle statement boils down to: 'iTunes Music Store is still a capitalist institution. It is not, unfortunately, something that would be endorsed by Che Guevara, Chairman Mao or Vladimir Ilich Lenin. It is something made by companies running for profit'. And they are right on this point, but actually I have no problems with that. I am a capitalist swine running for profit, too.
Re:What's next by Trurl's+Machine · 2003-12-12 22:53 · Score: 2

Because there is no Apple Records, actually. No-one was running the company anymore after the "White Album", and in 1974 the court solved a series of trials of one Beatle versus another by enforcing a complex scheme for splitting the profits. All Apple Records assets were then given for trustees management, just as it happens with a bankrupt company. Steve Jobs would probably be very happy to strike a deal like this - but there is no one on the other side of the table to negotiate it. There is just a bunch of lawyers, who try to maximize the profits on the path of least resistance (ironically, since the debut of Macintosh in 1984, Apple Records was constantly in red until very recent years).
Re:What's next by thevil · 2003-12-13 00:54 · Score: 1

But don't expect technology companies to move mountains

I expect them to change the world (and maybe sell some suger water along the way).
Re:What's next by the+argonaut · 2003-12-13 03:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

I would define "success" minimally as "being able to make enough money to support yourself".

From most of the people I know, I would say that being in an "indie band" is only something you do in addition to your day job because you would starve otherwise. Most have ambitions to at least be able to one day support themselves making music.

--
fuck you.
Re:What's next by Have+Blue · 2003-12-13 03:48 · Score: 1

If no one's been running the company since 1974, who sued Apple over the ITMS earlier this year and in the early 90s for shipping microphones with Macs?
Re:What's next by ElGanzoLoco · 2003-12-13 04:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, Steve Jobs himself said that Apple doesn't make a dime per song with ITMS.

My belief is that he knows that he's lying, at least by omission, when he says so. Maybe in order to fool the competitors into thinking "hey, Apple doesn't make money out of the store, they just cash on the iPods, so we need to make our own (failed) iPods to cash ourselves".

iTunes is what, three monthes old on the P.C. ... and is unavailable outside the U.S. There is good reason to believe that 2004 will see the iTMS go "global" (at least Europe and Japan, and then is when we'll start to realize the true potential of the iTMS.

I think we should understand Job's statement as "Apple doesn't make a dime per song with ITMS... yet "

--
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
Re:What's next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 04:46 · Score: 0

Yeah... you do, I hope, realize that of that 35% cut that Apple gets, 25% (that's not 25% of 35% there, that's 25% of the total) goes to providing the service. If the artists get 8-14 on every dollar, that means on average they're getting about the same profit as Apple, a little more in some cases.
Re:What's next by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 04:54 · Score: 0

The interview I read said that Apple makes exactly a dime per song.
Re:What's next by Trurl's+Machine · 2003-12-13 07:45 · Score: 1

If no one's been running the company since 1974, who sued Apple over the ITMS earlier this year and in the early 90s for shipping microphones with Macs?

" just a bunch of lawyers, who try to maximize the profits on the path of least resistance"
Re:What's next by Nicanor · 2003-12-13 10:30 · Score: 1

United Artists From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The United Artists Corporation was formed on February 5, 1919 by four Hollywood greats: Charles Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and D. W. Griffith. Their motive was to challenge the power of the major studios which, some felt, were making a fortune out of the talent of individuals. The four friends, taking advice from businessman Gibbs McAdoo (son-in-law of Woodrow Wilson), formed their own distribution company, with Hiram Abrams as its first managing director. It was bought by Arthur Krim in 1952. United Artists productions/releases included The Mark of Zorro (1920), Stagecoach (1939) and the films of independent producers in the 1930s and 1940s such as Walt Disney, Alexander Korda and David Selznick. Later releases included most of the James Bond and all of the Rocky films, as well as One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest After heavy losses incurred as a result of investing in the flop, Heaven's Gate, United Artists was acquired by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in1981 and ceased to exist as a separate company. http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Artists Could work for recording artists. Just don't bankroll any 'Heaven's Gate' type production.
Re:What's next by ljavelin · 2003-12-13 13:54 · Score: 1

Read my statement again. Contractual obligations - ever hear of them? Ever sign up for such a thing? I have. And let me tell you, they have a lot of control.

Don't get me wrong - given the current business model, a contract with an RIAA member company is almost necessary for success.

However, it by NO MEANS is a ticket to success. I have friends who landed a contract and quit their day jobs. They then recorded a new album and the company decided that it wasn't worth releasing it.

So! What do you think happened from there? Think the record company let them have their work? Hell no! And do you think they got royalties given zero sales? Hell no! Basically, NOTHING came out of the deal.

By rights, the band could have sued the record company for their work - after all, the contract resulted in zero benefit for the band, so the contract way, IMHO, invalid. But in any case, the cards are almost always held by The Company.

So don't tell me that having a record contract is a great thing. Being locked into a losing proposition is not a great thing. At first it sure does FEEL like a great thing. But quitting your day job isn't the smartest thing to do. Especially if it pays the bills.
Re:What's next by Jucius+Maximus · 2003-12-13 14:03 · Score: 1

"Let the relative handful who actually made more bank than they can spend start an artist friendly label that gets more money to the person who created the work."
That's already happened.
Re:What's next by Golias · 2003-12-13 21:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

I would define "success" minimally as "being able to make enough money to support yourself".
I, however, would define "success" minimally as "making music that would be worth listening to." But for those who's asperations revolves around quitting their day jobs, allow me to present the only formula that has ever been found to work consistently, no matter how the business is being run...
How to make money as a musician:
1. Be pretty.
2. Be capable.
3. Sell out.
Any questions?

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:What's next by stingerman101 · 2003-12-14 01:27 · Score: 1

Because iTunes has nothing to do with Artist compensation. That's between the Artists and their record labels. Hello. Trying to blame Apple because Artists don't understand the concept of union, is misdirection. Do you think if an artist was popular enough, they wouldn't have a better deal? Mariah Carey, Madonna, etc are pretty happy with their deals. Or, maybe if Artists were united enough to leverage each other in order to put pressure on the Labels. Artists are making plenty of money, they just want more. But, of course, they don't want to pay anybody else any money. Not the record labels who got them a career and out of the projects and continue to spend money to promote them nor the the Online retail music stores which are trying to save them from that long dark night of P2P sharing.
Re:What's next by PudriK · 2003-12-15 14:07 · Score: 1

There is another alternative that some musicians have successfully pulled off. The most recent I know of is Mandy Moore... Sell out, get rich and famous... Then take your rep and use it to do what you want. In her case, her latest album is her singing 70's love songs, but she used pop-candy music to get there. Of course, I doubt she'll make much money on her new record. (Like Garth Brooks with the Chris Gaines album.) But if she's smart, she'll save what she has, and use it to finance a quiet life making the music she wants. Of course, that first takes the incredible hard work to go from a person-who-likes-to-sing to a model/dancer/actor who can lip-synch and has enough cojenes to be half-naked on a national magazine. It all comes down to marketing... you don't make it big unless a big label fronts the money to plaster your face all over the place and push your single onto the radio.

Why not? by cgranade · 2003-12-12 13:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's a damn fine product... spawned almost as many ripoffs as the iPod itself. Plus, it has the opportunity to make money if the RIAA is cut out. I mean, there's no reason that iTMS can't offer indie music as well, and then they'd be getting higher margins on the indie music, so Apple'd push it more than the RIAA tained sh**. In short, iTMS is a great product. Stable, visually attractive, functional, not DRM crippled (I'll accept iTMS's level of DRM), wide variety of music available... need I go on?

--

#define DRM chmod 000

Re:Why not? by larry+bagina · 2003-12-12 13:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

they do offer indie music. The indie artist has to be affiliated with a label however (it's easier for Apple to send a label a check for $100 than 100 indie artists a check for $1). There were places to get indie music before iTMS (like mp3 com). Their (lack of) success ought to tell you something.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Why not? by aldoman · 2003-12-12 13:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

I agree -- turning itunes music store into a market where anyone could put their music would be a grave mistake - the thing would get bogged down and your searches would become full of crap.

However, signing deals with smaller indie labels is far better. It means that the indie labels get a share of the profit and can start to grow a bit.

It does really seem that Apple has finally hit the nail on the head here and if they are lucky they might convert this to market share so alternate OSes at least get discussed with the 'family'..

--
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 13:52 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Lack of success eh?

Looks like mp3.com isn't the only place that does this sort of thing. Maybe you ought to do some research before making blanket accusations

Note the paid to Musicians title
Re:Why not? by LinuxInDallas · 2003-12-12 13:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Apple has really hit the nail on the head quite a few times, starting back in the 80's and really late 70's :) Let's just hope they don't drop the ball on this one!
Re:Why not? by tobes · 2003-12-12 14:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not necessarily. Apple has already opened up their store for 3rd party searches (to some extent). I think they could really cash in as a back-end supply for specialized "search" sites. It's nice that they provide samples too, kind of encourages people to link to them even though they don't have a referral program.
Re:Why not? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2003-12-12 15:56 · Score: 1

There were places to get indie music before iTMS (like mp3 com). Their (lack of) success ought to tell you something.

That being litigated to the brink of death by companies with 100x deeper pockets than you, who then buy you out is the American way?

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Why not? by dbirchall · 2003-12-12 17:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, having browsed iTMS pretty extensively once, I discovered that the most extensively iTMS-ed act out there (at that time), with something over 2,000 tracks available on iTMS, was... an indie band!
Granted, it wasn't just any indie band. It was Pearl Jam. Not so long ago, they told their then label in no uncertain terms exactly what it could shove exactly where. They've been selling recordings of their concerts for a few years now, largely through their web site... hit http://www.pearljam.com/downloads/ and they've got links to iTunes all over it. All the studio albums and every track they played at every show they played from February through July of this year. Want 36 different live versions of your favorite Pearl Jam song? No problem!
Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 00:51 · Score: 0

"The indie artist has to be affiliated with a label"

That's hardly indy now is it?
Re:Why not? by Milo+Fungus · 2003-12-13 06:04 · Score: 1

There were places to get indie music before iTMS (like mp3 com). Their (lack of) success ought to tell you something.

I don't think the downfall of Mp3.com can be explained away so easily. To say that their demise was purely a result of their hosting indie bands is just plain wrong.

I'm an oldschool Mp3.commie. Do you remember Don't Eat Pete and the DeCSS song? I was a member of that band. We were just plodding along, trying to get a playlist and get some local gigs. Then Joe announed to the band that he had written the DeCSS song and that it was world-famous in geek culture, all over the internet. He put the song on Mp3.com (as well as a few of our other recordings) and we had several hundred dollars of payback-for-playback accumulated within a couple of days. Then Mp3.com pulled the song because they were scared of litigation (and who could really blame them, you know?). Then Joe got interviewed for all kinds of tech magazines, a clip of the song was on 60 minutes, we got invited to play at GeekFest (which was cancelled, unfortunately), etc. That was a golden time. Mp3.com (and Slashdot) had a lot to do with it.

That was in the golden age of Mp3.com. Their big problems came with the big lawsuit over the my.mp3.com thing. It just went downhill from there. The resources and opportunities for free artists were slowly eroded. First it was no payback-for-playback, then it was no tech support, then it was waiting weeks to get new songs approved, etc. I stopped maintaining my page there and built my own site.

No matter how specific I made my search query, my Mp3.com pages would NEVER show up in the results at Google. That was a fundamental problem. One of the tenets of web design is that content is king. If you have useful content, you will get traffic, links, and pagerank. That didn't work on Mp3.com because search engines couldn't find you there.

Supporting indie musicians was not the reason for the demise. It was bad decisions and poor site design. Yeah, there was a lot of rubbish there. But have you ever read Slashdot at -1? Yet Slashdot is one of the most useful sites on the web for getting tech news and commentary. Mp3.com, designed properly, could have been the same for indie bands. I think it used to be, but fell from grace.

Better luck to MuSeeks.com and the other sites trying to succeed where Mp3.com failed.
Re:Why not? by ShavenYak · 2003-12-15 05:04 · Score: 1

Nice mixed metaphor. Apple is a carpenter and baseball player at the same time!

--

Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!

Better future? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 13:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

Apparently some artists don't agree. Many are arguing that people will pay one or two dollars for only one or two songs from an album, instead of buying the whole thing. But then again, why should we go to a store and pay for an entire album when we only want a few?

Re:Better future? by Meowing · 2003-12-12 13:49 · Score: 1

Apparently some artists don't agree. Many are arguing that people will pay one or two dollars for only one or two songs from an album, instead of buying the whole thing. But then again, why should we go to a store and pay for an entire album when we only want a few?

IIRC there was a management agency or two saying that, but I don't recall any artists saying so themselves (maybe some did, but I missed it).
At any rate, sometimes people change their minds.
Re:Better future? by paranerd · 2003-12-12 13:52 · Score: 1

I'm confused. What's the overhead on selling me an album? You've got the store: the store's costs (utilities, labor, insurance), the store's markup, the materials, the packaging, the shipping, the production; all that cost versus the cost of selling me two songs online. Can the store really be so cost effective that the artists make out better by selling me an album rather than by me downloading a couple of songs for a couple of bucks?

All of this is rather academic as I am not having any difficulty in boycotting the RIAA. I haven't bought an album this year.
Re:Better future? by tholomyes · 2003-12-12 13:53 · Score: 1

More power to bands with solid albums worth buying, instead of has-beens who try to cash in on a whole album for coming up with one or two hit songs every three years.

And: why would we pay $16.99 for an album at a store when we can download all 14 tracks for $9.99?

--
When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
Re:Better future? by edwdig · 2003-12-12 13:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem with selling songs individually is the margin per song is very low. You'll sell a lot more individual songs than you would albums, but you make a lot less money per unit sold.

The artists concern is probably because it's a lot harder to make money selling things at $1 compared to selling things at $15-$20. It's a very valid business concern.

I'm sure there are also some artists concerned because they make albums that are meant to be listened to as a whole, but there aren't that many of them these days.
Re:Better future? by RatBastard · 2003-12-12 14:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem with selling songs individually is the margin per song is very low.
While true, it hardly matters. I'll willingly pay a buck each for the three songs I like from an album that will not sixteen dollars to have those three songs and six or seven other songs I can't stand.
I have gone throuh some artists entire catalogs on iTMS and out of nine CDs, I've only purchased twelve songs. That's a pretty sucky ratio. But even so, they are better off as I was not willing to go out and buy all of those CDs just to get to the few songs on them that I liked.
The real problem is that too many artists spew out piles of garbage with just a few good songs on each CD. When artists make entire albums worth buying, I buy them. Otherwise, I'm stick with just buiying the songs I like, thank you.

--
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Re:Better future? by tholomyes · 2003-12-12 14:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm not so sure that this is so much the artist's concern-- I would think that it would be much harder to make money selling things where 90% of the profits go to the reseller, the distributor, and the record label. This is why a lot of major label artists spend their time on other money-making ventures, like MTV videos, endorsements, and (oh yeah) touring...

The iTunes store is starting to give independent record labels (K, Matador, et. al) an equal footing with these big labels, but the independent label artists will get more of a fair share from their record company.

The artists that complained the loudest (Madonna and U2 were on the list, I believe) were not the ones that have been the bands making those comprehensive concept albums of yore. But given a choice between this and P2P, the Top 40 artists should resign themselves to their ubiquity.

--
When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
Re:Better future? by lurker412 · 2003-12-12 14:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Good questions. According to an article by G. Prem Premkumar in the September, 2003 Communications of the ACM, (not available online without an expensive subscription, alas) the retail costs (including markup) amount to 35% of the final price. Distribution and manufacturing amount to 12%. So do the math. This adds up to 47% of, say, $15. Online distribution is not free, as it involves servers, bandwidth and personnel, but it is certainly cheaper than physical distribution, which requires warehouses, trucks, machinery to create the disks, etc. So roughly speaking, online distribution should cut at least 40% of the existing cost structure.
If you compare that to the cost of a CD on iTunes, you will see that the profit margin to the RIAA and its members is actually greater online. This probably does qualify it for product of the year from the corporate perspective. ITunes is certainly the best commercial offering to date in terms of UI and DRM. However, it is still way too expensive.
Re:Better future? by harlows_monkeys · 2003-12-12 20:46 · Score: 1

The real problem is that too many artists spew out piles of garbage with just a few good songs on each CD. When artists make entire albums worth buying, I buy them. Otherwise, I'm stick with just buiying the songs I like, thank you
The problem is that if everyone were like you, the only songs we'd get would be shallow songs that are instantly likeable. If you want that, why bother with CDs at all? Just turn on the radio.
I've got many albums where it has taken months, or even years, for me to appreciate the greatness of some of the songs on them.
Re:Better future? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 21:26 · Score: 0

Most artists don't produce alblums which I'd even purchase /used/ where neither they, nor the RIAA will see a penny of my money. Still, some of them will make singles which I'd be happy to download for 0.99 USD... Either you make 0.25 (as an artist), off me, or you get nothing.. make your choice.
On iTMS, it seems that many offerings are full-alblum only... Let the sales figures between the two options manifest themselves.
When it comes to artists who make alblums that are /worth/ listening to as a whole, I'll buy the things... But, unfortunately, because of the RIAA bastards, I'll buy them used, to avoid the price fixing, and the artist is screwed. I won't pay $20.00 for a cd, when I can buy the same for a third of the price, and will hope the artist is properly compensated the next time they tour through SF.
Re:Better future? by leviramsey · 2003-12-12 21:49 · Score: 2

Indeed, I've found that the best albums I've bought are ones wherein I didn't like every song right out of the gate. What I think this indicates is that truly great art takes a long time to grok, but once you grok it it's like the veil falling from your eyes and you fall in love with it.

Consider Rush's Vapor Trails. I bought it the day it came out, having heard only "One Little Victory" on the radio once (and not really paying attention to it; the fact that Rush had a new album out soon registered with me). The first time I listened to the record, nothing jumped out at me. I marked it down as a waste of $16.

A couple of weeks later, I noticed the CD sitting by my computer and that I had yet to rip it for more convenient listening. So I fired up cdparanoia and lame (this being a few months before I jumped to ogg) and started ripping away.

As per my standard procedure when ripping, I used play to listen to the wavs before encoding to MP3. A song jumped out at me and I listened to it a few times before encoding it. As it happens, it was "Peaceable Kingdom", a song which, in retrospect, is one of the biggest turds Rush have laid at our feet in their 30 year career. From there, "Ghost Rider", "Nocturne", "One Little Victory", "Ceiling Unlimited", "The Stars Look Down", and "Out of the Cradle" broke through.

The four songs, though, that took the longest for me to grok ("Vapor Trail", "Secret Touch", "Earthshine", and "Freeze (part IV of 'Fear')") are now the ones that I recognize as absolute masterpieces wherein the music, lyrics, and vocals fuse together create something of solid construction, pleasing to the ear, and a compliment to their architect and builders.

This happens time and time again with me. The songs that leap out as great to me on the first listen or two end up being near the bottom of my list and songs that I dismissed at first glance turn out to be the ones that I can't deny as essential.

Why is this?

I conjecture that the reason we like a piece of music is not because of anything "in" the song; it is a confluence of the song, our state of mind at the time of listening, and connections made with our state at previous listenings. One of these (our state at the time of listening) is highly variable, and another is akin to the integral of that variable. But this is all conjecture and could never be proven anyway.
Re:Better future? by syrinx · 2003-12-13 03:28 · Score: 1

Interesting... Vapor Trails, the whole album, pretty much grabbed me right away.

Counterparts, though, took awhile, but I really like it now.

For me, the best example is probably U2's Achtung Baby.. aside from 'One', didn't like anything on it for the first year or two of owning it.

Then suddenly, "holy shit, all these songs rock".

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Re:Better future? by dwightk · 2003-12-13 03:35 · Score: 1

Every time Apple tells us how many songs they have sold, they also note that x% were sold as albums... and x is usually pretty high

--
Like anyone can even know that

invention? by penguinoid · 2003-12-12 13:36 · Score: 0

I thought that Napster had an iTunes-like store first?

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways

Re:invention? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 13:40 · Score: 1, Funny

No, Napster had the "let's break the current business model by producing a system that makes copyright infringement easy and natural to everyone with a computer."
Re:invention? by larry+bagina · 2003-12-12 13:44 · Score: 1

Napster 2.0 launched a couple months ago.
When BMG bought Napster, they had plans to migrate it to be a legitimate music distributor, but that never happened.
There were a couple places that sold independent music downloads prior to iTMS, but none of them had music from the major record labels.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:invention? by SideshowBob · 2003-12-12 13:45 · Score: 1

iTunes Music Store has been out for the Mac for quite awhile, well before the release of the new Napster, which includes a store.
Re:invention? by billbaird · 2003-12-12 13:46 · Score: 2, Informative

No, Napster had the "let's break the current business model by producing a system that makes copyright infringement easy and natural to everyone with a computer."

penguinoid was refering to the new napster which happens to be very similar to iTMS, yet windows only
Re:invention? by ryanw · 2003-12-12 13:51 · Score: 4, Funny

I thought that Napster had an iTunes-like store first?
I'm sure you believe that Microsoft had the first GUI too..
Re:invention? by BasilBrush · 2003-12-12 14:43 · Score: 1

...but launched months after iTunes. So the answer is no.
Re:invention? by geekoid · 2003-12-12 14:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm sure you believe Apple had the first Gui too.. ;)

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:invention? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 15:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Pressplay, Musicmatch, etc. they all had the iTune Music Store idea before Apple and implemented it.

Though some record companies did sign on to them, they didn't make much money though.

They didnt have the marketing and media muscle though.

Sorry, iTunes music store is not an "invention" it's just well marketed. Somebody else invented it.
Re:invention? by mr100percent · 2003-12-12 15:43 · Score: 1

You could say everything else before it was sorta primitive, Xerox's system wasn't as developed as teams of people at Apple working on it. At least, that's my assumption.
Re:invention? by mehgul · 2003-12-12 17:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

They didnt have the marketing and media muscle though.

They surely didn't have the mindset to think "let's do it in such a way that people will enjoy using it" though ! Believe it or not, if the iTMS is successful, it's not just good luck.
Re:invention? by Methuseus · 2003-12-12 19:45 · Score: 1

from what I understand, the Xerox GUI was about the same or better than the first couple Apple GUI efforts. But I haven't used either, haven't used Macs before OS 7.x and haven't used the Xerox GUI at all, so I can't really comment.

--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
Re:invention? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 00:43 · Score: 0

ah. so you've arbitrarily set your choice as the absolute minimum that qualifies as a GUI.

Ingenious.

bullshit by larry+bagina · 2003-12-12 13:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

Napster proved that tens of millions of consumers were eager to download digital music from the Internet. They just weren't inclined to pay for it

Bullshit. Napster didn't prove they weren't inclined to pay for it, even if people wanted to legitimately purchase music downloads, they couldn't.

Napster proved the demand for downloadable music exists. I like iTMS. I use iTMS. I give jobs credit for convincing the suits, not for a prodcust or invention of the year.

--
Do you even lift?

These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

Re:bullshit by Laser+Lou · 2003-12-12 14:32 · Score: 1

Napster proved that tens of millions of consumers were eager to download digital music from the Internet. They just weren't inclined to pay for it
Bullshit. Napster didn't prove they weren't inclined to pay for it, even if people wanted to legitimately purchase music downloads, they couldn't.

Napster proved that some people who legitimately buy music want to share it by letting others download it. No one, besides the file sharing networks, have figured out how to capitalize on it yet.

--
No data, no cry
Re:bullshit by BasilBrush · 2003-12-12 14:46 · Score: 1

Once they share it by letting others download it, it stops being legitimate.
Re:bullshit by Quasar1999 · 2003-12-12 15:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

Damn it... I want to BUY music from iTMS in Canada... but oh no... can't do that... gotta go through the Canadian ripoffs of it... like PureTracks... They have next to no selection, only available in DRM'd WMA format, that cannot be played on MP3 players... and the kicker... I upgraded my motherboard, re-installed Windows (a requirement when upgrading motherboards), and lost all the songs I downloaded and payed for... their response... It's your responsiblity to make backups of your files and Digital certificates... WTF???

iTunes does not have any of these problems... yet I can't use it in Canada... I can buy an iPod, but can't buy music for it. I have no choice but to download music without paying for it... and I've gone through all the damn hoops trying to legally purchase music... The government and the Canadian version of the RIAA (whatever the hell they're called) has successfully made it so difficult for me (and all Canadians with tastes for music other than the crap on the radio) to buy music that I have no reasonable alternative but to continue to get my music from the underground...

Napster may have proven that there is a demand, but I'm sure I'm not the only Canadian that has proven we are willing to jump through a crap load of hoops to try and buy music instead of just downloading it for free.

So who's at fault here? Apple for not selling music outside the states? The RIAA for being anal? The Canadian government and their damned heritage law (forcing everyone to download at least 50% canadian content)? Or is it me (and people like me), that put up with all this crap, trying to go legit, and hitting a brick wall?

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Re:bullshit by mr100percent · 2003-12-12 15:47 · Score: 1

Napster proved that some people who legitimately buy music want to share it by letting others download it.
Not necessarily, one person uploads it and thousands share the same bootlegged copy of the file. There are numerous examples, a rare track shows up hundreds of times, and its the same file.
Re:bullshit by Demolition · 2003-12-12 20:16 · Score: 1

gotta go through the Canadian ripoffs of it... like PureTracks

It's no wonder that people are starting to refer to PureTracks as "PureCrap". It really is as bad as you've described. Unfortunately, we don't have any other choices (except to use P2P clients or get our American buddies to buy music from iTMS for us) until Apple completes its negotiations with the organizations that oversee music licensing in Canada. One of those organizations is the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency (CMRRA) and the other is...

...the Canadian version of the RIAA (whatever the hell they're called)...

...the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA). So, far, the CRIA hasn't been doing all that much about music piracy. Most of their efforts have been half-hearted, at best. For example, see this Globe And Mail article covering the way that the CRIA has been dealing with music piracy (or not dealing with it, as the case may be). Some of their efforts are just plain silly.

Perhaps the folks that we should be more worried about are SOCAN (which was recently mentioned in this Slashdot thread related to the responsibility of ISPs in regards to the transmission of copyrighted music) and the CPCC (the rat-bastards that instituted levies on recordable media in Canada, and are now trying to get levies put on MP3s players here (as described in this Slashdot thread)).

D.
Re:bullshit by AKnightCowboy · 2003-12-13 02:22 · Score: 1

Bullshit. Napster didn't prove they weren't inclined to pay for it, even if people wanted to legitimately purchase music downloads, they couldn't.
I thought I'd try any experiment with iTMS recently and wanted to scratch and itch to find Darling Nikki by the Foo Fighters. So I went into iTunes on my Mac, entered the store, and searched for "Darling Nikki". It only came back with two songs, one was by Prince (who did the original) and the other was by someone called Mucky Pup.
So, I opened up Poisoned instead, typed in "Darling Nikki" into the search box and voila. Foo Fighters, Prince, etc. Guess where I downloaded the song from? The lack of availability of songs that I want *right now* make iTMS absolutely worthless for me compared to P2P file sharing networks. If the record labels were to dump every song in their inventory into iTMS annd cooperate fully so I get just as many quality hits on iTMS as I do with using Poisoned then I would've probably plopped down $.99 to satisfy my urge to hear a little Foo Fighters. The sadder thing is, they don't have any Foo Fighters songs at all on iTMS... and no, I don't mean "Too Fighters" iTunes.
P2P is successful because you can go on it anytime day or night and find virtually any song in existence. Add to the fact that it's free and you have an instant hit. If you can add all the songs in the world to iTMS and then lower the price per track to something reasonable like $0.25 per track I think you'd totally hijack the P2P users. I'd easily pay a quarter for good quality compressed tracks instead of taking a chance on getting broken and crappy ripped songs or fake songs put out by the RIAA to flood the networks. $0.99 is pushing my limits though and is reaching my instant impulse to spend money.
When they raised the candy bar prices in the machine from $0.50 to $0.65 I stopped buying candy bars from the machine and instead now buy them in bulk from Sam's club, bring them in to work and we have a candy/pop club. Now the vending machine sits unused by only a few poor fools who are willing to be raped by the price gouging vending company. I've heard rumors that they're going to have to raise the prices of candy bars up to $0.80 soon to cover the lack of sales. What do you think that'll do? I know I'll be rushing out to buy more candy just like when they went from $0.60 cans of 12oz soda to $1.25 plastic bottles of 20oz soda in the machines. I'm sick of being ripped off.
Re:bullshit by Sunnan · 2003-12-13 05:29 · Score: 1

I'd probably say that you are at fault. Just get over it and ignore copyright, it's archaic anyway.
Easier to just send a couple of bucks to the artists, producers etc through the mail. If even that.
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 11:52 · Score: 0

gee a cd is cheaper used. who'd a thunkit!

Yeah... by Kircle · 2003-12-12 13:38 · Score: 1, Interesting

'With the success of its iTunes Music Store, Apple is almost single-handedly dragging the music industry, kicking and screaming, toward a better future.'

Where the RIAA gets 80 cents off the dollar if i remember correctly.

--

-- Kircle

Re:Yeah... by ljavelin · 2003-12-12 13:43 · Score: 1

Yeah, but I can't wait until more and more musicians who are snubbed by RIAA companies find a MARKET on iTunes (and iTunes competitors), resulting in the RIAA getting ZERO of those cents.

Yay! The world can get better... too bad it had to take Apple to make it legitimate.
Re:Yeah... by 2nd+Post! · 2003-12-12 13:44 · Score: 1

You don't remember correctly

--

GPL Deconstructed
Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 13:54 · Score: 1, Informative

Alas, that'll never happen as small indie labels are not represented on iTunes.
Re:Yeah... by aldoman · 2003-12-12 13:55 · Score: 1

This is just the start... Apple is only starting to show itself as a real solution for the RIAA -- remember that it took months of begging to get the major labels to sign up anyway.

If it goes to plan (which it looks like it is) then expect in a few years for Apple to be dictating to the RIAA how much they pay. While Apple thinks this is only going to be an iPod selling machine, I think it will become a major stream of income for Apple once they manage to negoiate a far fairer price for the songs...

--
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
Re:Yeah... by MORTAR_COMBAT! · 2003-12-12 13:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Every other label would get 80 cents off the same dollar. It's not Apple's fault that an artist signed with the RIAA which might give them pennies out of that dollar, instead of an independent label which might give them 70 cents off of that dollar.

--
MORTAR COMBAT!
Re:Yeah... by c1pher · 2003-12-12 14:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Where the RIAA gets 80 cents off the dollar if i remember correctly."

assuming that number is accurate, how would that differ from traditional means of sales...CD production, distribution to stores, and so on. I would think the RIAA would get less than 80 in that scenario.

--
The Adult Happy Meal - "I'm lovin' it!"
Re:Yeah... by Jaysyn · 2003-12-12 14:30 · Score: 1

You think the RIAA might, you know, let the Indies play ball in their field? Yeah, I doubt it too.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 17:22 · Score: 0

How is the parent post redundant???
Re:Yeah... by MoneyT · 2003-12-12 18:03 · Score: 1

What iTunes are you using?

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 01:33 · Score: 0

The record label gets 80% - record labels are not the RIAA
Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 02:57 · Score: 0

i there gay boyscout. i use the itunes that shoves a hot curling iron in your fucking gay know nothing stupid faggot ass prickfucker.
Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 05:03 · Score: 0

Since Apple gets 35 of every dollar, if the RIAA does in fact get 80 this is worthy of invention of the millenium, not just year.

Open Source Music by potpie · 2003-12-12 13:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Why don't we invent Open Music, put it under a modified GPL, and remove the entire monetary component out of the industry?

Do you think SCO would then accuse the musicians of using some crappy old song they came up with a while ago as the basis of all the Open songs?

Well I'm willing to take that risk.

--
Esoteric reference.

Re:Open Source Music by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 13:41 · Score: 0

Duh, because the music industry isn't about music. It's about marketing, image, and distribution.
Re:Open Source Music by penguinoid · 2003-12-12 13:44 · Score: 5, Informative

Its called "creative commons" and its licenced under the "creative commons licence"

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Re:Open Source Music by larry+bagina · 2003-12-12 13:48 · Score: 2, Funny

Why don't we invent Open Music, put it under a modified GPL,
Already been done.
and remove the entire monetary component out of the industry?
that's not the only thing that's been removed.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Open Source Music by ratsnapple+tea · 2003-12-12 13:57 · Score: 0

Hahaha! Nice.
Re:Open Source Music by RedHat_Linux_Man · 2003-12-12 14:01 · Score: 1

Because we code, not sing. Unless we code our computers to sing....
hmmm...
it has potential
Re:Open Source Music by gid13 · 2003-12-12 14:09 · Score: 1

"using some crappy old song they came up with a while ago"

That's pretty much all the record labels do anyway. I think I could name about a billion pop/rock songs from the last decade that use a 1-5-6-4 progression for the verse, chorus or even the entire song, just as an example.
Re:Open Source Music by gl4ss · 2003-12-12 14:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

dude, there's shitloads of great music for free, legally.

there were before mp3's as well, if there weren't mp3's i'd still be listening to .mod/.xm/.s3m/.sid/.stm/.it all day long and enjoying it. if rips of commercial songs weren't available i would listen to the free ones, i would not go out and buy just more cd's. i don't NEED music industrys songs, in fact i wish they would crack down with some magic(that doesn't exist) and stopped distribution of commercial music on internet as it would give the independent artists doing it for the fun of it much more exposure than what they get now.

that's what pisses me off about the "but without money from records nobody would create music!!" comments, it's proven to be false. you don't need to be doing it full time, and if you do you're much more probable to be better off doing gigs(as most are). maybe there wouldn't be ghetto dreams about stardom and fast cars and drive by shooting rivaling labels artists, but that would just be an added _bonus_. riaa(that is, recording companies and local equivalents in other regions) act like you couldn't live without them. if you want a living from music, go get some music education and become a music teacher(that's the most probable way you end up really living off from music).

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Open Source Music by Mononoke · 2003-12-12 14:23 · Score: 2, Funny

I think I could name about a billion pop/rock songs from the last decade that use a 1-5-6-4 progression for the verse, chorus or even the entire song, just as an example.
I could name millions of classic blues tunes that use the 1-4-5 progression for the entire song. So?

--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Re:Open Source Music by gid13 · 2003-12-12 14:31 · Score: 1

So mainstream music isn't the only stuff that's derivative and generally useless?

I'm going to get tracked down and killed for this one, aren't I? :)
Re:Open Source Music by ruiner13 · 2003-12-12 16:27 · Score: 3, Funny

did you *really* just start a post with "dude"?

--
today is spelling optional day.
Re:Open Source Music by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 18:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Um how did that get modded a 5, interesting? How many times does somebody have to use the stupid - music must be free logic. I am a musician and to be honest, it is hard fucking work/with a day job - just to be able to have the tools to create my music - let alone try and record it for others to hear.

Jesus - the stoned masses are stupid.

WAKE UP DUDE - it costs money to make music and becoming a music teacher is not logic here - I want to record my songs/ideas and create more, it's not all about playing live, there is art in recording science.

Having a dream is what America is all about. I want to do nothing but play music and support myself from it one day. I have my day job still but one day I dream of selling 100000 cd's. Yep my DREAM.

I write songs on my acoustic guitar($500.00), and my songs are mine. I write songs for friends - but they still give me songwriting credits. THIS IS NOT A FREE WORLD - ideals are nice and so is PEACE AND LOVE - but that doesn't really pay the bills now does it.

Why do you people think that artists make money touring? I hate to hear that same sad argument over and over. You DON'T make money on tour. You are lucky to break even. LUCKY!

I'd like to see you give away your work, but then again bong loading doesn't require a lot talent.
Re:Open Source Music by Methuseus · 2003-12-12 19:52 · Score: 1

Probably, no matter how right you are, at least in a certain way. I dunno about useless, but everything under the sun is derivative, unless you've been in isolation since you were born with no human contact whatsoever.

That said, derivative works aren't necessarily bad, it just depends on how much they take from other sources.

--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
Re:Open Source Music by Methuseus · 2003-12-12 19:55 · Score: 1

dude, what's so bad about that? I mean, dude, it's cool and all. Don't get on his back about it dude. He's just expressing his dudefulness for you dude. So chill dude, and let the other dude ride free.

Hopefully the word dude won't become every other word I say after writing this post dude.

--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
Re:Open Source Music by Graymalkin · 2003-12-12 20:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

You can make money off your music without selling out to the "man". Selling records is a way to get your music to people who aren't at the same place you are when you're playing your music. A single CD can end up in the hands of dozens of people exposing your music to all of them and potentially winning some fans.

--
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Re:Open Source Music by westyvw · 2003-12-12 23:04 · Score: 1

Sorry your wrong. I agree with the poster. I would not pay for music. I listen to free music all day long. (Well more like about 1/2 the day cause it gets broken up) but there is no way I am paying for a cd. AOL proved that cd's dont cost shit to make.
And sorry for you but producing a cd doesnt cost shit either. I have friends making music and it doesnt cost them anything.

If you are good at what you are doing, you will find places to play. Look man, you are an artist, and as much as I respect art, you are still playing for a living. Are you good at it? Or do you think you are? If you are innovative and have talent, you will find your place. There are 6 billion people on this planet. Are you a better and more intersting person then 6 billion other folks?
Re:Open Source Music by darien · 2003-12-12 23:25 · Score: 1

Why do you people think that artists make money touring? I hate to hear that same sad argument over and over. You DON'T make money on tour. You are lucky to break even. LUCKY!

Well, Eminem makes money on tour. But I absolutely agree: those of us who are still coming up, and who can't yet sell out a venue just by announcing we'll be there... well, we still have to buy and maintain our own equipment, do our own promotion, get our stuff transported to the venue and back. It may not sound much, but in the smaller venues around London it can easily cost more than you make, and there's no guarantee you'll ever get past that stage.
Re:Open Source Music by ex-songwriter · 2003-12-13 00:41 · Score: 0

You have no idea what you are talking about. AOL proved cd's don't cost shit to make? Do you read the news? Do you understand how AOL almost dragged one of the biggest media conglomerated under with their business model? Sure, they're starting to do okay again, but only since Dick Parsons took the helm. When you graduate from high school and get a job--assuming there is a job for you--perhaps you'll learn a little bit about the rudiments of economics. And maybe you'll understand why you should consider paying for something someone else worked hard to make, and that you clearly value.
Re:Open Source Music by gl4ss · 2003-12-13 01:51 · Score: 1

don't dream about supporting your life with just selling cd's. you could just as well be dreaming about hitting big in the lottery. well, it's not bad to dream about it but it's fucking stupid to bet your life on it.

do gigs, do whatever you want. but if you're going to except paycheck from day 1.. heh.. well.. you're not going to make it. 100 000 cd's.. that wont get you set for live even. it might produce enough fans to support your touring but that's it.

maybe i think artists do make the money touring because that's how it goes around here! the record sales around here are so low for local artists that they MUST do gigs if they are going to live off their music. and to top that off, most of the touring bands are actually dancing music bands for older couples. there's shitload of such bands that don't go EVER record an album, they just tour year after year and the same people go see them and dance to their music.

many good heavy metal/rock players have gone to dance backup bands(tango and shit) because that's what pays the bills, not selling measly few cd's on a rock band(a lot of 'rock life' is just illusion, because that's cool and coolness brings the kids to the show). i guess in america many players have gone to playing live country music for just the same thing: it pays the bills.

if you'r music stinks and you only distribute it on cd's.. well the chances that i would EVER hear it are quite slim. in the meantime i'll be listening to some kicking ass techno tunes from instant remedy(c64 remixes) or some kick ass metal from machinae supremacy. machinae i would like to see on a gig also.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Open Source Music by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 02:26 · Score: 0

When Bill Gates came to Prague, one local paper introduced him as the inventor of the internet. Now, much better educated afrer reading slashdot, I know it wasn't him, but Al Gore...

Who's on first? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 13:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

"'With the success of its iTunes Music Store, Apple is almost single-handedly dragging the music industry, kicking and screaming, toward a better future.'""

Isn't that what Apple usually does? Dragging the rest of the world forward. e.g. firewire, usb.

Re:Who's on first? by JanusFury · 2003-12-12 18:15 · Score: 1

I still love how a while back Apple had said they would never use 'inferior Intel technologies' in their computers, and now they use Intel/x86-oriented technologies like USB and PCI in their systems.

It's definitely good to know that they're willing to sacrifice principle for the good of the industry...

--
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
Re:Who's on first? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 19:04 · Score: 0

you dumb shit! apple used usb before any winshit crap did! fucking intel trolls! AMD is teh r0x0r! hahahaha
Re:Who's on first? by Methuseus · 2003-12-12 19:59 · Score: 1

IIRC Intel *created* USB; Apple just made it popular. Apple, however, did create Firewire (i.Link, 1394, etc, etc), also making it popular.

Though, with their BSD code base they're following in MS's footsteps. I mean a good amount of MS's code from XP is "borrowed" (both legally and not) from BSD's code base.

OK, let the flames begin! /me pulls on an asbestos suit and puts my head between my legs

--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein

Love it or hate it... by overbyj · 2003-12-12 13:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apple really got something good going here. We can argue all day about DRM and AAC sound-quality and how this format won't work on most players, but you really have to hand it to Apple. They were the pathsetters here.

Look at the people trying to follow in their path. BuyMusic.com?? This is probably the most pathetic attempt of all with their wacky buying schemes and crazy DRM. Even their commercials were dead-on rip-offs.

Now here comes MS and Wal-Mart to try their hand. Sure, they are going to sell songs through their shere retailing power (and monopoly in the case of MS) but do you think their store is going to be half as cool?

I am sure this is going to set off a flamewar about the problems with iTunes, but just give iTunes their due for once for their innovation. Everybody else is just trying to catch up and be half as cool. Who do you really want to buy songs from? iTunes with its coolness factor or from Wal-Mart where that stupid smiling face can show you around and shoot arrows at your song prices so that they go from 99 cents to 89 cents.

--
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.

Re:Love it or hate it... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 14:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Hey cool man, I agree that it is pretty cool to buy your music from the cool Apple iTunes store (which starts with i which is double cool) using the uber cool software iTunes. Add the coolest 2000$ mac computer, the coolest hardware in the world, and you have the coolest setup. Finally add the cool panther and what do you have, a cool mac. For this only, we need to give the Apple their due, cause it is quite "innovative" to have this coolness. Also it is cool to say that Apple is cool.
Re:Love it or hate it... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 14:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

You know, I'd be perfectly willing to buy music electronically, but I want lossless compression (I'll compress it later myself for my iPod) with no DRM. I just want to be able to use it as freely as I can use the files I rip from a CD.

Now, the RIAA et al don't want that. They're horrified that I can have my music in several places at the same time without paying for multiple copies, but too bad, buckos. It's not like I'm USING it more than one place at a time. I only have one set of ears!

And since I can already do this with CDs, DRM-restricted, lossily-compressed stuff from Apple just ain't gonna do it for me. I'd be okay with a buck a song, but if they got the price down (with the above) to about five bucks an album, I'd probably buy one hell of a lot of music. Ten bucks is still a little too expensive... for some of my music, I'd cough up a lot more than that, but most of it really isn't worth ten bucks, IMO.

One thought that crossed my mind here. I wrote "And at five bucks an album, who would bother pirating anything?" But then the thought occurs... gee, if it's that cheap, maybe people will think it's no big deal to copy it. At $15/album, there's a certain perception of value. Would people be willing to steal a $5 product but go through the process of buying a $10 or $15 one? I wonder. Me, I'd buy it, but am I an exception?
Re:Love it or hate it... by Saeger · 2003-12-12 15:04 · Score: 1

And on a more basic level, what kind of tool would patronize a store with such a pathetic name like "BuyMusic"? BUYBUYBUYMusic comes off sounding like a sterile consumer dictate. nice brand.
--

--
Power to the Peaceful
Re:Love it or hate it... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 15:23 · Score: 0

*shrug* until the RIAA (or simaler money-over-art) group running the music distribution side you were never going to be able to get non-DRM music. Lossless format? Closest I've found is .aiff and thats not a pratical download for non cable users.

On the perception of value issue, compare the value inherant in a LP, a cassette tape and a CD. Vinyl is a physical object, magnetic tape and CD's are just data transfer. The whole pricing structure is based around a price that people will pay, regardless of actual manufacture cost.

Remembering the whole fair use, you are in theory buying a "licence" to taht recording. But I'm pretty sure I'm never going to get a replacement CD for one I've broken, but most software companies will supply me a new CD, if I pay the $5 for postage etc (obligitory MS bash, MS CD's are expensive, about $100 a piece).

Guess it's the main point that offends me, is that these greedy labels are sustaining an artificial price inflation. When the means of production, distribution, and majority advertising (through radio) are controlled by a business cartel then we have a sick industry.
Re:Love it or hate it... by TPFH · 2003-12-14 12:37 · Score: 1

Who do you really want to buy songs from? iTunes with its coolness factor or from Wal-Mart where that stupid smiling face can show you around and shoot arrows at your song prices so that they go from 99 cents to 89 cents.

Not to mention that Wal-Mart has a reputation for selling (unlabeled) censored versions of albums in their stores.

(Another comment posted randomly through meta-moderation.)

(And because of this I have not yet RTFA, is buymusic.com owned by Wal-Mart?)

--
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
Re:Love it or hate it... by ShavenYak · 2003-12-15 05:12 · Score: 1

I wouldn't count MS out, at least until version 3 of their music store comes out. Remember what a joke Internet Explorer v1.0 was? "Oh, Netscape has nothing to fear, IE isn't half as cool as Navigator!" we all said.

--

Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!

iTMS vs Napster by ryanw · 2003-12-12 13:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think Napster must be sinking. I received spams from them offering several free tracks if I were to sign back up with them.

I tried out napster for a few days. I felt it was a pathetic attempt at copying the iTMS. Things were sorted incorrectly and information was scattered around making it almost impossible to find anything I really wanted. And to top it off they're spamming me ...

Re:iTMS vs Napster by CanSpice · 2003-12-12 14:36 · Score: 1

I think Napster must be sinking. I received spams from them offering several free tracks if I were to sign back up with them.

That's not a sign the company's sinking, that's just a sign they want your money. I got emails from Netflix offering $10 off the first month after I cancelled their service.
Re:iTMS vs Napster by /dev/trash · 2003-12-12 15:11 · Score: 1

Plus it won't run on Win98
Re:iTMS vs Napster by el+cisne · 2003-12-12 17:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Don't know if this was a serious comment or not, but Napster won't do Win98 either. (don't know about the others). Check the system requirements at their site. Napster does look like they offer some features that iTMS doesn't do that I think are worthwhile, but then not only do they not do Win98, but they ONLY do Win2k/XP, no Mac. iTMS at least will do these as well as Mac.
Re:iTMS vs Napster by /dev/trash · 2003-12-13 04:12 · Score: 1

That's what I said Napster won't run on Windows 98.
Re:iTMS vs Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 06:23 · Score: 0

And their dumbass ads look like bad ripoffs of Devil Doll.
Re:iTMS vs Napster by gobbo · 2003-12-14 05:44 · Score: 1

The parent post is mismoderated Informative... it's mis-informative. ITMS will not run on Win98, in fact I upgraded a MS Office + webbrowsing + mp3 playing machine to Win2K just for the purpose of running iTunes (couldn't stand winamp's playlists or interface anymore). Now all the production Macs in the studio can play the music stored on the PC as they see fit... easily, duh-easy.

--
Damn those pesky terrorists

Time Time Time by Malicious · 2003-12-12 13:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Time owns Fortune magazine.

Time Warner is also a member of the RIAA.

I smell something good for business.

Somehow, this got posted on Slashdot...

--
01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110

Re:Time Time Time by Creepy+Crawler · 2003-12-12 14:30 · Score: 1

Yeah, your point? Justin Frankel made Gnutella and WASTE. Now, he's gone from Nullsoft.
--
- Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37
Re:Time Time Time by unitron · 2003-12-12 14:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Time Warner is also a member of the RIAA."
Far be it from me to say anything nice about the most recent conglomerate to have swallowed the only TV cable provider available around here, but Warner just sold off its record business and music publishing (ASCAP/BMI type fee collecting) assets.

--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Re:Time Time Time by MikeXpop · 2003-12-12 15:08 · Score: 1

Shiney hat you've got there. Aluminum or Tin?

--
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Re:Time Time Time by P.+Niss · 2003-12-12 16:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Your username is Malicious.

That rhymes with "delicious".

Cookies are delicious.

A cookie theft exploit was recently discussed regarding Apple's Safari.

You often see monkeys when you're on a safari.

I smell monkey shit. I think it's coming from your post.
Re:Time Time Time by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 16:52 · Score: 0

Time also owns AOL.
Next year AOL will be releasing an online music store. Which will, in actuality, be iTMS with an AOL icon.
Re:Time Time Time by rattler14 · 2003-12-12 18:54 · Score: 1

well done. If I could mod you up more, i would.

--
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
Re:Time Time Time by rgbscan · 2003-12-12 19:45 · Score: 1

Thanks for the laugh... You made may day.
Re:Time Time Time by Methuseus · 2003-12-12 20:03 · Score: 1, Offtopic

This isn't may day, it's December!

--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein

Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by kfg · 2003-12-12 13:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

People pay more, for an inferior product and give up most of their legal rights in the process, all for the "convienience" of downloading music ( which really doesn't take much less in terms of time overall than walking into a music store the next time you happen to be in the mall).

What's more Apple gives all of this money they collect to the music industry who themselves have to do virtually nothing for it but trade a bit of paper. Kicking and screaming. Yeah, right. In the back rooms the execs are shouting bloody Hosannas day and night. They can't get the public to pay for DRMed CDs but Apple has somehow gotten them to buy DRMed rips for a premium price.

I'll keep doing it the old fashioned way until I get a better deal, thank you very much.

KFG

Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by James_G · 2003-12-12 13:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

People pay more, for an inferior product and give up most of their legal rights in the process, all for the "convienience" of downloading music ( which really doesn't take much less in terms of time overall than walking into a music store the next time you happen to be in the mall).
Except at the mall you can't buy single tracks off an album. As far as album sales go, I agree with you. I'd buy the CD from a regular store first. However, there are any number of single tracks I've bought from iTMS simply because I didn't want the entire album. I paid 99 cents for each of them and that works nicely for me.
It would be interesting to see the ratio of single tracks to whole albums being bought from iTMS, and this is where the labels need to worry. If people start buying only the popular songs and not the entire album, they're going to have to start putting more effort into producing music rather than just churning out production line dreck like they do now.
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by kfg · 2003-12-12 14:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is the only place where iTunes has the advantage and yes, there have been times when I've bought an entire CD for a single tune ( but I'd note I almost always end up pleasantly surprised by a few of the others I would have otherwise missed), but only because I am a working musician who needed to learn that tune.

Also bear in mind that I grew up in an age when the majority of music was sold as a single for fairly nominal fee. Why did this practice die out?

Because the public prefered to buy albums. Not only can an album be a better artistic work than a single (think Sgt. Pepper or Tommy), but they're overall a better deal. Even if you occasionally get the worst of the deal in a particular instance.

And if you buy a CD for a single tune, well, rip it and then sell the CD. Or find a friend who has it and rip his.

Sneakernet still works and happens completely under the radar.

KFG
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by Scrameustache · 2003-12-12 14:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

all for the "convienience" of downloading music ( which really doesn't take much less in terms of time overall than walking into a music store the next time you happen to be in the mall).

Lets see, downloading music: 2 minutes.

Next time I'll be in a mall...could be months.

Minutes...months...
You're right, its allmost the same!

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by MORTAR_COMBAT! · 2003-12-12 14:18 · Score: 4, Informative

What's more Apple gives all of this money they collect to the music industry who themselves have to do virtually nothing for it but trade a bit of paper.

Apple gives the same deal to independent labels. CDBaby records are generally available at iTunes, and the artists are getting a pretty good deal with them.

--
MORTAR COMBAT!
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by dema · 2003-12-12 14:26 · Score: 2, Informative

What's more Apple gives all of this money they collect to the music industry

News flash: When you buy at the mall, the arist gets just as much, if not less of a percentage. At least Apple tells you the business model and where money guys, I'd like to see the RIAA make that information easily accessible.

Apple is doing it's best to try to wake the RIAA up to the new age, and some back scracthing will have to take place before any proress is made.

If you want a better deal, buy indie. Goto a show and hand your hard earned dollars directly to the hard working artitsts doing what they love. Cut out the middle man.
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 14:27 · Score: 0

You speak for the whole world! Please tell me what I do next.
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by kfg · 2003-12-12 14:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

That is convienience, not time overall.

Most Americans are horrible at "time and efficiency" analysis of their own lives, generally "saving" seconds at the cost of later hours and for no particular purpose.

Much as they the gambler thinks he "won" ten bucks on the lottery the other night and ignores the five hundred he spent to become a "winner."

People who sell convienience make a good living off of this tendency. You spend money to avoid irritation, not save time, and don't even count the time you have spend to earn that money into the equation.

It does not take you only two minutes to download a song. You are not counting your losses, such as the time to fire up the app and find the song.

Your milage may vary, of course, but in my case (and in the case of most Americans I would posit)even if I have to make a special trip to the store (open 24/7) for music I'm there inside of ten minutes by bicycle and can do my grocery shopping in the same store while I'm at it, thus saving the time I would have otherwise spent on the special trip to the grocery store.

Or, conversely, I can go do my grocery shopping and pick up several CDs of music at no more expense in time than it takes to toss them into my cart and the additional time it takes to ring them up while ringing up my groceries.

No, I'm afraid that, overall, what you save isn't so much time as it is saving having to move your butt out of your chair. Which is a different issue, and which, in all likelyhood, you have to move anyway to earn the money, so just stop at the music store you pass on your way home from work.

Saving irritation ( and needing to have it now is an issue of irritation, not time)is not the same thing as saving time and/or money, and more often than not must be payed for with greater irritation and money later.

KFG
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 14:56 · Score: 0

has anyone ever informed how incredibly anal you are? i mean jesus man, you don't have to analysis EVERY second of your life.
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by kfg · 2003-12-12 15:04 · Score: 1

I'm not analysizing every second of my life. Hell, much of may family considers me a "slacker."

I'm analysing iTunes.

It's a bad deal in terms of time and money and gets me less for either, and it takes me no more that a few seconds to realise that.

If you're not in the habit of taking care of your time and money in such a manner, hey, come on over here, I've got some lottery tickets you might be interested in.

Don't worry about the money, I'll loan it to you.

KFG
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 15:10 · Score: 0

People pay more

CD at mall : $15-20 + nightmare of going to the mall.

CD at local indie record store : $7 (used, if you're lucky)-$15 + 15 minute walk.

CD on Amazon : $10-$15 + S&H + 3-10 day wait.

Download on iTMS : $10 + 5 minute wait.

This is my experience. You will never be able to convince me that a) I'm paying more, or b) that going to the mall is something I will ever choose to do, when given a reasonable alternative.

I'll keep doing it the old fashioned way until I get a better deal, thank you very much.

But it *is* a better deal, when you think of it as buying music, and not the medium. If I want to hear an album, I can pay $10 or $15. It's almost the same thing as buying a used CD. I can pay $7, or $15. That extra $8 isn't paying for the music. It's paying for a guarantee that there aren't any scratches. That guarantee isn't worth $8 to me.
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by geekoid · 2003-12-12 15:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Lets see:
I bought a hard to find album for 9.99.
Nearest palace was 30 minute drive, and it would of cost 17.99, so iTunes was cheaper.

It was 15 minutes from the time I installed iTunes, to the time I had the album downloaded, so it was quicker.

I can make all the copies I want, in any format I want, so I fail to see how I have lost any rights.

What I don't get, is a cover and a jewel case.

Not woth 8 bucks more.

I also consider the look and feel iTunes superiour to musicmatch.

For the record, I do not own a MAC. I haven't bought an Apple product since the Apple IIc.

If I wasn't going to be 'transitioned' out of my job at the end of the year, I'd consider buying a Mac.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by mcc · 2003-12-12 15:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
Okay, so let me get this straight.
- You won't buy from the iTMS music store because despite taking your money they do pretty much nothing except distribute music to you, and almost all of the money goes to the corrupt music-industry middlemen, and you consider this Wrong.
- So instead you are going to pay extra to buy from Best Buy or some other music retailer who despite taking your money does pretty much nothing except distribute the music to you, and almost all of the money goes to the corrupt music-industry middlemen, and you don't see anything wrong with this.
Or is the problem here entirely that you're angry the paper-thin DRM on iTMS store purchases is a little more intricate to convert to raw AIFF than a CD is, yet people will still buy it?

BTW, slashdot says this is my 900th logged-in post. Just for the record.
--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 15:47 · Score: 0

$16 for 1 song +X shitty ones.....$.99 for one song i like...hmmmmmm, this is a tough one!
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by kfg · 2003-12-12 16:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

If store one and store two sell an item that looks the same, but store one's is really a better made item with included long term warranty and they sell it for less than store two (which also loads some sort of pay for service agreement into the deal as a requirement of purchase), why would I get mad at store two?

I simply buy the item from store one. On those items in which the situation is reversed I'm perfectly happy to patronize store two as well.

Nor is there any reason for me to be angry with people who buy the item from store two. Sad maybe. They've wasted their money and I presume they had to do something they'd rather not have to aquire that money in the first place. I feel for them.

Let's take a worst case scenario look, an old vinyl album with only 10 tracks. It's eleven bucks at Amazon. A buck more than downloading, but for that I get it already on a CD, in a jewel case (and I like jewel cases for storage) and liner notes. The music is at full bit rate and I retain my fair use rights to rip it for my own use, in any device I wish.

Comes out about even that way I suppose, if rights and bitrate don't mean anything to you.

I can buy it used online, like new, for $5.49, or at my local used shop for five bucks even. Now I'm six bucks ahead of the game, have the CD, have my rips ( of superiour quality) on my HD, have my rights to fair use, etc.

No, I'd guess things are the other way around. You're a happy iTunes patron and are a bit miffed at my pointing out that it isn't a good deal.

Well, ok. People often take bad deals for various reasons, and if they do it knowing it's a bad deal but feeling they get some other benefit out of it, it's their money. I didn't have to exchange my time in someone's salt mine for it.

But it's still a bad deal.

KFG
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by kfg · 2003-12-12 16:45 · Score: 1

Well yeah. If that's the way you typically buy music you might just as well stick to iTunes where the damage will be limited.

You could, of course, consider changing your taste in music and patronize "artists" capable of producing at least 15 good cuts per 16 cut CD and then purchasing such CDs for five bucks which gives you both the music and a piece of property still worth five bucks, but I suppose you consider it easier to just click "Buy Now."

By the way, if you're worried about being able to pay that loan back, don't sweat it. I'll even give you a job to insure you the income.

How can you go wrong with a deal like that?

KFG
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by the_rev_matt · 2003-12-12 16:51 · Score: 1

Stores that carry music as a side business carry an extremely narrow and shallow catalog. I've looked at the music section at Wal-Mart. The dozen CDs they carry that I'd actually want I already own. So sticking with your approach I'd just never buy anymore music at all. With iTMS I have access to hundreds of thousands of songs I'd never get in the same store I get my groceries, as well as exclusive tracks I don't get anywhere else. The "music stores" in malls aren't much better. You won't find any jazz at all, and the classical music selection is a joke. You want an older Joe Jackson album? Tough, they don't carry him. The new Ben Folds EP? "Who? If he doesn't have a video on TRL, then we don't carry him."

What about going to an actual music store, you ask? Most of them are gone. I live in a top 20 radio market, over a million people in the metro area. There are about a dozen actual music stores. Some of them are damn good, but they aren't anyplace that I get to regularly and I rarely have time to make a special trip.

I save time and money and have less irritation and more convenience all in one with iTMS.

--
this is getting old and so are you
blog
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 16:58 · Score: 0

I've bought 10 songs from iTMS so far. All of them have been individual songs from soundtracks (where i'm only interested in 1 artist) or the 2 new songs from a greatest hits collection.
Eg: Green Day's "International superhits" has 3 previously unreleased songs and a lot of stuff from their other albums. With iTunes, I can get those 3 songs for $3. My other options are spending $15 at a store for the full CD or spending hours trying to find and download them from some p2p service or living without them.
I find iTMS to be wonderful in this respect.
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by kfg · 2003-12-12 17:21 · Score: 1

So sticking with your approach I'd just never buy anymore music at all.

Well that's one way to save money on music. :)

KFG
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by tktk · 2003-12-12 19:55 · Score: 1

Right, name one album with 15 of 16 good cuts and costing only $5.
Then maybe I'll buy some lottery tickets from you and you can use the money to buy yourself some credibility.
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by Methuseus · 2003-12-12 20:09 · Score: 1

The thing that happened to the single is that for a long time they would include either a crapload of remixed version of the single song(s) or else include some unreleased stuff (that was generally good) along with the single. This all cost $3-5 depending on the extra stuff included.

Then along someone came who decided that a single should be at most 3 songs (including remixes) and that singles should cost a minimum of $5, with the majority being $8. All for 3-4 tracks that might be the best off a $14 album. I might be off on the prices, but those are the prices I saw at the time I stopped buying singles.

--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by foniksonik · 2003-12-12 22:16 · Score: 1

Finding music in a music store is much more difficult than you describe and in addition you deal with finding a parking spot, waiting in line, and waiting for the transaction to occur... while at home, searching is faster, no parking issue, no waitng in line and you can move on to other things while the transaction is happening (which means you can be making money while you wait).

Also don't compare your ten minute bike ride to a 90% fictitious 24/7 music store to the average american experience. MOST americans don't live ten minutes from this magical music vendor you describe. I'd 'posit' that MOST americans live somewhere more than a half hour or more DRIVE to the nearest music store 24/7 or otherwise.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 01:07 · Score: 0

And if you buy a CD for a single tune, well, rip it and then sell the CD.

Isn't this enough for your door to get kicked in middle of the night and your teeth knocked out by the RIAA's shock troops?
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by Scrameustache · 2003-12-13 03:00 · Score: 1

You are not counting your losses, such as the time to fire up the app and find the song.

about 30 seconds, I count it in the time to get the song.

And lets add the time to warm up the car, drive to the mall, find a parking spot, walk in the mall to the music store, find the section I think what I want is in, look for the right letter of the alphabet, look through to see if its there. Think up of another letter of the title it might be in, look again, think of another section it might be in (its not in Rock, it might be in Alternative), repeat.
THEN go ask a clerck, repeat. They don't have a copy, they sold their last copy two days ago, they might get more in a couple of weeks.

Yeah, MUCH more convenient than "click on iTunes (allready running, its my music player), select music store (1 second), wait for connection (2 or 3 seconds), type in part of the name of what I'm looking for, there it is!".
That takes less time than finding a parking spot at the mall!

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by burns210 · 2003-12-13 07:18 · Score: 1

the albums on the iTMS are on par or cheaper than the 'real thing', AND you can burn them as many times as you want. It is easy, hassle free, and the DRM is extremely minimal. Nothing is perfect, so quit bitching.
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 12:00 · Score: 0

KFG,

Please respond to the follow comments:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89057&cid=7711 705
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89057&cid=7708 288"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89057&cid=7708 288"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89057&cid=7708 288"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89057&cid=7708 288"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89057&cid=7708 288"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89057&cid=7708 288"

...or just admit that you are totally confused and don't know what you're talking about. Just stop responding to the trvial comments.
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by ShavenYak · 2003-12-15 05:27 · Score: 1

Actually, singles started out as being only two songs, one on each side. This was when CDs were made of black vinyl, were 7" or 12" in diameter, and were played with a needle instead of a laser. Oh, yeah, they were analog, not digital, then. At the time the prices were, oh, about a dollar if memory serves. See? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

During the brief period of time when music listeners were subjected to the cassette tape format, the singles were still generally two songs, but the manufacturing cost of the cassette jacked the prices up to $2-3 or so.

Then, when the new 5" digital CDs came out, it became more feasible to put more than 2 songs on a single, so we got to the point where 4 or 5 songs were common. The price got to around $5, but it was still worth it if you just knew that the rest of the album would suck.

Throughout the 90s, as the manufacturing costs of the new CDs went down, the prices went... up! Even though the record companies had promised that CDs would become cheaper once economies of scale kicked in. Singles are now $8, and whether or not there is anything but the main song on them is a moot point. Pretty much everyone with any sense has stopped buying singles. Well, until now - now iTMS sells singles at a decent price, and if I hear a song I like enough, I don't mind paying $1 for it.

--

Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by plastik55 · 2003-12-17 06:04 · Score: 1

I can go do my grocery shopping and pick up several CDs of music at no more expense in time than it takes to toss them into my cart and the additional time it takes to ring them up while ringing up my groceries.

You buy music at the grocery store? What kind of godawful crap are you listening to?

Let's play a game... I'll pick a random CD out of my collection, and you tell me how much time it took you to find that CD at your grocery store, and I'll tell you how long it took me to find a copy of that CD online and order it.

Ready?

--
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year by Methuseus · 2003-12-18 11:37 · Score: 1

I don't know as much of the history of singles as you, thanks for clarifying it. I also agree with you on the price at iTMS, except that I still think I should get a non-lossy copy, or else a very high-quality lossy track (say 260kbps I believe MP3 file) when I pay for music.

Maybe I can impart history on others when I become an Old Man like you (or Old Woman, haven't bothered to look and see if you state your sex). Oh, and I know what vinyl is, I played with them up until CDs came out since that was when I started getting money to buy my own music. I was only talking about the prices of CD singles.

--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein

What in the hell? by DAldredge · 2003-12-12 13:48 · Score: 0, Offtopic

From one of the linked pages.

"PAPER SHREDDER (right)
Designer Michael Graves for Target
Why it's so cool It's the best-looking shredder we've ever seen. While it's slow, it looks so friendly you won't mind the wait. Bonus: A built-in pencil sharpener."

So it is slow, but it looks pretty? Shouldn't the design work nicely and look good?

Re:What in the hell? by fossa · 2003-12-12 15:00 · Score: 1

I really dislike all that "Michael Graves" crap at Target. Any fool can make things "curvy". Take the chess board for example; the knights look like eggs. The keyboard especially gets me. It's some stock (ooh, black) keyboard with Graves-ified "internet buttons" (they're round and orange). Needless to say, the control key is miles from the pinky finger. I much prefer clean lines to the whole organic look (in general anyway).

Apple sets the pace by Selecter · 2003-12-12 13:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, no matter what you think of Apple, the ITMS is a leader of the pack by a large margin, and nothing breeds respect like success. Jobs has more than once warned the other players jumping on the bandwagon that the ITMS was being use as a trojan horse to sell iPods, and if it were not for that fact, they wouldnt be making a dime.

Since all the other players dont have anything to sell after the fact, they probably are gonna lose money with the suits taking such a huge chunk of it.

10 years from now when Apple gets the iVMS (Internet Video & Music Store) going over everyone's new FTTH 100MB and you can have tens of thousands of films on yer desktop for 99 cents ( or whatever )on top of the music you have now, thank Apple. They made it possible.

And I have no doubt that if S. Jobs is still running Apple, they'll be the only ones to get it right, just like ITMS.

Re:Apple sets the pace by DaveCBio · 2003-12-12 14:25 · Score: 1

No, Apple just packages things well. They don't particularly innovate, they just make it palatable for the masses. Others were there before Apple, it's just that Apple appeals to people that want to appear to be "with it". Right now an iPod, an iMac and iTunes is a good substitute for being on the bleeding edge.
Re:Apple sets the pace by presearch · 2003-12-12 15:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, Apple just packages things well.

That's nonsense. You think that iTunes, or OS X, or the iPod, is just packaging? Just a "skin"?
There's lot's of innovative architecture and layers of solid coding beneath the surface.

Not to mention the work that they did on the server side to make the buying experience clean and easy.

There's also another part they had to write that we never see,
that's the system admin side that let's them add content to the store, monitor and balance
the user traffic, and handle the user accounts and credit card and gift certificate transactions.

If that wasn't enough, they did a clean port to windows,
wrangle and manage the record company contracts
and run a national print and tv ad campaign.

Oh yeah, and designed the market leading iPod.

And after all that, they managed to package things "well". Arguably better than anyone else.

Pretty good for that little "hardware" company.
Re:Apple sets the pace by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2003-12-12 20:54 · Score: 1

"10 years from now when Apple gets the iVMS (Internet Video & Music Store) going over everyone's new FTTH 100MB and you can have tens of thousands of films on yer desktop for 99 cents ( or whatever )on top of the music you have now, thank Apple. They made it possible."

No. They didn't.

Yesterday I downloaded a movie from Movielink (they gave me a free $5 gift credit). It was a recent, popular movie (The Transporter). I got 225 kbytes/sec out of my cable modem. It took less than two minutes to buffer enough for the movie to be watchable. Quality was on par with DIVX movie, perhaps a bit better than most. It wasn't DVD, but for a 19" CRT it was perfectly fine.

Yes, they use evil DRM. Yes, the movie expires after a day. And, yes, you must have Windows. But damn, it was cool.

You can't really do better than $3-$5 a movie. If they can get the bitrate up a bit (e.g. 3000kbps instead of 700), it might even compete with blockbuster from a quality standpoint.
Re:Apple sets the pace by dwightk · 2003-12-13 03:43 · Score: 1

That's what I don't get... iTMS is a pretty good idea, but Apple keeps telling us they aren't making money off of it.

So some guy is sitting around and hears about iTMS and says "Lets copy that" even though THEY AREN'T GOING TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT

especially when they are trying to compete by undercutting apple's money losing price

--
Like anyone can even know that
Re:Apple sets the pace by DaveCBio · 2003-12-13 07:12 · Score: 1

The iPod is overpriced for the features. I've had a 40GB Nomad for years (before the iPod was released). Sure it's bigger and heavier, but combined with a decent mic preamp it also serves as decent 48Khz digital recorder. Much better than minidisc. It also doubles as a Firewire/USB portable hard drive. So, once again I submit that Apple just streamlines, repackages other people ideas, makes them visually appealling and charges a "hip factor" premium for it.
Re:Apple sets the pace by DaveCBio · 2003-12-13 07:16 · Score: 1

Apparently Fortune magazine still endorses the Underpants Gnome (tm) financial model.
Re:Apple sets the pace by burns210 · 2003-12-13 07:25 · Score: 1

who was there with a legit music buying service BEFORE iTMS? nobody. They were first, and they did it better than any of the attempts that have happened since(buymusic, napster, etc).

The iPod is a solid machine, with great reviews from just about everyone, regardless of mac/pc tastes.
Re:Apple sets the pace by Paradise+Pete · 2003-12-13 12:10 · Score: 1

That's what I don't get... iTMS is a pretty good idea, but Apple keeps telling us they aren't making money off of it.
They make somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 per iPod, and they've sold hundreds of thousands of those.
Re:Apple sets the pace by dwightk · 2003-12-13 13:11 · Score: 1

but Dell is the only other music store (walmart, buymusic, napster, coke) (or does napster make money off of their player) that has a connected player... and all the other stores use WM files which can be played on another player...

--
Like anyone can even know that

Because. by DAldredge · 2003-12-12 13:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

Because people have to buy food, shelter and utilities. That is why most (1st world)human enterprises have some sort of monetary component.

Re:Because. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 14:31 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe people should get J-O-B's if they don't have food shelter and utilities. Geeze, you'd think earning money as a musician was guaranteed in the constitution.
Re:Because. by ex-songwriter · 2003-12-13 00:34 · Score: 0

Being a musician is a job.
Re:Because. by kryptkpr · 2003-12-13 02:06 · Score: 1

I've always thought of it as more of a business.. be your own boss, that sorta deal..

90%+ of business startups fail.. so most people (who want to be able to afford food, shelter, etc..) don't quit their day jobs, at least not right away.

--
DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!

ITMS by penguinoid · 2003-12-12 13:55 · Score: 0, Troll

no, no, nooooo! Oh, wait, its ITMS

-1, Troll

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways

Not all songs can be purchased individually by AHumbleOpinion · 2003-12-12 13:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

I believe the artist gets to decide if songs can be sold individually. Apple recommends doing so but it is not required. I recall some folks complaining that the one song they wanted would be $9.99 since they had to buy the whole album.

Re:Not all songs can be purchased individually by Meowing · 2003-12-12 14:10 · Score: 4, Informative
It's a little more complicated than that.
- iTMS do require that at least some songs be available individually, with the exception that tracks longer than 7 minutes can only be sold as part of an album. This is Apple's rule, you'd have to ask them why.
- Album prices are set by the label, with a maximum of USD0.99 * number of tracks.
Re:Not all songs can be purchased individually by CanSpice · 2003-12-12 14:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

iTMS do require that at least some songs be available individually, with the exception that tracks longer than 7 minutes can only be sold as part of an album. This is Apple's rule, you'd have to ask them why.

Then how did I buy Rhapsody In Blue (13:44 long) individually?
Re:Not all songs can be purchased individually by cappadocius · 2003-12-12 15:17 · Score: 4, Informative
- iTMS do require that at least some songs be available individually, with the exception that tracks longer than 7 minutes can only be sold as part of an album.
- Album prices are set by the label, with a maximum of USD0.99 * number of tracks.
The second rule at least can be broken by major label artists. For instance, Talk Talk's great experimental album "Spirit of Eden" is 6 tracks long and costs $13.99. You can't buy track one, except as part of the album, so that's how they get you to pay more than 99 cents per song. While that album-only song IS longer than 7 minutes, I am not sure all of them are.
--
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
Re:Not all songs can be purchased individually by Meowing · 2003-12-12 15:34 · Score: 1

It's part of one of the dreaded Partial Albums, most likely.
Re:Not all songs can be purchased individually by AHumbleOpinion · 2003-12-12 17:14 · Score: 1

iTMS do require that at least some songs be available individually ...

So the artist makes the choice? Making the less popular songs individuals and the hits people are likely to want only part of the album?
Re:Not all songs can be purchased individually by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 17:25 · Score: 0

...and this policy is VERY unfriendly to people who like serious/art/classical music.
Re:Not all songs can be purchased individually by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 17:51 · Score: 0

"Can't buy individual tracks that are longer than minutes" might have something to do with compulsory publishing royalties (higher for long tracks) or with bandwidth costs.

I can't think of any other explanation that would be even remotely plausible.
Re:Not all songs can be purchased individually by pbooktebo · 2003-12-12 19:09 · Score: 2

This statement is just wrong.

Two Words:
Fela Kuti

Go type it in on ITMS and see how many two-track albums are $1.98, or each 20+ minute song is $.99.

Or, go to classical, where many, but by no means all, of the longer movements are available as individual downloads.

There are certainly restrictions, many of which seem idiosyncratic to the lables/artists (can only buy David Bowie's "Let's Dance" song when you buy the album, f'r instince). My counter-example is but one that shows that Apple doesn't have some kind of rule or law about longer songs not being bought outside of an album.

I do have certain beefs with the ITMS, but this isn't one of them. It seems like most of the strange rules originate with the record labels, and I expect many of them will dissapate over time after the growing pains of this mode of distribution are over.
Re:Not all songs can be purchased individually by Photar · 2003-12-12 20:26 · Score: 1

Or Mountain Jam by the Allman Brothers, thats over 33 minutes.

--
He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
Re:Not all songs can be purchased individually by CrazyTalk · 2003-12-13 04:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can find no rhyme or reason to Apples pricing structure. There are 4 second "Songs" which are really just the intro to another song that still cost 99 cents. I found one album that consists of two 20 minute songs (Vangelis, I believe) and each 20 minute song was just 99 cents, or the whole album for $1.98. Buying the album is seldom if ever cheaper than buying the individual songs - I would think they would offer some form of discount. Espcially for older albums, 10-15 bucks is no bargain, when I can usually buy the physical CD for less than that.

Slow Shredder! by fastdecade · 2003-12-12 13:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

And under the G5 is a Target paper shredder ...

"While it's slow, it looks so friendly you won't mind the wait."

Yeah. The first time maybe. After that, a little thing called "my life" might take priority over its cute aesthetics.

Apple products deserve these awards because, beautiful they may be, they are also extremely accessible. I wish more reviewers would consider that the primary factor.

Re:"Kicking and screaming", eh? by larry+bagina · 2003-12-12 14:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apple cuts out a lot of middle-men, takes a (large) cut

I don't think Apple's cut is as big as you think it is.

I've seen figures stating the RIAA cut is 60-80 cents/song, leaving 40-20 cents per song to Apple.

I do consulting for several clients that take CCs over the net. A typical example of CC/gateway costs is 2.25% + .30 per transaction. So a .32 of a $1.00 charge is immediately taken by the CC company. The numbers vary a bit, and are lower with larger volumes, but at a minimum they're problably paying 1.25% + .20/transaction.

I suspect very few people buy songs 1 at a time -- gift certificates are $20. I personally buy about 5 songs at a time, but friends of mine might buy 1-2 albums at a time, which minimizes the bite of the transaction fees.

After that they still have to pay for bandwidth, development costs, probably a FTE or 2 for maintainence, etc.

I don't think Apple is growing rich off iTMS, and I don't think BuyMusic, Napster, HPMusic, etc. will either.

--
Do you even lift?

These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

Re:What in the hell?...Perfect for Apple Users by Doc+Squidly · 2003-12-12 14:07 · Score: 0, Troll

While it's slow, it looks so friendly you won't mind the wait.

I think that's been the Mac philosophy all along.

--
I think I think, therefore I think I am.

But none of that is the point. by mindstrm · 2003-12-12 14:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

You can rant all you like about how it's not the same...

1) They are clear, up front, about what they are offering, how it works, and what the technical restrictions are.

2) If you aren't a normal mac user, it's not as appealing to you.. realize that mac users tend to already use itunes, and use it a lot, and the store is just THERE.. in the same interface you use to organize ALL your music. You can browse the store the same way, listen to samples the same way, and once you set up your account, which is very, very easy, you can purchase songs with a click.

So.. if you feel it violates your rights, great... don't use it.

what you fail to realize is that not every consumer is concerned with owning everything.. on a tight budget, sure, iTMS is not a great deal, necessarily.... but it IS the first big, working example of how this can work. The fact that the record labels are getting all the cash is simply because all the artists signed with those labels.. did you know any artist can submit stuff to the iTMS to be sold? Those that do aren't under the grip of big labels.. their deal is with Apple.

If you were sitting in front of a Mac, in your office, with a disposable income to spend on "entertainment", you might find that making a couple clicks in the morning to get a couple new tracks to listen to suits you just fine... I mean, what does it matter to you where you can copy it if you are going to do all your listening in one place?

Re:But none of that is the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 18:15 · Score: 0

fuck off and die. Thanks.

P.S. by kfg · 2003-12-12 14:19 · Score: 1

And remember you need to prorate the cost of the iPod itself into the cost of each track. Buy a base level iPod and download 300 tracks and you've actually payed $2 apiece for them.

This is what you get for accepting a propriatary marketing structure.

Hell, if you want to play the tracks on a generic machine you don't even save the time and trouble of ripping them, since, as I understand it, you have to burn them and rip them anyway to do that.

KFG

Re:P.S. by BasilBrush · 2003-12-12 14:52 · Score: 1

Ah, but for when you pay $2 a piece for 300 tunes, you also get the best digital jukebox money can buy thrown into the deal for free. Can't be bad. :-)
Re:P.S. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 17:26 · Score: 0

And remember you need to prorate the cost of the iPod itself into the cost of each track.
By that logic, you also have to "prorate" the cost of a CD player, speakers, amplifiers, etc to the cost of a CD. Or add in the cost of a radio to each song you hear on a CD. Or add in the cost of a computer and ISP fees to all the free .mp3s downloaded off of P2P systems.

(BTW, I've download a couple of dozen tunes from the iTMS, and I don't own an iPod.)
Re:P.S. by kfg · 2003-12-12 23:53 · Score: 1

Of course you would. Per cut. Against your entire collection (and/or the total number of songs you listened to on the radio).

However, since you aren't locked into a complete propriatary system right on down to the music itself you can assemble a surprisingly good system for surprisingly little money these days.

Ok. Point taken on the iPod ownership thingy though. If you own a Mac and don't want the portability you might be set.

As it happens I own two Macs. One runs System 7 and the other OS8.

Well, gotta buy a new Mac I guess.

KFG
Re:P.S. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 17:02 · Score: 0

Ok. Point taken on the iPod ownership thingy though. If you own a Mac and don't want the portability you might be set.

Of course I want the portability - so I burn CD's of my downloaded tracks. Simple, and compatible.

integrated, easy and hassle-free!! by velkr0 · 2003-12-12 14:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

there is just something about iTMS, that i like.

it's seems very integrated, easy and hassle-free!

sure, i haven't actually purchased a song through it, since it is currently not available in canada.

but, i have browsed though it and taken advantage of the preview feature a few times.

i hope the doors open in canada for iTMS soon... before i have to pay a levy on my digital media too!! see

Are they? by stubear · 2003-12-12 14:21 · Score: 0

"...Apple is almost single-handedly dragging the music industry, kicking and screaming, toward a better future."

Are they really though? I personally like purchasing music on CDs and ripping what I want, how I want. iTMS distributes AAC and MP3 files only and I prefer WMA on my computer. I am an audiophile and I don't see MP3s, hell even WMAs, as a "better future". I see the future as something bleak if this is truly the direction we are headed. At least with vinyl the pops and scratches were unique, almost quaint in their own little way. MP3s pitiful quality simply sucks.

Re:Are they? by geekoid · 2003-12-12 15:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

know one said it would be a future you would like.

As a former audiophile, I remember saying te same thing when the CD first started appearing.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

iTMS an "invention" by superfast-scooter · 2003-12-12 14:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

i dont think iTMS qualifies to be an inventon.
sorry.
it's not an invention. what is gonna be next years invention? an online movie store, where u can download mpegs for $4.99?
ppl dont know what an invention means anymore? most ppl had already thought of that model long before apple or any corp. executive did. but we dont have the resources to do it.
of course, im not speaking out against apple cos im sure they didnt ask to be named "invention of the year". just the idiots who review the "inventions" and judge them

Re:iTMS an "invention" by BasilBrush · 2003-12-12 15:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

As the well know saying goes: Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.
Others may have had the idea to sell music over the internet before. But Apple put the work in to make it work well enough that people want to use it. That's the art of an inventor.

Cant wait to see how they will do it... by rcastro0 · 2003-12-12 14:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

Cant wait to see how they will deal with international expansion of this great "invention". After all, if 99c per track is a good deal in the US, it is a lousy deal in countries with a weak currency and lower income, such as Brazil, Russia, India, China, etc...

In general recorded audio and video material will be price adjusted to reflect differences in local purchasing power. For example, the Lion King Special Edition VHS goes for US$ 20.99 in the US. In Brazil the same *legit* product goes for about one third of that price (R$ 24.60 which is worth US$ 8.40 in today's exchange rate).

This difference in pricing has to be done in order to "milk" different local markets, each with a different pricing point requirement. This is, after all, the motivation behing the DVD region coding scheme (not realease dates, mind you).

Now, it will be interesting to see an internet site selling buckets of bits for different prices depending on where (it thinks) you physically are, won't it. Of course they could leave the third world to be served solely by that most efficient institution, the pirate market.

--
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.

Re:Cant wait to see how they will do it... by jsebrech · 2003-12-12 22:04 · Score: 1

Do you think people will find ways around geography? Then please explain how I, in Europe, can log into the US version of the itms right now, because I'd really like to circumvent those access limitations and get me some of that itms goodness.

If the itms gets launched in different countries it'll be a different store anyway. They won't offer the same selection as in the US, because artists won't be signed with the same label/music company.
Re:Cant wait to see how they will do it... by Atragon · 2003-12-13 03:27 · Score: 1

Get a proxy server/shell account located somewhere in the USofA. Login through there.
Re:Cant wait to see how they will do it... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 04:34 · Score: 0

Idiot.

You need a Credit Card, that happens to have a billing address in the US.

G5 Design - noise? practicality? by Steve+Cowan · 2003-12-12 14:26 · Score: 1, Offtopic

There is no doubt that Apple pays really close attention to function and aesthetics in their product design. The G5 enclosure and internal layout is simply awesome - one only needs to look at the Bill Noll G5 photo gallery (posted a few months ago on slashdot) to realize that this is simply one of the most beautiful personal computers ever to exist.

Still, I wonder about a few things -- most specifically the large number of fans and the 3-zone cooling. I don't personally own a G5 and have never seen one outside of a store so I can't really vouch for how loud or quiet it is, so G5 owners -- how are you finding the noise level? Do you find that the fans ramp up very often, and if they do, do you notice a big difference in volume?

Also, I'd like to see some real rationality about that 3-zone cooling system... obviously the PPC 970 runs hot, but how hot does it run compared to a modern Pentium / Xeon / Athlon processor? Would the x86 boxes benefit from that kind of enclosure as well? Are we likely to see the "multiple zone" principle copied into cheap Wintel enclosures?

I'm not doubting Apple, but I wonder about the validity of the G5 cooling design. I'd like to read some /. opinions as to whether it's overkill, or if it's truly revolutionary, or if perhaps there might be a better approach.

Thoughts??

Re:G5 Design - noise? practicality? by Dhrakar · 2003-12-12 14:38 · Score: 1

We have about 15 of the DP 2Ghz G5 systems for our viz lab and classes. Under normal operation they are very quiet (even quieter than my FP iMac sometimes :-) Once they are placed under load, or the side panel is removed, the fans do ramp up but I have never heard them going at full blast. In any case, Apple's idea was to radically over-fan the G5 so that each fan would normally never have to spin very fast or get very loud. It's a great design and, yes, I'll bet you see the PC case manufacturers do something similar in the future (although since PC stuff is so price sensitive and has to deal with such a variety of 'innards', they may not be nearly as elaborate).
Re:G5 Design - noise? practicality? by Scrameustache · 2003-12-12 14:56 · Score: 0

or the side panel is removed, the fans do ramp up

Why do they do that?

I mean, I just remove the entire side wall, how much more ventilated could it get?

I really don't get that.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:G5 Design - noise? practicality? by topham · 2003-12-12 14:59 · Score: 1

On my G5 (lowly 1.6Ghz) I heard the fan kick in when I spent some 'quality' time in the firmware. While in the firmware for a couple of minutes the fan started to ramp up.
Re:G5 Design - noise? practicality? by BasilBrush · 2003-12-12 15:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Because the ducts in combination with the fans create streams of cool air running past the hot components. When you remove the side wall, you break open the ducts, and the streams disappear. All, you have left is convection to cool the components. That's less efficient, so the temperature rises and the fans speed up in an attempt to counteract it.
Re:G5 Design - noise? practicality? by nat5an · 2003-12-12 15:33 · Score: 1

Boot it up with the gentoo G5 LiveCD. There's no Linux support yet to control the fan speed, so they run at full-blast and they are LOUD! But of course, I've never actually heard them run close to that fast during normal usage under OS X. Overall, the G5 makes my old Athlon desktop sound like a jet engine by comparison. But then again, my old Athlon pretty much did sound like a jet engine all the time.

--
Head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums...
Re:G5 Design - noise? practicality? by nacturation · 2003-12-12 15:53 · Score: 1

Why do they do that?

I mean, I just remove the entire side wall, how much more ventilated could it get?

I really don't get that.

Same reason you use a wind tunnel to conduct experiments in high wind. By forcing a high flow of air to travel through a restricted path, you get much better ventilation. With an open case, you have a lot of stagnant air providing insulation. It's better than a poorly ventilated system, but it doesn't beat the G5's airflow design.

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Re:G5 Design - noise? practicality? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 17:39 · Score: 0

"I'll bet you see the PC case manufacturers do something similar in the future "

Check out a modern Dell. They are very quiet as well. Also a hell of a lot cheaper.
Re:G5 Design - noise? practicality? by YouHaveSnail · 2003-12-12 19:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

how are you finding the noise level? Do you find that the fans ramp up very often, and if they do, do you notice a big difference in volume?

The G5 is dramatically less noisy than the G4 (mirrored doors). The fans on my single-processor 1.8GHz model almost never run fast enough to notice, or even hear, during use. When the machine wakes from sleep, the fans do spin up for a moment to the point that they sound like, well, fans. But then they slow down again and get plenty quiet. And the fans also run quite a lot when the machine is in FireWire disk mode (for those that don't know, most Macs can start up in a mode where they function as external FireWire disk drives). In disk mode, the fans start off fairly quiet and eventually increase to what must be their maximum speed (and noise level). Other than waking from sleep and disk mode, though, I hardly hear the G5. Same goes for my buddy's dual processor 2.0GHz G5.

Are we likely to see the "multiple zone" principle copied into cheap Wintel enclosures?

The three zone cooling system seems to work really well. As described above, the fans don't seem to need to spin very fast to move enough air through the machine to cool the processor(s) withouth making much noise. I'd guess that the G5 processor produces less heat than a Pentium, as I've always understood that the Pentium is a significantly larger chip than any of the PPC chips. But I could be wrong. Take a look at the power consumption figures for each to get a better idea.

As for whether you'll see this sort of cooling system in Wintel machines, I'd say it's a definite maybe. As soon as you pop the side panel off a G5, you realize that machine is one very carefully designed unit. The entire front and rear panels serve as air intake and exhaust panels, respectively, and the processors and their very large heat sinks are placed at the constriction in the middle, so that air flows quickly over them. To make this work, a manufacturer has to be able to control the case design, placement of components, heat sink design, fans, etc. You can't just design a case with mesh front and back panels and slap in any motherboard. I don't think most Wintel buyers are willing to pay for that much design. A few desktop makers like maybe Sony could probably pull it off. More likely, I think you might see this sort of design appear in higher end machines like servers.

There's a lot more about the G5 design that's elegant than just the case. For example, the top hard disk drive mounts up inside the case in a position where it can't slide straight out. It looks at first like it could be a problem to get that drive out, but in fact the guide rails that hold the drive just drop the drive down, and it pops out with no problem. You can remove most of the components without tools. The side panel makes an incredibly satisfying 'click' when you press it into place. The case can be locked closed with a padlock, but the hasp for the lock folds down under the latch when you're not using it, so that it doesn't spoil the clean, flat look of the back. The power button is significantly improved over the G4.

In short, the G5 is probably the best designed machine Apple has produced in years, maybe ever. I wish Apple would get the G5 design team to build a car!
Re:G5 Design - noise? practicality? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 22:44 · Score: 0

I don't see what the fuss is over the G5 fans. We run mainly PCs at work, and I don't use the one and only G5, but it is LOUD. Those fans running together whine like crazy, and it's an issue around the cubicle that holds it.

We used to have a speed-hole G4 dual CPU and thought it was bad, but the G5 is another version of pain on top. I think anyone who thinks they're quiet is really kidding themselves.

Or maybe the previous model G4s all sent them deaf, I don't know.
Re:G5 Design - noise? practicality? by Scrameustache · 2003-12-13 03:03 · Score: 1

so the temperature rises and the fans speed up in an attempt to counteract it.

Nope, they speed up as soon as you take the cover off, they don't have time to warm up. And they slow down soon after that, so its not in preparation for a warm up...

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:G5 Design - noise? practicality? by TheBillGates · 2003-12-13 03:13 · Score: 1

Quiet, damned quiet! I have a dual processor G5 in my office and if it wasn't for seeing it you wouldn't know it's there.

I too was skeptical when I heard the claims of them being quiet. But the claims are true.
Re:G5 Design - noise? practicality? by topham · 2003-12-13 08:05 · Score: 1

I showed off my G5 (1.6) to a friend of mine, who spent lunch earlier in the day harrasing my about buying a Mac, and he was totally impressed with the case.

The case is sweet. It's almost sad that it's hiding under my desk.

Re:"Kicking and screaming", eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 14:26 · Score: 0

Steve Jobs has said this himself. "Don't get into this business if you want to make money" something like that. He basically said they make the cash with the iPod.

How can it be an invention? by szyzyg · 2003-12-12 14:28 · Score: 0, Redundant

Napster, Myplay, Listen, Musicbank, Mp3.com and every single other music dotcom went to the record companies for 5 years trying to get the same deal.

I mean the innovative work was all done 5 years ago, it was just a case of waiting for the music business to realise it.

Re:How can it be an invention? by DaveCBio · 2003-12-12 14:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Because mainstream media is quite clueless about anything digital.
Re:How can it be an invention? by BasilBrush · 2003-12-12 15:06 · Score: 1

Initially, the first customers for iTMS were the record companies. Napster, Myplay, Listen, Musicbank, Mp3.com clearly didn't invent a system that the record companies wanted to use. Most inventions fail. Many sucessful inventions have similarities to earlier inventions that failed.
Re:How can it be an invention? by szyzyg · 2003-12-12 16:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Every single one of those services tried the same deal that Apple got - everyone suggested sales at 1$/track - the record companies all said there was no way in hell they'd ever agree to that. So other angles were tried - subscription services and things - then of course Pressplay and Musicnet were created and we all said that nobody would go for it.
Re:How can it be an invention? by BasilBrush · 2003-12-13 01:25 · Score: 1

Clearly then it was the invention and not the price the swung it. Where invention is expressed in classic patent terms as "a method and apparatus".

What is an "invention?" by Ghoser777 · 2003-12-12 14:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

A new device, method, or process developed from study and experimentation: the phonograph, an invention attributed to Thomas Edison.

- Dictionary.com

iTMS seems to fit the bill as a new process for buying music.

Matt Fahrenbacher

--
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."

Re:What is an "invention?" by superfast-scooter · 2003-12-12 14:45 · Score: 1

is the process of buying music at iTMS any different from say, any of the billions of websites charging customers? i dont know cos i dont use it, but im guessing you have to enter your credit card info, and click 'submit'... ?

i must admit that apple did not slouch in getting it out quick. with all the incoming lawsuits against file-sharing and p2p, all they had to do were make a few calls to the recording industry, put up some servers for download, and have a payment system running along with the apple store for iTMS?

going by that logic, if SCO wins the legal battle, and makes linux an OS available for download from their site, then they will have to be called inventors for their invention "iLinux". just cos they "invented" a new process for "buying" what was freely available.
Re:What is an "invention?" by superfast-scooter · 2003-12-12 14:47 · Score: 1

i wont think too much about it mainly cos its a review by "Fortune" magazine. reading reviews of tech products from fortune reminds me of clarkes' saying - "any sufficiently advanced tech ..."
they would have been the same ppl reviewing and voting for 10.5-clicks payment systems.
Re:What is an "invention?" by alienw · 2003-12-12 15:37 · Score: 1

What are you smoking? There were other music stores YEARS before Apple's that did roughly the same thing. A pretty interface does not an invention make, and that's really the only new thing Apple brought to the table. Ever hear of PressPlay, MusicMatch, or RealOne?
Re:What is an "invention?" by LordLucless · 2003-12-12 17:59 · Score: 1

Because, like, it's such a different process from buying any other digital content isn't it?

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:What is an "invention?" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 05:10 · Score: 0

Dictionary.com wouldn't be a bad place for superfast-scooter to check out. Do they have a grammar.com as well?

Time Time Time Is On My Side by sulli · 2003-12-12 14:30 · Score: 2, Funny

Yes it is!

--

sulli
RTFJ.

Re:Time Time Time Is On My Side by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 14:53 · Score: 0

time keeps on ticking..... into the fuuuuuture...

Insightful? by WiseWeasel · 2003-12-12 14:31 · Score: 1

I'd say more like obvious . . . yeah, selling stuff sure is good for business. I could have told you iTMS is good for the music industry long before Fortune's article. Is there something wrong with making money selling people what they want? Nothing new here, move along . . .

--
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)

Have you tried Ogg? by Doc+Squidly · 2003-12-12 14:35 · Score: 1

Have you used Ogg Vorbis?
The Good: Its Open Source
The Bad: Not many portable music players that support it
The Ugly: name, Ogg Vorbis

--
I think I think, therefore I think I am.

Yes they are... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 14:36 · Score: 1, Insightful

Indie lables (emphasis label, not artist) can get their wares on the iTMS just as easily as the big 5, and get the same $0.65 of the $0.99 that any label gets.

Bands, take note! Apple will talk to you by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 14:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm posting this anonymously, sorry.

I got a band I will not mention listed in Itunes. The parent poster is morose for the wrong reasons.

Try it. Apple, surprisingly, is not all that horrible to deal with. Only moderately horrible.

Re:Magnatune is more important. by BasilBrush · 2003-12-12 14:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Who?

Don't people have to have heard of you to become important?

Cute by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 14:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

But you don't get it.

ITunes is the opportunity for artists to sell straight through Apple. Think about the opportunity for the artist. If your song is a winner, write a deal with Apple and watch your self win a windfall.........

The reason music is so expensive is that the stupid Record Companies pay potential winner groups big bucks to sign exclusive deals. One out of ten of those groups actually sell any records. So the 1 out of 10 pay for the other nines up front money.

With ITunes, you can potentially move the Record company out of the picture. More for the artist and more for Apple.

But crap, Apple is a dumb computer company. What do they know.

Re:Cute by Squareball · 2003-12-12 16:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

Partially correct. The record companies don't 'give' tons of money to potential bands. They lend it to them against future sales. So if your band gets signed and puts out an album that doesn't sell, you are on the hook for the money that they lent you to produce the album and tour to support it. The sad part is that some times great albums get put out but never pushed by the label. So the artist ends up worse off then when they started and no one really gets to hear the music.
Re:Cute by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 21:27 · Score: 0

Actually, that's not correct either. When a band gets fronted the money and fails to sell, the most the label can do is end the contract. It's not like an artist is going to find themselves $20,000 in debt because they let a big label produce a record for them. Worst-case for the artist is, they waste a couple years of their life making music for almost no money until they are dropped from the contract. The label assumes all the risk of loss.

Way OT, but by justMichael · 2003-12-12 14:54 · Score: 1

Matt- Nice point, best I can do without mod points.

PS: Thanks for Meteo :-)

Re:Magnatune is more important. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 15:07 · Score: 0

If we "Abolish 'Intellectual Property'" there will be no more GPL.

semantic nitpicking by ScottSpeaks! · 2003-12-12 15:16 · Score: 0, Redundant

I'm not arguing with its apparent importance, but at the risk of being overly literal... no it's not!

Not only was Time incorrect in referring to it as an "invention" (which would be a novel piece of technology), it's not really a "product" (which would be a tangible piece of merchandise), either.

It's a service, people. Repeat after me: "New Service of the Year". {smile}

Re:semantic nitpicking by ITR81 · 2003-12-12 15:52 · Score: 1

Service can be a process of doing something. According to web. dic. a new process or way of doing something is an invention.

Kicking and Scrambling to the Bank by dbCooper0 · 2003-12-12 15:20 · Score: 0, Troll

I just read this in a email from garageband.com

About Apple iTunes... I read an article in the newspaper (here in Ottawa) about how artists are only receiveing one DIME out of each $1.00 download. Apple takes 34 cents and the record company gets the rest. Nice eh? Once again the industry manages to screw the artist out of 90% of the profit. This is why people are downloading illegally online. If I felt that the artist was going to get 50% of the profit I might actually go and pay ITunes a visit. As it stands now the only way to make sure an artist gets any real money is to buy their merch when I go and see them. At least then I don't feel guilty about downloading a song or two because I know I'm not giving it to some fat cat in a suit who could care less about developing a band anyway. (Bassballs)

This link has more, worth a look.... It has a spoof on the "switch" ads...

--
db
Cig:
ôô
/`

Re:Kicking and Scrambling to the Bank by kfg · 2003-12-12 17:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

And even that's a marked improvement. Most artists don't ever get a single penny from a traditional CD release, let alone a dime a cut.

About the only way they see any money from their own work is by direct retail sales on their own, and they have to pay full wholesale to obtain them as well as go through all the rigermarole (permits, sales tax, etc.) that retail selling implies.

KFG
Re:Kicking and Scrambling to the Bank by Bombcar · 2003-12-12 20:26 · Score: 1

You know, that login makes no sense at all. When you buy, the artist gets 10%. When you download, he gets none!

[sarcasm]
Boss: Well, the IRS took 50% of your paycheck, so I'm gonna show them and take the rest of it! Don't you feel loved?
Emplotee:!!!!
[/sarcasm]

--
Fellowship 9/11
Re:Kicking and Scrambling to the Bank by Bombcar · 2003-12-12 20:29 · Score: 1

s/login/logic/g

Note to some: a slashdot spell checker wouldn't have caught this one.

--
Fellowship 9/11

fortune names $20 us bill a product of the year by g-to-the-o-to-the-g · 2003-12-12 15:29 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Fortune called the US $20 bill a product of the year. I think this is kinda silly, especially considering in Canada we've had unique money for several years now. Our money is more advanced, including a no-two-bills-the-same idea (which can be seen when held under UV light). Our $10 and $5 bills are like this. Sure, it may be an american magazine, but i still think that the note is not very special.

--

Hi there

Re:fortune names $20 us bill a product of the year by ITR81 · 2003-12-12 15:54 · Score: 1

Aussie money would be the best because it's made out stretchable plastic that can't be photocopied or scanned because of the plastic covering.
Re:fortune names $20 us bill a product of the year by Frennzy · 2003-12-12 18:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Err...I'm from the US, and I stretch my plastic every holiday season.

Or at least my ability to pay it off..

No fan noise. Practicality to spare by phillymjs · 2003-12-12 15:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

I've set up two of these in a very quiet conference room. When running normally, they barely make a peep. When the monitor is asleep, you wouldn't even be able to tell it was on without the power light on the front panel.

When the G5 is in target disk mode, however, the fan control software does not load. The fans start faster than normal and rather quickly ramp up to full speed-- presumably that is a fail-safe in the hardware. When those fans are going full blast, you can feel the air moving for quite an impressive distance behind the G5.

As for whether that many fans is overkill or not, look at it this way: Apple's previous Power Mac case form factor was in use since 1999 (about 4.5 years). With the G5 enclosure, I think it appears overengineered to us now but was designed with an eye toward housing future CPUs in years to come-- CPUs that will really need all that cooling capability.

~Philly

Only on /. by DAldredge · 2003-12-12 15:35 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Only on /. can commenting about one of the linked articles get you 2 down mods for being off topic.

What is wrong with the mod system?

Here's why... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 15:38 · Score: 0

...your Canuck money isn't considered special:

US$1.00 = CDN$1.31370

When USians look at Canadian money, we see this.

Re:Here's why... by AnimeFreak · 2003-12-12 17:11 · Score: 1

Funny.

$1 USD = 0.83 EUR
1 EURO = $1.22 USD

Your currency isn't so special.

I'd like to add by metalhed77 · 2003-12-12 15:41 · Score: 1

I have about 180 iTMS tracks. I've purchased maybe half has full albums. Why is this so? The ones that are full albums are for artists that I really like, and are good enough to be able to make full albums (interpol, some satie, the decemberists, cream bbc sessions, and some others). Other artists, I simply bought one or two tracks from. This only changes the playing field. I think it's a good thing. Britney's business model is going down. Of course that means nothing in regards to taste going up, but what can I do.

--
Photos.

Re:"Kicking and screaming", eh? by zaffir · 2003-12-12 15:49 · Score: 1

Most would say that paying $10 for a full album is pretty cheap. But that's not the full story behind the "Only $10 per album!" deal - most albums are not available as a full album, you have to buy each song individually. They're listed as "partial albums" even though all songs are for sale. It seems that this is the case if there is an explicit album, and a censored one - you can buy the censored album for $10, but you must pay for each song individually if it's explicit. Although with alot of albums you can't buy the full version for either one, even though all songs are available.

I would have purchased 3 or 4 CDs from ITMS already if it weren't for this bullshit.

--
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway

Indie artists by ZxCv · 2003-12-12 15:49 · Score: 1

.... did you know any artist can submit stuff to the iTMS to be sold? Those that do aren't under the grip of big labels.. their deal is with Apple.

Bzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. Indie labels can strike deals with Apple, but not the artists themselves. The artists are still "under the grip" of a label, albeit one that probably cares a little more about them.

--

Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;

Bupkis! by ZxCv · 2003-12-12 15:56 · Score: 1

What are you smoking? There were other music stores YEARS before Apple's that did roughly the same thing. A pretty interface does not an invention make, and that's really the only new thing Apple brought to the table. Ever hear of PressPlay, MusicMatch, or RealOne?

Roughly the same thing? A service that lets you listen to your music as long as you're a subscriber is equivalent to a service that sells you the music flat-out?

The interface is far from the only new thing Apple brought to the table. The you-own-it approach, also not the only new thing, is by far the most important thing Apple brought to the table. To me, a "music service" (PressPlay, MusicMatch) is a far cry from a "music store" (iTMS, BuyMusic.com, etc).

--

Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;

Re:Bupkis! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 16:04 · Score: 0

"a service that sells you the music flat-out?"

A service that lets you buy music! Wow, that deserves a patent.

Makes perfect sense. Nobody thought to sell music on the internet before that. There should be a patent to protect *that* invention.

Wow. Selling music online. Holy cow! Brilliant. I mean, its up there with the invention of the airplane.

I know some people would make fun of you for being incredulous that selling music online deserves a patent, but not me. Its something that's so non-obvious, that is so decked in innovation, that it deserves *more* than a patent. Maybe this is something god dreamed up and sent it down to mere mortals. Imagine *SELLING* music. Its.... brilliant. Brilliant I tell you. WOWOWOWOWOW. Selling music. Nobody thought of that before whoo-hoo! That apple is so durn innovative!

I'm bursting from the creative juices in it. Wowekazowee!

Re:Magnatune is more important. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 16:09 · Score: 0

Yeah, that's the entire point. Ultimately, RMS would very much like all software to be free. No copyright==free.

Thing is, it applies all across the board. If copyrights were abolished, people could actively reverse engineer whatever they wanted, and put it into their product. Goes both ways.

Not to belittle your excellent point, but by cgenman · 2003-12-12 16:11 · Score: 1

Perhaps I'm a bit out of touch, but buying CD's at the grocery store? The last time I looked, they had a display with 16 variants on "Bing Crosby's Christmas" right next to the 25 copies of The Lion King.

Do they really sell CD's at the grocery store with non-trivial selection, or have people just started buying food at Walmart? Has living in large coastal cities all of my life skewed my perspective of the average grocery store? Is there really that much variance?

--
The ______ Agenda

Re:Not to belittle your excellent point, but by kfg · 2003-12-12 16:20 · Score: 1

Wal-Mart now often has a full grocery store under the same roof these days and yes, people grocery shop there. Not that I'd actually buy CDs (or food) from Wal-Mart myself, but most do.

Large cities are less likely to have one of these (but often have other alternatives). A friend visited me from LA once and when I took her to one of our local supermarkets ( just a supermarket, not a Wal-Mart thingy) she couldn't believe it. She wanted to take pictures to show her LA friends what a supermarket out in the "sticks" ( actually the NYS captial district, but comparitively "out in the woods") looked like.

KFG
Re:Not to belittle your excellent point, but by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 16:27 · Score: 0

Wal-Mart now often has a full grocery store under the same roof these days

if you life to support child labor and non-union, non-pension jobs. be my fucking guest asshole.
Re:Not to belittle your excellent point, but by kfg · 2003-12-12 16:38 · Score: 1

I think young people of legal working age should have a place to go to work if they so choose, yes. Wal-Mart at least beats working a frier at Burger King. Most jobs are non-union, by the way, virtually all retail and programming for instance, so if you object to non-union I suggest you stop buying anything retail, especially computer programs and games.

On the other hand they have many pension paying jobs.

This doesn't mean they're not assholes, one way of which they of demonstrating this is by the selling of bowdlerized (you can look that up in your Golden Book Dictionary. Oh, sorry. No you can't.) CDs without labeling them as such. In my book this pretty much writes them off as a place to buy CDs since I object to such behaviour and don't mind bad fucking language in the fucking least.

KFG
Re:Not to belittle your excellent point, but by wareadams · 2003-12-12 17:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is the point, perhaps there's zero incremental time involved in picking up a CD at a grocery store which most people go to frequently, but the selection is pitiful.

On the other hand a month or so ago I heard a clip from Son House singing John the Revelator on NPR. I loved it, so I left the a message for myself on my voice mail and picked it up from the iTunes store in 30 seconds after getting to my computer.

I would have had to drive all over town to find that song, or more likely search Amazon. And in those cases I would have needed to figure out which album to buy. At 99 cents it was an easy choice to just grab the song.

I've bought more stuff from the ITMS in the last few months than record stores in the last three years because of this.
Re:Not to belittle your excellent point, but by dema · 2003-12-12 20:38 · Score: 1

i'm not talking about the store employees. i'm talking about the children in third world countires in sweatshops.
Re:Not to belittle your excellent point, but by kfg · 2003-12-12 21:27 · Score: 1

I've only bought vinyl while in a third world country, and they don't employ children in their pressing plants.

KFG
Re:Not to belittle your excellent point, but by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 01:04 · Score: 0

Child labour? Ignorant fool.

First, that's not a child working there, in nearly all cases. Second, ask the adult working there if they'd rather NOT have the job, or why they're working there instead of elsewhere (hint: it pays more, believe it or not. these companies are not forcing people to work, although some of your lefty oppressive friends do, and those people don't get paid). Finally, unions destroy jobs by making many businesses unprofitable. You know what that means? No jobs for anyone who would have worked there!

Fucking ignorant swine.
Re:Not to belittle your excellent point, but by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 01:07 · Score: 0

(This is of course directed at your first, AC post, but it just occured to me that you are more likely to read it if I put it in a reply to one of your posts.)

Child labour? Ignorant fool.

First, that's not a child working there, in nearly all cases. Second, ask the adult working there if they'd rather NOT have the job, or why they're working there instead of elsewhere (hint: it pays more, believe it or not. They want to survive, and it's hard when you aren't working. These companies are not forcing people to work (although some of your lefty oppressive friends do, and those people don't get paid). Finally, unions destroy jobs by making many businesses unprofitable. You know what that means? No jobs for anyone who would have worked there!

Fucking ignorant swine.
Re:Not to belittle your excellent point, but by plastik55 · 2003-12-17 06:08 · Score: 1

Even so, iTunes's selection is pretty spotty.

I keep a list of the albums I want to get. Last week I compared Amazon to iTunes. Out of 35 items, Amazon had 27 of the items on my list... iTunes had 2.

--
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!

is an online store a 'Product'? by Chuck+Bucket · 2003-12-12 16:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

really, before they won for the 'invention' of an online music store (like they had the first one?) and now it's the best 'product'? Don't get me wrong, I have two macs at home (one running Gentoo Linux) and I think iTMS is a "good thing (c)" but come on, how is it a 'product'?

Now the G5 winning for being one of the 25 Best Products of the Year for Design, that goes without saying; that thing is perfect. I got to play with one a few weeks back, opened it up and got to gaze inside. One of those running Gentoo would fit perfectly under this desk!

CB

--
free ipod and free gmail!

Re:is an online store a 'Product'? by BasilBrush · 2003-12-13 01:34 · Score: 1

The appropriate definition of product is "Something produced by human or mechanical effort or by a natural process."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=product

For every Sgt. Pepper or Tommy... by SideshowBob · 2003-12-12 17:08 · Score: 1

... There is a *landfill's* worth of the likes of Britney Spear's Opps! I Did It Again. :(

The album format has been abused to overcharge for dreck for far too long. I really doubt that the listening public is entirely complicit in this turn of events.

Longest line for an Apple store(OMFG!!!) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 17:10 · Score: 0

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsI D=7435

to the troll above me, suck on this one!

Re:Longest line for an Apple store(OMFG!!!) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-14 08:11 · Score: 0

That's not amazing at all, considering it happens everytime a new console or exciting game comes out in Japan.

Stupid.

iTunes and the iTMS. Flexibility and choice. by sunrein · 2003-12-12 17:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

My favorite thing about using iTunes is the fact that I don't have to use the much lauded music store. The iTMS sits there quietly and transparently until you decide to use it.

I own a powerbook and all of my music is in iTunes. However, none of it came from the iTMS. I still buy CDs and rip them in because i prefer my mp3s at a higher encoding rate. If Apple changed their 'tune' in that regard and offered higher quality mp3s, I might be persuaded. Until then, I'm very content to use it as a music jukebox. It does that job very well.

An invention of the year? Nah. A really handy piece of software with flexibility and room to grow? Sure.

Re:Hark, what's that sound ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 17:15 · Score: 0

Let's make some Apple-sauce!

Please mod the parent as informative by Elusive_Cure · 2003-12-12 17:51 · Score: 1

Please mod the parent as informative.Well Blimme, You're sooooooooooo Right.... :-) I couldn't agree more to your post man...

--
Roses are red, violets are blue, most poems rhyme, but this one doesn't... ;^)

Re:Magnatune is more important. by MoneyT · 2003-12-12 17:59 · Score: 1

And if copyrights were abolished, anyone could take Linux code, throw it into a proprietary piece of software, chage mega bucks and never release it. IOW no copyright = free if you want to = no way to really enforce GPL et al.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984

My wish by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-12 18:17 · Score: 0

I wish there was a way for me, as a Christian, as a human being, to sit down with some of you and have a pleasant, civil discussion without bitterness or sarcasm. I don't force people to believe what I believe. I don't mock others with different beliefs. I hope I can find the words to explain myself, as my life goes on. I hope I can help people to see

An experiment to try at home... by oaklybonn · 2003-12-12 18:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Make a tube of your hand (like you were grasping, say, um, a bannana. No really, nobody's watching.) Blow through this tube gently; notice how quiet it is. Now blow against a your flattened palm. Notice that it is appreciably louder.

The design of the G5 is to use two fans in each zone, one gently blowing, one gently sucking. The result is that you're never slamming air against a wall, which is actually where a lot of the fan noise come from.

The 2.0ghz G5 chip consumes97 watts of power

From a cursory investigation, a Pentium IV seems to take between 60 and 100 watts

As to whether its revolutionary, I doubt it - its just solid engineering without concern with having to fit old form factor bits into the box. (PeeCees have much more homogenous designs, since Macs always come from a single vendor.)

Admirable by rixstep · 2003-12-12 18:32 · Score: 0, Redundant

I think what Jobs/Apple have done here is admirable, and they certainly deserve credit for their hard work and dedication.

At least they don't sit around all day at /. Some of those Apple people actually have an education! And many of them know how to spell! And none of them sit at home on the dole and pretend they're better than everyone else.

Amazing - they actually 'do' things, and not just talk about them!

They deserve full credit.

Re:Admirable by Turd+Rippleton · 2003-12-13 01:20 · Score: 0

It's funny how everyone thinks that iTunes is so innovative and admirable. Yes selling songs online is great and what we've been waiting for. However I would like to point out that if the music industry wouldn't hold onto their songs with an iron fist, selling music online would have been accomplished years ago.

The only innovation I see is that someone (jobs) finally convinced the music industry to let go and start selling online. [Turd]

Umm... by mr.fonEtIks · 2003-12-12 18:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

Sorry, I don't consider a service as an invention, or a rehash of an existing technology like camera phones.

Speaking of the RIAA sucking by corebreech · 2003-12-12 18:46 · Score: 1

I notice that Jon Johansen's blog has been down for a number of days.

This is, of course, the QTFairUse guy.

--
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?

Re:"Kicking and screaming", eh? by Dominic_Mazzoni · 2003-12-12 21:36 · Score: 1

I do consulting for several clients that take CCs over the net. A typical example of CC/gateway costs is 2.25% + .30 per transaction. So a .32 of a $1.00 charge is immediately taken by the CC company. The numbers vary a bit, and are lower with larger volumes, but at a minimum they're problably paying 1.25% + .20/transaction.

Apple has billions of dollars in sales a year. That's right, billions with a 'b'. I'm certain Apple is paying nowhere close to 20 cents per transaction.

I suspect very few people buy songs 1 at a time -- gift certificates are $20. I personally buy about 5 songs at a time, but friends of mine might buy 1-2 albums at a time, which minimizes the bite of the transaction fees.

I've purchased about 100 songs on iTunes so far, and at least a dozen of those were individual, i.e. I only bought one song that day. Apple waits 1-3 days before billing you, probably trying to consolidate multiple purchases, but they've billed me $0.99 quite a few times now.

Surprise surprise by leviramsey · 2003-12-12 21:53 · Score: 0, Troll

Both Fortune and Time are owned by the same company (and have been since Time Inc. launched Fortune in the late 1920s).

You know what never made sense about apple ? by phoxix · 2003-12-12 23:33 · Score: 1

Isn't that what Apple usually does? Dragging the rest of the world forward. e.g. firewire, usb.

To some extent that is true, however the manner in which apple decided to drop the floppy makes anyone think about things.

Instead of providing a simple usb key chain, as the floppy replacement. Apple opted to give everyone CD/DVD burners and such. While that too is a fine idea, a media burner's ease-of-use is nothing compare to how easy it is to use a usb key chain ....

The weird thing is Apple *still* hasn't picked up on the usb key chain thing either ...

Sunny Dubey

Re:You know what never made sense about apple ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 05:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

USB Keychains are still too expensive at reasonable capacities. Really, I was scared when they dropped the floppy, but I came to realize because of their miniscule capacities I hadn't actually used them in years. Someday keychains will be useful, but that day is not today.

Re:I haven't heard this mentioned yet by ex-songwriter · 2003-12-13 01:13 · Score: 0

And car ads don't mention that you have to fill them with gas. Your point is?

Pearl Jam = Epic Records by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 03:59 · Score: 0

you sure about that? Looks like perl jam is part of epic records which is a riaa controlled company (Sony).

http://www.sonymusic.com/artists/PearlJam/

please prove that I'm wrong... I'd love to buy some PJ without giving sony/riaa any money.

Why Napster, MusicMatch, etc. will fail by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 04:10 · Score: 1, Interesting

Apple has stated that the iTMS makes no money. It's a loss leader for selling iPods. That's very bad news ... for Napster.

If Apple cannot get iTMS to make money, it's unlikely that Napster will be able to, given that the record companies have offered them essentially the same deal (and hence the same revenue percentage). iTMS survives because Apple has *another* product, iPod, which makes up for iTMS's loss. Napster does not have such a product. Napster sells music in WMA format, which is, for purposes of discussion my post only, "open". Meaning that Napster can't charge the MP3/WMA player manufacturers a fee for playing songs downloaded with Napster. So Napster can't get a loss leader. This is the case with all the other little iTMS wannabees as well.

One company has a chance: Microsoft. It can generate a music store with buckets of money which can stay afloat as long as necessary. The loss is worth it to Microsoft if WMA destroys AAC and takes over the world as a result. So they have a loss leader of sorts. And Microsoft has buckets of money. That's Apple's competitor, not Napster. Watch for it.

One last thing: only one store works with iPod. A myriad of stores work with WMA devices. This would be a problem for Apple if it weren't that the iPod was so phenominallly successful. Now as a result Apple has the AAC market all to itself, while the various wannabees have to divide up the WMA market, so their total revenue may be smaller (assuming the AAC market is sufficiently large in the first place of course).

apple didn't invent the MP3 player either... by mojoNYC · 2003-12-13 04:38 · Score: 1

they just perfected it...

i know it's hard for PC people to grok, because you deal in a commodity mindset, but not all (OSs, mp3 players, music stores, A/V software, fill in the blank) work the same...it's the difference between the experience, and the XP(TM)erience...

What's next-Reality TV. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 05:08 · Score: 0

"They're just two of many who've had the chance to start something like this but instead they get the bucks and say (mostly) "fuck the ones that didn't". Their stories can be seen weekly on VH1's "Behind the Music"."

Using "Behind the Music" as an example of the way things are, is like using Jerry Springer as an example of middle america.

Why the intended irony? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 05:09 · Score: 0

A lot of people actually feel that way. What, did you think people shoplifted from Wal-Mart by mistake?

You poor young fool by Sunnan · 2003-12-13 06:39 · Score: 1

Good luck charging megabucks if copyright is abolished!

(Note: I'm definitely not saying that there aren't business models that work without copyright.)

monkey see, monkey doo by musselm · 2003-12-13 06:40 · Score: 1

No, it's funny.

But how can you tell it's the monkey type, and not some other type, just from the smell?

Still, it's funny.

homogenous? by Sunnan · 2003-12-13 06:45 · Score: 1

It's been my experience that Macs are more homogenous than say, IA-32-based PC:s.

Re:homogenous? by oaklybonn · 2003-12-13 06:51 · Score: 1

In this case, I'm referring to the homogeneity of the case design. Every desktop PC I see has pretty much the same form factor (ATX case?) while each "new" mac (G4, G5, every powerbook) has a unique case and connector placement.
The G5 case wasn't trying to fit an off the shelf motherboard. Of course, this means signifcant retooling at the factory, which is probably yet another reason macs cost more.
Re:homogenous? by Sunnan · 2003-12-14 03:35 · Score: 1

Ah, right, I totally misunderstood, I thought you meant the architecture.

Please Do Not Attempt to Pay Twice by Vagary · 2003-12-13 07:11 · Score: 1

Um, but when you download them from a P2P source, you did pay for it? Well not you exactly, but all the future iPod purchasers and people who are currently burning to CD.

Our government is, in their infinite wisdom, publicizing (and therefore socializing) the music industry. If you don't approve, please contact your member of parliament. In the meanwhile, download without guilt.

(What I'm trying to figure out is whether, if I can borrow a CD from the library and make a copy of it, can the library puts MP3s on its web page?)

What About Dust? by Vagary · 2003-12-13 07:19 · Score: 1

Seems to me that with that many holes in the case, G5s should collect dust pretty fast. And that amount of space would be difficult to cover with filters.

Has anyone opened theirs up lately?

Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-13 11:39 · Score: 0

"I bought a hard to find album for 9.99."

There are no "hard to find album"s on iTunes. Almost by definition.

Besides, you could easily go to www.amazon.com and buy it used from somebody for $3-6

Hmm.... by Doc+Squidly · 2003-12-13 22:13 · Score: 1

Well, I got modded as troll. No doubt by some apple happy moderator, yet the parent got interesting for saying the same thing as 100 other posts. Yep, the G5 was on the Fortune site next to the worlds coolest shredder.

So...what did that guy mean by accessible?

--
I think I think, therefore I think I am.

Re:Hmm.... by fastdecade · 2003-12-15 15:55 · Score: 1

I'll bite, if only to please you by say something different from the other 100 posts this time :-).

I didn't mean accessible as in easily available. I meant it in the user-friendly context, as you put it.ie Apple products are generally easy for non-experts to pick up and work with immediately. In contrast, the users of Walmart PCs will probably encounter many headaches along the way.

Maybe you've experienced differently; that's fine, it's just not my experience. I've seen apple newbies finding it much easier to own their new PC and do stuff with it, whereas MS users often live in a state of constant anxiety they'll get a dialog telling them there was an address at memory location 234398238. The nicest thing about Apple is they control the hardware, OS, and basic apps. In fairness to MS, it must be a difficult task writing an OS that supports so much different hardware and end-user software. The net effect is that Apple can focus on delivering a more seamless user experience.

As for accessibility in the cost context - Apple products are damn expensive compared to Walmart. It's a shame that computing novices who aren't in a position to afford Apple have to deal with playing around with their bios, applications screwing with their registry, IRQ conflicts etc.

But that's not Apple's fault. Apple continues to push the boundaries. And yes I'm sure we can all find precursors to every piece of Apple technology ever made. But apple put it together seamlessly, often the first commercialise great ideas.

That's good for everyone, because eventually other systems catch up. Witness the number of ipod copycats on the market. IIRC Apple's IPod was the first true portable HD, and they keep coming up with features that others will be adding in two yrs later.

Not 80 cents by 33degrees · 2003-12-15 08:38 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm having trouble finding exact figures right now, but I do know that the label gets 65 cents on the dollar, with about 12 cents of that going to the artist and another 8 cents going to the publisher. That means the label gets about 40 cents, although I'm sure there's a lot of stuff getting deducted from the artists share.

A funny iPod comic: by valkraider · 2003-12-15 12:39 · Score: 1

Grand Avenue

Slashdot Mirror

iTMS Named Fortune's Product Of The Year

356 comments