Slashdot Mirror
iTMS Europe: 800,000 Tracks In A Week
no_demons writes "In a press release, Apple has announced that the "European" iTunes Music Store has sold 0.8 million tracks in a week, with around 450,000 being sold in the UK alone. According to Steve Jobs other services were shifting only 50,000 tracks a week in Europe before the launch."
not yet up to the 2.5 million a week from the US. Of course, this is the first week and demand ramps up as people sign up and get the tech down pat.
This is good news for Apple (obviously) but what will be more interesting is how this affects iPod sales. We all know the iTunes Music store is a pimp for the iPod, so now that we have a controlled environment that we can monitor closely, I guess we can prove if Apple's music model really works the way they planned.
What this proves is that Apple is becoming less a computer vendor and more a consumer electronics company. Sure, they still sell computers (I have a 12" PB), but their new focus is becoming clear. The surging price of AAPL only reinforces this new direction.
Lack of competition is not necessarily a good thing. I'm glad that the model of physical-medialess music is taking off, but I'm concerned about how much power Apple/iTunes may end up having in the future if they absolutely dominate the market. Will it be any better than the record industry now? (and don't kid yourself, there may be several "major" labels, but through the RIAA they act as one).
Look at a correlary in the "real world". What if the only place to get music was at your local Best Buy and that just about every other outlet sold orders of magnitude less.
Let's just be careful what we wish for...
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Guess it didn't really matter that Napster beat Apple to launch there.
I wonder if the RIAA's listening?
Something I genuinely heard on the UK BBC evening news a few weeks back (I don't remember exactly, but this is the idea):
"iTunes, which allows people to legally purchase music online and put it onto CDs or the iPod, has been welcomed by many artists. Some, however, are reluctant to make single tracks available since they fear it will hurt album sales"
WTF???!?!?!?11
It would appear that whoever these artists are they just admitted that their albums aren't good enough to buy as a whole and they are just carried by one or two songs. They don't want people to buy these single songs because then they wouldn't pay for the filler. That's their best argument against legal downloads?
Disclaimer: I do realise there are legitimate reasons not to put music in the ITMS, but I'd think that whoever issued that as a statement probably doesn't really get the idea of letting the consumer decide...
This is a valid argument as long as they force radio stations to play the entire album instead of a single track.
The easy way (in a boneheaded twist) would be to just publish the album as a single track. It's already random access, after all.
Maybe just because iTMS matches users needs? It's not just because it's Apple, otherwise the world would be 80% Mac.
iTMS is (as are all Apple products) extremely well designed and they managed to produce exactly what people were waiting for. The complete chain (iTMS iTunes iPod) is perfectly integrated and even my mother can use it.
It would appear that whoever these artists are they just admitted that their albums aren't good enough to buy as a whole and they are just carried by one or two songs.
I don't think that's necessarily what they're saying.
Let's say we're talking about popular music, music that gets radio play. Maybe two or three songs on an album do well on the radio. Now, does that necessarily mean the other songs on the album are bad? No, it just means they're not radio material. Maybe they're too long, or too quiet, or whatever.
When music is available a la carte, people can go out and buy just the track they heard on the radio. But in doing so, they might miss out on some other really good music.
This has happened to me many time. I've bought an album because I wanted this track or that one, and in the end some of the other tracks became my favorites.
(Of course, some albums just aren't that great. But I don't think that's universally true. For every album you can name that's got one hit song on it, somebody else can name one that's solid all the way through.)
iTunes gets around this by giving you nice, long, high-quality previews of every available track. So when I saw the Garden State trailer and I wanted to get the song used in it, I listened to 30-second slices of the other songs from the album and discovered that they were all pretty darned good. So I bought the whole album.
See? It works both ways.
I write in my journal
It's like the people who bitch about authorities going to the expense of building bicycle lanes because "I never see a bike using that lane when I drive past every morning."
Anecdotes do not trump statistics.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
You're making no sense. You're trying to posit something along the lines of "Apple stores "haven't come to the US" unless they're in all 50 states". The moment Apple opens a store in Florida, they're in the US. It's really that simple.
France, UK, and Germany are all in Europe. Ergo, iTunes has come to Europe. Perhaps not _all_ of Europe, but they didn't say that, either.
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Face facts. People who buy *can't* meaningfully tell that it is 128kbps, or don't care.
If they did, it wouldn't sell. It does sell; therefore the price and convenience outweight the quality and sound.
GPL Deconstructed