or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple briefly held position as No. 1 US music retailer - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple briefly held position as No. 1 US music retailer - report - Page 2

post #41 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

And no, I'm not a "climate change denier," I simply detest those who turn scientific debates into propaganda political causes.

I'm with you. We have evidence that the climate is getting warmer, but there is no empirical evidence that humans are the cause for this change.

Regardless, we still need to take measures to ensure a homeostatic climate that is ideal for human kind. That includes artificially altering the world's climate if need be to maintain this ideal.
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 #42 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

So you're saying that Apple is like every other company in the world?

What shock!!!

Read the replies to that crap post your are quoting. Imho Apple si extremely different and positive but it still a company and try to make more money. I don't get why we should NOT be happy with this news.

Again... WELL DONE APPLE.
post #43 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm with you. We have evidence that the climate is getting warmer, but there is no empirical evidence that humans are the cause for this change.

Regardless, we still need to take measures to ensure a homeostatic climate that is ideal for human kind. That includes artificially altering the world's climate if need be to maintain this ideal.

Actually, there is plenty of evidence.
post #44 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikir View Post

Read the replies to that crap post your are quoting. Imho Apple si extremely different and positive but it still a company and try to make more money. I don't get why we should NOT be happy with this news.

Again... WELL DONE APPLE.

I'm happy with the news. Apple looks to sales and profit, which it is supposed to do.

With the competitive environment what it is these days, it has no choice but to do what its competitors do.

Google's motto is "Do No Evil". But, every time they give in to a dictatorial government they are doing evil, aren't they?

Or, is the mere fact that they are there, helping to open those government over time overcoming the censorship they give in to?

Apple is in a similar dilemma. Build in the cheapest area, or lose sales and profit.

The only to prevent it would be to prevent everyone from doing it, and that is simply not going to happen.

The guilty ones are the purchasers of products, who demand the cheapest product. If that didn't happen, Apple would still be building theirs here, Ireland, and other places.
post #45 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Sorry, but as I've already stated, the methodology for the rankings favors iTunes. I didn't notice it initially, but the article states that 12 downloaded tracks are used to equal one CD which easily shortchanges brick and mortar sales versus iTunes sales.

As examples, look at 2 new releases: R.E.M.'s Accelerate and Janet Jackson's "Discipline." The R.E.M. album contains 15 tracks, so for every copy of that album iTunes sells, it will end up getting counted as 1.25 albums sold. iTunes only has to sell 80% of what a brick and mortar sales to have the same "equivilated" sales level. The Janet Jackson album is even worse for brick and mortar retailers as it contains 22 tracks, which means iTunes will get credit for 1.67 album sales for every sale of the full album.

I know you could also throw out examples of albums that have less than 12 tracks, but does it equal out? When I did a brief look at the new releases in iTunes, most albums had at least 12 tracks, many had more, and the lowest I saw was 10 except for a single track "album." Then you also have to wonder about 2-CD albums. I doubt there's any way for these numbers to reflect that it was a 2-CD album, so again this ends up a strike against brick and mortar sales and an advantage for iTunes where that album will easily end up being 2+ albums worth of sales.

Likewise, everyone keeps ignoring the free songs available every week on iTunes. The U.S. store usually offers 3 free tracks every week. So for every user who downloads all 3, iTunes could conceivably get credited another 1/4 of an album. It's never been stated whether Apple includes those songs in their counts of songs sold, so it's very possible that much of iTunes sales surge is really based on faulty logic and inaccurate sales reporting.

I'm not disputing that actual iTunes sales are increasing, I'm just arguing how much of it is a real increase and how much of it is artificial based on free songs and failings of the 12:1 track-to-album conversion.

I think using 12 tracks per CD has more to do with the average cost of a CD being about $12.00. Not that the average CD has 12 tracks. Newer CDs’ may run about $15 or more. But most older ones are about $10 or less. And there are many CDs' that are under $8. Plus many wait for a newer CD to go on sale for $11.99 or less before they buy it. So someone spending $12 for 12 songs on iTunes is about the same as the average cost of a CD at WalMart.

The "free" songs aren't really free. Just because the person that downloaded the song didn't have to pay for it doesn't mean that the artist and record label, whose song was downloaded, didn't get compensated. I'm sure that the company running the "free" song promo pays for those "free" songs. Whether it's Apple, Coke, Pepsi, StarBucks etc.. It's srtill a sale from the record label standpoint. It's the same as if WalMart has a buy 2 CDs' and get one free sale. The record label sees the "free" CD as a sale. WalMart paid for it as part of a promo to get people into the store.
post #46 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Actually, there is plenty of evidence.

Sorry this is a bit off topic folks

There sure is. Even if this is a natural warming trend (the fall back position from many who at first denied there even was one), since the start of the industrial revolution man has altered the make up of the atmosphere and the dissolved gas levels in the oceans so dramatically that we have a big problem.

Personally I think we should drop the term Global Warming. It is too simplistic for those without scientific training. They assume everything gets warmer and they bleat like sheep whenever there is a below normal cold level recorded as if it proves their case. They fail to understand we are heading into extreme swings in weather, wind and oceanic current changes brought on by the over all rise in global temperature. The term I would suggest is 'Catastrophic Biosphere Change'.

My fear is we are approaching a tipping point that once reached the rate of these changes will accelerate dramatically and become self-propelling. For example, the oceans are close to reaching saturation point and their ability to act as a CO2 buffer will cease thus all the CO2 from that point on enters the atmosphere. Once that point is reached we will see a dramatic acceleration of other effects. Another is the salinity decrease in areas where vital sub oceanic current formation occurs due to ice melt. Currently cold, dense highly saline water sinks to start these currents that distribute global temperatures. Once these currents stop, due to ice melt making the water less dense, which is looking quite likely we will see a literal polarization of global temperature distribution, i.e. a sudden reduction in temperatures in the poles and a huge increase in the equatorial and tropical regions. This again illustrates that Global Warming is a misleading term, it is a disruption of the biosphere that we have evolved in we face and possibly sooner than we might think.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #47 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

I think using 12 tracks per CD has more to do with the average cost of a CD being about $12.00. Not that the average CD has 12 tracks. Newer CDs may run about $15 or more. But most older ones are about $10 or less. And there are many CDs' that are under $8. Plus many wait for a newer CD to go on sale for $11.99 or less before they buy it. So someone spending $12 for 12 songs on iTunes is about the same as the average cost of a CD at WalMart.

The "free" songs aren't really free. Just because the person that downloaded the song didn't have to pay for it doesn't mean that the artist and record label, whose song was downloaded, didn't get compensated. I'm sure that the company running the "free" song promo pays for those "free" songs. Whether it's Apple, Coke, Pepsi, StarBucks etc.. It's srtill a sale from the record label standpoint. It's the same as if WalMart has a buy 2 CDs' and get one free sale. The record label sees the "free" CD as a sale. WalMart paid for it as part of a promo to get people into the store.

I believe that their accounting is correct. What you're doing is ignoring all of the albums that have less than 12 tracks. There are plenty of those. First of all, there are reissues of older LP's on Cd which in most cases, have the same number of songs as the original, 10, though some do add a couple of "bonus " tracks to bring the count to 12.

Also, I have quite a lot of Jazz albums, many of which don't even come up to 10. I also have plenty of classical, which has an average of perhaps 4 to 6.

I know you'll say that not that many classical albums sell as a percentage, though Amazon sells a much bigger percentage than normal, but even that, in the US, brings that average right down. So does the Jazz, which sells much better. The old releases do as well.

I think these rankings reflect the actual situation, and not some artificial rock and roll modern album bias which you are having in your numbers.
post #48 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Sorry this is a bit off topic folks

There sure is. Even if this is a natural warming trend (the fall back position from many who at first denied there even was one), since the start of the industrial revolution man has altered the make up of the atmosphere and the dissolved gas levels in the oceans so dramatically that we have a big problem.

Personally I think we should drop the term Global Warming. It is too simplistic for those without scientific training. They assume everything gets warmer and they bleat like sheep whenever there is a below normal cold level recorded as if it proves their case. They fail to understand we are heading into extreme swings in weather, wind and oceanic current changes brought on by the over all rise in global temperature. The term I would suggest is 'Catastrophic Biosphere Change'.

My fear is we are approaching a tipping point that once reached the rate of these changes will accelerate dramatically and become self-propelling. For example, the oceans are close to reaching saturation point and their ability to act as a CO2 buffer will cease thus all the CO2 from that point on enters the atmosphere. Once that point is reached we will see a dramatic acceleration of other effects. Another is the salinity decrease in areas where vital sub oceanic current formation occurs due to ice melt. Currently cold, dense highly saline water sinks to start these currents that distribute global temperatures. Once these currents stop, due to ice melt making the water less dense, which is looking quite likely we will see a literal polarization of global temperature distribution, i.e. a sudden reduction in temperatures in the poles and a huge increase in the equatorial and tropical regions. This again illustrates that Global Warming is a misleading term, it is a disruption of the biosphere that we have evolved in we face and possibly sooner than we might think.

I've been bringing up these points, and others. It's now thought that we may see a 20 foot rise in levels by the turn of the century, and if a tipping point is reached, possibly as much as a 250 to 300 foot increase in sea levels will occur at some point in the next century, or, at most, the one after that.
post #49 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I've been bringing up these points, and others. It's now thought that we may see a 20 foot rise in levels by the turn of the century, and if a tipping point is reached, possibly as much as a 250 to 300 foot increase in sea levels will occur at some point in the next century, or, at most, the one after that.

Or, given the infancy of climatology and its reliance on untestable models and a large number of probabilistic assumptions, the discounting by many or most environmental scientists of the profound impact of solar cycles (long and short) and events, that some whole variety of other things might happen.

This science simply can't say. Reliable data samples are far too short to extrapolate with confidence.

Look how totally limited and fundamentally wrong our conception of the universe was even once we had Einstein's theories. No big bang, no quantum mechanics, no sub-electron particles, no multiple galaxies, then millions of galaxies and now billions of CLUSTERS of billions of galaxies, quasars, etc.

Rather than beat us over the head with such primitive models (all weather forecasts have disappointingly low rates of success -- and the longer ahead, the less accurate even over days, let alone a century) sometimes tuned however unconsciously toward the researcher's expectations -- until better baselines are established, it's enough to use logic to see we can't expand into every niche in the biosphere without destroying the sources of the food chain and the oxygen balance of the earth, and that it's arrogant and immoral to wipe out every other complicated species on the planet. Jeez. Case closed.

Global Climate Change, on the other hand is an oxymoron -- the one thing there's never been in 4.6 billion years is "Global Climate Stability"! SUV emissions didn't kill the Trilobites and didn't cause a snowball earth, periods of incredible volcanism or even a measly Ice Age. The planet evolves, the sun's evolving, the solar system.

And it may be another century before we really understand even the main mechanisms and longer before tools to manage them (which we'll probably manage to also screw up pretty well especially at first). This is complicated stuff even for a farm of X-Serves and genius scientist/programmer teams.

So I just wish we could use common sense as the basis of moving people and societies to behave sanely, and depoliticize (and desensationalize) the science so we CAN get to the bottom of things that may save our species' butts down the line.

OK. I said the name of a Mac product once, but, yeah, this is now an official "rathole."

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #50 of 53
"Catastrophic Biosphere Change."

I like it, but perhaps "Rapid Climate Change" would address the concern, without the easily denied alarmist aspect of catastrophic biosphere change, and without the inherent faults of the current "global climate change" suggestion.
post #51 of 53
Respectfully Bigpics, you're all over the map here and I would say belittle too much the data we have collected over the last century. Let's see how digitalclips responds.
post #52 of 53
Double posted. The second one is better.
post #53 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

Or, given the infancy of climatology and its reliance on untestable models and a large number of probabilistic assumptions, the discounting by many or most environmental scientists of the profound impact of solar cycles (long and short) and events, that some whole variety of other things might happen.

This science simply can't say. Reliable data samples are far too short to extrapolate with confidence.

Look how totally limited and fundamentally wrong our conception of the universe was even once we had Einstein's theories. No big bang, no quantum mechanics, no sub-electron particles, no multiple galaxies, then millions of galaxies and now billions of CLUSTERS of billions of galaxies, quasars, etc.

Rather than beat us over the head with such primitive models (all weather forecasts have disappointingly low rates of success -- and the longer ahead, the less accurate even over days, let alone a century) sometimes tuned however unconsciously toward the researcher's expectations -- until better baselines are established, it's enough to use logic to see we can't expand into every niche in the biosphere without destroying the sources of the food chain and the oxygen balance of the earth, and that it's arrogant and immoral to wipe out every other complicated species on the planet. Jeez. Case closed.

Global Climate Change, on the other hand is an oxymoron -- the one thing there's never been in 4.6 billion years is "Global Climate Stability"! SUV emissions didn't kill the Trilobites and didn't cause a snowball earth, periods of incredible volcanism or even a measly Ice Age. The planet evolves, the sun's evolving, the solar system.

And it may be another century before we really understand even the main mechanisms and longer before tools to manage them (which we'll probably manage to also screw up pretty well especially at first). This is complicated stuff even for a farm of X-Serves and genius scientist/programmer teams.

So I just wish we could use common sense as the basis of moving people and societies to behave sanely, and depoliticize (and desensationalize) the science so we CAN get to the bottom of things that may save our species' butts down the line.

OK. I said the name of a Mac product once, but, yeah, this is now an official "rathole."

The climate models are being ratified by events. Warming is now proceeding on a scale that wasn't thought to be anything but the outside of the worst predictions. At the rate it's increasing, there's no doubt that it will be a very severe problem.

While it's true that over the long haul, climate is variable, but it's being understood much better than it was previously.

Make no mistake about it, the change that is happening now is happening on a geologic time scale that is miniscule. And that's the problem. There has never been an artificial cause for large, extremely rapid atmospheric additions of carbon dioxide and methane until now.

The ever increasing melting of the ice on Geeenland, and the breakup of two ice shelves in Antarticia within a short time of each other, shows that this problem is serious indeed.

If you understand the mechanisms that underly how that is happening, you will see why what has happened will lead to faster melting, and quicker heating.

The temp increase follows the course of industrialization with high precision.

Understand that weather is very different from climate. Don't make the illogical conclusion that the inaccuracy in weather prediction over a five day forecast carries over to what is understood about what is happening to the climate.

In a century, the problem could be so far advanced that there may be no resources, politically, scientifically, or economically, to devote to further study.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple briefly held position as No. 1 US music retailer - report