Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Is Now the #1 US Music Retailer

Posted by kdawson on from the nose-bleed-ascension dept.

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%.

52 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. And that means by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that this year we have a new #1!

    It's Apple iTunes with DRM Forever!

    --
    Summation 2
    1. Re:And that means by Winckle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:And that means by Luscious868 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:And that means by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:And that means by Dusty00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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>

    5. Re:And that means by ajlitt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:And that means by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apple has the least restrictive DRM on the planet. I've never, ever noticed that it even exists even after making backups and burning my music to CDs. You're whining just to whine, like most Slashdot posters.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    7. Re:And that means by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree. Here's how it goes:

      1. Apple has the market share for MP3 players, namely the ipod.
      2. That makes it impossible to sell music that won't play on the ipod.
      3. Apple refuses to use any DRM scheme but its own, and refuses to let other people use that.
      4. It's impossible for anyone else to sell DRMed music.

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

      --
      Everything seemed to be going so nice
      'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
    8. Re:And that means by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    9. Re:And that means by sgladfelter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    10. Re:And that means by wish+bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
  2. one future of music distribution by xTantrum · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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

    --
    $action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
    1. Re:one future of music distribution by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    2. Re:one future of music distribution by philipgar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

    3. Re:one future of music distribution by tungstencoil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:one future of music distribution by SamSim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      qntm.org
  3. Hopfully by Anita+Coney · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now that Apple has replaced Wal-mart as the 1000 pound gorilla in music retail, maybe the company will be able to drag the music industry into the new millennium.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:Hopfully by chaim79 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

      --
      DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
      AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
      Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
    2. Re:Hopfully by AaxelB · · Score: 5, Informative

      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).
  4. Correlation and Conjecture by Chris_Stankowitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  5. Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    '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.
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 .
    2. Re:Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart by Speare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
  6. So what? by gnutoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:So what? by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:So what? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:So what? by mbge7psh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:So what? by myfigurefemale · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

      --
      http://www.clairehenry.net//powered by linux
    5. Re:So what? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:So what? by Rimbo · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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.
    7. Re:So what? by SamSim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      qntm.org
    8. Re:So what? by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  7. Could be. by gnutoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Could be. by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

  8. Article is wrong .. M by quo_vadis · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Legally obligatory sig : My opinions are my own... etc etc
  9. Uh-oh by LaughingCoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apparently the concept of the market rejecting DRM is overblown?

    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    1. Re:Uh-oh by darjen · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  10. Re:Who actually buys stuff from iTunes? by imamac · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who actually buys stuff from Wal-Mart?

  11. Opposite for me by littleghoti · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

  12. Re:Why no album discount? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
  13. Except Walmart is now the #1 US Music Retailer by Moonpie+Madness · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  14. Re:That's what Amazon is for by OiBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --
    `fortune -o`
  15. That's not good enough. by gnutoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:That's not good enough. by Poltras · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Of Code And Men
    2. Re:That's not good enough. by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

  16. For all of you griping about Apple's DRM by NiceGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  17. Re:damned Apple apologists by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  18. It's the recording industry, stupid. by lancejjj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  19. Re:That's what Amazon is for by STrinity · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
  20. Re:That's what Amazon is for by STrinity · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.
    --
    Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
  21. I am an indie musician with music on iTunes by New_Wave_or_Truth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I get $0.87 to every $0.99 download, and all I did to get my independently released tracks on iTunes was register with a distributor, who handles it all for only a piece of that 12 cents.

    --
    "I understand my tests are popular reading in the teacher's lounge." -Calvin to Hobbes
  22. Re:damned Apple apologists by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.