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%.

Comments

And that means

[Rik Sweeney]

that this year we have a new #1!

It's Apple iTunes with DRM Forever!

Re:And that means

[Winckle]

The only reason apple don't offer all their music without DRM is because the record companies won't let them. They are allowing amazon to have DRM free music in order to try and reduce apple's marketshare and thus reduce apple's chips at the negotiation table with the record companies.

Re:And that means

[Sabathius]

Well, hopefully they'll use their new clout to encourage change away from DRM. We all know Job's opinion on the subject...

Re:And that means

[ajlitt]

Of course. They have to. They certainly don't want to use their own DRM scheme to ensure infrastructure lock-in.

Seriously, can we get a -1 Apologist choice for moderation?

Re:And that means

[Luscious868]

It's Apple iTunes with DRM Forever!

You should be thankful for Apple and the fact that they are #1. It's because of Apple that the labels have allowed Amazon to sell MP3's without any kind of DRM whatsoever. If Apple had never gotten such a stranglehold on the digital marketplace, most of the labels would have never allowed Amazon to sell DRM free music. I'm glad that Apple is where it is and I hope that people continue to buy music from them. I won't be among them but as long as Apple keeps doing what it's doing, the labels will allow Amazon and others to sell music without DRM as a counterweight and smart consumers will be able to purchase legit, DRM free music.

Re:And that means

[UnknowingFool]

Please. Remember Apple, like Walmart, is a reseller. They have to abide by the vendor (music labels) on their product. One of the restrictions of Apple reselling is that they have to use DRM for music the labels insist on having DRM. If Apple was so keen on locking you into their product, they wouldn't be selling DRM free tracks at all, and the iPod wouldn't play AAC or MP3. In fact, they would have created their own proprietary music format instead of extending AAC to include DRM. I wonder which company would do that?

Re:And that means

[Dusty00]

Yes, poor Steve Jobs is caught in the vicious jaws of the music industry...

Face it Apple loves DRM. Especially because the RIAA demands it. He gets to pretend he hates DRM to get in good with the consumers but that's exactly what's providing a lock-in to Apple brand media players. If Apple hated DRM as much as is claimed they wouldn't have a problem licensing their DRM out to Microsoft, or Sansa.

I know that Apple is the best underdog we have to root for against Microsoft but if one examines their business practices you gotta admit they're taking a lot of plays from Redmond's book. If the iTunes-iPod marriage isn't enough evidence for you I figured the iPhone SDK would be. </rant>

Re:And that means

[Dare nMc]

I will agree that supplier contract is the major reason why. But I disagree that is the only reason, and their are lots of other reasons why apple choose the particular DRM, and continuous to push and make available some tracks that could be DRM free. Obviously it is a purely financial reason why apple doesn't freely replace the DRM version with the none DRM version immediately upon the non-DRM version becoming available to them.

Re:And that means

[ajlitt]

Last I checked that other company would license their embedded codec with DRM to any manufacturer. Name one player besides Apple's that plays iTMS protected AAC.

Apple sells DRM free tracks. But how many people do you know that buy from iTMS that have a DRM free collection? Even if you bought just one DRMed album, you'd have to keep using Apple's products to maintain that investment.

Don't get me wrong. I have an iPod. But I refuse to buy from iTMS. I'd rather give the same money to Amazon and get my tracks in plain unencumbered MP3.

Re:And that means

[Overly Critical Guy]

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.

Re:And that means

[Jonas the Bold]

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.

Re:And that means

[Archangel Michael]

"Name one player besides Apple's that plays iTMS protected AAC."

I can't tell if you're serious or just stupid. iPods play ACC (DRM or not) and MP3s. They don't play WMA (DRM or not). I don't know of a single player of WMA (DRM or not). I don't doubt that they exist, I'm just saying I don't which one does or doesn't. Mainly I don't care, because who the heck uses WMA (DRM or not)?

There are other players for ACC out there, besides Apple, they just can't play Apple's DRMed version.

So, we're back the least common denominator, MP3. Of which, just about every player will play, including those purchased from Amazon.

And as for Apple's DRM, it is easily circumvented by at least two distinct techniques, one that strips the DRM from the tracks making clear ACC, and one that converts tracks from ACC to CDA back to MP3. I'll admit that is a crappy process, but it exists.

"Apple sells DRM free tracks. But how many people do you know that buy from iTMS that have a DRM free collection?"

Is the point DRM bashing (which I'll agree to) or Apple bashing (which I won't agree to) or User bashing (Maybe I'll agree)?????

I think you're confusing DRM, with Apple with the lUSERs.

"Don't get me wrong. I have an iPod. But I refuse to buy from iTMS"

That's just silly. You're complaint about Apple is really a confusion with DRM. Buy the music you want in DRM free form from where ever it is cheapest for the quality you want. Don't blame Apple for DRM, put the blame where it belongs ... with the labels requiring DRM.

Apple sells DRM free tracks, not all tracks are DRM free, but that isn't APPLE's fault, as Apple has clearly stated that DRM free is the way to go. Their hands are tied by the labels.

Not buying from Apple because of DRM is like punching your wife because she told you the neighbor ran your dog over.

Re:And that means

[The One and Only]

I think that's a good thing. I think Apple has, ironically, killed DRM on music forever.

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.

Re:And that means

[sgladfelter]

If Apple hated DRM as much as is claimed they wouldn't have a problem licensing their DRM out to Microsoft, or Sansa.

I don't necessarily disagree with your belief that Apple likes DRM, but you miss one point. Any DRM security goes out the window as soon as it is opened up or licensed to others. If this happens to Apple, the record companies renege on their agreements, Apple has to make up a whole new DRM scheme, and Apple looses market share.

No, Apple is far better off not opening up their DRM, and it may be for more than one reason.

Re:And that means

[StubNewellsFarm]

I don't know if Apple loves or hates DRM, but licensing their DRM to Microsoft or Sansa would make it more difficult for Apple to later drop it. What if Sansa ran a marketing campaign talking about how great it was that their player could use all the music from the iTunes store, but Creative's players couldn't? Do you think Sansa would let Apple just drop the DRM? Without other licensees, the decision to drop the DRM is just between Apple and the music labels. When they dropped it for EMI, they didn't have to go to Sansa and see if they'd object.

Re:And that means

[timeOday]

"Name one player besides Apple's that plays iTMS protected AAC."

I can't tell if you're serious or just stupid. iPods play ACC (DRM or not) and MP3s. They don't play WMA (DRM or not). I don't know of a single player of WMA (DRM or not). I don't doubt that they exist, I'm just saying I don't which one does or doesn't. Mainly I don't care, because who the heck uses WMA (DRM or not). There are other players for ACC out there, besides Apple, they just can't play Apple's DRMed version.

Can you even read? You just called a guy stupid and then said he was right.

Re:And that means

[STrinity]

Too bad for Apple, but the bottom line is that only idiots will go with iTunes over Apple under these conditions.

Re:And that means

[MrMista_B]

I Apple loves DRM so much as you say, then why they not only sell music without DRM, but also make it trivially easy to strip out? Not to mention that they allow iPod's to play plain old mp3's. Methinks you've bought into the FUD.

Re:And that means

[UnknowingFool]

Last I checked that other company would license their embedded codec with DRM to any manufacturer. Name one player besides Apple's that plays iTMS protected AAC.

They license PlaysForSure v1. They have not and will not license PlaysForSure v2 which only works on the Zune and the Zune will not play PlaysForSure v1. So if you bought a DRM track previously, you'll have to buy it again to work on Zune.

But how many people do you know that buy from iTMS that have a DRM free collection? Even if you bought just one DRMed album, you'd have to keep using Apple's products to maintain that investment.

How does that make it different than any DRM besides singling out Apple? If MS decides to stop licensing PlaysForSure, then all hardware manufacturers (and customers) are screwed.

But I refuse to buy from iTMS. I'd rather give the same money to Amazon and get my tracks in plain unencumbered MP3.

Then don't buy from iTMS. iTMS became big for one reason only: Consumers previously had no easy way of getting legal music online. Consumers had to obtain music through CDs or illegally from the internet. Legal downloads were scarce and very hard for the average consumer to obtain. Again, Apple sells DRM Free AAC which many players (even the Zune) can play. The reason that not all players play MP3 is that AAC is a newer format.

Re:And that means

[jubei]

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.

Number 4 doesn't matter if Apple is the king of music retail.

Re:And that means

[nevillethedevil]

The iriver H10 will play .wma (DRM/NON-DRM) quite happily. I don't know about the rest of their players but that model is specifically designed for use with the POS that is Windows Media Player.

Re:And that means

[vivek7006]

"Name one player besides Apple's that plays iTMS protected AAC."

I can't tell if you're serious or just stupid.

The grandparent asked a very simple question. What part of that you dont understand? Are you a retard??

The answer is NO. There is no player in the market other than ipod which plays apple's DRM crap.

Re:And that means

[Archangel Michael]

Just because he's right doesn't mean he's right. He has some facts correct, but the conclusion is all wrong. This is typical of anti iTMS iPod Apple rants such as his.

I also made the comparison with WMA files and not knowing which of the "other" players out there support this format (or not), DRMed or not. WMA player is right up there with OGG players, who cares?

And I CAN buy DRM ACC files, and play them on any other ACC player, because stripping the DRM from the files is fairly painless with the right tools.

Again, the problem isn't DRMed ACC files, it is DRM, period. THIS is the problem, not that there aren't any other players that play DRMed ACC files.

Let stay clear on what the problem really is.

Re:And that means

[Archangel Michael]

Apple sells non-DRMed music. So Apple's non-DRMed music good, Apples DRMed music bad, the problem isn't Apple or the music, it is DRM.

Let make this simple Apple is neither good nor bad, Music is neither good nor bad. DRM is bad, period.

DRM is bad. Lets focus here and repeat after me, DRM Bad, DRM bad , DRM bad.

Re:And that means

[ElGanzoLoco]

Apple sells DRM free tracks. But how many people do you know that buy from iTMS that have a DRM free collection?

Me. I have gladly paid for some iTunes Plus downloads (not many I admit), but have yet to buy a single DRMed track. My policy over that won't change, ever. Hopefully (although I doubt it), if enough people do it, Apple and the record labels will start picking up the clue.

If there's an album I want, but is DRM'ed on iTMS, I'll just leech it off BitTorrent. I am not purchasing it on a CD because I don't want to bother with a physical medium and don't believe in dedicating storage space to little pieces of round plastic.

I'm still waiting for Amazon's service to start operating here in Europe. This will give me a much wider choice of albums to download legally. (Not that it'll completely stop me from downloading off bittorrent, mind you. I can only afford an album once every while, and I don't buy unless I'm sure it's really good)

One thing that will keep me buying iTunes Plus tracks as much as possible is the superb customer service: I recently lost one album due to hard drive failure. I wrote them an e-mail and the next day I got an answer telling me that I just needed to log in to the iTunes store and said album would be re-downloaded again. Minutes later, I was listening to it again. How cool is that?

Re:And that means

[wish bot]

The problems with kids like you today, is that you can't be bother to find out anything for yourself so you just regurgitate what you hear from your friends.

If Apple licenced their DRM it would only have the affect of PROMOTING it. Look what's happening now - more and more tacks on iTMS are drm FREE, and will work with any music player you want.

Re:And that means

[wish bot]

Ok turkey, tell us why exactly Amazon can sell mp3's without DRM then?

Re:And that means

[rizzo320]

Because the iTunes Music Store exists. That's why.

Re:And that means

[rizzo320]

People really seem to forget that the iPod, iTunes, and the iTMS all exist because of Microsoft's licensing policies, which clearly stated that Windows Media DRM playback can only be on Windows based computers and devices. To this day you are still unable to watch encrypted/secured Windows Media files on any computing platform other than Windows. Also, at that period of time, RealPlayer for the Mac was also a mess, so Apple decided to come up with their own product to fill in the gap, so Macintosh users were not left out of the portable music market.

So, think twice before chastising Apple for their "lock-in" and "DRM forever". There's another company with an accomplished record of being anti-competitive that forced Apple's hand, which lead to the current state of affairs. Is it really Apple's fault for it blowing up in everyone else's face?

I'm all for the Amazon mp3 store. I think it's great that it exists, and I've bought more tracks from there than I have the iTMS. However, let's not bullshit ourselves here... the only reason the Amazon mp3 store exists is because the iPod/iTMS is/was such a success. Otherwise, it would have been just another lame-o online store using Windows Media or some other proprietary DRM. Perhaps when Amazon gets a bigger foothold, the other music companies will finally budge and let Apple start selling more DRM free tracks.

Remember everyone... Apple IS a hardware company. Everything they do, whether software publishing or music sales, is to make sure that Apple hardware sells. If other companies/sites are selling music, Apple really isn't going to care too much, especially when the purchased music can be played on their hardware.

Re:And that means

[wish bot]

I agree - I was replying to an AC who didn't get it.

Re:And that means

[hazydave]

Apple is still selling primarily (but not only) DRMed music, sure. That's as much Apple's fault as the major labels. As seen with Amazon's MP3 venture, the major labels will ceed to freed downloads as long as you're willing to negotiate on other things. Apple's iron fistedness on price, and the spectre of their increasing control over the music retailing business, has the major labels largely worried.

And that, my friends, is really good for us, the consumer. If Apple could be all things to all people, alternatives like Amazon would have little reason to exist. Music sales ought to be in the hands of many, but even if it's the hands of the few, that's better than a single company being in charge. And in particular, a single company that, oh-by-the-way, is also selling a proprietary player platform with DRM that they won't license.

It's also funny how the major labels point to this as a success... it's not, this is what's really killing the major labels profits, faster and harder than file sharing every imagined. The majors had single sales back in the 60's and 70's, but as the LP faded, they largely transformed the industry to an album-oriented model. And that, my friends, is the vehicle that put them at their current (and former) levels of cash.... just look at sales numbers back then, versus, say, the late 90s.

The early days of file sharing bit them, but just a little. Folks would download a song they liked, play it on computer or whatever, but if they really liked the material, they'd check out the CD. If the CD was good, they'd ultimately buy the CD... that's the longstanding notion that file sharing can actually boost sales. In fact, the orginal Napster tapped this, not just file sharing, but online discussions about music. Every time I used the original Napster (usually while working in Germany, away from my CD collection), I wound up buying CDs I wouldn't have otherwise.

But since the 1990s, the recording industry, for reasons known only to them, pushed the idea of hit singles over hit albums. In the music they produced internally, the goal was always that one big hit. This worked great for them, when the CD was the only way (short of recording over the radio) to "own" that music. But having fostered that business model, now enter iTunes (and other downloading sites). Not one of these has a good album-oriented model (some do make it slightly easier to download an album, with a slight discount, others don't).. they're pushing singles. And users are responding, buying singles. While you might claim that some of the iTunes business replaces what would have been an illegal download, I claim that most of it replaces what would be a full-CD purchase. And this is why the major labels are bleeding money.

Now, that's not really a bad thing, unless you're one of them. These guys have been living "high on the hog", on the backs of the artists, who by and large have been their victims. They do what they can to not pay the artists when possible (radio play, internet play, downloads), they have armies of lawyers trying to reduce the payment to artists for the artists own work, when in reality, all the labels provide is manufacturing and distribution -- they're rarely a part of the actual music production process anymore. It would be ultimately very good for the music industry if the current major labels all crashed and burned. They would be replaced with a more conventional publication and distribution system (or systems, if you look at how folks like Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, Prince, and others have been doing "their own thing"), whereas the artist is in control of the art, and the publisher/distributer is paid for their services, that's all. The notion that Sony, BMI, etc. claim copyright on most of the CDs they sell (take a look at yours) is criminal.

one future of music distribution

[xTantrum]

I for one am happy with apples gain in sales. it shows that if a satisfactory alternative for music downloads is available customers will pay. more importantly though this "cherry picking" shows the record labels that consumers are tired of the same market drivel and if you give us good content that we like we'll pay.

i say "one future of music distribution" because i am also leaning towards this idea

Re:one future of music distribution

[Nursie]

"more importantly though this "cherry picking" shows the record labels that consumers are tired of the same market drivel and if you give us good content that we like we'll pay."

Do you really think it shows that? I don't.

I think it shows that people are ever more shallow in their music tastes and now only want those one or two big hits, ignoring the rest of the material. How many times have you listened to an album, or an artist's entire catalogue, and come to love one of the b-sides or album tracks more than the one or two big hits? For me it's a lot.

But then I suppose I'm not buying Britney or whatever the big thing is that the idiot children listen to these days.

Re:one future of music distribution

[tungstencoil]

From the artists' points of view (please note the distinction between artists' and artistic), I would say that you are correct (about people's shallow music taste).

However, if one assumes art is not made in a vacuum, and that some form of consumption (even in the form of a negative reaction) constitutes non-vacuum, then I'd say the ability to cherry-pick either represents a status quo (where previous people would buy whole albums just to get a track or two, disregarding the rest) or does indeed represent a true evolution (where the consumption of art reflects its true value), since people listen/react/consume on a more granular level.

Yes, I've bought albums and loved B-sides. The converse is also true. Importantly, it does give a message to the record labels. My interpretation is that it is a statement about what kind of things (songs) people want to buy, and how much they wish to pay. Yes, it's different than years past. Yes, it's got good points and bad.

However, I do not interpret it as a direct correlation that people are more shallow. They're simply more in control and the market is a different beast. Just about the only thing today's music-buying demographic has in common with the identical demographic of about 10 years ago is that, somewhere in the pipe, there is music.

Re:one future of music distribution

[JCSoRocks]

I absolutely agree. If the album dies I would sorely miss it. If I only like one song by someone, I'm not going to bother buying it. Not as a single, not as an album. It's not worth it. If I like a handful of the tracks though, I'll definitely buy an album.

Like you, my favorite songs usually end up being the ones that don't get any radio play. B-sides and other "unreleased" tracks in particular are always faves of mine as well. I've got an entire box set by one artist full of that kind of material and it's some of my favorite stuff by them.

I see people's music collections and they read like what was just played on the radio in the last hour... what's the point - just listen to the radio! Free!

Re:one future of music distribution

[Nursie]

"where the consumption of art reflects its true value"

Well, this harks back to that old argument about popularity and artistic merit, and whether the two are in any way related. Personally I think it would be sad if we lost the album, and the current practice of bands turning out more tracks than just the catchy, instant-hit type. It could limit the support artists get from labels even further (we're only going to pay for you to produce two songs, both must be hits, otherwise goodbye), and it could limit the instance of the aforementioned B-sides and album tracks.

OTOH, what it will probably show is that the habits vary by genre. Pop nonsense will sell a songle track to the exclusion of others, other music types (and possibly music with older audiences) will sell in a way similar to the album. Well, that would be my guess.

I guess my other point is that I'm not comfortable with the current crop of middlemen and their profit motive, Giving them more information about what people want will result in even less interesting stuff around the edges seeing the light of day.

Re:one future of music distribution

[pokerdad]

I think it shows that people are ever more shallow in their music tastes and now only want those one or two big hits, ignoring the rest of the material. How many times have you listened to an album, or an artist's entire catalogue, and come to love one of the b-sides or album tracks more than the one or two big hits? For me it's a lot.

To answer your question, plenty of times; but it pales in comparison to how many times (especially in the last years before I stopped getting my music that way), that I have found there are just one or two songs worth listening to. (and even when there are other songs worth listening to, they are greatly out numbered by drivel that seems to exist only to justify the price I paid)

Maybe people are more shallow, or maybe the contractual obiligations that come with getting an RIAA label to publish your music forces you to crank out sub-par music to fill up a cd. And maybe this has gotten worse and worse over the years as the medium we are shipping the music on has increased in capacity.

Re:one future of music distribution

[philipgar]

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

Re:one future of music distribution

[Nursie]

All very valid points, I guess it goes both ways.

More control to the actual artist would be better perhaps.

Re:one future of music distribution

[tungstencoil]

I'll agree with most, for sure, especially around 'habits by genre'.

Some quick background - I was involved with a fringe music scene for about 15 years, from the late 80s until the early 00s. It will take much more than changes in the business side of music to stop the artistic side. How we get to the art will change - it has changed. The good news: it's easier and cheaper for artists to produce super-high-quality music. Distribution is near-free. Motivated, talented folks can keep more $$ in their pocket if they choose. Contrast this to just a decade ago - why, in the mid-nineties, burnable CDs cost dollars and not cents to utilize. The bad news: it's easier and cheaper for artists to produce. The noise-to-art ratio is high (by anyone's definition of 'art'), and the business side is scrambling to keep a hold of the cash cow, dangling the "promote or die, and we can afford it" carrot in front of the artist.

Oh, and by consumption I didn't necessarily mean purchase. I just meant that if people produce music and don't release it or play it for anyone, it is of no consequence. As soon as it is released or made available, the creative and business forces behind it will be subject to market forces and critique. It's a given - and it doesn't have to be popular to be consumed (or have merit), nor does popularity == more consumption == better art. But if you put something out there, people will choose their mode of consumption - single song, ignored, popular, mega-sales, (il)legal downloading... whatever.

If you're interested in stuff seeing the light of day, check out CD-Baby http://www.cdbaby.com/ . Type in your favorite band or genre, and get served up a whole host of music. I guarantee you will like at least 10 or 20% of it, and that you will have heard of little or none of it. As a distribution network, they are fair and honest, they pay the artists what they say they will (and on time).

There. Now please mod me down off-topic.

Re:one future of music distribution

[Nursie]

Thanks, I'll definitely have a look at that site.

Being of the (retired) goth persuasion myself, I'm not really that affected by whether the winner of american idol puts out a whole album or just a song, but at present there still needs to be some patronage for music to be heard and available. I suppose that's something else that the internet is changing as we speak.

Re:one future of music distribution

[xRelisH]

I think it shows that people are ever more shallow in their music tastes and now only want those one or two big hits, ignoring the rest of the material. How many times have you listened to an album, or an artist's entire catalogue, and come to love one of the b-sides or album tracks more than the one or two big hits? For me it's a lot.

Bullshit. Are you saying that people should be forced to buy the entire album so they listen to the lesser known songs that are possibly very good? If someone wants to try out one of the lesser known songs, that person can get the entire album, and full albums are about the same price on iTunes (if not cheaper) than physical CD's

Also, more often than not, there are typically only 3-4 good songs on an album (there are exceptions, of course) and most consumers would not want to waste money buying the ones they hate. It's not just Britney, it's also some of the electronic mixes (from labels like the Ministry of Sound) where there are some awful songs, but also some very good ones.

Re:one future of music distribution

[Nursie]

"Are you saying that people should be forced to buy the entire album so they listen to the lesser known songs that are possibly very good?"

No. No I'm not. I'm saying it would be a shame if they weren't ever made because the labels figured out that the profits lie in one or two big songs, and that most people wouldn't buy the rest of the album and give it a good listen.

"Also, more often than not, there are typically only 3-4 good songs on an album (there are exceptions, of course) and most consumers would not want to waste money buying the ones they hate. It's not just Britney, it's also some of the electronic mixes (from labels like the Ministry of Sound) where there are some awful songs, but also some very good ones."

Well you'll have no sympathy from me, how on earth would you tell what was good and what was shit on a Ministry of Sound CD?

Re:one future of music distribution

[SamSim]

I think it shows that people are ever more shallow in their music tastes and now only want those one or two big hits, ignoring the rest of the material. How many times have you listened to an album, or an artist's entire catalogue, and come to love one of the b-sides or album tracks more than the one or two big hits? For me it's a lot.

I think it's something else entirely.

The way in which we think about music is completely changing. The notions of albums, singles, B-sides and EPs are disappearing because music is no longer subject to any kind of time restriction or packaging system. An LP was what, 25 minutes a side? A cassette, 45 mins per side. A CD, 70 mins total. But that's over. An audio file can be any length. A musical composition can be any number of audio files in any order. It can be any length. And people can purchase any combination of them at a whim. Making a double or a triple album doesn't incur any kind of extra production cost.

The singles charts have been obsolete for a very long time and I think the album charts are going to go the same way. People need to start thinking sideways about all of this. Artists, labels and retailers all need to start taking advantage of the new creative possibilities.

Re:one future of music distribution

[Nursie]

Oh I agree, formats are no longer relevant in the way they were. I just hope that we don't lose out on a lot of excellent music because it's not the catchy big-number and that's all that's selling now.

Re:one future of music distribution

[the_rev_matt]

The point being that there are different types of music consumers. Some of us are interested in depth and breadth of an artists and will want to hear the whole album and the b-sides and etc. Others are only interested in the hit single. Others are somewhere between the two. Digital delivery allows the labels to secure the money of *all* of them, whereas physical delivery restricts them to only offering the most profitable format(s) to the exclusion of the outliers.

Re:one future of music distribution

[afidel]

Making a double or a triple album doesn't incur any kind of extra production cost.

Yeah, because studio time and studio engineers are free.... Sure your local garage band can put out a triple album of unlistenable crap, but even an unplugged album from your favorite artist is going to take some engineering time (unless the musician happens to also be a producer with a home recording studio, but that's pretty damn rare).

Re:one future of music distribution

[JAlexoi]

> I for one am happy with apples gain in sales
Good news for apple farmers then? And you know an apple a day...

Now? January? What?

[Sockatume]

It's number one now... based on a story saying it was number one in January and that may have been a temporary artefact of gift card sales? What?

Re:Now? January? What?

[Sockatume]

What day is it? Who am I? Where is the President?!

Hopfully

[Anita Coney]

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.

Re:Hopfully

[flitty]

Does this mean that those "Family Groups" will now be petitioning Apple to censor all of it's music it sells? Will Apple become the company that doesn't carry "parental Advisory" albums? Won't someone Please think of the children? I for one, am glad that Someone besides wal-mart is now #1, Even if it is DRM laiden Apple. I like seeing Amazon so high on the list too, since i've bought a couple 320bit drm free albums from them, and was very pleased with my purchase.

Re:Hopfully

[Thelasko]

I think, for some, the choice between Apple and Wal-Mart is a choice between the lesser of two evils. It's like the two party system of the record industry. Which is worse, DRM or censorship? Sure, you can vote for Amazon, but that would just be throwing your vote away.

I like the new format. It's very clean looking.

Re:Hopfully

[chaim79]

They don't need to, Apple has already anticipated this. Parental controls can be setup, kid cannot purchase any music listed as explicit (they do mark such music), or movies rated PG13 or higher (or whatever you set it at). It's not that difficult to setup (naturally for an Apple product) and works well. http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302251

Re:Hopfully

[AaxelB]

Sure, you can vote for Amazon, but that would just be throwing your vote away. How on earth is it throwing your vote away? It's not a winner-take-all system, you get exactly what you vote for. I vote for DRM-free music from Amazon, a company that I like and has almost never significantly pissed me off. And you know what? I get that DRM-free music from Amazon. It would be like voting third-party if you could only play the music on certain, doomed-to-fail devices, but, once again, it's DRM-free. Apple and Walmart are indeed the two big players, but Amazon is only like a third-party in that they're less well-known (as a digital music retailer).

Re:Hopfully

[Thelasko]

It was a joke you clearly didn't get. It's funny because I'm pointing out where my analogy ceases to apply.

Re:Hopfully

[FatAlb3rt]

..Amazon, a company that I like and has almost never significantly pissed me off.

Luckily, you can still click once to submit your comment.

Re:Hopfully

[Anita Coney]

I didn't get the joke either, but I laughed at it the second time I read it. Subtle and funny. A great combination.

Re:Hopfully

[AaxelB]

Damn it, I feel dumb. Things like subtle sarcasm are hard to catch in plain text. It seemed feasible enough that somebody could post that in all seriousness...

Re:Hopfully

[Thelasko]

It appears the moderators didn't get it either. You got a "5 informative". I probably should have used tags. But I couldn't figure out how to get extrans to work with this comment system. I also must admit I suck at HTML.

Correlation and Conjecture

[Chris_Stankowitz]

"The news is a mixed bag for the record labels."

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.

Re:Correlation and Conjecture

[mgblst]

Thanks for that nonsense.

If they are raking in the profits, how is their Business model flawed??

What does them crying poverty, have anything to do with their business model??

Re:Correlation and Conjecture

[grubi]

Good call. That whole profit thing doesn't guarantee longevity. They should get out of the game now!

Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[eldavojohn]

'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.' Don't forget that the $1 per song pricing scheme just seems to be something that Steve Jobs decreed from his high perch. I'm not saying I want this but I'll bet the music industry would favor a variable pricing per song to alleviate the cherry picking phenomenon. Frankly, I could care less about the top 40 or flavor of the week singles as that is not something I'd ever want to listen to. But I could see how someone like Britney Spears would feel the punch of fans just getting "Oops, I Did It Again" and not being forced to pay for the filler crap that barely passes as music on the rest of the album.

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 ... they probably dictate how much I pay for milk at the local grocery store some how.

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.

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[PackMan97]

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 ... they probably dictate how much I pay for milk at the local grocery store some how.

Wal-Mart is not all powerful, it's the "consumer" (as a group, not individuals) that is all powerful and merely Wal-Mart that is our voice. Consumers are not willing to pay $15 for two decent songs and a bunch of filler. Instead, we go on-line to buy A La Carte or download/steal. As a result, the product Wal-Mart has on their shelves is neither in high demand nor profitable. Wal-Mart is merely passing on the demands of the customer to lower the price of a CD.

Isn't this the root of the problem? Retail CDs are not a competitive product with downloads. Wal-Mart is telling the music industry to change their product so that it will compete and be a viable retail product or they'll drop it from their stores. If they can make more money by selling other products, they will.

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, why should Wal-Mart be able to dictate MSRP? That is not an example of Wal-Mart dictating Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price, the are dictating Retail Price in their stores and nowhere else. You know exactly the same way every one else dictates the retail price in their own outlet. Retail price is what I decide to sell an item at, MSRP is what the Manufacturer claims their item is worth .

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[JCSoRocks]

I realize you're probably being sarcastic... but that kind of attitude just leads to people not making and selling music anymore. Musicians get tired of being both a musician and a waiter / garbageman / oil changer / whatever. They put a lot of time into making a song. Give 'em some money. Do you work for free? Sheesh. (I'm talking average musician here - obviously doesn't apply to Britney or whatever but she's the 1 in 1,000,000 case).

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[UnknowingFool]

Don't forget that the $1 per song pricing scheme just seems to be something that Steve Jobs decreed from his high perch. I'm not saying I want this but I'll bet the music industry would favor a variable pricing per song to alleviate the cherry picking phenomenon.

I think Apple's stance is fixed pricing is better for them as their business is far simpler with fixed prices. Variable pricing makes their accounting alone a lot more complex. Also it makes it easier on the consumer. The downside to variable pricing is that some consumers might not be happy if the song they bought yesterday is now cheaper today.

Of course the music industry would favor variable pricing. They want to raise all prices, not lower them. That $1 song stays $1 only if it isn't popular. If it's popular, it's $2.

There is a difference between Walmart and Apple is that Walmart is dealing with a physical medium in CDs. There is a downside if Walmart accumulates an inventory of CDs. It shows up on their balance sheets. There is no financial downside if Apple accumulates an inventory of digital albums. It doesn't show up directly on their books.

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[je ne sais quoi]

The other thing that struck me as strange about the parent's post is that this pricing scheme the RIAA is suggesting is exactly the opposite of the way manufacturing usually works. That is, higher volume usually means lower pricing because the engineering and startup costs are smaller per unit. So if the latest and greatest pop song is selling like hot cakes, it should cost less, not more. For an electronic song, given that the bandwidth costs are small per unit, the big costs are going to be the production and marketing of the song, which would still go down per unit sold. It looks to me that the RIAA's pricing scheme is them just trying to make people pay whatever they can. My own experience has been consistent with this, because I buy very rare music (i.e., artist names that start with the Ensemble such and such, or are remastered versions of recordings from the earlier part of the 20th century) and often I have to pay a premium for these CDs.

Also, I highly doubt that Jobs decreed $1 per song, I'm sure Apple did some market research and determined what customers thought was reasonable, but still give Apple a healthy profit margin. Based on their volume of sales, it kind of looks like hit the sweet spot.

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[NekSnappa]

Perhaps they could offset the loss of revenue caused by the "cherry picking" by not producing the filler songs in the first place. Seriously, if you don't need 10 songs to fill out an album why spend the money for studio/engineer/producer time for songs that won't be bought, and are not needed. Use that time and money on the 2-3 songs that are worth it.

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[moderatorrater]

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 I'm guessing you're in the minority of people that believe there are 500 new songs to buy every month. As for me and my wife, if each song were 10 cents, we'd pay maybe 50 cents per month.

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[jedidiah]

Take a classic album oriented radio station, add the radio equivalent
of a PVR to that and it's really hard to see the difference between
that and torrenting.

Even just a regular early 80's radio with a tape deck can be used in
much the same way.

It's not bullshit to acknowledge that nothing has really changed.
The industry is crying wolf but their bubblegum pop is not really
any easier to "mooch" than it was 20 years ago.

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[Speare]

Frankly, I could care less about the top 40 or flavor of the week singles as that is not something I'd ever want to listen to. But I could see how someone like Britney Spears would feel the punch of fans just getting "Oops, I Did It Again" and not being forced to pay for the filler crap that barely passes as music on the rest of the album.

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.

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[xtracto]

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

Funny you say that. I have never spent a penny in online music until Allofmp3 came along (it seems so long ago...). It was just so easy to put like 10 dollars and then download a lot of music at really good quality... at BETTER quality than illegal p2p releases.

Unfortunately, the RIAA shoot off that option, in my country it was not illegal to download from allofmp3... since then, I have not bought any music online (in fact, I have not bought any album for about 2 years =oO) [until a couple of days ago that I bought Spencley's album] in FLAC for a very good price.

The lesson? I am the living proof that what you said is completely true. I would never buy from iTunes (I do not know if it is possible in my country) because of the DRM's music and because of the price... sorry $1 a 128kbps mp3 song is still too much for me, give a FLAC at $1 and I will consider it :).

From Amazon?, well I can't wait for them to provide the music internationally (which I guess won't happen soon), I might give it a try for uncrippled mp3s, of course depending on the price.

The good thing is that now that music creators are seeing that electronic distribution is one of the main channels for distributing their material, I assume we will start to see more competition between electronic distributors and the price will go down.

This I believe is similar to what happened to airlines. You can now buy very cheap flights via internet, while the "standard" airline companies struggle to sell you their overpriced flights. How did the online companies achieved that? using technology to streamline their process and reduce their costs.

Music creators will have to do the same, as a music creator you have to streamline your distribution process, skip the chaotic "record industry" and go directly to your customers using electronic distribution.

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[D Ninja]

But I could see how someone like Britney Spears would feel the punch of fans just getting "Oops, I Did It Again" and not being forced to pay for the filler crap that barely passes as music on the rest of the album. Silly me. I thought "Oops, I Did It Again" WAS filler crap.

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[meatspray]

The music industry is one of the few industries that get away with this.

If you went to the grocer and wanted to buy a couple of oranges only to find out you need to buy the tree with all it's oranges and discover there are only two edible fruits on it, you'd be outraged. Sorry eggs only come in sterling silver 12 packs with 10 cracked.

Sure you occasionally have to buy multi-packs of things, but they're generally of equal quality.

Digital delivery lets you buy what you want. It will eventually win.

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[prockcore]

That's not true.. studio musicians work full time. The difference is that they get paid based on how much they work. They don't get royalties for the rest of their life.

It's the people who are trying to make it big that end up working as a waiter.. because they don't want to work, they want to make a #1 album and then lay on their ass the rest of their life.

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[jrumney]

What is also overlooked is that most people have a fixed budget for "entertainment", so rather than buying B, with the iTunes pricing model, they can cherry pick B3, C5, J2 and M4 and still have enough money left over for some ringtones. OK, some of those artists might be on another label, but it'll all even out in the long run as long as the label keeps producing music that people want to buy.

Also, I don't buy their argument that CDs, which have to be manufactured and distributed, are more lucrative than online sales, which aren't really any cheaper despite the lower costs.

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[Jarik_Tentsu]

In fact, you look at most mainstream albums and they're merely compilations of songs, in which case a model where they can choose which songs to buy makes sense. Of course, there are many albums where half of the artist's effort went into making the album as more than a compilation - but an overall piece of art (A concept album - the most extreme example I can think of is Pink Floyd's "The Wall" - you simply can't listen to most of those songs by themselves =P). These are very popular in certain genres - it'd be good if Apple started offering "buying full albums" kinda stuff - unless it already exists and I fail? ~Jarik

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[JCSoRocks]

Actually, as a musician I know quite a few other musicians - some of them have "made it big" - and their goal is not to sit on their ass after making a #1 album. They love music. Their goal is to make a living making music. To tour the world and play it for people.

Sure, there may be a few lame people out there trying to make one album and then live off it but unless you get on American Idol it takes a lot of work to get there. Most lazy types get weeded out after playing in clubs for years, hauling their own gear, living off of ramen noodles, etc.

Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart

[JCSoRocks]

Are all AC's this dumb? Wow, I was replying to the guy above me that said he never pays for music. I didn't say I support idiotic lawsuits. I said I support paying the musicians for their work.

Your logic makes no sense - the musician wasn't in your living room when he made the music so you don't have to pay? What, so should you get all software for free too? Do programmers only deserve to get paid if they're in your back room coding up something *just for you*?

Technically you can break everything down to "just information". A car is just made up of a bunch of atoms and you just have to have the right information to put them all in place. Maybe cars should be free too.

So what?

[gnutoo]

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?

Re:So what?

[houstonbofh]

Has Apple even been able to break the RIAA, "our way or the highway" rule and sell both RIAA music and independent music?

Apple will sell just about anything. Several talk radio hosts have regular iTunes paid downloads, and none of them have RIAA contracts.

Re:So what?

[UnknowingFool]

Right now, the artist still gets the RIAA shaft from Apple the same as they do any other music store money wise.

Actually, artists got it worse. Theoretically artists should have benefited financially from digital downloads but the opposite is occurring thanks to the labels. Apple takes their $0.29 from every $0.99 track to pay for the hosting, distribution, credit card fees, etc. The remaining $0.70 goes to the label to take their cuts before passing the royalties to the artists. However, the labels are taking their cuts as if the sale was a physical medium and are still charging the artists for manufacturing and distribution costs. Manufacturing costs no longer apply, and Apple handles the distribution. But I'm sure somewhere in the fine print of the record deal that allows the label to charge for whatever they want.

Has Apple even been able to break the RIAA, "our way or the highway" rule and sell both RIAA music and independent music?

I'm not sure the amount of independent artists that Apple has but a few years ago they signed some major indie labels.

Re:So what?

[aplusjimages]

I've bought several indy band songs off of iTunes. It's a good place to get indy songs that are normally on vinyl only.

Re:So what?

[NekSnappa]

Anyone who wants to can get their stuff on iTMS through CD Baby. http://cdbaby.net/dd-partners

Re:So what?

[mbge7psh]

Apple takes their $0.29 from every $0.99 track to pay for the hosting, distribution, credit card fees, etc. The remaining $0.70 goes to the label to take their cuts before passing the royalties to the artists. However, the labels are taking their cuts as if the sale was a physical medium and are still charging the artists for manufacturing and distribution costs. Manufacturing costs no longer apply, and Apple handles the distribution. As a consumer buying something I know to be digital (with presumably lower distribution costs than a physical product), I'd expect at least part of the cost to be passed on to me. Given the choice of a CD or a DRM free digital download for the same price, I'd usually take the CD. Maybe that will change in future when more and more releases become digital only.

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.

Re:So what?

[myfigurefemale]

indy artists can use an independent site (like tunecore.com) and keep the 70 cents for themselves. skip the record label, and the bs.

Re:So what?

[Jason Levine]

I wonder if they're still taking a cut out for "breakage." For those who don't know, back in the vinyl days many shipped records would wind up broken. There was no good way of accounting for broken vinyl records and not counting those as sales (and thus not paying artists royalties on sales that never happened), so the record labels make some assumptions about the average number of broken records that would result in each shipment. However, when they started shipping CDs, they didn't update the breakage figures. (CDs don't break quite as much as vinyl does during shipping.) They were still taking out large breakage fees even though breakage had significantly dropped.

So now that the distribution is digital and there's nothing really to "break" (sure the download could be corrupt, but you can re-download it without buying it again), I wonder if they've done away with breakage fees or (more likely) they are still charging breakage fees against the artists' royalty payments in an attempt to keep as much money as possible in the labels' own bank accounts.

Re:So what?

[arb phd slp]

Actually, the "breakage" reductions predate vinyl. The old shellac records would frbreak in transit and the record companies accounted for that with a flat average. Vinyl records are much more rugged and CDs even more so, but the percentage for breakage doesn't reflect that.

Re:So what?

[UnknowingFool]

Based on my cynicism, I would say the labels are trying to charge the artists for everything still.

Re:So what?

[Rimbo]

"I'm not sure the amount of independent artists that Apple has but a few years ago they signed some major indie labels."

Independent artists get what their distributor gives them. If you go through CD Baby, which anyone can do and is non-exclusive, you get about $0.63 per download.

iTunes sales through CD Baby are very, very favorable to the artist. But then, that's just the way CD Baby's always been.

Re:So what?

[SamSim]

I'm desperately waiting for somebody to create some web application or blog extension which lets you sell your own music online. Buy some hosting, set a per-track price, open a PayPal account, upload the music, start selling. I don't have the know-how or I'd be on this myself.

Re:So what?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Ok, let's assume we're talking about a very long flac file. Most of mine are less than 100 megs, so let's be generous and assume 100 megs. To make the math easier, let's assume that's a tenth of a gig.

A quick glance at Amazon S3, and assuming a worst-case scenario -- that Apple hasn't broken the 10 TB/mo limit -- and that the song only makes one sale in an entire year:

• 18 cents to host the song for a year.
• 1.8 cents for the one download.
• 1 cent for the upload.
• Approximately a thousanth of a cent for the PUT request. I'll ignore this.
• Approximately one ten-thousanth of a cent for the GET request -- if you're generous, maybe another for a HEAD request. I'll ignore this too.

Rounding up, that's 22 cents out of a song that's been up for a year and is only sold once. That might make sense, especially if the credit card fees are bad -- and especially if Apple doesn't consolidate multiple purchases into one charge.

But that doesn't seem likely, for most music. Assume a song makes, oh, ten sales per year -- then the initial upload and hosting cost for the year is about 2 cents per sale. Adding it up, hosting and distribution now costs a little less than 4 cents per sale. At 100 songs, it's about 2 cents, and approaching that 1.8 cents for purely bandwidth -- which becomes 1.6 cents after Apple transfers 10 TB (total, across ALL music, and anything else they put on S3...)

That's assuming a 100 meg flac -- which would usually be distributed as a 10 or 20 meg MP3.

So, Apple's $0.29 cut seems a bit high.

Re:So what?

[mblase]

Apple will sell just about anything.

Oh yeah? Where's my iPod-enabled porn, then?

Re:So what?

[the_rev_matt]

http://indiekazoo.com/. Take control of your own music sales.

disclaimer: the creator of the site is a friend of mine. It's still an awesome service.

Re:So what?

[UnknowingFool]

So according to your model, it costs $0.22 per song for Apple to host and distribute the song in purely bandwidth. Adding $0.03 to $0.04 for the credit card fee (worst case scenario), that means that it costs Apple $0.26 per song. And they take $0.29. So that leaves $0.03 per song for other overhead and profit? How is that high?

Re:So what?

[geekoid]

"...the artist still gets the RIAA shaft from Apple ..."

Why does this persist?
Apple pays their share just like any other music purchase. It's not different then complaining a music store is ripping off the artists.

It's their contract that 'shafts' them. Perhaps they shouldn't sign the contract that screws them?

Re:So what?

[geekoid]

Your kidding, right? There are many, many people who can set this up for you. Geez, do you live under a rock and only get 2400 Baud connection?

Re:So what?

[Lost Engineer]

He was estimating a worst case scenario. The reality for Apple is that it can't possibly cost more than a few cents. They're in no way going to pay Amazon to host their junk, pay retail for bandwidth, retail for hardware, or sell FLACs. Well they could do the last but they don't currently.

The GP's method is like trying to calculate what it costs Wal-Mart to sell a DVD based on how much it would cost you in gas to drive it to Bentonville.

Re:So what?

[NtroP]

My brother's friend, Eric Schrotenboer, has several (excellent) albums released on iTMS that my brother recorded and mixed. How is the IRAA involved again?

Re:So what?

[wish bot]

There's plenty of non-RAIA labels on iTunes now. Ninjatunes is a big, good example. They offer all their music DRM free (yes, through iTMS) as default, and it costs no more than any other standard music through the store. I'd refused to buy anything DRM from it, but still used it to checkout new music, find names, etc. So it surprised me that there's actually a huge amount of non-DRM music available, even from the RAIA labels.

Re:So what?

[Lord Flipper]

Vinyl records are much more rugged and CDs even more so, but the percentage for breakage doesn't reflect that.

Spoken like someone who never ever worked in the record business, specifically retail & shipping. Ever heard of warpage, bro'? Like, due to 60 shrink-wrapped'records being jammed in every box (standard), high heat, back of the UPS truck? No? Well, back in LA and all over the South we had tons of records that never made it to the shelves. Did they 'break'? Well, no, not exactly. They warped, to an unplayable state. Period. In the early 70s some of the Indie labels and European exporters started using 'loose' wrap, to avoid a a lot of the warping. But that took up space in the standard boxes, so the Big Labels (in the US, UK & Germany) never did get on board with that.

CDs? I wouldn't know, I went back into stagework and studios about 3 seconds after CDs started moving in the shops.

Don't get me wrong, the labels are the most organized gang of corrupt cocksuckers you ever want to know, but the 'breakage' thing did have real relevance after the vinyl content dropped, and the use of tight shrinkwrap became dominant.

I know the allowances for 'returns' on cassettes was much lower than the percentage on LPs, also.

"Breakage" was a concept that retailers had to fight for. The Big Labels didn't just cough it up out of the goodness of their hearts, and it was only after the fact that the Labels realized they could cut corners on inventory & accounting, by just giving all the jobbers and retail chains the same deal. But the retailers were 'caught' between US, the music fans, and THEM, the artists... and as a result, people used to hate the retail chains (I know I did, I worked for a few big ones), but the reality is, we the fans, AND the artists, had the same, common enemy: The Labels... not Sears, or Tower Records... not The Whorehouse (Oops, I meant 'Warehouse'), and not even Apple or Amazon.

Re:So what?

[Lord Flipper]

If an artist uses Tunecore [tunecore.com] to deliver their music to iTunes they keep 100% of their profits, after iTunes takes their cut.

That looks like a very cool deal. Somebody mod the AC up. There's less and less excuse for bands that want to, to not take control of their retail situation.

Re:So what?

[SanityInAnarchy]

That was the worst-case scenario.

Note that if it makes even 10 sales per year, then the cost per song is $0.04. What's the average number of sales a song makes, I wonder?

And it's also assuming a fairly long (30 minutes or more) FLAC. Divide any cost by five or so to get how much it would cost for the same song in AAC. Divide by another five or so to get how long a typical song is.

Which means Apple's standard cut is more than the worst-case scenario, which isn't happening -- and that's assuming Amazon is involved; Apple might be able to find someone cheaper, or pressure Amazon into cutting prices a bit for them.

Could be.

[gnutoo]

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.

Re:Could be.

[Ngarrang]

I don't see the CD going away in all of this. I do see the effect of this "cherry picking" being that people be able to create their own CDs with the tracks they actually want to listen to, kinda like print-on-demand for books. Except here, we can have a CD with more than one artist and you will know for certain that did not pay for a whole CD just to get one good song.

Re:Could be.

[Nursie]

"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.

Re:Could be.

[strabes]

Not likely; CDs have extremely low marginal cost.

Re:Could be.

[Keith Russell]

Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio, lossless formats that support up to 7.1-channel 24-bit 96KHz audio, are optional audio codecs in the Blu-Ray spec. I know NIN's "Ghosts I-IV" Deluxe Edition comes with a Blu-Ray disc, but I'm not sure what codec Trent chose. (I don't have $75 for the deluxe edition anyway. Went for the $10 sans-DRM Apple Lossless download.)

As long as artists like Trent Reznor care about audio quality, you'll be able to find lossless high quality recordings. Let the manufactured pop idols have 128Kbps MP3.

Article is wrong .. M

[quo_vadis]

As of Feb 26 2008 iTunes is the #2 retailer in the US. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/02/26itunes.html

What the article is talking about is a 1 week period in January (most likely caused by all the people using their Christmas gifts of iTunes gift cards) where the store sold more music. Overall though, it still remains number two.

Re:Article is wrong .. M

[joaommp]

But it may still keep rising. If people went on redeeming their gift cards, new users for iTunes store will appear because people that have never used or thought about using it will experience a "forced" try at iTunes (either they go there or waste some "money") and may actually like it, or find it at least usable enough to go there again - the first time is always the hardest, right?

off-topic btw: great sig

Re:Article is wrong .. M

[thesaint05]

Engadget also responded to this here. I still have difficulty believing iTunes to be #1. #2? Makes sense.

Re:Article is wrong .. M

[mgblst]

I think they should restrict the period to just Christmas day. Surely even Walmart isn't open on Christmas day, and even if they were so scummy, most people would stay away.

So that would be 10million to 0.

Re:Article is wrong .. M

[c_forq]

I actually think they are open on Christmas. You know not everyone is a Christian and celebrates Christian holidays. In addition there are some people not close/disowned from their families, and doing something productive (like working) is way better for their mental health than staying home alone. Wal-Mart employs a lot of people, I'm sure they can find people willing to work Christmas day at almost any location.

Re:Article is wrong .. M

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they're talking about from a two month period.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/03itunes.html

Re:Article is wrong .. M

[mgblst]

Come on. Yes, forcing people to work on a holiday were most people are off is good for them. Your attitude really stinks.

Re:Article is wrong .. M

[c_forq]

Forcing people is wrong, but at every place I've ever worked there has always been at least a skeleton crew willing to work on days most people are off. If I thought it was okay/good to force people to work a holiday than I would be an incredible asshole. Asking if anyone wants to work is an entirely different thing.

Uh-oh

[LaughingCoder]

Apparently the concept of the market rejecting DRM is overblown?

Re:Uh-oh

[darjen]

As long as the market can play the tracks on their ipods, they'll let it slide.

Re:Uh-oh

[frission]

i hate to say it, but it's just not THAT big of a deal on iTunes. Yes, the m4a files DRM'ed, but you can also burn them on a CD (REALLY easily)...at which point there is no DRM, you can play it in your car, kitchen, etc. after that.

Re:Uh-oh

[darjen]

Who actually likes to carry around audio CDs anymore? I sure as hell don't. And it's a big hassle that all your ID3 tag info gets lost when you burn it as audio.

I could understand if someone likes to collect actual CDs from artists, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Why no album discount?

[EMeta]

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?

Re:Why no album discount?

[jamus]

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). I stumbled across this yesterday, and I haven't had a chance to try it out personally.

Maybe put the songs you want played together in the same grouping, then change your shuffle preferences to shuffle by grouping?

Re:Why no album discount?

[Rude Turnip]

Albums are discounted to an extent. For any album with more than 10 tracks, you're still paying $9.99 (with few exceptions) for the album. If you download a few tracks and want the whole thing later, you do not pay for the same tracks twice. It used to be that way on iTMS and it was as annoying as hell. Sometime in the last year or two, iTMS was updated to let you "fill out" the rest of the album.

As for you second comment...you can use playlists to keep albums in order. When you want to randomize playback in iTunes or with an iPod, you can have it "randomize by album" instead of randomize all songs. That way, an entire album will play back, but the next album selection will be chosen at random. Also, you can move a slider in the preferences menu to play "similar" songs more often together when you use random playback.

Re:Why no album discount?

[Rogue Pat]

As an aside, I'd appreciate iTunes letting me easily select blocks of music I could keep in the same order,

Can't you achieve this with Gapless playback?

Re:Why no album discount?

[cowscows]

That's true, but that only helps if someone was planning on buying the whole album anyways (or the majority of it). If the fears of the music industry is that people will only cherry pick the best song or two and ignore the rest, $8 more is a lot of extra money for a bunch of songs that I don't really want, be it ten songs, or even fifteen songs. But make it just a few bucks more, and it starts reaching impulse territory.

For a few bucks, I'll take the risk of buying a bunch of crap because there's probably the occasional gem in there. But $5 is pretty much my limit for something like that. Right now, the iTMS is totally set up for that single song impulse buy. It just doesn't try very hard to upsell you the whole album. The music labels probably see selling an entire album for $5 as taking a loss compared to their usual price, but if I wasn't going to buy that album anyways, then they aren't losing anything. Especially with negligible distribution costs.

It makes even more sense with older albums. Serious music collectors and fans of particular bands are going to have CD's of the stuff they want already. They're not in the market for those albums. They should be more aggressive with pricing there.

Re:Why no album discount?

[STrinity]

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.

Albums with more than 10 songs do get that discount; those with less do occasionally as well. Of course, her albums are less than that on Amazon, and DRM free.

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.

Download Audacity and use it to edit the tracks together.

Re:Why no album discount?

[ElGanzoLoco]

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).

Okay, not a perfect solution and maybe you've heard of it but anyways: Before importing an album, select the songs you want to keep together, and, in the "Advanced" menu, select the "Join CD tracks" option.

More info here. Hope that helps :)

Re:Who actually buys stuff from iTunes?

[imamac]

Who actually buys stuff from Wal-Mart?

That's what Amazon is for

[TheJerg]

DRM free ftw!

Re:That's what Amazon is for

[OiBoy]

I buy DRM free from iTunes. It's called iTunes Plus.

Re:That's what Amazon is for

[catseye]

uh, no it's not.

They're all 99Â. It's been that way for a while. They were initially more expensive, but when Amazon started offering 99Â DRM-free MP3's, Apple matched their pricing.

Re:That's what Amazon is for

[STrinity]

I just checked the ten most recent albums I've bought to see how many of them are available through iTunes Plus PJ Harvey, White Chalk - NO Kathleen Edwards, Asking for Flowers - NO Rilo Kiley, Under the Blacklight - NO You Say Party We Say Die, Lose All Time - YES The New Pornographers, Challengers - NO The Kills, Midnight Boom - NO The Killers, Sawdust - NO Besnard Lakes, Besnard Lakes Are the Dark Horse - NO Marissa Nadler, Songs III - NO Keren Ann, Keren Ann - YES That's only 20%. 100% are available from Amazon DRM free. Conclusion - iTunes Plus is an inferior store for anyone who doesn't want to be locked in to iPods.

Re:That's what Amazon is for

[STrinity]

They were initially more expensive, but when Amazon started offering 99Â DRM-free MP3's, Apple matched their pricing.

Psst! Amazon's DRM MP3s are $.89.

So... Who do I hate now?

[AioKits]

In all seriousness, I do like iTunes. I own an iPod touch, but rarely purchased things from iTunes, at first. I own enough CDs that I can pick and choose from them to fill the lil bugger, but iTunes does tap into one thing well enough, impulse buys. Sometimes I hear a song, I love it, but I don't want to go buy the CD. So this is where iTunes is making a killing on me and taking my cash. I find the song, see I can sample the other songs buy the artist. A lot of my iTunes purchases have been single songs where I did not buy the entire album.

Now that they're creeping up in position as a distributer, I hope to see more stuff on there I usually buy in CD form. Anime soundtracks for example. If Apple started putting those up there it would bankrupt me. That and I have a hard time finding a lot of/most of the aritsts on Nuclear Blast USA http://www.nuclearblastusa.com/nb/v2/ on there. Oh well, here's to hoping I don't get screwed later cause I didn't put those apple stickers they gave me on anything.

mp3fiesta.com??

[Iberian]

If nothing else other than curiosity wonder where mp3fiesta would rank. Given the .10 cents a song price one could download 10 songs for the price of one off iTunes. Not sure how my LP's that equates to, but I am sure the RIAA is trying to hatch a plan to go back to LP's since they aren't as easy to rip to a PC as a CD is.

Sucks for the labels

[macslas'hole]

Wow, life must really suck for the record labels. In addition to hating their customers, they hate their biggest retailer.

In other news(which I am surprised hasn't been submitted yet), Apple is suing NYC over the use of an apple in a marketing campaign. I was expecting to see a thousand posts about litiganous Apple being at it again, and another thousand posts about the need to defend one's trademarks. Apple must have half a dozen people whose job it is to find and fight these kinds of things. Win or lose, it doesn't matter. It's the fighting that counts. And what would be the consequences if they didn't?

Re:Sucks for the labels

[aadvancedGIR]

And it's hardly new...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer

Re:What?

[snl2587]

Actually, yes. I do.

No "WHOOSH" needed...I get the joke. But there is an interesting point to all this. It's getting harder and harder to actually buy good music as so few artists are album-oriented anymore. People like to decry the popularity of single-song services like iTunes or say that they charge too much for albums, but the reality is that the popular artists all produce albums with only one good track followed by a bunch of shit. And then they want you to buy the album? Try producing worthwhile songs, and then we'll talk. If the RIAA wonders why people are "cherry-picking", they need only look no further than what they're pushing.

So yes, I buy music, but not from iTunes. I've found that buying CDs secondhand covers all of my needs, and for any singles I want to hear I turn to services such as last.fm with a business model that won't be dead in a few years. And the artists will survive...well, maybe not most of the pop stars or the rappers, but the rest...

No, Apple is now the #1 US Recording Retailer

[brre]

Here's how to tell which is which.

If the goal is to make it the same every time it's played, it's a recording.

If the goal is to make it different every time it's played, it's music.

Re:No, Apple is now the #1 US Recording Retailer

[Animats]

If the goal is to make it different every time it's played, it's music.

So if you feed the MIDI track into a drum machine with drum hit randomization, it's music?

Re:No, Apple is now the #1 US Recording Retailer

[pandrijeczko]

So if you feed the MIDI track into a drum machine with drum hit randomization, it's music?

Well that's what all the dance music fans refer to it as...

Re:No, Apple is now the #1 US Recording Retailer

[brre]

No, it turns out there is more to the difference than that.

However that makes a handy quick guide. It exposes the error in virtually all news reporting on the recording industry. For instance, this story.

Opposite for me

[littleghoti]

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...

Re:Meaningless Opinion.

[JCSoRocks]

Yeah, I made the mistake of buying my wife a Sony Bean. I honestly didn't spend much time researching it. A fellow techie had one, said it was awesome, and recommended it. She wanted a digital music player, time was short (isn't it always when you're buying gifts for your lady?) and so I got her one.

The Bean was a great little player... the problem is, Sony's DRM, their proprietary format, and their lame program all suck. Now Sony is dumping their Connect (music store / software combo) stuff and anyone with music is screwed. Unfortunately, even though I told her not to she did buy a few albums through the store. Meh, what can you do.

This has only made me more certain of my decision to just buy frickin CDs. I can rip them to whatever I want and I can make as many backups as I want. (Yeah there are a few CDs with some form of copy protection but those still aren't as bad as DRM.)

A return of the concept album?

[sesshomaru]

Maybe this will lead to a return of the concept album. In other words and album where all the songs are actually related and designed to tell a single story. Well, maybe not.

I compare it to TV, where I think maybe the reason why serials are more popular nowadays is because there is so little time left for the story after the commercial that shows that are just one big long story (like Lost or Heroes) make more sense than trying to do a simple hour long drama.

If I were in the music industry, I'd be doing research on the buying patterns of people who like to buy songs from musicals. Do they buy just one song, or the whole soundtrack?

Well, duh

[Pope]

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

Isn't that the whole figgin' point? If you know there's only 1 or 2 tracks you want from an album, the absence of cheap singles like back in the vinyl days makes digital the clear winner.

CD singles were a joke: when albums were $8.99, a 45 was $1 to $1.49, and gave you the hit and generally a non-album B-side. When a CD album is $15.99, that $5.99 CD "single" is a rip-off.

Good Article

[His Shadow]

The freetards can now take their cue to whine incessantly about the least restrictive DRM scheme on the planet. And even tho Apple was forced to devise DRM because of the labels, the Microsofties can rant about Apple being the "new Microsft". Bous points if somone repeatedly claims that a product and service tied to a hardware device that attained it's market share purely on merit somehow constitutes an illegal monopoly.

Re:Good Article

[pandrijeczko]

The freetards can now take their cue to whine incessantly about the least restrictive DRM scheme on the planet.

Correction. The least restrictive DRM scheme on the planet is that where there is no DRM. CDs implement that least restrictive DRM technology.

Apple Computer becomes Apple Records?

[The Assistant]

Amazing! At one point, it sounded like Apple Computer was trying to catch a ride name wise off of Apple Records. Now, they ARE Apple Records!!!!! (Sort of)

Except Walmart is now the #1 US Music Retailer

[Moonpie Madness]

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.

How about the little guys?

[hearjapan]

You could always try something different like Japanese music. Hearjapan (.com) has loads of Japanese music non-drm. Really great artistic shit, anyways, check it out if you have the time.

Re:So... Who do I hate now?

[NekSnappa]

You hit the nail on the head with you impulse buy comment. Most of the music I listen to I can't get at Wal-Mart or Best Buy. I could order the discs direct from the artist, but most of the time it's easier to just grab it right then from iTMS.

I haven't tried Amazons download service yet, so I don't know how well this would serve this purpose. But iTMS has a lot of the off the beaten path stuff I like.

That's not good enough.

[gnutoo]

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.

Re:That's not good enough.

[Poltras]

Except that with Apple you receive 65% of the sales of your songs. Which is better than any RIAA contract, if you are an independent.

Re:That's not good enough.

[gnutoo]

Artists who conspire with Apple to screw listeners with digital restrictions will be no better off in the future than artists who conspired with the RIAA in the past. When the competition is gone, everyone is screwed again.

Re:That's not good enough.

[Lord Flipper]

It's the concentration of power that's evil and leads to abuse.

They are selling barely 19% of the music. Get a grip, Jesus.

The RIAA hates Apple, that makes Apple my friend, for now. Amazon is okay, too; a great place to get album covers for my terabyte of high bitrate Usenet music stash.

Concentration of Evil? Shit, negro, have you looked around the big World lately, or, ever? You think some relatively small company that has been nearly marginalized, and finally has a couple of big successes is 'evil', what, by default? Shit, my daughter was right, the world's going to Hell because of stupid motherfuckers.

Insightful? More like delusional

Re:That's not good enough.

[Poltras]

You realize that you are entering the famous scheme "nothing is perfect, and I will damn well make sure everybody knows" followed by a bit of "Bah, Humbug"?

Artists CAN demand unrestricted music. Apple can NOT force anyone to provide DRM-free tunes, but will gently accept your MP3 instead of your M4P if you want. Apple is a mean of distribution, not a record studio. Don't mix it up.

Now flame away. Or get a clue. Or another scapegoat.

Re:Who actually buys stuff from iTunes?

[c_forq]

I actually buy stuff that is on iTunes Plus (the higher quality, DRM free stuff). I buy from the non-plus on a few occasions, mainly for obscure artists that don't tour or don't play at any venues near me.

Not shopping even with gift cards

[LoudMusic]

I have about $140(USD) left in iTunes gift cards and I'm not even buying stuff from Apple. All told I've spent perhaps $35 buying music for my gifted iPod.

For a guy self nicknamed LoudMusic you'd think I'd be more into music technology, but I just don't get it. I own an iPod and I don't use it.

For all of you griping about Apple's DRM

[NiceGeek]

Have you heard of iTunes Plus? No? Then investigate it and then kindly STFU.

Re:For all of you griping about Apple's DRM

[pandrijeczko]

Have you heard about CDs? No DRM, cheaper than downloading track-by-track, no loss of quality, nice plastic case 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.

Re:For all of you griping about Apple's DRM

[NiceGeek]

Use those also, but iTunes is bloody convenient especially for smaller artists that may not be for sale in a local store.

Re:For all of you griping about Apple's DRM

[STrinity]

Have you heard of iTunes Plus? No? Then investigate it and then kindly STFU.

I have. The selection is sucktastic. Get back to me when they have more than one label on board, those labels include all their music, and the prices are competitive with Amazon. Until then, I'll complain about iTunes being for suckers.

Re:For all of you griping about Apple's DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:For all of you griping about Apple's DRM

[grubi]

a set of sleevenotes to read on the toilet

You have an odd set of requirements for recorded music.

Re:For all of you griping about Apple's DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Same as iTunes Plus.

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

Re:So... Who do I hate now?

[stewbee]

Funny you mention Nuclear blast records (I know this is off topic). I am listening to the new Meshuggah while reading your post and writing my own. It's a great CD if you don't mind the near continuous screaming, but musically it is awesome.

iPod as Gifts is driving this

[ndrw]

I suspect that all the people who receive iPods as gifts are the primary driver of this expansion, more than the gift cards. Think about it, you get a $300 iPod for free, plus some extra cash for the holiday, what are you gonna do? That's right, go to Apple and buy all your favorite tunes!

Re:iPod as Gifts is driving this

[pandrijeczko]

Some of us just fire up bitorrent and spend the cash on beer...

In which case you owe me a beer or two for my subsidising your theft by my consistent purchase of music CDs.

Better than mp3sparks.com

[fyoder]

mp3sparks.com has great selection, great price, and your choice of compression level and format. The only problem with it is that they don't have any options to fund your account, so you can't buy anything from them (at least not from North America).

gnutoo is twitter

[willyhill]

Amazing, twitter agreeing with himself. That's a new development.

Still got modded down as usual though.

Re:Meaningless Opinion.

[pryoplasm]

(Yeah there are a few CDs with some form of copy protection but those still aren't as bad as DRM.

WHA-WHA-WHAT?

What do you think that the copy protection is per se? Something that is not classified as DRM?

Re:Prosumer Tastes

[pandrijeczko]

The "cherrypickers" also seem to entirely forget that they are probably listening to the wrong type of music if they can only ever find one or two good tracks on an album.

Call me old-fashioned but I thought the whole concept of buying a CD album is that you pay the musicians to create the music that the producers and sound engineers make sound nice and arrange on a CD for you so all you have to do is throw some money at them, crack open a beer, stick the CD in a hifi and then just sit back and relax, without all that needless mucking about with playlists and mixing things up.

Re:Oh noes. Meanwhile...

[pandrijeczko]

Incorrect and totally irrelevant.

Some vendors of Linux distros (e.g. Red Hat) choose not to distribute Linux with the ability to play MP3s on the basis that their user base consists mainly of businesses who, potentially, could countersue them if some external party sued the business user for using a patented technology. However, those same vendors invariably explain how you can get MP3 to work quite easily on the provision that you choose to do so and the vendors that do that are a minority of distros.

So if you are going to bring up Linux in the first place, at least get your facts straight.

Re:damned Apple apologists

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

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?

It's the recording industry, stupid.

[lancejjj]

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.

James Patunas

[James-Patunas]

no need to call anyone stupid. ipods are well designed, sleek and simply great in every way, it is apples fault for making a great product and the public for liking it so much... i think i will go buy one, no two right now. - James Patunas

Re:James Patunas

[pandrijeczko]

no need to call anyone stupid. CDs are well designed, sleek and simply great in every way, it is Philips' fault for making a great product and the public for liking it so much... i think i will go buy one, no two right now. - A. Music Officionado

Re:damned Apple apologists

[squallbsr]

Yeah, have them drive iTunes out of business and then they can crank up the DRM schemes which take more control out of the consumer's hands and into RIAA's.

I appreciate that Apple doesn't license it's DRM, it helps keep DRM from spreading to everything and everyone. As soon as Apple loses their bargaining chips, RIAA will start going to other vendors who don't have a problem with increasing DRM limits.

Apple has helped one RIAA label realize DRM-free is the way to go. I would trust Apple W-A-Y before I would ever trust anything coming from RIAA/MPAA/etc.

Re:damned Apple apologists

[d34thm0nk3y]

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?

It is Apple's best interest to sell music that can only be played on their portable.

Re:damned Apple apologists

[grubi]

It is Apple's best interest to sell music that can only be played on their portable.

Stop it. Answer the question: how do you explain that they sell DRM-free music? These are DRM-free AACs, playable on any music player sold today.

Re:damned Apple apologists

[Goaway]

Then why do they sell music that plays on other players?

If the tune has NO DRM you can play it on anything

[crovira]

I can't believe you're on about this, (he said listening to DRM free songs, downloaded from the iTunesMusicStore, on his Creative ZenStone.)

Your igorance is embarrassing.

Check you fact before spouting off with your prejudices.

Filler filler filler filler mushroom mushroom

[argent]

Have you heard about CDs? No DRM, cheaper than downloading track-by-track,

I buy a CD, I spend $15 and get 3 tracks that end up in my shuffle playlist.

I buy individual tracks, If half the tracks I buy turn out to be filler, I spend $6 and get 3 tracks that end up in my shuffle playlist.

Re:Filler filler filler filler mushroom mushroom

[pandrijeczko]

I buy decent CDs, I don't get filler tracks.

Re:Filler filler filler filler mushroom mushroom

[argent]

What kind of music do you buy?

I suppose if you stick to Classical, Classics, and "Best Of" collections...

Re:Filler filler filler filler mushroom mushroom

[pandrijeczko]

Mainly classic British rock & psychedelic music from the late 60s through to the present day - I listen to anything from Terry Reid & The Beatles through to Radiohead and Kasabian, with Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, Tangerine Dream, Eric Clapton, Nick Drake, Albert King & Stevie Ray Vaughan in between (and not necessarily British themselves). I also like a lot of progressive rock with lesser known bands like Eloy, Jane and Amon Duul together with more popular stuff like Porcupine Tree, Dream Theater, Jethro Tull, Van der Graaf Generator, Genesis and Yes.

Go back 15 years and I was very much into heavy rock and metal, AC/DC are still one of my favourite bands and whilst I still like most of it, my tastes have expanded due to the fact that a lot of really good music is being rereleased and remastered from the late 60s and early 70s.

I enjoy a little classical but only when I can pick up a cheap CD at a record fair or car boot sale.

I tend to avoid "Best Ofs" except where they're cheap and serve as an introduction to a band I've not heard before - I really am an "album" person, I tend to find "Best Ofs" disjointed, especially where they're over a long period of a band's history.

I don't get into much modern or indie stuff simply because there's so much older stuff to trawl through, there aren't that many hours in a day to check newer stuff out - if I do hear modern stuff, it tends to be in the background somewhere and is invariably modern female R&B stuff which to me never comes close to the likes of Aretha Franklin, Eva Cassidy or Linda Hoyle.

Yes, I like a lot of stuff but then I listen to more music than anything else - if I'm not sat just listening to an album then invariably one is on in the background while I'm on the PC and I don't watch that much TV or movies.

What would the consequences be if they didn't?

[argent]

It's the fighting that counts. And what would be the consequences if they didn't?

In NYC? Do you need to ask? The same old stuff. "Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!"

It's always the animals that suffer.

No thanks on "this idea"

[SanityInAnarchy]

Not unless such a "P2P" effort is at least seeded by the labels themselves.

In the short term, maybe...

[WiseWeasel]

Eventually, they will get bitten when they change computers a few times, find that they've used up all their iTunes licenses because they never bothered to de-authorize their old computers, and now have to call Apple support for help because their music won't play anymore. Random issues like this will present roadblocks, and the solution is inevitably to convert any DRM'd content to standard format and stop buying the DRM'd content. I know several relatively un-geeky people who regularly shopped from the iTunes Store and were bit by this, and have now learned their lesson. Ultimately, everyone will discover that DRM sucks, and that they should avoid it if possible.

Re:In the short term, maybe...

[Admiral Ag]

Apple support are pretty cool. I'm sure they'll find a way around that.

Just this week, a "complete my album" dialogue didn't work in iTunes, so I bought the whole thing and filed a request for a refund for the one song I already had. The customer service person misunderstood me and refunded me the price of the whole album. So I wrote back and explained again and told them they had refunded me too much, and could they please reverse it.

Apple's response. Here's the one song refund you wanted and you can keep the free album credit as a gift.

Smack me in the head, but that is pretty damn decent.

I am an indie musician with music on iTunes

[New_Wave_or_Truth]

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.

Re:I am an indie musician with music on iTunes

[Poppler]

Cool band.

Re:damned Apple apologists

[d34thm0nk3y]

Then why do they sell music that plays on other players?

It is also in Ford's best interest to sell cars for a million each, why don't they?

Talk to the studios then

[SuperKendall]

I have. The selection is sucktastic. Get back to me when they have more than one label on board

You'll have to ask the studios about that since they have publicly stated they are only DRM free on Amazon to try and hurt sales on Apple's store.

Eventually they'll realize they are just hurting sales and give in, but consumers can give them a push.

De

[argent]

I suspected that might be the case. When you're able to pick from the best albums of the past 50 years you get a different view of the medium than if you're buying recent music. Albums that only have a couple of decent tracks don't even show up on your radar.

I'm not an "album person". I've bought a couple of full albums on iTunes with their "Complete My Album" offer, but it's not common. Mostly I hear a song I like and I buy that song and a few other tracks from the same album that appeal to me. If I had to buy the whole shebang, I probably wouldn't bother buying anything nearly as often.

Also I suspect that a lot of tracks I think of as filler are an integral part of the album for you... it may be a matter of how you feel about a track that isn't intended to stand on its own: I rarely play two tracks from the same album in sequence, let alone playing through an album in sequence.

Re:De

[pandrijeczko]

I suspected that might be the case. When you're able to pick from the best albums of the past 50 years you get a different view of the medium than if you're buying recent music. Albums that only have a couple of decent tracks don't even show up on your radar.

Actually, that's an excellent point you've made that I'd never really considered before. A lot of the albums that I do listen to are "concept" albums, like The Beatles Sgt. Peppers, for example.

And yes, you're correct on the second count also because I can "pick and choose" stuff to listen to, very much so. When all said and done, I'm actually very satisfied with the output of the record companies because, as I said previously, they're rereleasing a lot of very obscure and old stuff that I'm really delving into.

Incidentally, whilst I have no intention of paying for a music download ever, I have absolutely no issue with people who want their music that way. Like I said, I don't really understand this idea of "cherrypicking" tracks because I'm into albums, but if people want their music that way then they've as much right to do that as I do for CD buying.

But my real problem is with DRM, whether it's with Blockbuster renting DRMed DVD movies or the DRMed portions of iTunes. To me, DRM can only be bad for the consumer because it will ultimately turn everything into a rental model to screw more money out of everyone. I just hope people understand that when they buy anything with DRM on it, potentially they are creating a big problem for themselves in the future.

And, incidentally, I don't agree in the free distribution of music either. Ultimately, whether you buy a CD or a download track, you're subsidising those people who choose to steal music and who give the media companies the reasons they need to implement DRM in the first place. Those people wind me up equally as much as the RIAA do...

Lazy Taggers

[Me! Me! 42]

Why hasn't this article been tagged "Ha Ha" yet? Apple haters are getting lazy. ;-)

Re:damned Apple apologists

[wish bot]

Jesus, that's not an argument. Grow up.

Re:Meaningless Opinion.

[wish bot]

There's plenty of tracks in iTMS that are DRM free. There's plenty of music stores (like bleep.com) that sell in DRM free formats.

I find it really embarrassing that a geek site like Slashdot is full of people who use the excuse that Apple sell some DRM music to make political statements rather than technical arguments. If I wanted that shit, I'd read the comments in the WSJ.

oblig. eMusic plug

[Manfesto]

Some of those are availble DRM-free and CHEAPER from eMusic - http://www.emusic.com/

Side-note - "Challengers" by New Pornographers was one of the most disappointing albums of last year for me.

Re:damned Apple apologists

[nguy]

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?

That's bullshit. There have been several companies trying to sell DRM-free music. Apple started offering it because those pioneers forced them to.

Do you honestly believe that Apple would still sell DRM music if the music labels didn't require it?

Do you honestly believe the labels would insist in selling with DRM if companies like Apple didn't give them a big profit?

Apple's commercial success and leveraging of the iPod is what keeps DRM alive.

Re:damned Apple apologists

[nguy]

I appreciate that Apple doesn't license it's DRM, it helps keep DRM from spreading to everything and everyone.

My god, did you get a free lobotomy with your iPod? Apple is trying to monopolize the music market. And they are forcing users to use their shitty iTunes software and store.

As soon as Apple loses their bargaining chips, RIAA will start going to other vendors who don't have a problem with increasing DRM limits.

Apple is making DRM work and keeping it alive. No other company has the ability to deliver credible, usable DRM.

Without Apple, we'd already have widespread DRM-free music distribution.

Re:damned Apple apologists

[nguy]

Stop it. Answer the question: how do you explain that they sell DRM-free music? These are DRM-free AACs, playable on any music player sold today.

Actually, AAC doesn't play on "any music player". And Apple's DRM-free offerings are so limited that iTunes is meaningless for non-iPod users; DRM-free music on iTunes is primarily a way of squeezing more money out of iPod users.

The reason Apple has started selling DRM-free music is simple: other DRM-free vendors pioneered that business model and started cutting into Apple's business, and they can charge a premium for it.

Apple's sales of DRM-free music aren't an indication that the company wants to do the right thing, they are an indication that the market is forcing them to do the right thing, and they are still fighting it every way they can.

Re:damned Apple apologists

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

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.

Re:damned Apple apologists

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

But that doesn't mean they would otherwise do it if not required, as it clearly affects the user/customer. As such, it is in their best interests to make the customer happy by making their experience trouble free. I mean, you do know how Apple markets their computers, right? "It just works", etc.? Your conspiracy theories goes against Apple's design philosophy. And Apple believes that philosophy is what makes them money.

Why annoying DRM is good.

[argent]

But my real problem is with DRM, whether it's with Blockbuster renting DRMed DVD movies or the DRMed portions of iTunes. To me, DRM can only be bad for the consumer because it will ultimately turn everything into a rental model to screw more money out of everyone.

That's why I love the fact that competing DRM schemes make things hard for the consumer right now and keep the fact that there's DRM on the music right now in everyone's face. The last thing we want is for DRM to be mostly invisible and ubiquitous like CSS, no, I wish Microsoft would come up with a THIRD DRM scheme... "plays-for-sure-fooled-you" and Zune isn't enough. Think how sucky things would be without Apple, if everyone was using protected WMA and it "just worked" on everyone's music player.

And of course the fact that Apple's DRM is no stronger than "honor system" is an additional bonus. It keeps reminding people that copy protection sucks, but at the same time it doesn't inconvenience me. Double win!

Re:Why annoying DRM is good.

[pandrijeczko]

If a music track is DRM'ed only to the point where you can still do what you expect to do with that music, then there's probably a very strong case for just forgetting about it entirely.

But even you must admit that DRM *can* inhibit an honest music buyer from doing what he is accustomed to with music and, from his/her perspective, that is wrong.

Or let me put it another way - downloadable music is a fairly new idea and you bought your iPod on the basis that you'd pay for downloads from iTunes to put onto your iPod. Okay, so you're probably clued up enough to have known, even before you bought your iPod, that there would be restrictions on any DRMed tracks you download. Therefore, you can turn round and tell me, as you have been doing, that when you buy from iTunes you know exactly what you are getting, your iPod and tracks do exactly what you're told they would do. And I can't argue with that, your expectations of what music should do for you are achieved, it's down to opinion and neither of us is right or wrong. End of story.

But, imagine me sat here now. I've been buying music for 30+ years, from vinyl through to CDs. I've grown up amongst peers who have always enjoyed music together and the concept of sharing music within that group is a given - yes, sometimes people taped albums from each other but much of the time everyone in the group also bought LPs and, later on, CDs. Yes, there's arguments people can put forward to justify the rights or wrongs of doing that but, ultimately, one of my expectations of music is that I can loan albums to friends. If they choose to just listen to it and give it back, that's fine - if they choose to copy it, that's up to them.

The point I'm trying to make is that DRM would inhibit that completely meaning, that one of the reasons I enjoy music is taken away from me - even though I have spent a huge amount of money on CDs and LPs to buy the music I really like. So not only does DRM *change* what I am accustomed to with music, but there's an expectation from the RIAA and parts of the music industry that I just lie down and take it - their justification being "Well hard luck that you're an honest music user but because people choose to download music for free or rip CDs that aren't theirs, you'll suffer it to".

So that's why, to me, DRM is wrong and entirely evil - especially as music is my main passion in life (well, after the missus!) and I am not going to compromise on that.

Re:Why annoying DRM is good.

[argent]

If a music track is DRM'ed only to the point where you can still do what you expect to do with that music, then there's probably a very strong case for just forgetting about it entirely.

That's why it's good that there's no standard for DRM for music, because it would increase the likelihood that people would just put up with it, like they put up with it on DVDs. The fact that I have to mess around burning and re-ripping tracks is annoying, but I'm willing to put up with that annoyance as long as it means other people are also annoyed, and the undercurrent of resentment against DRM is maintained.

But even you must admit that DRM *can* inhibit an honest music buyer from doing what he is accustomed to with music and, from his/her perspective, that is wrong.

Sure, but it would be no less wrong if it wasn't annoying. It would be worse. The more the honest user is inhibited, the better off we are over the long term.

there's an expectation from the RIAA and parts of the music industry that I just lie down and take it

That expectation exists because the public just lay down and took it for DVDs. And the public lay down and took it for DVDs because you hardly anyone ever has to care about it. The DRM format wars between Apple and Microsoft and Sony and Real and the rest of them are the biggest reason why most people aren't just laying down and taking it this time around.

Re:Meaningless Opinion.

[JCSoRocks]

Well, in the case of the Sony Rootkit I'd say it's a device to crush your PC's will to live.

Re:damned Apple apologists

[nguy]

They didn't force Apple to do anything because I'm not aware of any other successful DRM-free ventures

I'm sorry you've been living under a rock, but other companies have been selling DRM-free MP3s for years before Apple got around to it.

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.

Apple is providing a tidy profit to record labels through their DRM-based service. As a result, Apple is helping keep DRM around. If Apple didn't have a successful DRM-based service, DRM would probably already be history because nobody else managed to make it work technically.

Re:damned Apple apologists

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I'm sorry you've been living under a rock, but other companies have been selling DRM-free MP3s for years before Apple got around to it.

Yeah, me and most other people. Please find an average person who can name a single one of these companies.

As a result, Apple is helping keep DRM around.

Of course. By introducing DRM-free versions, they are definitely help keeping it around.

If Apple didn't have a successful DRM-based service, DRM would probably already be history because nobody else managed to make it work technically.

Why would you think that? Do you really think the big labels would have backed a DRM-free service back then?

What I still can't understand is why on earth you think Apple is behind the DRM decision. How is it not obvious that it was the record labels who would insist on this? Surely you must be trolling?

Re:So what? - Bradley C Stark

[Bradley-C-Stark]

i don't like this either. - Braldy C Stark