or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Are Apple's iTunes music sales plummeting?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are Apple's iTunes music sales plummeting? - Page 3

post #81 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by skatman

And which categories are these?

- Cost per song ratio
- Music quality
- Original, hard copy backup
- Informational insert
- Sharability
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #82 of 121
the other part is that although audiophiles may be a very small number of people, most of them consume a LOT of music

it's a lot more lost sales than just multiplying the average songs per person (3) times the number of audiophiles.... audiophiles will purchase many more songs per year than three
post #83 of 121
Like a lot of people here, Apple's DRM, even if it isn't as bad as Microsoft's, has been a big turn off for me. I'd also buy more via iTunes if a higher bit rate like 192 kbps were available.

I wonder if it's merely a coincidence, or if the fact that things like JHymn no longer work to remove Apple's DRM has made a difference. Could it be that a statistically significant number of iTunes buyers had been buying from iTunes only because they could crack the DRM, enough to noticeably affect sales when those buyers stopped buying?

I still sample new music using the iTunes store, but after I find something I like there, I buy it on Amazon or elsewhere instead.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #84 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

I wonder if it's merely a coincidence, or if the fact that things like JHymn no longer work to remove Apple's DRM has made a difference. Could it be that a statistically significant number of iTunes buyers had been buying from iTunes only because they could crack the DRM, enough to noticeably affect sales when those buyers stopped buying?

I highly doubt it as there are several other ways to remove DRM from your iTunes content. MyFairTunes, QTFairUse and DRM Dumpster are the ones I am aware of.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #85 of 121
I wonder if it is related to increase of price for albums. Personally, I was very eager to buy music when it was truly $9.99 for almost every album. Now it is so common to see them priced at $11.99 or higher in the US store.. I think the usual suspect is greed on part of the record labels. People just are not willing to pay when they feel like they are being ripped off and they can steal it instead.

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #86 of 121
Are Apple's iTunes music sales plummeting?

NO! That's a fallacy!

The music and other revenue in Apple's statements covers a lot of ground and music is only a portion of it. To really see how music sales are tracking with iPods, you have to plot the actual music sales against the iPod sales, as the chart in the article shows.

Installed base is irrelevant because of the number of older iPods no longer in use. It's far more accurate to plot actual sales of iPods against actual sales of songs. If you do that, you will see that the number of songs per iPod is growing, not declining.

http://www.blackfriarsinc.com/blog/u...tunes-full.jpg

During the 7-month period of Feb to Sept, 500m tunes were sold during a period in which 16m iPods were sold. That's 31.25 songs per iPod. During the period of 1/04 to 1/05, 175m songs sold while 8m iPods sold. That's 21.875 songs per iPod.

It's plain to see that as iPod sales have grown, so too have music sales.

So, a slight Q/Q decline in Music & Other rev means that Other, i.e., iPod peripherals, is declining, not music.
post #87 of 121
Also, as people buy music, they will be adding to their collection less and less because they will have more of the songs they want.
post #88 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolo

Installed base is irrelevant because of the number of older iPods no longer in use. It's far more accurate to plot actual sales of iPods against actual sales of songs. If you do that, you will see that the number of songs per iPod is growing, not declining.

Though I agree that one must take into account the iPods that are no longer in use (as well as iTunes purchased content being shared on multiple iPods) you can't disregard previously purchased iPods as "irrelevant" if they are still being used.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #89 of 121
Research payed for by the maker of Zune, perhaps? Also, better quality downloads would help. 128k is a joke.
post #90 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism

Though I agree that one must take into account the iPods that are no longer in use (as well as iTunes purchased content being shared on multiple iPods) you can't disregard previously purchased iPods as "irrelevant" if they are still being used.

I doubt if that many older iPods are still in use. I'm just one person but I have 3 iPods and primarily only use one of them. The other two, a 1G and a 2G, are sitting on a shelf. The songs I buy on the iTunes Store are shared but I mostly use an iPod photo. Songs are bought more often by those new to iPod so it seems more valid to plot songs sold against iPods sold in any given period rather than have the songs per iPod ratio dragged down by all the older iPods sitting in drawers or on shelves.

It's also very misleading to leave out all the songs purchased with gift cards. People get them for birthdays as well as for Christmas and Hanukah. Many people also give iPods as presents along with an iTunes gift card.

The simple, inescapable, mathematical fact is that song sales are increasing with iPod sales, not declining.
post #91 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by jyroflux

Research payed for by the maker of Zune, perhaps? Also, better quality downloads would help. 128k is a joke.

Not that again. AAC is a much better codec than MP3 so a lower bit rate for AAC is equivalent to a much higher MP3 bit rate. For example, 96 kbps AAC generally exceeds the quality of 128k MP3.

See AAC Audio
post #92 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

I forgot to mention that Podcasting can be adapted for PDFs.
So instead of subscribing to a magazine, you subscribe to its PDFcast.
iTunes will auto-magically download the latest issue in PDF format and sync it to your Apple eBook.

& the new Leopard voice synth sounds great! (could convert/be dropped into iPod)
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #93 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

Like a lot of people here, Apple's DRM, even if it isn't as bad as Microsoft's, has been a big turn off for me. I'd also buy more via iTunes if a higher bit rate like 192 kbps were available.

I wonder if it's merely a coincidence, or if the fact that things like JHymn no longer work to remove Apple's DRM has made a difference. Could it be that a statistically significant number of iTunes buyers had been buying from iTunes only because they could crack the DRM, enough to noticeably affect sales when those buyers stopped buying?

I still sample new music using the iTunes store, but after I find something I like there, I buy it on Amazon or elsewhere instead.

But do the anti-DRMers actually buy music? The only people who have a real problem with it are pirates, who were never going to be customers anyway, or PC people who are starting to realise cobbling together 'open' systems makes them feel technical/clever but is a hiding to nowhere - but they'll come around.

Apple should get iTunes to DRM the ripped CDs to circumvent Universal music's Zunesque iPod tax - after all, eveyone's still got the original CDs - haven't they?

McD
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #94 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave

But do the anti-DRMers actually buy music?

Yes


Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave

The only people who have a real problem with it are pirates

Wrong. Many of the anti-DRMers are people who legitimately buy music and then wish to be able to play it wherever they like, on whichever device they like (just like you can with a CD - why should an online purchase be any different?), without having to loose any more "quality" (burn & lossy rip of an already lossy format isn't great quality-wise) from a source that is already of dubious quality.

If you're a pirate, why give a crap about DRM? Everything you want is already available for free with no DRM. The main people that DRM really annoys is legitimate users.

If you buy music from iTunes, why should you not be able to play it on a mobile phone (all of them that play music play AAC as far as I'm aware)? On a Roku SoundBridge? On a Sonos system? etc. etc.

DRM doesn't piss me off too much because currently I can get rid of it with no quality loss. But when Apple finally manage to stop QTfairUse working and no replacement is forthcoming, that will really, really piss me off.

There are two solutions, either of which I'd be happy to see:

1.) No DRM

2.) Apple licensing FairPlay so that other devices (like mobiles and SoundBridges) can play iTunes purchases.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #95 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macvault

DOWN WITH DRM! DOWN WITH DRM! DOWN WITH DRM! DOWN WITH DRM! DOWN WITH DRM!

I'm a long-time Apple fan and I actually want iTunes to succeed. However, I hate having my media, whether music, videos, etc. being locked up by DRM. I HATE DRM! And it's not because I want to share my files with everyone. I just don't think I should have to gain permission from some self-serving corporation before I can listen/watch the media I have purchased legally! AND I don't want to be told what device I can or can't play the music on. Since iTunes came online I've purchased maybe only a mere 20 songs, and I purchase them only when I'm in a bind and need the song RIGHT NOW. Otherwise I go buy the CD and rip it - in the format and bitrate of my choosing and WITHOUT DRM! Soooo... I say let's send Apple and the industry a message: FREE OUR MUSIC/MEDIA!

DOWN WITH DRM! DOWN WITH DRM! DOWN WITH DRM! DOWN WITH DRM! DOWN WITH DRM!

The only thing unfair about DRM is that Apple have to use it but the music companies can still distribute non-DRM CDs. Surely this is anti-competitive! Even more so with some commercial tracks available without DRM on Yahoo. They're not playing by their own rules and they're actually aiding piracy while pointing the finger at someone else.

Either scrap it & start the court cases in anger, or establish/adopt an industry-standard DRM for all media (preferrably updatable to outrun hackers). This would help cross-platform people who want one player (WMP, iTunes or other) but multiple music sources i.e. the people with a legitimate reason to dislike DRM.

Of course the people using P2P can shut up & piss off because we're paying for your music!

McD
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #96 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by fc3

Even CD quality is, at best, only mid-fi. Remember that CD was a compromise built with what was the best technology available at the time. They were invented in the late 1970s and the first players and CDs began appearing around 1982-83. The first decent sounding CD player that I heard was a $2,500 Macintosh that appeared some time around 1985. 16 bit 44.1 kHz sampling was a big technical challenge years ago. Those specs were determined sufficient to reproduce sound for the average persons hearing. But 44.1 kHz sampling is not enough sampling to smoothly and accurately reproduce the waveforms of high frequencies; thus resulting in brittle sound. The 90 dB dynamic range of CD is adequate, but not generous. Symphony orchestras typically have a dynamic range of 70+ dB from pianissimo to forte. Live Jazz is nearly as demanding, and in some cases, as demanding as orchestral music.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Mostly self-proclaimed audiophile BS with a hint of truth here and there under the BS.

44.1 kHz is perfectly adequate to produce high frequency sounds up to 20 kHz and a little higher. Poorly implemented hardware designs and badly done recordings might not sound as good as they otherwise might, but that's not the same thing as the sampling rate itself being a problem.

Simple-minded drawings of sampled waveforms, made to look all terribly jaggy and very unlike beautifully smooth looking high-frequency soundwaves pictured in the same drawings -- the only "evidence" that there is for this stupid meme that will not die about 44.1 kHz not being "good enough" -- don't tell the real story. Any little bump or bulge on, say, a 20 kHz waveform, represents higher frequency content than 20 kHz.

If 20 kHz is the highest frequency you can hear (a few people can hear a little higher, most people, including most self-acclaimed audiophiles, are lucky if they can hear beyond 15 kHz), then you can't hear the difference between differently-shaped 20 kHz waveforms and a simply 20 kHz sound wave. Once you properly filter a digital output, within practical engineering tolerances, the only thing that's missing -- stupid drawings be damned -- is stuff that most people can't hear, and that, even for those who can hear it, is of highly questionable musical value.

Show me some double-blinded testing that proves that any but a very small number of people (who would mostly be young and unexposed to a lot of loud noise, and most of whom would not be the same people who think they have golden ears) get any real benefit out of crazy, wasteful sampling rates like 96 kHz -- if they can even detect any differences at all between that and 44.1 kHz -- and then maybe you might have a glimmer of a point to make.

As for CD's dynamic range -- which is 96 dB, not 90 -- consider this: Let's presume that a reasonable audio technology stops at, or just before, producing sound levels at threshold of pain. Between the most quiet sound that you can just barely hear in an otherwise perfectly quiet room and the threshold of pain is a range of about 130 dB. I'll grant you that CDs fall a bit short of this dynamic range.

However, it is very rare that even the audiophiles who are out there buying $1000/meter speaker wire and AC power conditioners and $5000 stand-alone DACs have listening rooms with a background noise of less than 40 dB. To get a listening environment much quieter than that you need to get away from traffic, away from refrigerator compressors, away from buzzing florescent lights, away from cooling fans and hard drives, away anyone talking around you. You'll be lucky to get a 20 dB environment when you listen to music.

Turn up your volume just loud enough to hear the quietest sounds a CD can make over the background noise of a 40 dB room, and then the loudest sounds a CD can make will hurt you. Get yourself a nice 20 dB room instead, and while the loudest sounds won't cause immediate pain, they will be loud enough that you shouldn't listen at levels like that for extended periods of time (20 dB + 96 dB = 116 dB ~= the sound of a jack hammer operating about 2 meters from your head) if you value your ears very much -- something an audiophile presumably does value.

Implemented with decent hardware (and "decent" doesn't require megabuck components and oxygen-free copper wire), and coupled with well-made recordings, the CD standard is far above "mid fi". For the great majority of both listeners and listening environments, 44.1 kHz/16-bit sampling is perfectly suitable for producing excellent sound quality.

There's really only one department where the CD standard falls down: spacial realism. Basic two-channel stereo sound can't produce a fully realistic sound stage (unless you count binaural recordings, which need to be tuned to specific people to fully realize their potential, must be listened to using headphones, and which produce a sonic illusion which is shattered simply by turning your head and having the whole imaginary sound stage automatically and unrealistically turn with you).

While many audiophiles do spend a whole lot of time going on (and on, and on) about the spacial qualities of music, most people don't give a damn. If they care about sound localization at all, it's for sound effects in movies, not seating arrangements of musicians in a band or orchestra. If spacial realism matters a lot to you, fine, but it's hardly reason enough to demote CDs to mid-fi status for their lack of special-effects grade sound localization.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #97 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave

But do the anti-DRMers actually buy music? The only people who have a real problem with it are pirates...

I hate DRM, and I'm not at all music pirate. Every track in my current 5017-track iTunes library has been bought and paid for. I have a small handful of "hear, listen to this!" tracks sitting outside of iTunes right now, given to me by a friend, but I'll either decide to buy that music for myself if I like it enough, or throw it away.

I want non-Apple hardware, like my Roku Soundbridge, to work without worrying about Apple's incompatible DRM. I don't want hassles with authorizing and deauthorizing computers. I'd like to have the choice of using non-Apple software to play back my music, and non-Apple software (like Toast) to burn CDs.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #98 of 121
interesting there is no mention of rapsody et al
i just created my own christmas album buying from itunes, before i buy music i check itunes, i can't remember when i or my wife bought a cd (ok ok i did buy some christmas cd's but they stunk and went to itunes)

so what's his point??? are otheres killing itunes, i don't think so with the number one player they all have connection to itunes. it was also a way to combat p2p and illegal downloads how about a comment on that success
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #99 of 121
Hey guess what guys, i want DRM off it too...but we are a minority here. How many people actually know what DRM is? How many people care? i don't think it makes much a difference to most people. It's not like they manipulate and move around files and such as much as we do...
post #100 of 121
For its part, Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris says 'the conclusion that iTunes sales are slowing is simply incorrect.' Apple does not provide any financial details related to its online music store, but says 1.5 billion songs have been sold in the store. Kerris added that iTunes sales are 6% of all music sold in the U.S., making it the fourth largest music retailer."
post #101 of 121
I just wanted to repeat this so everyone sees :

12/12/2006
Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris says 'the conclusion that iTunes sales are slowing is simply incorrect.'


So much for "65% decline".
post #102 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave

But do the anti-DRMers actually buy music? The only people who have a real problem with it are pirates

It's nice that you've made sweeping generalizations about people that you don't know. Thank you.
post #103 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave

But do the anti-DRMers actually buy music? The only people who have a real problem with it are pirates, who were never going to be customers anyway, or PC people who are starting to realise cobbling together 'open' systems makes them feel technical/clever but is a hiding to nowhere - but they'll come around.

McD

Ive bought around 60 songs from the iTunes Store since I first opened my account, the other songs are from my cds i bought from the stores. Ive never pirated music from P2P networks and I wish songs could be DRM free, but face the facts. DRM is the only way to go as the honor system wont work with music/tv shows/movies.

Remember, you can burn your music to a cd and re-rip it off to strip the DRM legally, I honestly find that to be wonderful as then I can transfer my songs without DRM and not have to worry about having to pirate systems. You have to give Apple a little credit for allowing that, it could always be a lot worse, you could have Windows DRM/Zune DRM. How would you like it if you copied a song back off your iPod and it would only work for 3 days/3 times?

Morale is, dont buy music and resocialize with all your friends and enjoy the outdoors .
"Did your house just explode?"

"Its the most fun in the park, when your laughing in the dark."

"You better watch yourself, or the Crimson Clown will get you."
Reply
"Did your house just explode?"

"Its the most fun in the park, when your laughing in the dark."

"You better watch yourself, or the Crimson Clown will get you."
Reply
post #104 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Mostly self-proclaimed audiophile BS with a hint of truth here and there under the BS.

Thanks for saying what I couldn't be bothered to
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #105 of 121
It's really amazing the complete lack of journalistic integrity that's displayed these days. Some analyst claims, with very dubious evidence, that iTunes sales are falling - and presumably by association something bad is going to happen to Apple - and the interweb is flooded with sites parroting that as if it's gospel truth.

The fact is that iTunes sales are NOT falling. The fact is that Forrester can't research their own ass without both hands and a guidebook !
post #106 of 121
Oh - and lets' not loose sight of the fact that - even if iTunes sales are falling, even if P2P networks offer a better experience - file sharing is theft and theft is illegal. You might not like it, but that doesn't change the facts. Sorry
post #107 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple Computer's industry leading iTunes digital download service has experienced a collapse in sales revenues this year according a recent analysis from Forrester Research.

While Apple has remained tight-lipped on the revenues and profits it generates through the service -- stating only that it operates at above 'break even' cost --Forrester believes credit card transaction data may offer some clues.

The firm recently conducted an analysis of all related transactions over a 27-month period. And according to a write up over at The Register, this year's numbers are far from encouraging.

"While the iTunes service saw healthy growth for much of the period, since January the monthly revenue has fallen by 65 percent, with the average transaction size falling 17 percent," the report states. A rebound in sales that took place during the spring of 2005 wasn't repeated this year.

Meanwhile, data from Nielsen Soundscan indicates the problem is not Apple's alone, showing three consecutive quarters of flat or declining revenues for the digital download sector as a whole.

The Register notes that this ominous trend has manifested despite healthy growth for digital music players. During the same period monitored by Forrester, iPod sales quadrupled and Apple's grew digital download inventory on iTunes significantly as video and movie catalogs joined the plethora of digital music tracks.

According to Forrester's data on the purchasing trends of iTunes shoppers, some 3.2 percent of online households -- around 60 percent of the wider population -- bought at least one download during its sample period.

"These dabblers made on average 5.6 transactions, with the median household making just three a year," the report states. "The median transaction was slightly under $3."

THE REPORT IS DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION!!! spread the word !

http://www.blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2...ollapsing.html
twitter and facebook is your life, MyAppleSpace is your iLife
Reply
twitter and facebook is your life, MyAppleSpace is your iLife
Reply
post #108 of 121
what Shetline said!
post #109 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zab The Fab

THE REPORT IS DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION!!! spread the word !

http://www.blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2...ollapsing.html

Folks, IMO this is the big boys trying to drive the stock price down so they can get in cheaper for the run up. How about the recent B.S. "news" story about the iPod phone delay? That sent the PPS a few bucks lower. How can there be a delay in a product that hasn't even been announced??? They shake out the weak hands and snap up their shares. Stoopid people, if you're going to buy AAPL, just buy it and hang on to it for long time and you'll be glad that you did.

Also, most people don't care about the quality of the songs (or more accurately don't notice the difference). It's kind of like golf balls. Most people play whatever is on sale at Dicks. They don't care, it's round, it's white and it still goes long if they hit it square. I've never heard anyone complain about the quality of a song from iTMS. Obviously, there are some of us that care about this more than others but we're a small majority IMO.

Cheers,
Mac
post #110 of 121
Roughly Drafted has an excellet artcle explaining DRM.
Why DRM
Some consumers have decided the problem lies with DRM. However, DRM is merely a tool that serves a purpose. It has a bad reputation because most DRM efforts have gone irresponsibly overboard in destroying user rights under the guise of protecting copyright.

In reality, DRM is just a lock. Consumers are aware of why retail stores use locks to prevent theft. There are locks on the doors, physical locks on some merchandise, and sometimes electronic tags that trigger inventory alarms.

Everyone knows there are no locks or security systems that are impossible to outwit, but retail locks do work to block the majority of theft related loss retailers would otherwise suffer. The theft they help to stop also prevents retailers from having to cover their losses by raising prices.

In the digital world, DRM serves the same purpose. It can be a functional deterrent to mass theft without being an insane barrier to normal use. When abused, DRM fails, just as it did for Sony's MiniDisc and Microsoft's PlaysForSure, and just as its now doing for the Zune.

When DRM is created to serve the needs of both producers and consumers, it works to create markets; DRM creates a product that can be sold, creating demand for content that would otherwise be unavailable.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #111 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by McHuman

I just wanted to repeat this so everyone sees :

12/12/2006
Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris says 'the conclusion that iTunes sales are slowing is simply incorrect.'


So much for "65% decline".

Something that's been pointed out on other forums, but I haven't seen here is that the comparison was between different quarters rather than the same quarter of different years. You can have a quarter-to-quarter decline, yet have a good year-over-year increase. Quarter-to-quarter comparisons are often meaningless, the real growth or decline is in year over year sales. This is the nature of seasonal business. For example, only a nitwit would say or accept that a 65% decline in the sales of say, winter sports equipment, between winter and summer months, was a valid comparison. Apparently the same is true of iTunes sales.

There are many other issues with the report and the Reg's treatment of it, but this is the biggest one.
post #112 of 121
Quote:
the other part is that although audiophiles may be a very small number of people, most of them consume a LOT of music


well, um, that's probably true. I must buy around 6 LPs and 10 cds a month; still burn out 400 Watts per channel on speaker output and use an old-fashioned tube pre-amp and turntable.

When I meet with my trendy mates who aren't audiophile, I'm surprised at the shit they listen to :P
post #113 of 121
Oh yes..... iTunes.....I'd never waste $0.99 on a digital file track either - much prefer a cd with proper sound. Sometimes I might get the vinyl LP and the cd if there's a huge difference in quality! As far as I know, iTunes was popular with teeny bops who liked to buy single tracks which impressed them because of their extraordinary short-memory. Because the tracks had catchy hooks and were no longer than 3 minutes, they could actually remember the song. That is....until the next chart hit came out..
post #114 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin

Oh yes..... iTunes.....I'd never waste $0.99 on a digital file track either - much prefer a cd with proper sound. Sometimes I might get the vinyl LP and the cd if there's a huge difference in quality! As far as I know, iTunes was popular with teeny bops who liked to buy single tracks which impressed them because of their extraordinary short-memory. Because the tracks had catchy hooks and were no longer than 3 minutes, they could actually remember the song. That is....until the next chart hit came out..

CDs contain digital files. Lucky for Apple enough 'teeny bops' disagree with you to buy over 1.5 billion of them I'm sure most of it is crap but you must have an excellent source to sustain 16 albums of high quality listening per month.

Would you buy iTunes Store music if it were lossless (the same quality as CD)? Or are you just trying to be elitist?
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #115 of 121
Not sure - I won't even buy CD sometimes, because the quality is so so inferior to LP vinyl :P

I've tried a few SACD's and got to say - the sonic dimension and sound staging is just phenomenal.

Let's not pretend that convenience isn't the overriding factor with iTunes and modern digital MP3 and internet music. It's fine for the non-discriminating - I'm quite happy to have 4,000 tracks on my iPod wandering around remote places in the back of nowhere for a year with an AAA battery charger to keep it happy for 20 hours at a time. CD quality is still far superior than the stuff I end up on my iPod (even when it claims to be lossless format). There isn't anyone I've met who've listened to an iPod and a proper audiophile cd player through the same system who can't discriminate the inferior quality of the iPod....have you?

When I'm back in a home, it's a different story - no elitism about that, unless space is considered capitalist, and living in one's own, listening to vinyl music is considered that way..
post #116 of 121
Very true, I would consider buying more music online if it was at least 256kpbs because this is what I rip all my CDs to, if the music was lossless I would really be tempted to buy a whole lot more online. The reality is you can download lossless versions of albums with no DRM for free so why would you pay for a sub-standard product?

Quote:
Originally Posted by intlplby

i know a lot of people who wouldn't consider buying something at 128Kbps


a lot would fold in at around 256Kbps for singles which is only marginally larger in file size.


128 is pathetic and low enough that even non-audiophiles can tell it doesn't sound as good....
post #117 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf

Very true, I would consider buying more music online if it was at least 256kpbs because this is what I rip all my CDs to, if the music was lossless I would really be tempted to buy a whole lot more online. The reality is you can download lossless versions of albums with no DRM for free so why would you pay for a sub-standard product?

Which would also be illegal
post #118 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by parky

Which would also be illegal

You'll be amazed how many people now think it's their god-given right to pirate. I've seen two polls showing 80% of digital music users now consider P2P to be a valid way of acquiring music & a discussion at a recent BBQ where I was the odd man out justifying music purchase against 4 other adults! I blame the lack of usable creative software shipped as standard with Windows they should be paying the music companies more than a dollar per Zune for the seeds that they've sown.

You guys are absolutely right about the trade off between quality & convenience though the home is increasingly giving way to bus & car as my listening venue and the downloads sound fine. All that aside, unless something changes on the piracy front Crazy Frog's Xmas EP is going to sound a bit less crap on vinyl than it does at 128Kb AAC

McD
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #119 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave

they should be paying the music companies more than a dollar per Zune for the seeds that they've sown.


I hope you're just kidding. I feel extremely strongly that by MS paying Universal a dollar on every zune, that I am justified in p2p music sharing. I'm serious, I don't say that jokingly. If someone were to make that claim in court it could very well hold up.

EDIT: For the record, I rarely if ever download music illegally.
post #120 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

It's nice that you've made sweeping generalizations about people that you don't know. Thank you.

Nice to see a few of you disagree - a generalisation doesn't have to be 100% to be valid Jeff but then again if the minority weren't sensitively vocal this site wouldn't exist. I didn't expect much from the pro-piracy brigade I suspect they're too busy downloading & hunting for DRM cracking software.

McD
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Are Apple's iTunes music sales plummeting?