Slashdot Mirror
iTMS Named Fortune's Product Of The Year
Demolition writes "To go along with Time Magazine calling the iTunes Music Store the Invention Of The Year, Fortune Magazine has come along and proclaimed iTunes Music Store as the Product Of The Year. As it says in the article, 'With the success of its iTunes Music Store, Apple is almost single-handedly dragging the music industry, kicking and screaming, toward a better future.'" Also, Fortune named the G5 one of the 25 Best Products of the Year for Design.
"'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.
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.
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.
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.
Time Warner is also a member of the RIAA.
I smell something good for business.
Somehow, this got posted on Slashdot...
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
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
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!
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
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.
Because people have to buy food, shelter and utilities. That is why most (1st world)human enterprises have some sort of monetary component.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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?
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
"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!"
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sure you believe Apple had the first Gui too.. ;)
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
Sorry, I don't consider a service as an invention, or a rehash of an existing technology like camera phones.
Actually, Steve Jobs himself said that Apple doesn't make a dime per song with ITMS.
... 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.
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.
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!
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.