Slashdot Mirror
Apple Announces 25 Million Song Downloads
Tweder writes "On Apple's iTunes site, Apple has announced that music fans have purchased and downloaded over 25 Million songs from the iTunes Music Store. It seems the launch of the ITMS on the Windows platform has boosted sales tremendously." I suppose this is where I am expected to say something along the lines of, "I thought the recording industry said that this business model wouldn't work, that people won't pay for what they can download for free?" So, there you go.
I suppose this is where I should say something like, "The iTunes Music Store wouldn't exist without the cooperation of the recording industry, so even if the music companies had little to lose, they deserve some credit for having faith in Steve Jobs' business model."
Of course, Jobs already said as much himself.
Why treat your paying customers like (prospective) criminals, when the pirates will simply continue to use uncrippled formats?
25M sales is great for Apple; bad for music lovers. The fact that a million people or so have jumped on this new thing does not mean it's the future of music.
Total music sales will continue to slump, and piracy will continue to run rampant until the industry offers a legal alternative which is free of DRM and hardware/software lock-in. eMusic was a nice try - next time give it a shot with popular bands - they're all on Kazaa anyway, so what do you have to lose?
Pudge, I've got several Macs. I use iTunes. I just bought an album off there about an hour ago. But let's not kid ourselves. So, there's been 25 million downloads off iTMS in the past, what nine months? There's probably been 2.5 billion downloads off kazaa in that time. Orders of magnitude, dude. Orders of magnitude.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Suppose there was a competitor that didn't give us the garbage x.99 cent "marketing price". In fact, the fee paid was variable! So the extra amount is equivalent to a tip. Some might say that tips make sense with digital goods, where the marginal cost is near zero. Cynics (plentiful and uncreative) at this point just walk out of the room after delivering a few loads of regurgitated garbage. So, the option is $5 to $18. Do you think $5 is the choice taken most? Look here.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Once they hit 1 billion they should start a record label. In that event, they'd either fail miserably, or become the microsoft of music distribution. Or something.
$25 million, aka a drop in the bucket. P diddy has more in diamonds on his maids.
Let it snow, let it snow...
I for one welcome our new download what you want for a buck overlords.
The real problem is that Steve Jobs mentioned that Apple isn't making any money on the iTunes venture; that they only see profit through the sales of iPods. I'd be interested in knowing what they plan on doing that will change this, as we've all seen too many neato tech ideas go belly up when the investors started wondering where their money went.
What are they going to do for the people who download the songs on iTunes, then strip the headers, and put them on a p2p? Does the RIAA just go by filename?
I think its good, It proves the point that Apple still has selling innovation and that no matter if your using Feur Von Gates's software you can still get a little warmth and cheer!
You have been sig'd
if you dont have anything to say...don't say it.
if you think the story isn't worth posting...dont' post it
seriously do we really need a story every time ITMS reaches a nice number? 10 million, 20 million, 25 million...
It's popular we get it.
The real question is how is this affecting sales of ipods since it has already been determined that Apple doesn't make much if any money off of ITMS.
meep
Chump change in the pockets of a multi-billion dollar industry. Besides, they'll somehow make it sound as if they actually lost money on this...
I suppose this is where I am expected to say something along the lines of, "I thought the recording industry said that this business model wouldn't work, that people won't pay for what they can download for free?" So, there you go.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear a thing. Could you speak up? And do it soon, I'm getting ready to hit the sack. Thanks.
It was the subscription model that was doomed. iTunes works inarguably. Subscription services may have been decent theories, but I think we just saw their end, and know who was right all along.
Um, yeah. In case you didn't get that, the winner is Jobs.
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
Its cool that an online music store has taken off, but this still propagates the Record industry's business model.
Its time for all of those who flame at the riaa but at the same time praise Apple to step up.
Nothing has really changed, it just looks prettier with an os x theme.
Although it seems like more music companies are getting directly involved in the online music biz, I haven't seen any reports on what orgs like the RIAA really think about these commercial online music offerings.
...
I do know they still want to sure more people. Just today the papers in Canada were running articles that the Canadian version of the RIAA plans to start suing file swappers. This comes just days after they added more taxes to MP3 players to fill the coffers of the same organization
This is Slashdot. You don't need to put a slant on a story. No matter how unbiased the submission is, rest assured that we'll find a way to turn it into a Microsoft conspiracy of some sort.
Yah, 25 million songs is VERY good, which works out to be about 2.5 million albums, but is Apple making any profit yet? My understanding was that Itunes was designed to sell Ipods and is making very, very, little profit due to all of the fees it has to pay to the RIAA and the owners, etc.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
Apple does a nice job marketing. 25 million downloads is not alot of downloads at all. Kazaa gets that many downloads in a few days. The flaw with the Itunes model? No one knows how much money actually goes to artists. Its legal but most people using Kazaa don't give a shit about the law. So you have a situation where someone like me who currently boycotts the RIAA has no intention of ever supporting Itunes simply because Itunes hurts artists. Artists don't make a penny. Customers get robbed paying $1 for a low quality audio rip. You don't see that you are still paying the RIAA $1? I support Magnatunes, I supported Mp3.com, I even support Emusic. I'll never support Itunes, I will never pay for music on a per song basis unless at least 50% of my money goes to musicians. I will not pay $1 a song, songs should be priced by the market and not buy record execs. If you want to continue to pay content owners, go ahead and waste your money. If you want to save the music industry and help the artists and yourself Itunes is not the answer. Here are some alternatives Magnatunes Weed The Itunes business model will never be mainstream. When TV was invented, pay TV was not the mainstream and while cable did make money, most people had reguar TV.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
It will be interesting to see if Apple bows to any pressure to support devices other than iPod as the competition heats up.
Let me guess, you're one of those people who routinely blasts the media for their context-less use of figures as well.
I'd gladly have bought several songs from them if it was DRM-free. I want the freedom to use it on whatever device I want, with whatever software I choose.
"The Itunes business model will never be mainstream. When TV was invented, pay TV was not the mainstream and while cable did make money, most people had reguar TV." didnt you contradict yourself? most people have some sort of pay tv now. anthony
"Anonymous Coward" is a notorious troll
I'd support Itunes if it were its own industry, with its own music, like mp3.com. The problem with Itunes is it takes the flawed recording industry and extends their monopoly. This would be like steve jobs releasing a version of Microsoft Windows for the Mac, and expecting us all to use that. Its bullshit.
If I wanted to support the RIAA I'd buy buying CD's right now. Take a hint!
Support Itunes(RIAA)> but not the artists?
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
I bet the slashdot readership alone has stolen at least 25 billion songs.
I'd like to see this succeed as the next person but...
Apple is probably the largest seller of online music and 25 million doesn't sound like a lot compared to the billions that other formats like CD's make (sure they cost more to sell but the actual physical medium is worth a lot less then the $13+ amount they are sold for).
Note that I'm not discounting the ability of Apple to increase but this news story was not as amazing as the editorial seems to suggest. We all knew apple was doing well but so far $25 mil (25 million songs * 99cents) is not big in it self.
Hmmm... Pie...
Apparently you didn't get the memo...please complete the quote. Your paraphrase does not meet spec. Here's the template:
And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves."
For full compliance you could have written something like, "as a trusted slashdot poster, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground bargain music caves" or something funnier.
Oh, and all jokes must now use the new cover sheet...
When you purchase an Album from Itunes, where exactly does your money go? IF you don't know, why are you throwing money down the toilet? Afraid of getting arrested? Are you paying because you are a coward?
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
I suppose this is where I am expected to say something along the lines of, "I thought the recording industry said that this business model wouldn't work, that people won't pay for what they can download for free?" So, there you go.
Or you cold just post the damned stories without adding your 2 cents.
Then if you felt like saying something else you could, oh I dont know, POST A COMMENT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.
Heh, I'll post this as AC since the chances of it not being modded down are slim.
i think the point may not be that it's still only a fraction of what is traded "illegally," but that the growth rate of sales on ITMS is pretty darn good. kazaa didn't quite take off overnight either, but free trades will always outpace paid purchases if the products are the same.
perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees
Remove all RIAA music from the service so that its just Apple, independent labels, and artists. Apple can become an intrim music label, having artists sign up to them and even pay them a fee to put their music on Itunes. This would make Apple money. Then Apple can use their marketing powers to sell the artists music.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
...you can vote for your favorite and least-favorite Apple ads
Uh, favorite Apple ads? I hope you didn't mean favorite i-[insert product or service here] advertisements, because that would be an oxymoron.
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
But they cant start a record label until they ditch the RIAA labels. Once they ditch those labels yes they can do that. I'm sure the RIAA will sue them though like they sued Mp3.com out of existance.
The RIAA hated Mp3.com and hates competition. Mp3.com was actually very successful
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
Itune sales are just average. Mp3.com was doing a billion times better than Itunes but never put up articles every month staying how they were doing. Ah a million downloads. Ah 10 million downloads. Ah 25 million downloads. Thats marketing.
E-music is doing pretty good. Magnatunes is off to a strong start. Napster is actually doing fine also and catching up to Itunes. I expect Napster to surpass Itunes by far simply due to brand recognition.
The difference? Napster wont announce numbers until they are number 1, Apple will announce numbers even if they are in last place. Thats good marketing but its not real. It does not prove a business model is working. Apple has not made a profit at all off Itunes and is losing money on this. The RIAA is the only one profiting from this while Apple, Consumers, and Artists lose money.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
If ever this line got mainstream, things would be different. Very different.
Activism!
Regards,
jdif
Let's overcome our weakness.
The number of downloads cannot be compared. Kazaa lets anyone to download but ITunes is available only to US users :P
What's the big deal?
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
what is this doing to cd sales? is the RIAA going to bitch about cd sales being lower.
That model hasn't worked. They're hardly making anything off iTunes.
It's all of the iPods Apple is selling as a result that is what's making it work for them.
All of these newcomers to the market are really jumping in without a dependable profit model once again.
The P2P apps have come a long way since their inception but it is still a struggle for non-technical people to come to terms with centralised servers and clientids.
Apple has always enabled ordinary people to use computers. This does not mean that they "dumb down" the technology, rather they lower the learning curve to allow people to at least get on and and working before they need to start seriously learning.
iTunes provides that portal for easy access to online content and it allows people to pay for it. I am sure if Apple had a free peer-to-peer site, we would be talking bigger numbers. But the success of iTunes is part of the overall Apple strategy and design guidleines.
What amazes me is that Apple are not making any money from it and are using it simply to sell mp3 players. How much are the record companies raking in on this and yet still complaining about the death of the music industry?
Unfortunately what the industry will probably say is "Look using the RIAA to sue everyone because we don't know how to adjust our business model, has really paid off!"
"On Apple's iTunes site, Apple has announced that music fans have purchased and downloaded over 25 Million songs from the iTunes Music Store. It seems the launch of the ITMS on the Windows platform has boosted sales tremendously."
:-)
Jee, who could've known?
I wonder if it has anything to do with platform usage.
However, this isn't that much when cosdering the rather low price / song. It's actually quite few. I wonder if Apple is making some money on iTunes *alone* in the end or if it's a way for Apple to get some PR and/or sell iPods? As some have said, it's pocket change to a company like Apple, and unfortunately probably to the RIAA as well.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I keep hearing that this is only a small percent, and that it is insignifigant; but was it not said that a journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step? When I first started downloading music nobody heard of Napster or Kazaa, or even Gnutella, Scour Exchange, etc. but it caught on. And with 100 million free tunes from Pepsi coming up in under 2 months, this drop is going to become a waterfall.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't strike me as anything significant. I'm glad for iTunes trying to compete with the rest of the internet. But you cannot compete with FREE no matter how hard you try. Even in spite of this supposed "working business model" the RIAA hasn't let up on suing people, or being a pain in the ass.
I already posted this above, but it needs repeating.
Not all music labels are members of the RIAA. Just the big ones. Lots of great artists are signed with independent labels, many of those labels don't screw their artists, and many of those good independent labels are on iTunes.
Wondering whether your favorite band is RIAA-free or not? Click here...
Not only this, but only to users with credit cards or access to credit cards who are willing to pay for their music. Excluding the pre-teen and most of the teen market, which are those who I'm guessing make up at least half of the downloading market.
I like iTMS. It is pretty easy to find songs and get a copy. It is legal, which is nice, but there are things lacking. For one, I can not always find the song I want. Like if I hear a song I like on the radio and try to get a copy at iTMS. Well I might find a partial cd that does not have the song I am looking for. So it is back to p2p. Why would I buy some junk songs that I don't want? And anyone who even for a minute thought that having a legal way to obtain copyrighted material would stop p2p file sharing is severly mislead.
So yes there is a long ways to go, but just look at how far things have come.
KaZaA Lite Announces 250,000,000 songs downloaded since Apple's I-Tunes has been open for business.....
Also, Kazaa not only distributes music, but "warez" as well, i.e. games and applications
:-)
And porn. But porn was never a big among downloaders, right?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The success of ITMS is that it shows that Jobs understands two things the RIAA does not: microeconomics and marketing. Think about it: iTunes Music Service isn't competing with the PressPlay, Napster 2, Real, or any of the other turkeys who assumed that people would simply want to buy their unfriendly, ad-crippled, bloated services out of a sense of duty, or just because they were feeling guilty.
No, I believe Apple intended all along to compete with a different class of "competitor:" Kazaa, LimeWire, AIMster and the others. Apple, in essence, pretended it was competing in a commoditized market, by which I mean a market in which the price of goods are in free-fall (or in this case, actually free). How does one compete in a commoditized market? By differentiating the brand with things the other commodity players can't provide: quality ("CD-quality" tracks), convenience (reliable, near-instant downloads), ease-of-use (easy searching and browsing), and bundling (integration with iTunes). This is something the other (albeit "illegal") competitors cannot match.
Folks can -- and undoubtedly will -- argue until the cows come home about whether ITMS is simply perpetuating the RIAA's cartel. (I personally feel that the RIAA's destruction is as pre-ordained as the setting sun, but that's a thread for another discussion). But you have to give Jobs credit for outside-the-box thinking, and for a willingness to take on an unconventional class of competitor.
Note that "Apple also announced that over $1 million of iTunes online gift certificates and allowances have been purchased since the features were added to the iTunes Music Store on October 16, 2003."
that 25 millions bucks in the pockets of the riaa. Hopefully apple is building up good karma that will kick in later.
Where do you think the music industry is headed in the near future? How about the not-so-near future? And i'm not just talking about the labels, I mean technologically too. What other sorts of revolutions do people think might occur, similar to how Napster revolutionized the distribution system?
Discuss.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Is anyone else sick of hearing about every "mile stone" iTMS reaches in sales? I think it's fanastic, but this is getting to be too much. I think there's been stories about the five hundred thousand, one million, five million and fifteen million songs downloaded.
These little annoucements remind me of that sign that used to be under McDonalds "over 100 million served!" Apple must be pretty desperate to get iTunes going. Either way I can't wait for the 50 million download thread.
Slashdot comments can be accurate, highly modded, or posted quickly. Pick two.
Let's see. iTunes has been a hit on the Macintosh. Folks were clamoring for awhile to see it on Windows, too. Now that it's on Windows, even more folks are using it. So far, so good. 25 million songs (I'm probably responsible for around 40 of them) is a lot of songs, no doubt. But we tend to forget what Steve Jobs clearly says in light of all this hype:
The iTunes Music Store makes little if no profit. At all.
Why, pray tell, is this not a problem for Apple? Because Apple uses the iTMS as a Trojan Horse to sell more iPods. And they make a bundle on every iPod. Between the iTMS and iTunes for Windows, there's a lot more iPods being sold nowadays than there were when the iPod was just a Mac novelty (OK, a Windows version came out with the first refresh, but it was Firewire-only and used MusicMatch).
Sure, iTunes locks you into buying songs in AAC format. At least it's an open spec. Most of the Windows jukeboxes lock you into buying Windows Media songs, 'nuff said. And nobody of any significance offers downloadable unencumbered MP3 files. If you buy, you get DRM. Apple's is at least fairly transparent.
What iTMS does prove is that there is a demand for buying one-off songs and permanent downloads. It proves that the subscription model the publishers wanted to force down the buyers' throats was a stillborn idea. It also proves that most of the other music stores that are springing up right now are doomed - because unless there's a secret cabal lined up to screw Apple out of extra money, the only way any of these companies can compete is if they use their stores to help sell high-margin peripherals. Like their own MP3 players.
Now, if some other company comes up with a player that's a far better unit than the iPod, attaches it to a store, and manages to wrestle the lead from Apple, then Apple might have problems justifying staying in the music biz at zero profit. But this kind of thing is right up Steve's alley, and I doubt he'll let this lead slip away without a fight. You know, it wouldn't be the first time Dell walked away from a market with a bloody nose. It doesn't happen often, though.
Plus, as formats go, once you buy into a DRM format they've got you for good. Every iTunes for Windows user is one that'll probably never go to Windows Media.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
sorry
Life is offtopic.
It's only recently that the music selling model has moved away from single records and towards the concept of an album anyway, and many people complained about that.
I agree with you 100%, and I do not admire the original poster's "vigilance."
.WAV downloads, and no songs from any RIAA label.
Many of us have gotten selfish in the Internet age of "I want it now, I get it now" media rips and P2P downloads. I'm guessing the only software service the OP would tolerate would involve no DRM, uncompressed
Let me be the unfortunate one to break it to you, Slashdot users: it ain't going to happen. Apple, though I am not a big fan of them personally, has gone out on a limb to offer the kind of service geeks have been asking for from the beginning. The loss is minimal, the downloads are speedy, there's a decent selection, it's pay-per-song, burning is actually supported through the default software, and it's fairly easy to convert your songs into a non-DRM format using that last fact.
The only demand that iTunes hasn't really filled yet is its support of the RIAA. I'll give you all a hint: it would be business suicide to not have any RIAA bands available. I'll give you another hint: you do not have to buy from any RIAA label when you have the iTunes service, and there are more than just RIAA songs avaiable from it.
It seems to me what all of you armchair activists should be doing, instead of pulling meaningless rhetoric out of your collective ass, is trying to get bands off of RIAA labels. I haven't looked into it, but I'm pretty sure that a band without a label could get its music hosted on iTunes. If not, then how about a letter-writing campaign to Apple to find out exactly what that would take? The ball's on the artists' side of the court now, as far as I've seen.
Instead of thumbing your nose at the RIAA from an Internet message board and violating their copyright behind a veil of anonymity, how about writing a letter telling them exactly why you're violating their copyright and letting their judicial action do the talking for you?
Rosa Parks didn't jump into the front seat of a bus in the middle of the night and giggle quietly to herself, she made her transgression clearly visible. I know that the RIAA doesn't compare to racial oppression, but from the tone of some of these people, you'd think they were the new Nazi party.
Duh? When you support Emusic, you also support the RIAA. Also, do you know how much money goes to the artists with Emusic?
And Kazaa is even worse. Not a single penny ever goes to the artists. But with iTMS, the artists are being paid. And if you don't want to support the RIAA, then buy the music on the iTMS that's by independent artists/lables. There are thousands of them.
How the heck is this insightful? This is just a TROLL!
I am making the big prediction. Along with the Pepsi giveaway, music downloads are going to be paid for in large majority with things other than cash. You will get them with boxtops, bottle caps, affinity points (frequent flyer miles, credit card points, gas receipts, time share points, disney products etc....), rewards for school fundraisers, anything you can think of will become a replacement for direct cash payment. They will become the ultimate giveaway item. This will become important, because anything to overcome the friction of the credit card purchase on a sub-dollar item will be a major driver for the distribution sites.
This will have the side affect of creating an even larger hit based marketplace. Hits will generate the vast majority of downloads, and the most amount of money for the artists. The return of the single as the product of choice. For most artists and most songs this will generate very little money.
It will be very hard on the CD distribution system as more people get most of their music online. This will also have the side affect of making the used CD industry more difficult as there will be less content available. Which will probably be good for the music industry in the long run.
Legal music, free for the consumer, is going to be the most disruptive force in the industry.
Since when does an advertizment = an insightful post?! Lame Mods
I tried to get this as a story, but it will do as a comment...
The music industry is looking for additional ways to profit off the downloading scene...
As reported by the LA Times, Apple and Time Warner have started offering specially designed Lord of the Rings CD-Rs.
These limited edition blank CDs are specifically designed for users purchasing the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King soundtrackfrom Apple's iTunes Music Store.
What I am going to do is wait until they provide "pre-burned" CDR's like RedHat does... That would be cool.
Isn't it correct that Apple make next to nothing after their RIAA taxes, credit card processing fees and site fees?
I don't quite understanding what they're celebrating - the fact that they are showing that people *will* pay to download music, or the fact that they have probably sold a ton of iPods off the back of iTunes...
Either way, surely the logical next step here is for bands to sell the music themselves online? I'd feel a lot happier knowing that my money was going straight to the artist rather than a pigopoly, Apple might actually make a respectable profit per song rather than giving the majority of the cash to the RIAA, and it could possibly lead to better content - ie. Exclusive internet tracks. If I was Steve Jobs, step 2 of the music domination master plan would be to offer a system where Apple sell tunes on behalf of the artists, and just collect a tax per song.
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
You could build your own cassette tape. Songs ranged in price. An entire album worth of songs cost about $12-$15. The masters were encrypted CD's, so Tower employees couldn't bootleg them. Then again, CD burners cost $1000 back then. Personics died a quiet death. I don't know a single person who ever made a tape. I think they were a Redwood City company.
I pirate all my music, all my games, all my movies (is my IP addy being logged?) but when it comes down to it, there are those of us out there that don't buy stuff even if we can't get it free.
Take a video game for example. I go throuhg about 1 networkly playable game (for LAN parties) a week. Most of my freinds buy this game, and play it constantly for months (unreal 2k3 anyone?) but the life expectancy due to my fickleness lasts roughly about the length of my 10 hour lan party. i'd have to spend 45$ a week just for a game? no thanks, i'll go see a movie (and for that price buy popcorn).
I am not a CD consumer, if music is not free (pre-napster days) i sat in my room with no sound, or listen to the TV. I am too stingy to spend 15$ a cd so i can listen to one track.
So when the usage stats from Kazaa come up, just remeber that some of us out there wouldnt buy even if we coudlnt get it for free... the one thing this article promises me is that the people who feel the artists songs are worth it are paying for it. I don't know about you guys, but if i was grosing 25 million every 9 months I'd say things are going pretty well for me.
Essentially you made a good post there, it's just a shame it was wrapped up in all that flamebait...
...and the labels wonder why they're in so much trouble...
$12 for a 12 track CD that I can buy for about $8 at spun.com does seem a little pricey. ESPECIALLY when you consider that I have my "fair use" right violated by the DRM.
Essentially it boils down to:
$12 - Download tracks, can play them in a maximum of 3 different PCs
-vs-
$8 - Buy CD, get nice case and better quality sound, can play in as many CD players as I deem fit, and make a copy for fair use purposes that I can also play pretty much anywhere I want to.
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
dont forget that they will then be able to map your profile even better than with air miles. they can only guess about your mental state right now, but say they find you start downloading alot of cypress hill and eating alot of cheetoes.
there goes the grow op!
Actually, you can burn the tracks to CD as audio.
Then you can do what you want.
The 3 different PC restriction is actually for sharing via iTunes sharing.
This offers more than your CD store. It means that I'm finally able to download the 12 tracks I want to put on _my_ CD compilation without having to buy 5 CDs worth of music.
iTunes is currently having 1.5 million tracks downloaded from it's store each week. This # will rise even more right after the holidays due to everyone claiming their iTunes Music Store Gift Certificates. That doesn't even include all the iPods they have sold thus far. Most places like CompUSA are already out of stock of the 20-30GB iPods. So this to me is sign that iTunes Music sales will probably spike right after Christmas. Right now the big rumor about the 4th Gen iPods which are coming in Jan. will not just include the normal bigger storage compacity but a ePod line in the $100-200 range. Apple is already said next yr they will open a Japan, Australia, European, and Canada music store for next yr. I and alot of people think that some these stores will open in Jan. while the rest will open about 3-4 months down the road. This would cause very large influx of downloads per week. Also starting in Feb. Pepsi will be doing it's 100 million iTunes give away which will definitely make Apples overall #'s go up and up. Right now it's been rumored that Pepsi will also be giving away 600 iPods with Pepsi logo iSkins and each will be #'ed. I believe Apple will hit 100 million by Jan. and if the McDonalds promo iTunes deal goes through those #'s will just continue to increase. So no I don't see it slowing down. On a side note it's nice to see Winamp 5 guys went with AAC from Dolby. Which just goes to show the AAC std is catching on.
so it seems apple has done it again and got this business model to work...all based around, i think, the sexy ipod.
as far as i'm concerned, I would never buy music this way and think that itunes is more hype than anything : i think its a bad player. especially for mp3 cds.
the reason i would not buy music this way, and am against buying music in general, is that the artist sees very little of the money you cough up...some ridiculously small percentage. the way artist make their money is at concerts, touring, selling their own merchandise. Thats why i always go for the buy the thing from the artist directly if you can approach.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
the real reason behind itunes for windows being so popular is not anything to do with the quality of service, etc. When you try to download quicktime from apple.com it redirects you to a itunes download, not the quicktime download. The only want to get quicktime to download ATM is to download the whole thing (not using thier java/whatever download software).
Right now, iTMS is building marketshare and mindshare, and then I mean primarily by the total market (online music sales) increasing. They have a cash cow (iPod) that's already benefitting from it. Long term, they can start pushing for higher margins, since bands would *want* to get on iTMS, particularly smaller bands.
iTMS is kinda like where amazon.com was, building itself up. The difference is, iTMS is going at near zero and is feeding the iPod cashcow, amazon.com was burning VC money faster than lightning. iTunes is even a migration app - get people to use that, and there's one app less they'll miss if going to a Mac.
Overall, you should rather ask yourself if anybody else can make money on it without relying on stuff like the iPod - if not, iTMS can keep the prices so low they that competitors won't enter the market, and yet high enough to make a nice profit. Right now the competition is big, and so the prices are slashed as low as they can go. iTMS will keep it there until they've established themselves as *the* place to go for music online, or maybe *the* place overall.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
it's how apple keeps the competition down - apple makes the profit on the iPod.
How much profit is competitor X going to make on the X Music Store? Well, none off the songs, as that money goes mainly to the labels. So it has to come from the player. But as they are all WMA-based, you don't have to use XPod, you could use YDJ or ZMusicPlayer. So that's the entire business model for everyone except Apple screwed.
You might have heard that in some countries (Canada and Spain come to mind, I'm sure they're not the only ones) the big record labels have put a levy on blank media because of supposed losses over piracy. They no longer bitch about it because, want it or not, they're already getting your money without your knowledge.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
Are you new, or just really stupid? If you want real journalism, go read the fucking Associated Press, asshat.
or else it would be Pipedot.
i already downloaded 25 million today
It's interesting, I have a friend who works for one of the major music labels here in Australia, and very strongly advocates that the only real reason the label's are against the whole mp3/online thing is becuase it removes both revenue and the gross ability to influence the market from those major labels. It's difficult to setup a distribution chain, advertising and marketing model, instantly, to compete with the existing companies. However with the advent of the internet, competition is more likely, and that same competition could well be motivated to do a better job.
It's understandable....only time will tell if it happens, and that will be directly influenced by the attitudes of major artists towards record labels in securing contracts.
One can only presume that there will similarly be successful online mp3 sites, who have the ability to see musical ability in artists that identifies with the markets taste, and have power in the music industry. Will it be Sony/Universal/EMI/....or will it be the new tech startups......
In the mean time, the argument is still valid that many people will still copy mp3's when they haven't paid for them, even if they were 10c a song. Argument is also valid that whilst those people exist, they will usually put more effort into finding a way to crack protection than actually spending what should hopefully become, a fair price for music online.
Note to industry: bloody hell music is over priced!
I'm sorry if that offends you. I know I should just leave the car open, because anything else is simply assuming that all the people walking the streets are criminals.
I guess I'm just disrespectfull of my fellow man.
If they take this into acount alongside Singles sales, then this could affect the music charts.
Check out this discussion in slashdot, 1999 about custom CDs - some of the comments actually suggest creation of an online store and make the (dire) prediction that the RIAA would not like it, and that it would take an exceptional salesperson to talk to them about it.
Here's the article
Looks like the 'exceptional salesperson' was Steve Jobs. Wonder if anyone imagined back then that the RIAA would turn out to be so vindictive!
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
I think we all know what's happening here: the same computer users who put up with windows are content with the 30 second song previews.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
So she believes its too complicated to use iTMS so she'll continue to download music illegally because it works with her MP3 player?
Whatever.
Yeah, you've got a new switcher right here, and I followed exactly this chain. First got iTunes/Win, then got an iPod (nearly the same week) and quickly started looking at iBooks. This from someone who has been using PCs for 10+ years, and used to layer scorn on Macs :)
I'm very happy with my OSX now, and considering one of those shiny dual 1.8 G5s...
Kazaa does pay artists. Through Altnet.
You're elitism is just WAY out of place here. Maybe he or she is too poor to spare the $10. No shame in that. Many people who declare bankruptcy, for example, end up doing so because $10 here and $10 there never figured into their budgeting. If you can't pay, then do without. If you can't (or won't) do without, break copyright.
Take that silver spoon out of your mouth and recognize that some people don't, and will never, have the same kind of access you do. Your wealth, in this world, is rare. Don't scorn others for not having it, too.
It's worse than it looks. In the first two weeks Apple sold two million songs. It's been seven months and they've only sold 25 million? That's a million a week the first two weeks, and then only 23 million in the next 28 weeks. If current trends continue, we're looking at a significant dropoff of song downloads. The writing is on the wall, folks; Apple is dying!
Every day, the selection of music on iTunes expands in all kinds of directions. For me, I was elated a few months ago when it seemed every great jazz artist ever recorded was "suddenly" they appeared on iTunes--in volume. Try the iTunes Link Maker and run a search to see if your artists are there. Everybody has to make their own choices, but I personally have faith that Apple's clout (and excellent design) will continue to increase the diversity of musical offerings on iTunes.
Unlike the media, WierdoWood (Hollywood to those on the wacked-out coasts, and the recording industry, Americans have morals and will pay a fair price for a commodity.
But we tend to forget what Steve Jobs clearly says in light of all this hype:
Why, pray tell, is this not a problem for Apple? Because Apple uses the iTMS as a Trojan Horse to sell more iPods.
I only partially believe what Jobs has to say on the matter because he certainly is playing this up for effect (the effect of not alienating the free-downloads-or-die-and-kill-music-middlemen crowd). Once the infrastructure for iTMS is in place and paid for, every additional download HAS to be pure profit for Apple. There is no way that every single cent of the forty Apple makes on each and every download goes to administrating the label/artist payout once the infrastructure has been built and paid for.
Watching people uncritically repeat Jobs' statement that iTMS makes little or no profit reminds me of Ben Kenobi and the stormtroopers: "These are not the droids you're looking for," except here it's "iTMS makes no money for Apple. We are not an evil music disbtributor." If Apple is not making money off iTMS, they will be soon. At some point the hefty profit on iPod sales will be accompanied by a smaller profit on iTMS sales. The real question is how many iTunes downloads does it take to equal or beat the profit on an iPod sale.
blog
Once you've done that, drop a letter to the record company of the artist you want has signed with. Let them know you want them to distribute their music on iTunes. Apple is very good about getting new content, you just have to let them know what you want.
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
I think this shows the moral corruptability of the likes of the average music industry exec. Most people would prefer to be on the right side of the law given the chance and the law being reasonable, ie not too costly. Music exec's however assume that this is not true because they think that everyone else is like them, ie morally corrupt enough to rob people blind.
Dear sir:
STFU.
You're welcome!
"Quality"
No. 128kb/s isn't that good. Maybe when you listen on crappy earbuds or on a Mac speaker its fine. But if you really care about sonic quality, you'd be horrified by what Apple (and everybody else) is selling.
"You can be sure that the song you just downloaded doesn't go like "What the f*ck do you think you're doing!"
Hitsquad is irrelevant. There are places to get high quality (i.e. CD quality, not the crappy stuff apple and others sell) music for free. I won't tell you, because I never clue in the clueless.
"Peace of mind"
You're too silly.
"Moral Satisfaction "
Now you're stupid. I feel cheated when I pay for music. At least if I paid $1/song for DRM crippled, low-quality music.
But hey, you're getting dog shit on a plate and thanking Apple for it. Knock yourself out. I'm just laughing at you for being so dumb.
Because you're being dumb.
I don't use file sharing, but you do understand that while you download, it runs in the background *and you can do other stuff*.
Or maybe you're still using Mac OS 9, and don't have that ability?
However, for most people, it isn't taking "four hours of their life".
So, paying $1/song for DRM crippled low-quality (128kb) songs is just dumb. But I've learned the world is made up of primarily dumb people. Congratulations for crossing over to the other side.
> Hi Adolph
Godwin's law invoked. You lose!
"Do you seriously think the music companies would agree on letting a company distribute non-DRM'ed music?"
YES YES YES YES.
They're called "CDs".
Maybe you've heard of them? Or are you choosing to be dense?
"I'd rather spend $9.99 than an hour and a half of my time."
I'd rather do neither.
$10 (its so cute how you buy into the "it's not $10, its 9.99!") for DRM music that is equivalent to good FM radio (128kb lossy encoding).
But I've found that most people are dumb. I know politicians say "most americans are smart!", no, they're not. They're dumb. And as far as I'm concerned, you epitomize that concept.
Will FM radio tabulate what songs are being downloaded to help determine what songs people want to hear instead of playing what the record labels tell them to? I'm curious to know if people are downloading the same songs that are being foisted on us by FM radio. Last summer I was ready to take an ice pick to my ears after hearing Kid Rock's and Sheryl Crow's crappy, sucky ballad "The Picture" ten times a day.
How do 'they' know what music you downloaded illegally and what music you downloaded legally.
Say you take a nice sized collection of music from a friend and later on you download some music legaly from the program you are paying per song for. Now something happens that causes the authorities to search your computer and they see the nice collection of mp3's. How do they know you did not acquire the songs in a differnt, but legal, way
"CD is also a form of DRM"
Why? Because you have to put it in a player to use? By your definition, a Vinyl LP is DRM. you are s-t-u-p-i-d.
"as well as a type of compression"
Digitizing is not compression. Digitizing is not DRM.
Honestly, you're trolling or stupid. I hope you're trolling.
"Best Buy isn't making anything off DVD sales (which may be true considering how much they discount)"
BestBuy is about the most expensive place to buy DVD's. The Indiana Jones trilogy is $60. Its $42-25 everywhere else.
Do you people actually shop around, or do you see 'Best Buy' and assume they're telling the truth?
"I love it when people forget we're talking about AAC, not MP3"
I love it more when people say this and think that any compression scheme at 128kb is CD quality. Its not. You only think it is because you listen to music on your PC speakers and can't tell the difference.
That's the truth. The only people who agree with you are computer journalist, and they *SURPRISE* all listen on PC speakers.
Do you realize how silly you sound when you claim AAC has "magic" in it? Every independant test shows there are no clear winners at these low bit rates.
Here's the most important point... the comparison isn't between MP3 and AAC, but between AAC and the CD. AAC loses *BADLY* in this comparison. Again, because you're listening on the crappy ear buds that come with your player or the crappy speakes with your PC.
Two points I have not seen here: 1. There is still no "business model" for making money off iTunes! These very pages reported Steve Job's lament that iTunes is basically a loss-leader to sell iPods and iMacs. So before you people go crying about the collusion and hegemony, realize that you're in the same boat as even the people who run the shop. 2. Yeah, there were 25 million iTunes downloaded over the past three months. But how long did it take for that many songs to be traded on Kazaa? Like 20 minutes? Is anyone (besides me) paying attention to the little Gb meter on the bottom that shows you how much data is available? Something like 4 petabytes! Wake up, everyone--there's still a huge amount of filesharing going on. The king is dead, long live the king.
You can still make the argument that the business model doesn't work. After all, iTMS is easily the most successful of the online music stores, and it only manages to break even. Sales from the store are viewed by the company largely as a means of driving sales of iPods.
Until someone starts, as the kids say these days, "making the mad skrilla," by selling music, the assertion that the business model is really working has to be taken with a grain of salt: when only the best in the business can break even, the business model needs a serious look.
(Why I like iTMS: when my wife told me she wanted me to buy her a Christina Aguilara song, I didn't have to do the walk-of-shame at the record store, or buy a whole album of her stuff. Bought it, burned it, shuddered and tried to suppress the memory.)
It's a fallicy to think that those people would have spent 2.5 billion dollars buying music if it was impossible to copy it. That is where the recording industry needs to get a clue. Supposing there was some magical system that made it impossible to copy any music at all, sales wouldn't change much. People will onyl spend so much on entertainment, and these days there are lots of competing forms of entertainment.
That doesn't mean there isn't a significant market for legit online music.
Exactly! All these people whining about open formats need to understand that there never was a truly open format nor will there ever be an open format.
Sure you can burn CDs to your heart's content with iTMS, but that still doesn't change the fact that the master that you paid for is defective.
Have fun paying more for an inferior product just for a small bit of convenience.
Just hope that this crappy business venture doesn't replace the current system where we pay $8-$13 for real high quality CDs (buy USED!). Because then everyone loses.
Sure the current traditional system is broken and unfair, but it's more fair than this bullshit.
"Apple Announces 25 Million Song Downloads......" i hate this news,iTunes Music Store? sounds like so dominate....
Usually I hear a song on the radio that I like and then obtain a copy of the album for myself. I don't have the time or the inclination to scour pbscure message boards to find bands that are just too good to be popular.
There's a reason most of that music can't get distributed. It's crap.
PS correcting people's spelling in a non grammar/spelling related thread is just childish.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If so, then you disprove your own thesis because if ITMS is successful by "differentiating the brand with things the other commodity players can't provide: quality, convenience, and bundling", then one of the key assumptions about perfect competition is failing. In perfect competition, all firms within an industry have indistinguishable products and compete solely on the basis of price.
I suppose you could argue that ITMS is essentially creating a new industry, but it seems to me that the only determinent of price is what Steve Jobs sets the price at. If price is set entirely by the producer and not by the negotiation of producers and consumers through the open market, then neoclassical economics is fundamentally disproved.
OK, I just read about my fifth article about how Apple revolutionized the world by offering music downloads for $0.99 a track, and I can't figure out why this is getting by. When iTunes started doing this, I was a Pressplay member, and they were selling tracks for $0.99 and advertising it all over. You even got a discount for buying at a higher volume. Real's music service was advertising the same thing all over the place. So how does the press not at least mention this in passing? They continue to write articles that imply that even now iTunes is the only service doing this. And Jobs is playing into the claim, talking about how they offer so much better a service by selling tracks individually, and you have to know he knows that they weren't the first. Last night I bought a few tracks off Napster2(rebranded Pressplay) that I never saw myself getting on CD and it worked out pretty well. They have a much larger catalog of songs than Apple, although I can't vouch for the "quality" of the selection, except to say that they have many things that I'd buy. But they will probably go out of business because the media continues to assert that they aren't really in business.
</previously written rant>
I suppose this is where I am expected to say something along the lines of, "I thought the recording industry said that this business model wouldn't work, that people won't pay for what they can download for free?"
And you would be assuming that the people who are paying for iTunes songs are people who would otherwise have downloaded the songs for free. I've seen no evidence that shows this. For all we know, the people buying iTunes songs are completely the same group of people who would also buy the CDs. Personally, I doubt that iTunes has had much of an impact at all on pirated music. Those who download for free already have no problem with downloading music for free, so why would they change and start paying?
Also, don't forget that iTunes is not supposed to make money in and of itself. It's meant to sell iPods. Jobs has already stated many times that iTunes is not supposed to (and won't) make money, at least for Apple.
Why is the press and everyone so impressed with 25 million? They have had months to do this, and take this into account. 25 million songs/average of 12 songs per album is a little over 2 million albums. Considering the tremendous amount of money they have put into itunes, including print advertising, development costs, transaction costs with the record companies, this isn't really that good.
In comparison, I'm very curious as to how many records a typical tower records, virgin megastore, or best buy sells.
THis is not to say that itunes music store won't work, but that all this hoopla over its success is merely hype. Just because it has done well does not mean that music sales through the internet have been accepted by the public.
So,can anyone tell me how I am going to get my downloaded MP3's or iTunes or whatever... to play on my favorite medium:
;-)
My record player?
Given how popular iTunes is, at this point in time if you were an artist looking to sign a deal it seems like it would be very smart to look for the label that gave you the best deal for songs distributed online - which would be independant labels. If good artists make this choice, then fewer people will buy RIAA stuff - and that's how they will finally fall, if at all. It's all about an artist going for a more limited sucess in music but possibly ending up a lot better because the cut is better, so they could make more money on fewer sales.
In short, it all comes down to how logical musicians are and will be... or how many major sucesses from independant labels will draw others that way.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He didn't correct your spelling. He merely pointed out that when he quoted you, the misspellings were yours, not his.
fs
A friend of mine gave me a mix tape many years ago. Sadly, I lost the actual tape but still have the case. Not only is it some beautiful artwork, but she was kind enough to include a track list. With iTMS, I've finally been able to reacquire that lost tape (save one or two tracks) and download them with little fuss. I tried a couple of times using P2P, but it took too damn long to find shit so I gave up. ...hell. I sound like a freakin' commercial. Well, that's my 2
fs
Hey moron,
The ----face he was responding to was an a--hole who saw it fit to give himself the Slashdot handle "Adolph_Hitler." So take your self-congratulatory comment and go home.
Ok, been reading throught this, and I believe most of you miss out on one thing when yo say that ITMS is good enough, and that the DRM is not in the way.
/Hans Gunnarsson
Here's my take on it:
I want to use mp3. Exclusively. Well, some records I may want to burn to a CD to listen to in the car, but otherwise I want mp3. Why? Because all my electronic thingies at home, work and portable can read and play mp3. Some can play AAC, some can play WMA, but all can play mp3.
So, I want an easy way to purchase (yes, purchase, as in pay for) mp3's via the web. Then I can use them on my computer, on my slimp3-player, in my other car that can play mp3-s, when I'm outside etc.
I don't want the hassle of buying AAC, burning a CD, ripping it to mp3 and then using it everywhere...
You see? I want an easy way to buy mp3's.
Apples iTMS is not it.
I might be totally alone in this, but I think not...
Then you might say, but then the kiddies will be able to share them on Kazaa. Newsflash, they can already, and nothing's gonna change that. Kazaa will never be as easy and moral as a pay-for-download-mp3-service anyway.
So, i want my (i want my...) mp3.
I don't have one
I wish Slashdot would stop setting up the recording industry with these straw men arguments. I don't think the recording industry ever thought (or said) that it would never sell mp3s online. It said that it was unrealistic to sell mp3s online if they could be easily pirated by anyone the next day. And you know what? They were right.
My interest in using iTMS is very high now - the only reason I don't use any of the online music stores is because I don't want to be locked into one store/one mp3 player (software)/one mp3 player (hardware). But once a standard is defined, I'll be there to buy.
But I wouldn't use iTMS, or any music store, if the old Napster were still around, or if Kazaa were any good for finding the music I am interested in. Back when Napster was king, I could find any song I wanted for free. As a result, I didn't buy a CD for a couple years (file sharing over the college network helped too). Now Napster is gone, and Kazaa has a ton of phony files that have made it a hassle to use. As a result, I'm willing to pay so that I don't have to waste a lot of time finding the free version on Kazaa - since time, after all, is money.
My friends who can still find what they want on Kazaa have no interest in using music stores. Those who can't, do.
I'm not saying it's all or nothing. There are some users who always would have paid for their music, and some who never will. But there are also a HUGE number of users - and they're not just computer geeks, remember Newsweek had a cover story on Napster - who will pirate the music if it's easy, and pay for it it's hard to pirate.
It used to be really, really freaking easy to pirate music. Let's stop pretending that the music industry was saying that it would never sell mp3s online. It was saying it wouldn't sell mp3s online as long as doing so just made it incredibly easy to pirate them.
My rent is damn cheap (roommate) and that alone costs me roughly $13.25 a day.
I live in a nice comfortable apartment, drive a nice car, eat well, and don't even spend $10 a day to do it
By 'nice,' do you corrugated?
fs
The all-time best example of failed Apple predictions is of course this one:
"Folks, the Mac platform is through..." - John C. Dvorak, 1998
Then there's this recent gem:
"Stick a fork in 'em -- this Apple is cooked." Robert Thomson, Financial Post, 2/20/03
But my current favorite is this example of damning with faint praise:
"While praising Apple's service, analysts caution that its success won't necessarily transfer completely to the Windows environment. " - John Borland, c|net news, 7/28/03
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Consider how many CD's have been sold in the same time period, and of course you'll see that iTunes is less than a drop in the bucket. Do you really think the recording industry would be satisfied making only 25 million dollars (25 million songs at 99 cents) a year?
I don't really think this proves anything.
What about something that faked iTMS into thinking it was burning to a virtual burner, and then that program took all the raw data it just grabbed from iTMS and made mp3 files out of them?
Would be an interested idea, at least.
Does anybody have an information as to when iTMS will be available in Canada? I would love to pay for the songs that I like, especially at $1, but right now your billing address must be in the USA. Myabe some American Slashdotter would like to pay for the songs I download? Taco?
I have several questions. With music downloads becoming the predominant method of getting music these days, why invest so much money in 24 Bit 96 KHz music production? Or even 16 Bit 44.1 KHz for that matter?
The problem is compression. We are now sacrificing music quality for quantity. Can I download the real 16 Bit PCM tracks from ITunes? No? Then why does Pat Metheny need to think about recording the next album with pro gear? Who cares about all those quiet subtleties and nuances if the compression just throws them out?
What I'm saying is that yea, I'm paying less for music these days with ITunes and the like, but I'm also getting less quality that before. Many people don't take that into account. So while we enjoy the grand number of titles available to us, the corporates are quietly creating a class system to the music we enjoy.
It started with 45s vs. LPs. Then cassettes vs. CDs. Now it's 1 dollar downloads for singles, $12.99 for real CD's, or $20 for 24 Bit SACDs.
My point is that the quality of the music is less, but the price we pay for the real thing hasn't changed like we originally wanted it to. So we've quietly made a subconsious sacrifice that we are somehow getting what we wanted all along. I say no, this is wrong. What I wanted in reality was a cheaper CD or SACD, not some cheap knock-off that stands in their place.
The music industry is more than happy to sell you cheap quality music so that you'll eventually go out an buy the real thing...FOR THE SAME OLD PRICES! How have we ended up doing better?
Let me download the real 16 Bit PCM tracks from ITunes and I might change my tune. Until then, stop all this glorifying the download services. They all suck.
Just my opinion.
+1
Ho hum... this is tail wagging dog news.
$25M is bottomfishing in the music business. Current quality doesn't scale. The real battlefield to be shaped is by archival grade music sources. $1 everytime you want to listen to your fav tune easily grates when scaled up to speakers.
Jobs will milk ITMS until it stops selling his hardware. Apple will not deliver technology that doesn't first require a rent payable to Apple.
it's the sound of a joke flying right over your head.
"Calling someone a moron is probably not the best way to get a dialogue..."
Perhaps.
But when somebody claims the act of digitizing something is DRM.
When someone claims that the act of putting music on a plastic platter is DRM "because you need a CD player to listen to it" is *moronic*.
Now, I could write a whole parargraph making it sound nicer, but I'm doing this guy a favor just telling him straight up that he's a moron. He should thank me.
through your router
Musicdonkey
about 100 or so albums.
I agree, I had know idea how much I liked electronic / techno music until mp3.com launched. I also found this band Paris by Air that has a great 80's sound. It would be great to see somebody launch an all indie iTunes software.
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
" ...and the labels wonder why they're in so much trouble..."
Its no use...Apple is selling FM+ grade music for $1/song (that is in a proprietary, DRM'd format), and people think they're getting digital nirvana. Meanwhile, if you plan ahead 3 days, you can get pretty much any CD for about $7, and it sounds far superior.
The human *race* is in trouble
Radio stations attract listeners and advertising partly by giving away product. Much of the product the station I listen to gives away is free CDs, and merchandise sponsored at least in part by labels. I don't know if a quid-pro-quo exists between radio play of certain songs/bands and freebies to the station from their label, but it would not suprise me. It seems a lot like payola, except instead of DJs getting cash to play songs, the station gets gear and appearances for doing so.
This also would factor in to the reduction of distribution channels - few radio stations and big labels competiting with money for airplay leaves little role on commercial stations for independents. This sets up a feedback loop - it's hard to get airplay unless you get signed to a major label that has the money to get it for you. Thus only bands acceptable to the studios have the marketing muscle to get on the air - the population on the radio (and this listening population as well) evolves towards what the labels put out and push actively. While the monopoly of radio ownership is a major factor, it is a useful tool in the hands of the RIAA component labels to control their supply chain (compel usury^H^H^H^H^Hcompetitive artist contracts, get airplay for the most profitable bands, sell their albums),
Originally, it was a limitation of the recording medium. You could fit 4 minutes (or so) one on side of a record.
Maybe the UK is quite different, but I know Pink Floyd, The Beatles, The Who, The Rolling Stones, etc all did full concept albums in the 60s and 70s.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Briliant analysis, barfy.
I have always felt that the large consumer bands (e.g. Coke, McDonalds, Marlboro ) would replace the labels (Universal, Warner, etc) as the incubators for large-scale pop acts. Think of the sales for Proctor & Gamble if every time your Mom or Aunt saw a box of Tide they thought of Andrew Bocelli or George Strait.
But I had missed that using the boxtops and bottle caps completely circumvents the micropayment-over-credit card payment issue. Once a month, Apple will send an email to, say, General Mills, and General Mills cuts one check. Same cost if the promotion moved 10 songs or 10 million. (ok, there's some auditing involved, but you get the picture) So apple can sell this promotion to the consumer products folks for about 70 cents/track for any Big Label act-- the same as a good coupon-- and a lot less for acts that have cut a deal with the consumer product company.
iTunes credits on Box tops. Brilliant. My daughters would *kill* for this.
Legal music, free for the consumer, is going to be the most disruptive force in the industry
yep. The new corporate masters (for a changing of the guard is what is at issue here) are going to cause a nifty, subtle shift. Their business model does not rely solely on screwing the artist -- they're making their main money on the associated consumer product. However, the artists will be under even greater pressute to stay "on message." If you're selling to 12 year old girls, then any whiff of sex scandal will be dealt with "directly" by your corporate overlord. If you're selling to 17 year old boys, then a sex scandal will probably be a contract requirment.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
Call me simple and old fashioned, but if the music sounds good, that is actually quite enough for me.
When you converting WAV -> AAC -> WAV -> MP3/OGG...
The iTunes AAC tracks are not ripped from the CD versions, but produced from the same master recordings as the CDs. This removes a step from your assumed chain, and makes it at least theoretically possible that the AAC track is better than the CD version.
Where does the "much" come from? A lossy compression may lose 0.01% of the quality. Even if it's done in 5 steps, you still will have 99.95% left.
To get back to the original point, since you can easily burn a CD from your iTunes tracks, logic dictates that you can use them in any way you can use CD tracks.
It's not my site, but I would just force you to make the price selection (make the default blank). Now I'd put the price list from highest to lowest.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Apple does a nice job marketing.
Wow, never thought I'd ever hear anyone say that.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
First starting point: join Click The Vote. Flash mobs is a great idea. 2004 is an election year in the USA. This is going to be fun. :)
iTunes actually did have stuff by Radiohead. Unfortunately their label had worked out a deal with them where they weren't allowed to distribute their music that way. Hopefully they'll work out their problems soon.
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
So you agree 128kb compression (AAC or MP3 or XYZ) is not the equal of CD's.
.FLAC and .APE. This gets you 50% compression and can be turned into lossless .WAV files for compression to lossy formats. I won't tell you where to get them because I'm amused by your paying $1/song for quality that is somewhat better than FM radio. Nice.
You understand that CD's can be had for under $10 (www.bmgmusic.com or www.spunmusic.com to name two), and that the wait to get this music is probably under 5 days. With full sonic quality, and liner notes. Something tangible that isn't limited to iPod, Windows. Its just pure digitized music.
You seem to understand that when you pay $10/album for 128kb iTunes music you're getting significantly *less* than you would had you purchased the CD.
But yet you defend it. You start throwing out nonsense about how 128kb AAC is better than 192kb (which is not substantiated in any blind test) which is *irrelevant*. The question is not AAC versus MP3. Its AAC versus CD. Its not CD versus vinyl Its AAC versus CD.
AAC loses, and that loss would be acceptable if it were cheaper. But its not.
So you pay more for inferior quality simply to save 5 days of time. Its inferior in terms of packaging, sonic quality, cross platform ability, and ability to be resold when you get tired of it.
And your response to your choosing poorly is to call me an "asshole". Nice.
As to lossless formats, check out
But if you insist on using MP3, then use 224 VBR, high quality. That will crush the crap on iTunes, and will only be slightly larger.
Some of us actually understand what we're talking about, have tried the alternatives, and understand when its appropriate to make compromises on sonic quality, and what the worth of these compromised songs are.
You just see "Apple" "iTunes", and think you've got magic in a digital bottle. You're no better than a caveman who sees fire and starts to worship.
Heck, you might even be a nice guy, but you don't know a thing about music or value.
it offers many albums from independent labels and even individual downloads DRM free and in both 192 variable mp3 and i believe level 6 variable ogg formats...it's freaking great and it's causing me to go broke
But really:
Who pays for iTunes
Who still gets their music via Limewire,etc.
Does iTunes really provide a service for everyone or
just well off people who can afford Apple products?
The real interesting thing would be who can afford
iTunes, iPods, Macs, etc and still
downloads via peer-to-peer anyway?
Is there a fine line between the effort of getting
your music vs economics?
This is ./ and Apple we are talking about so ;)
maybe I should assume salaries are $n/year where
n is any gargantuan number
Yup, now all those people who were claiming that P2P changes everything and nobody's going to pay for something they can download for free, that the music companies should just give it away and then ask for an (optional) contribution, that they might as well just admit defeat, all those people who had it all so utterly, utterly wrong, will now be saying things like,
I suppose this is where I am expected to say something along the lines of, "I thought the recording industry said that this business model wouldn't work, that people won't pay for what they can download for free?" So, there you go.
Yes, very nice, but, no, it was actually the P2P advocates (i.e., slashdot in every P2P story, every week, uncritically and with no evidence, making endless ludicrous claims) who were saying this, the recording industry was just reacting to it.
While this is certainly a great thing, for some reason iTunes is having a lot of difficulty getting completely independent musicians (musicians without a label). I sell cd's on CDbaby.com, a big site for indie music, and while Apple and CDbaby have been negotiating since this summer, and with no disagreements on rates, this process is pretty much stuck. I have no idea why this is taking so long... or maybe this is fast for the music biz and I need to be more patient.
Suppose there was a competitor that didn't give us the garbage x.99 cent "marketing price". In fact, the fee paid was variable! So the extra amount is equivalent to a tip.
.99 as Apple's minimum price. Want to tip the artists, fine, just send them some cash in the mail. I'm sure they are not going to turn it down. There is nothing stopping you.
Look, even Magnatune has a minimum price. So, just think of
As another poster pointed out, the average price paid is only slightly higher that the suggested price. At this point, you have to analyze Magnatunes customers. As a relatively small and niche site, they are probably only visited by people interested in DRM issues or people who are fans of the band and want to support them. This audience is likely to pay a little more to support their favorite artists.
Now, if every major, and non-major, band went to a system like this and promoted it to the general public, you'd have a better analysis of how the system would work. My guess is, the people paying the minimum would go up considerably, and the average paid would go down.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
I agree with the points made about CD's, but you're putting words in my mouth with the following:
CD's can be had for under $10
This is my biggest bitch with CD's. Go into a B&M store, the CD's I want are over $20 or have to be specially ordered. This is when the 'Top 40' crap they want off the shelves is being sold for around $10.
Ordering from an online store gives me none of the instant satisfaction that it should (shipping being what it is). And this is on the off chance that the CD I want is available from an online store for cheaper.
You talk about 50% compression like it's a miracle. News flash, the general public isn't interested in waiting for 350 megs of data. Math time! 350,000,000 B * 1 second / 50,000 B * 1 minute / 60 seconds ~= 117 minutes. For one CD, at 50KB/sec (not fast broadband, but not slow).
You'll note that I was very careful to use the term 'lossy' whenever possible in the original post. Lossy is the key if you ever think this music-over-internet thing will ever happen. If you think that lossy music compression won't catch on, I'd hate to think how you would have reacted to JPEG..
As for 'Some of us understand...', a lot of us also understand that we have the ability to download digital data at high speeds, and maybe, just maybe, we want music from that. You can act holier-than-thou about it all you want, but people want music. iTMS has 25M sales, meaning a lot of people aren't half as pedantic as you.
Oh, and the last comment.. you don't know a thing about music or value Value and music are subject to taste and personal opinion. Surely you realize this.
No thank you. Unless you missed school on the day where they taught it, it's the providors responsibility to get the content that the consumers want. If they don't, it's their loss.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
$121M in quarterly revenue is real money. A fairly small percentage of Apple's total revenue, sure, but certainly enough to make it worth their while. And if some of those new iPod owners are converted to Mac owners, so much the better.
And that's all data from before the Windows version of iTunes was released. Given that about half of all iPod sales were for Windows before the store was opened, this should provide another huge jump in iPod sales.
So on the contrary, I'd say that Apple's model is the only one that will work. They can happily break even on the store and make money on iPods and Macs. If Napster et al have about the same pricing and about the same expenses, they'll also more or less break even, and get nothing for their trouble.
I thought the recording industry said that this business model wouldn't work...
Define what you mean by works. In the RIAA's eyes, what is success? A normal person would say "end piracy", something which this only stems the tide of a bit, and a pessimist/slashdotter might say "Give RIAA and members buckets of money", which again this doesn't.
Actually, commercial viability is also questionable. Is iTunes profitable, in and of itself? Or is it propped up by iPod sales and Apple? Are Napster or Musicmatch doing well from their stores?
Really, I'd like to see statistics comparing song downloads to song purchases since the iTunes for Windows release.
Why would I tip when I'm paying an idiotic "marketing pricing" x.99 for information? Will tipping make the information freely sharable? Why should I tip anyone who is far too cynical to ask for tips? The donator should not be the one to go out of the way.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
If you wont cry for artists. Why buy music at all?
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
You seem to be saying "I care about my music, not the fidelity", which is fine. But please stop spouting nonsense about how "AAC is magical and sounds better because Apple has magic pixie dust".
And please please stop telling us that $1/song for medium fidelity is a great deal when high fidelity is available for the same price.
Why would I tip when I'm paying an idiotic "marketing pricing" x.99 for information?
The retail store determines what they will sell the CDs for. The artist has little to no say. Sounds right to give the artist the finger on that one. (Note the sarcasm.)
Will tipping make the information freely sharable?
I would bet 99% of the artists on Magnatune hold copyrights on the songs that are there. Thus, the information is not "freely sharable" as you say. They are distributed without DRM, but that is a different point altogether.
Why should I tip anyone who is far too cynical to ask for tips?
Tips are tips. No one asks for them, otherwise they wouldn't be tips. You deciding to send a tip to the artist does not imply they asked for it.
The donator should not be the one to go out of the way.
Fine. If the artist put up a paypal link or some web-based form, and let you donate that way, would that be easier. Would you donate after buying a CD, or a used CD even? Some artists offer up a couple of MP3s per album. Would you tip them a couple bucks for them if it were easy.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
And even though nobody will read this, going on the record that I beat this story by 5 days...