Slashdot Mirror
Apple Is Now the #1 US Music Retailer
Quantrell writes "A leaked e-mail shows that Apple hit the #1 spot for music sales in January. The article speculates that consumers cashing in their holiday gift cards may have played a role; but of course Wal-Mart and the other retailers sold gift cards too. The news is a mixed bag for the record labels. 'For the music industry, there is a dark side to Apple's ascension to the top of the charts. Buying patterns for digital downloads are different, as customers are far more likely to cherry pick a favorite track or two from an album than purchase the whole thing. In contrast, brick-and-mortar sales are predominantly high-margin CDs.'" We recently discussed Wal-Mart's role in the music business, back when they were selling nearly 20% of US music. For January Apple was at 19% and Wal-Mart at 15%.
that this year we have a new #1!
It's Apple iTunes with DRM Forever!
Summation 2
i say "one future of music distribution" because i am also leaning towards this idea
$action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
Not so much a mixed bag as it is further evidence that the RIAAs business model is flawed.
Here they have the worlds largest brick-and-mortar store and the most influential online music retailers moving ungodly units of their crappy products and still they cry poverty.
Apparently the concept of the market rejecting DRM is overblown?
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
"It will be like going back to pre taping life where only special people with expensive equipment could make and sell recordings."
No, no it won't.
You or I can still make recordings and distribute them with or without DRM if we wish.
It'll just mean we can't (easily) make copies.
I agree, it's a worse situation than what we have now, but it's not like pre-taping days in that the tools are available to all to distribute media.
Also, don't forget that a lot of advertising costs can probably be saved using the iTunes store. Consumers get to try before they buy, find tracks similar to ones they already have, and so on. it's not just cost savings related to manufacturing, shipping, and retail space.
I thought about this for a while and don't like it. Replacing the RIAA with Apple is not the equivalent of creating a free market for music. With digital restrictions, Apple will be in charge in a way that the RIAA was but worse. You say:
Apple will sell just about anything. Several talk radio hosts have regular iTunes paid downloads, and none of them have RIAA contracts.
It sounds good, but I can replace the words like this:
Future_monopoly will sell just about anything. Several talk radio hosts have regular future_Tunes paid downloads, and none of them have Apple contracts
It's the concentration of power that's evil and leads to abuse.
Have you heard of iTunes Plus? No? Then investigate it and then kindly STFU.
Not that I'm a Britney fan, but let's build on this logic. I'll simplify the numbers for the discussion.
The price is $12 for album B. If they make it available separately, the price is $2 for the mega-hit cut three or B3, and the price is also $2 for the lame stinkers B1, B2, B4, B5... B8. In aggregate, buying B is cheaper than buying B1...B8 a la carte. However, if buying B is the only way to get B3, and nobody wants the other cuts, then the value proposition is too low. The labels decry this sort of fate: they fear that each B buyer will be converted to a B3 buyer, and revenue will drop horribly because almost nobody likes the seven filler cuts.
What is overlooked is the expanded market for B3 buyers. For any popular cut, there should be WAY more B3 buyers at $2 than there ever were B buyers at $12. First, the price point is more impulse-friendly to a wider marketplace which now includes little kids. Second, the price point appears to be a good value proposition: no filler. In fact, I would expect that buyers(B3)*$2 > buyers(B)*$12, by a long shot. Any earnings from the less-popular B6 cut would be gravy on top, if the label even decides to fully produce it all the way to market.
[
Yeah, they are also one of the few to push selling DRM-free music. So how does that fit in with your little conspiracy theory? Do you honestly believe that Apple would still sell DRM music if the music labels didn't require it?
That's bullshit. There have been several companies trying to sell DRM-free music. Apple started offering it because those pioneers forced them to.
They didn't force Apple to do anything because I'm not aware of any other successful DRM-free ventures and Apple were already doing well with their DRM stuff at the time. It was never any benefit for Apple to have DRM -- they don't need to lock people in as they seem to have no trouble selling iPods based on their good points alone.
Do you honestly believe the labels would insist in selling with DRM if companies like Apple didn't give them a big profit?
I think the big record labels would insist on DRM no matter what until someone proves them wrong and drags them kicking and screaming into the 21st century, like Apple is help doing.