Slashdot Mirror
Apple Holding Back the Music Business?
conq writes "With average weekly download as of Nov. 27 sales down 0.44% vs. the third quart, BusinessWeek speculates that Apple might in fact be holding back the music industry." From the article: "As has been true since the start, iPod owners mostly fill up their players from their own CD collections or swipe tunes from file-sharing sites. Now legal downloads may be losing their luster. According to Nielsen SoundScan, average weekly download sales as of Nov. 27 fell 0.44% vs. the third quarter. Says independent media analyst Richard Greenfield: 'We're not seeing the kind of dramatic growth we should given the surge in sales of iPods and other MP3 players.'"
My Ipod's full, I can't buy any more music!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I am sure sales will pick up as soon as Apple starts charging "market price" for the music per the wishes of the music industry. :/
"This even roots my computar, suckwit."
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Could it be that music just sucks 0.44% more than the previous quarter? :)
Out of order? Fuck! Even in the future nothing works! - Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis) "Spaceballs"
...is that some people buy iPods, but fill 'em up with pirated music instead of stuff they paid for at iTunes. I'm thinking about testing this theory soon.
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
Is to let the RIAA have their way with tiered pricing.. Obviously, if new songs aren't being bought at $.99, they will be purchased in droves at $2.99 for that hit new single...
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
In other news, the RIAA and major music industry conglomerates have announced new terms for customers purchasing and listening to their members' music.
"All people do with their CDs and iPods is listen to them. People think that they don't have to pay anything else beyond the initial purchase price. But what they don't understand is that they need to pay royalties every time they listen to them," said RIAA spokesman, Bob Degalhart. "Every song you play on your stereo or iPod should require some form of small micropayment to us for the right to even play that music. Everyone should realize that purchasing the music is only the first of many steps."
The RIAA and the industry plans to push legislation to require all stereo equipment, MP3 players, and hearing aids be fitted with special software that is capable of completing micropayment transaction per listen. Industry member Sony says that it has special software available for installation on home PCs for this purpose and plans to deploy it in the near future.
Good job it wasn't 1% or we'd be back to the days of the Great Depression with music execs throwing themselves out of windows.
Methinks that might make a lot of people smile.
The author is saying a) We predicted that we should be making X sales this week, and b) we are not. Therefore Apple is to blame, as are the people who keep choosing to not buy the overpriced "music".
Can you spot the logical flaw?
Last week I predicted the following:
a) I would immediately win a hundred bojillion dollars in the lottery.
b) The most beautiful women in the world would gather around me to sing my praises.
None of that has happened so far, and seeing as how b is dependent upon a (lets not kid ourselves, I'd have to buy plane tickets for all of them to fly here), we should focus on a. A requires me doing things like buying lottery tickets, and the lottery having that kind of money, neither of which is the case. Therefore there is only one inescapable explanation: It's all the lottery people's fault. They're 'holding me back'. They should have set the pot that high, given me a free ticket, and then changed the rules so that only I would win.
I love this game!
Nope, it gave place to creationism...
They bought the first album. Then they went out and bought gold fronts and Dubs. They now cannot afford to purchase music online.
Songs for the iPod cannot be played on other hardware. It's a known fact, from the Newspaper.
Consumers are clearly demonstrating that the $0.99/song model doesn't work. Educated by **AA's anti-piracy campaigns, consumers realize that Apple's business model is unfair to the artists who create the songs they listen to. This is clearly a groundswell of public opinion whereby customers are telling Apple "If you continue to release Ms. Spears' latest single for $0.99, you are robbing her of her compensation as an artist, and we won't stand for it anymore."
I don't think Apple has any choice: in the face of this consumer backlash against affordable music, they'll have talk the labels into allowing them to raise prices on the most artistic material (that which is in the highest demand, that is). If they charge, say, $2.99 for the latest Britney Spears single, consumers will once again be able to purchase from iTunes with a clear conscience, and not worry that they're contributing to a young artist being taken advantage of by a huge corporation.
Cheers
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
Who is modding up the rich dude whining???
Your metaphor is delightfully mixed. Who puts their razor blades in gravy?
Especially in a "decline" of less than half of one percent.
It's just another sign that Apple is going out of business. Has been since 1984.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."