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%.
Now that Apple has replaced Wal-mart as the 1000 pound gorilla in music retail, maybe the company will be able to drag the music industry into the new millennium.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Furthermore, Wal-Mart has also done the same thing by basically dictating that it will start selling CDs at $9-$10 or it won't sell them at all. I'm kind of shocked the music industry just sat back and let that happen (even though it joys me to see people able to buy Beatles albums at a decent price). I mean, why should Wal-Mart be able to dictate MSRP? Oh, that's right, they are the all-encompassing Wal-Mart
Either way, I find it humorous that what seems to be a 'dark side' for the RIAA is actually beautiful for the end consumer. I wish the RIAA would step back and look at how they could maximize profits now that distribution could be digital. Would I still be spending ~$20 a month on music if each song were ten cents? No, I'd probably go nuts and be spending $50 a month and I bet people that spend no money on music would start to slowly $5 or $10 for some popular albums. Just a though, I really wish they would look more at maximizing profits by lowering cost on something that can be copied for free and distributed cheaply.
My work here is dung.
It's nice to see RIAA power fading but Apple is still a digital restrictions enabler. We shall see what they do with their power. Right now, the artist still gets the RIAA shaft from Apple the same as they do any other music store money wise. Has Apple even been able to break the RIAA, "our way or the highway" rule and sell both RIAA music and independent music?
If the CD and other restrictionless media goes away we will all be media poor again. It will be like going back to pre taping life where only special people with expensive equipment could make and sell recordings.
The part that I don't get is why the labels aren't offering to Apple, and thus Apple to its customers album discounts. Sell me an entire Regina Spektor album for the $6 or $7 and I'll gladly pay for it, instead of otherwise buying 4 tracks individually. At that point it's pure profit for everyone involved. I might still buy the one song on it I like, play it more find out I really really like, and buy the whole album--with that song again.
I don't want the album to go away. I think it's a great conceptual unit (when used correctly). Let me pay more for it.
As an aside, I'd appreciate iTunes letting me easily select blocks of music I could keep in the same order, even when listening to randomized music. "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" should always be followed by "With a Little Help from My Friends" (and maybe the album's entirety).
Anybody know why either of these don't happen?
I find that I like music in a shallow way when I start to listen to it. After repeated hearing, some of it fades in my enjoyment and some grows.
iTunes has let me buy single songs from albums and if after repeated listens I still want to hear it, I buy the album. But I will buy the album on a CD rather than a download.
You pays your money, you takes your choice...
Aside from a very brief period months ago, all data this year indicates Walmart is the current leader. The headline that Apple is "now" the leader is simply not true, and I don't see how that can go uncorrected, but it probably will. Every tech site picked this up today. Either they all made the exact same (difficult to make) mistake, or this is an advertisement masquerading as news.
I hope you're right and Apple manages to positively influence the market. Probably some truth to it, but Brick and Mortar is still king.
Remember that this "cherry-picking" of material played on the radio is FAR from being a new phenomena. In fact this used to be the record industries model. They'd play a song on the radio over and over and then consumers would buy the 45 at the store, and listen to it and one other track. Bands also had albums, but often times the albums wouldn't have the single, or just weren't important compared to the singles. Then, after CDs started to dominate, the record industry decided to stop trying to sell singles, and ONLY sell full albums. That way the consumer would be forced to pay the full $15 rather than be able to buy a cheap single. They still kept singles, but added extra b-sides, and charged ridiculous prices ($5-$10), and so they became more of collectors items, before they were basically stopped altogether.
The industry grew used to being able to bully consumer, and now digital music is forcing them to accept that many consumers want to buy singles again. However, this means that their profits are going to be lower. Possibly on the level of what they used to make before they stopped selling singles.
For all of this, this does not mean the death of the album. Bands that want to produce albums still will. Most people who truly appreciate music and don't want to hear the stuff on the radio, or whatever their friends like will likely not have a problem finding albums of songs. However, those people are rarely the huge money makers for the industry (there are exceptions). Most of the money makers are the flavors of the week that they market endlessly, and end up selling millions of CDs. This practice of the industry's will end up being hurt as the sales end up being reduced due to "cherry picking".
Phil
Apple has the least restrictive DRM on the planet. I've never, ever noticed that it even exists even after making backups and burning my music to CDs. You're whining just to whine, like most Slashdot posters.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I agree. Here's how it goes:
1. Apple has the market share for MP3 players, namely the ipod.
2. That makes it impossible to sell music that won't play on the ipod.
3. Apple refuses to use any DRM scheme but its own, and refuses to let other people use that.
4. It's impossible for anyone else to sell DRMed music.
I think that's a good thing. I think Apple has, ironically, killed DRM on music forever.
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
One huge reason for Walmart's fall is their unthinkable lack of choice. If you want the top 100 pop songs from the last five years, or the top 100 pop songs from the past 20 years, then Walmart is for you. Otherwise, the only choice seems to be on-line services, like Apple's wildly popular iTunes.
Apple's sales are so high because it is simply selling a lot of music that isn't available in any Walmart - the recording industry has no idea how to sell less popular tracks in a brick-and-mortar store. So they go unsold. Stupid.
No wonder Walmart is thinking less and less of the recording industry.
There's nothing ironic about it: it's one of their stated goals. Simply because they have better gamesmanship than to outwardly admit that restricting their DRM has this effect doesn't mean it hadn't occurred to them.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
No DRM
Same as iTunes Plus.
cheaper than downloading track-by-track
Wrong! An entire disc through iTunes Plus is $13. Popular, new CDs usually range between $13 and $15, not counting the cost of the gas it'll take you to drive to the store and back.
no loss of quality
Same as iTunes Plus.
nice plastic case
Read that as "useless plastic case", because I'm going to look at it once when I rip the disc to my computer and then shove it back in the closet somewhere, never to be seen again.
and a set of sleevenotes to read on the toilet when you've been out celebrating the money you've saved by ingesting curry and beer.
Again, sleevenotes that aren't that useful and I'm only going to look at once.
On the other hand, buying through iTunes is faster and more convenient; I don't have to drive to the store or have it shipped to me (and if you're having a CD shipped to you, don't forget to factor in the cost of shipping, too). If your computer somehow gets destroyed, if you ask Apple nicely, you can download it again -- good luck trying to get a store to give you another copy of that CD. If you don't care about DRM, you can just by the normal $0.99 songs, which sound indistinguishable on average consumer hardware, saving a few more dollars. You can burn them off to a CD if you really want to, anyway. And you won't have to worry about your CD putting a rootkit from Sony on your computer!
But CDs are already DRM free, and I don't need to redownload anything when my hard disk crashes - or my iPod breaks down - or gets stolen - or I leave it in a taxi cab...
Wrong! An entire disc through iTunes Plus is $13. Popular, new CDs usually range between $13 and $15, not counting the cost of the gas it'll take you to drive to the store and back.
And I source the majority of my CDs at between £5 and £6 each - that's no more than $12 in your money, plus I get something tangible. Not to mention that I buy a lot of remastered & expanded CDs currently that contain anything up to 18 tracks (which equates to $23.22 for the whole CD as iTunes $1.29 per track). Oh, and I order from Amazon in enough volume to get free postage or from Play.com where postage is free - I don't buy from stores, they're too expensive, therefore I don't use any petrol.
Same as iTunes Plus.
"DRM-free music tracks featuring high quality 256 kbps AAC encoding for audio quality virtually indistinguishable from the original recordings" as quoted on Apple's own launch site (which of course will be 100% truthful... snigger... snigger). It's still lossier than a CD, on a good quality hifi like I own, you would hear some difference, due to the loss of a lot of lower and higher end harmonics.
Read that as "useless plastic case", because I'm going to look at it once when I rip the disc to my computer and then shove it back in the closet somewhere, never to be seen again.
Even if you stick it in a closet, you would presumably leave it in it's case for protection. Therefore the case is useful whether you take the CD out each day or store it. Anyway, you're criticising me for buying CDs and you do also. I have no need for iTunes yet you need to buy CDs - pray tell, which distribution format is therefore lacking somewhat?
Again, sleevenotes that aren't that useful and I'm only going to look at once.
As a music officionado, I find the historical information in the sleeve notes useful for research when buying more CDs.
On the other hand, buying through iTunes is faster and more convenient
For a good piece of music in hifi audio quality, I can wait a few days. Maybe it's a sign of my generation being able to still demonstrate a degree of patience...
I don't have to drive to the store or have it shipped to me (and if you're having a CD shipped to you, don't forget to factor in the cost of shipping, too).
Not relevant as explained above.
If your computer somehow gets destroyed, if you ask Apple nicely, you can download it again
My CD collection is catalogued and I have house insurance - if I lose my collection, I have it all ripped to MP3 on a hard drive and DVD ROMs at my other house until I rebuy the collection with the insurance money - and I don't need to ask anyone nicely to be able to do that.
good luck trying to get a store to give you another copy of that CD.
Like I said, it's called house insurance.
If you don't care about DRM
I do care about DRM - that's why I don't pay the DRM peddlars.
ou can just by the normal $0.99 songs, which sound indistinguishable on average consumer hardware, saving a few more dollars.
I won't pay for DRM that restricts the rights of usage over buying a CD. And my main hifi is not average consumer hardware.
And you won't have to worry about your CD putting a rootkit from Sony on your computer!
That's right - because I run Linux mainly and never buy any CDs which don't conform to the CD standard. And I probably have a handful of Sony CDs at the most because they don't have too much music that I like.
Besides which, the reason I pay for a CD is because I pay the musicians make the music, the sound engineers to make it sound nice, the producers to put in a nice order and the (online) store to sell it to me in a pretty case so all
I get $0.87 to every $0.99 download, and all I did to get my independently released tracks on iTunes was register with a distributor, who handles it all for only a piece of that 12 cents.
"I understand my tests are popular reading in the teacher's lounge." -Calvin to Hobbes