Given time, I have a feeling that the home recording studio may also do a lot of damage to the big labels...as will some of this social networking stuff.
[...]
Like if they ever put a Publish to iTunes button in GarageBand, and a Demo Tape feature in iTunes.
Free listens and rating while in Demo Tape. Then publishers bid to produce and release a paid version. Who needs big publishers - just a mixing desk and talent.
Australian prices are $A1.69 ($1.48) to $A2.19 ($1.92).
The US dollar changes our pricing stays the same.
This is stupid pricing, as soon as I see $2.19 I think no way, hasn't iTunes ever heard of the psychology of pricing, $1.99 looks like better value.
I usually buy albums .
Speaking of psychology of pricing, changing the prices as the value of the US and AUS dollar changes is not smart. It's confusing for customers. Best to make predictions on the future of the economies and then stick with that pricing model for a set duration. When it becomes too severe that you lose customers (or predict you will lose customers in the future) then you change it.
You buy an album, RIAA takes your money, gives it to a lawyer, lawyer shows up on your door step demanding way more money.
This is the music industries business model.
Only way to shut down the insanity is to share music over p2p. Stop giving them money to turn around and sue you with.
Everyone who buys RIAA music from iTunes is destroying the life of someone else.
I buy lots of music from independent artists. I distribute as much RIAA music as I can for free. The more people that don't buy RIAA music, the more lives i'm saving.
RIAA isn't going to win this war. They can take their extra .69 cents and shove it where the sun don't shine. They are in every way an illegal monopolistic organization, and I urge everyone to stop feeding their war efforts.
I dream of an iTunes that ONLY sells independent music. It's getting there, your seeing more and more bands ditching their labels and going it alone. Why? Maybe because when they dreamed of being a rock star, they didn't think it would be at the cost of ruining tens of thousands of lives - having their constitution lobbied out the door for greed.
You think the Jazz-masters that your buying from iTunes would have wanted to support this kind of organized crime?
Love it, people actually believe it was Apple that wanted to remove DRM. Irrespective of the fact other MP3 stores were selling DRM free MP3s before Apple, and EMI said at the time it was them that requested Apple get rid of the DRM.
Is it also really the music labels setting the prices for each track and not Apple. Kinda weird don't you think? Most shops set their own prices to ya know complete! And if its the music labels choosing that higher price, why is Amazon 20p cheaper on every track? They have an even more varied pricing but are always cheaper.
I sense a little bit of the usual Apple Marketing in the air. Blame the guy the public don't deal with and they'll all be on your side.
Other stores sold drm free music before Apple because the labels were trying to break down the dominance of the iTunes store and only allowed Apple to sell DRM free music if they could control the price of the music through variable pricing. This letter proceeded all of that though.
The labels are in control of song prices on both iTunes and Amazon, if they want to make songs on Amazon cheaper in an attempt to break up the iTunes domination, they can do that.... although it seems rather dirty. This isn't about Apple PR. Apple is a publicly traded company, it can't exactly lie about its distribution contacts.
You say that stores generally control the prices of the products they sell, but that isn't always true, it's all dependent on the agreements in place. Consoles are the same price everywhere, there is little wiggle room on cell phones, the music industry sets prices on Amazon (as previously mentioned), car dealers have a MRSP but you can negotiate, etc.
I love how people like you think everything is an Apple conspiracy.
Books, really can't be consumed through other means. Sure, you can go to the library or borrow the book. Maybe buy it used after several weeks to months after the initial release. But most people who buy books - buy books. Many keep them to be enjoyed again.
Music, on the other hand can be consumed on the radio for free. Satellite radio for a fee. It may be torrented or downloaded by other means, eschewing the exchange of money for a product. Further... the general lack of quality music these days in pop music -- means that music is disposable and not "timeless."
Pricing is psychological. I don't think I have ever come across a 69-cent song on iTunes. Most these days are $1.29. I know I buy less. It is easy, mentally at least, to click "BUY," when I am buying a 99-cent song. 30-cents more... I think about it.
I totally agree.
Most people who read books buy or borrow physical books and read them. I expect that is changing and I've actually seen someone on the subway with the Sony book reader, but paper still dominates. People actually enjoy devoting significant portions of their homes to the storage of books and simply walking past a book shelf can evoke thoughts that walking past your iPad or Kindle never will.
The largest consumers of music, young people, are highly price conscious. Above a certain price point that target market simply cannot afford to buy.
CDs still dominate sales because the people with money are older generations who have a psychological connection to physical media. As we move into our golden years and start to pass away so too will the concept of data permanently residing on a physical object. Future generations simply won't understand the concept of a storage medium that cannot be erased and re-loaded with something new.
I'd hate to see the reaction of todays music buyers if they were forced to go back to the 70s. I was earning $2.15/hr and 45s were $.99 and albums on sale were $4.99.
Mind you the music back then was worth it. Todays "auto tuner" music certainly isn't. :-)
Bronfman reportedly said, "It’s interesting that the book publishing industry, on the iPad, has much more flexibility than the music industry had."
Yeah, and people don't consume steak dinners the way they do cans of soda, either. What's his point? When are these idiots going to figure out that you can't treat all digital media equally, because it is not all consumed equally. Someone might buy ten songs for ten bucks in a single day just on a whim, but they're not going to buy ten books for a hundred-and-fifty dollars all at once; you buy a book one at a time because they last longer and because they are not so much an impulse buy it doesn't so much matter if the price is $9.99 or $12.99. Listening to a song takes 3 minutes on average, and is something you can do while you work/walk/drive/eat/exercise; reading a book or watching a movie is a more dedicated scenario. Steve Jobs understands this. Obviously the people running the studios and music labels do not; they'd sell popular songs for $10 a piece if they could, and would blame everyone but themselves when sales dried up overnight.
Ha Ha, someone drank the koolaid. My iPhone will do all that and make phone calls.
Does your iPhone Calendar look the same as the iPad Calendar? Are pages, numbers, and keynote with features virtually on par and in some cases better than the OSX versions available for the iPhone? Will your iPhone get "made for iPad" apps?
No.
It's not about drinking koolaid, it's about putting half a seconds thought into things instead of seeing just a big iPhone. I wouldn't jump to conclusions like the poster you quoted and suggest it will be a huge success, but the foundation for success is there.
The train of thought that you follow is simply incomprehensible to me. The same train of thought leads to the conclusion that there should only be one Windows notebook. That notebook would actually be the cheapest netbook available since it "can" do everything the most powerful notebook can. Everything else is clearly doomed for failure.
Ha Ha, someone drank the koolaid. My iPhone will do all that and make phone calls.
So will mine but it will be a lot nicer using the iPad on the couch to read PDFs and look at spreadsheets. I have a MacBook and a NetBook and neither are the greatest things to use on the couch. You can't lie down, and I find it awkward to rest on my legs.
You buy an album, RIAA takes your money, gives it to a lawyer, lawyer shows up on your door step demanding way more money.
This is the music industries business model.
Only way to shut down the insanity is to share music over p2p. Stop giving them money to turn around and sue you with.
Everyone who buys RIAA music from iTunes is destroying the life of someone else.
I buy lots of music from independent artists. I distribute as much RIAA music as I can for free. The more people that don't buy RIAA music, the more lives i'm saving.
RIAA isn't going to win this war. They can take their extra .69 cents and shove it where the sun don't shine. They are in every way an illegal monopolistic organization, and I urge everyone to stop feeding their war efforts.
So you're admitting that you're helping others steal from the artists. While I don't have much use for the RIAA, most music artists are not super wealthy.
No matter how many times they repeat this statement, I can never understand. If anyone does, could you please enlighten me? How is it possible that the model will help them make more money "on every digital sale" but not lead to greater profits?
More money per sale = more profits. If not, that means the higher prices hurt demand, and if that's the case, then it is just a dumb move and they would not do it, as no one would gain from it.
I don't think the publishers make huge profits at all. Some hardbacks, especially things like specialist text books etc., sell in very low volumes, low 1000s if that. There are not inconsiderable fixed costs involved in editing and producing and marketing a book, quite apart from the printing and distribution of physical copies. Preparing an electronic version is an additional cost (more than just copying and pasting the text!). If a text book costs $49.99 for a physical copy and $9.99 for an eBook (because they're forced to accept a low price), and the publisher sells 1000 physical copies and 500 eBooks (which eat into physical copies they would otherwise have sold!), then they're making a loss on the digital sales. At that price it is a "dumb move" but publishers feel like they have no choice but to offer their books for sale at a loss through things like Kindle, or discounted at places like Walmart or Tesco, just to get some exposure.
Love it, people actually believe it was Apple that wanted to remove DRM. Irrespective of the fact other MP3 stores were selling DRM free MP3s before Apple, and EMI said at the time it was them that requested Apple get rid of the DRM.
Is it also really the music labels setting the prices for each track and not Apple. Kinda weird don't you think? Most shops set their own prices to ya know complete! And if its the music labels choosing that higher price, why is Amazon 20p cheaper on every track? They have an even more varied pricing but are always cheaper.
I sense a little bit of the usual Apple Marketing in the air. Blame the guy the public don't deal with and they'll all be on your side.
It's interesting you believe that interpretation of events. Just how short is your memory?
It falls apart in the face of dirt-easy breaking. Even Steve Jobs said all you needed to do is burn the album to CD and rip it back. People that didn't mind the quality of 128kbps music didn't seem to mind re-encoding it. It is the RIAA that was insistent on DRM until iTunes took over too much of their business for their tastes. Non-DRM was their way outside of iTunes to sell music to iPod users. They were trying to push DRM into MP3 players even before the iPod was made available.
It wasn't until Amazon's MP3 store (Sept 2007) was there any authorized non-DRMed downloaded music from major labels, everything before that was encrypted, regardless of store.
No, only more profit per sale. If total sales sales stay the same, you're golden. If not, you might end up with either no change in profit, or less profit, or none at all, or a loss, depending on how badly sales are impacted.
The record labels don't seem to be able to understand this simple issue.
Calling you out for proclaiming a poster stupid for not reading despite the article specifically stating individual songs is splitting hairs? You're the one trying to split hairs by saying you can get lower prices by buying albums despite that being the case since day off the iTMS.
The individual song price change gave a 30¢ rise and drop alternative making 69¢, 99¢, and $1.29 options for individual songs. The poster pointed out that they have seen the higher price but never the lower priced option.
Your examples are for 05¢ to 67¢ song prices in albums has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread or the poster you called stupid for not reading. You don't call that splitting hairs?
Point taken, I'm just as guilty of not being as clear as the general tone of some posters on these boards. My point, if I can try again, is simply this:
If you read the whole story certain pieces of info jump out at you, i.e.:
"Last August, Apple's iTunes was found to be a quarter of all music sales in the U.S. That makes iTunes by far the largest music retailer, ahead of second-place Walmart with 14 percent. In all, digital downloads make up 35 percent of music sales, and iTunes accounts for 69 percent of online sales. But despite iTunes' popularity, CDs still remain the top-selling format, with 65 percent of overall sales".
That would indicate to me that the majority of people buying music today prefer a CD (read album) for whatever reason, over an individual song. That info is being completely overlooked in the rush to attack iTunes / music industry .
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of iTunes downloads, single as opposed to albums, then we all could have a clearer idea of what's going on.
All I'm trying to point out is that the iTunes model is not all bad ... and in any case... Apple is not responsible for music pricing for any artist whose publishing rights are owned by Music labels, AFAIK.
So you're admitting that you're helping others steal from the artists. While I don't have much use for the RIAA, most music artists are not super wealthy.
Stealing????? Heavens no.
Free promotion for the artist... yes.
I don't charge them for my time or technology to distribute their music. That's what has the RIAA scrambling.
Stealing is what the RIAA does. They view p2p as another thief stealing from the cookie jar.
When Napster and Kazzam and p2p networks were at their height, music sales were %600 higher then they had ever been. Thats a fact.
The RIAA tried to kill p2p because artists were making crazy money touring and album sales were through the roof. They got scared that artists would start to realize they didn't need their marketing machine, might want to OWN their own intellectual property, might not want to be slaves to a suit for 7 or 8 years.
The RIAA killed it's own gold rush to maintain control and an illegal monopoly.
So don't give me the 'Stealing from artists' RIAA BULLSHIT.
You have to be a complete brain dead zombie to buy into RIAA propaganda.
Music Labels ARE going to disappear. If they were smart, they would change their business model to be event organizers or marketing support.
Artists are going to be on top again one day soon. The days of music slavery are screeching to a halt.
I, for one, look forward to what a world of free music, where the artist is in control, is going to sound and look like.
Love it, people actually believe it was Apple that wanted to remove DRM. Irrespective of the fact other MP3 stores were selling DRM free MP3s before Apple, and EMI said at the time it was them that requested Apple get rid of the DRM.
Is it also really the music labels setting the prices for each track and not Apple. Kinda weird don't you think? Most shops set their own prices to ya know complete! And if its the music labels choosing that higher price, why is Amazon 20p cheaper on every track? They have an even more varied pricing but are always cheaper.
I sense a little bit of the usual Apple Marketing in the air. Blame the guy the public don't deal with and they'll all be on your side.
Amazon took a slight loss on some song to get people in their music store. Sometimes they even sell a whole new album for 2.99. That's just the way they operate.
Apple on the other hand is not really in the music selling business. Selling songs is just a way to support the iPod ecosystem. They are not planning to lose money on selling songs. Profit generated from both the music store and the app store makes up to about 10% of their total revenue.
And yes Apple does want to remove DRM, not necessarily because they are the white knight of anti-DRM movement, but because it's something really annoying to support. Specially at the time other MP3 players manufacturers wanted to be able to license Apple's DRM as well. If you want to know how annoying DRM is, just look at Microsoft's playsforsure. Zune got it's very own DRM scheme for a reason.
Comments
The US dollar changes our pricing stays the same.
This is stupid pricing, as soon as I see $2.19 I think no way, hasn't iTunes ever heard of the psychology of pricing, $1.99 looks like better value.
I usually buy albums .
And if its the music labels choosing that higher price, why is Amazon 20p cheaper on every track?
B.S.
I bought an album on iTunes and it was fully $2 cheaper than on Amazon. It still pays to shop around.
NOPE.
The iPad will still be a HUGE SUCCESS
iBooks is just a feature. A single App, if you will.
Wait till you start seeing all the sophisticated, powerful, yet easy & intuitive-to-use iPad Apps.
The iPad will be a HUGE SUCCESS because of the endless possibility of the Apps.
No need to refute. Time will tell all.
Ha Ha, someone drank the koolaid. My iPhone will do all that and make phone calls.
[...]
Given time, I have a feeling that the home recording studio may also do a lot of damage to the big labels...as will some of this social networking stuff.
[...]
Like if they ever put a Publish to iTunes button in GarageBand, and a Demo Tape feature in iTunes.
Free listens and rating while in Demo Tape. Then publishers bid to produce and release a paid version. Who needs big publishers - just a mixing desk and talent.
Australian prices are $A1.69 ($1.48) to $A2.19 ($1.92).
The US dollar changes our pricing stays the same.
This is stupid pricing, as soon as I see $2.19 I think no way, hasn't iTunes ever heard of the psychology of pricing, $1.99 looks like better value.
I usually buy albums .
Speaking of psychology of pricing, changing the prices as the value of the US and AUS dollar changes is not smart. It's confusing for customers. Best to make predictions on the future of the economies and then stick with that pricing model for a set duration. When it becomes too severe that you lose customers (or predict you will lose customers in the future) then you change it.
This is the music industries business model.
Only way to shut down the insanity is to share music over p2p. Stop giving them money to turn around and sue you with.
Everyone who buys RIAA music from iTunes is destroying the life of someone else.
I buy lots of music from independent artists. I distribute as much RIAA music as I can for free. The more people that don't buy RIAA music, the more lives i'm saving.
RIAA isn't going to win this war. They can take their extra .69 cents and shove it where the sun don't shine. They are in every way an illegal monopolistic organization, and I urge everyone to stop feeding their war efforts.
I dream of an iTunes that ONLY sells independent music. It's getting there, your seeing more and more bands ditching their labels and going it alone. Why? Maybe because when they dreamed of being a rock star, they didn't think it would be at the cost of ruining tens of thousands of lives - having their constitution lobbied out the door for greed.
You think the Jazz-masters that your buying from iTunes would have wanted to support this kind of organized crime?
Love it, people actually believe it was Apple that wanted to remove DRM. Irrespective of the fact other MP3 stores were selling DRM free MP3s before Apple, and EMI said at the time it was them that requested Apple get rid of the DRM.
Is it also really the music labels setting the prices for each track and not Apple. Kinda weird don't you think? Most shops set their own prices to ya know complete! And if its the music labels choosing that higher price, why is Amazon 20p cheaper on every track? They have an even more varied pricing but are always cheaper.
I sense a little bit of the usual Apple Marketing in the air. Blame the guy the public don't deal with and they'll all be on your side.
Other stores sold drm free music before Apple because the labels were trying to break down the dominance of the iTunes store and only allowed Apple to sell DRM free music if they could control the price of the music through variable pricing. This letter proceeded all of that though.
The labels are in control of song prices on both iTunes and Amazon, if they want to make songs on Amazon cheaper in an attempt to break up the iTunes domination, they can do that.... although it seems rather dirty. This isn't about Apple PR. Apple is a publicly traded company, it can't exactly lie about its distribution contacts.
You say that stores generally control the prices of the products they sell, but that isn't always true, it's all dependent on the agreements in place. Consoles are the same price everywhere, there is little wiggle room on cell phones, the music industry sets prices on Amazon (as previously mentioned), car dealers have a MRSP but you can negotiate, etc.
I love how people like you think everything is an Apple conspiracy.
... just a mixing desk and talent.
You can't really compare books and music.
Books, really can't be consumed through other means. Sure, you can go to the library or borrow the book. Maybe buy it used after several weeks to months after the initial release. But most people who buy books - buy books. Many keep them to be enjoyed again.
Music, on the other hand can be consumed on the radio for free. Satellite radio for a fee. It may be torrented or downloaded by other means, eschewing the exchange of money for a product. Further... the general lack of quality music these days in pop music -- means that music is disposable and not "timeless."
Pricing is psychological. I don't think I have ever come across a 69-cent song on iTunes. Most these days are $1.29. I know I buy less. It is easy, mentally at least, to click "BUY," when I am buying a 99-cent song. 30-cents more... I think about it.
I totally agree.
Most people who read books buy or borrow physical books and read them. I expect that is changing and I've actually seen someone on the subway with the Sony book reader, but paper still dominates. People actually enjoy devoting significant portions of their homes to the storage of books and simply walking past a book shelf can evoke thoughts that walking past your iPad or Kindle never will.
The largest consumers of music, young people, are highly price conscious. Above a certain price point that target market simply cannot afford to buy.
CDs still dominate sales because the people with money are older generations who have a psychological connection to physical media. As we move into our golden years and start to pass away so too will the concept of data permanently residing on a physical object. Future generations simply won't understand the concept of a storage medium that cannot be erased and re-loaded with something new.
Mind you the music back then was worth it. Todays "auto tuner" music certainly isn't. :-)
Time to stop showing my age.
Bronfman reportedly said, "It’s interesting that the book publishing industry, on the iPad, has much more flexibility than the music industry had."
Yeah, and people don't consume steak dinners the way they do cans of soda, either. What's his point? When are these idiots going to figure out that you can't treat all digital media equally, because it is not all consumed equally. Someone might buy ten songs for ten bucks in a single day just on a whim, but they're not going to buy ten books for a hundred-and-fifty dollars all at once; you buy a book one at a time because they last longer and because they are not so much an impulse buy it doesn't so much matter if the price is $9.99 or $12.99. Listening to a song takes 3 minutes on average, and is something you can do while you work/walk/drive/eat/exercise; reading a book or watching a movie is a more dedicated scenario. Steve Jobs understands this. Obviously the people running the studios and music labels do not; they'd sell popular songs for $10 a piece if they could, and would blame everyone but themselves when sales dried up overnight.
Ha Ha, someone drank the koolaid. My iPhone will do all that and make phone calls.
Does your iPhone Calendar look the same as the iPad Calendar? Are pages, numbers, and keynote with features virtually on par and in some cases better than the OSX versions available for the iPhone? Will your iPhone get "made for iPad" apps?
No.
It's not about drinking koolaid, it's about putting half a seconds thought into things instead of seeing just a big iPhone. I wouldn't jump to conclusions like the poster you quoted and suggest it will be a huge success, but the foundation for success is there.
The train of thought that you follow is simply incomprehensible to me. The same train of thought leads to the conclusion that there should only be one Windows notebook. That notebook would actually be the cheapest netbook available since it "can" do everything the most powerful notebook can. Everything else is clearly doomed for failure.
Ha Ha, someone drank the koolaid. My iPhone will do all that and make phone calls.
So will mine but it will be a lot nicer using the iPad on the couch to read PDFs and look at spreadsheets. I have a MacBook and a NetBook and neither are the greatest things to use on the couch. You can't lie down, and I find it awkward to rest on my legs.
You buy an album, RIAA takes your money, gives it to a lawyer, lawyer shows up on your door step demanding way more money.
This is the music industries business model.
Only way to shut down the insanity is to share music over p2p. Stop giving them money to turn around and sue you with.
Everyone who buys RIAA music from iTunes is destroying the life of someone else.
I buy lots of music from independent artists. I distribute as much RIAA music as I can for free. The more people that don't buy RIAA music, the more lives i'm saving.
RIAA isn't going to win this war. They can take their extra .69 cents and shove it where the sun don't shine. They are in every way an illegal monopolistic organization, and I urge everyone to stop feeding their war efforts.
So you're admitting that you're helping others steal from the artists. While I don't have much use for the RIAA, most music artists are not super wealthy.
No matter how many times they repeat this statement, I can never understand. If anyone does, could you please enlighten me? How is it possible that the model will help them make more money "on every digital sale" but not lead to greater profits?
More money per sale = more profits. If not, that means the higher prices hurt demand, and if that's the case, then it is just a dumb move and they would not do it, as no one would gain from it.
I don't think the publishers make huge profits at all. Some hardbacks, especially things like specialist text books etc., sell in very low volumes, low 1000s if that. There are not inconsiderable fixed costs involved in editing and producing and marketing a book, quite apart from the printing and distribution of physical copies. Preparing an electronic version is an additional cost (more than just copying and pasting the text!). If a text book costs $49.99 for a physical copy and $9.99 for an eBook (because they're forced to accept a low price), and the publisher sells 1000 physical copies and 500 eBooks (which eat into physical copies they would otherwise have sold!), then they're making a loss on the digital sales. At that price it is a "dumb move" but publishers feel like they have no choice but to offer their books for sale at a loss through things like Kindle, or discounted at places like Walmart or Tesco, just to get some exposure.
Love it, people actually believe it was Apple that wanted to remove DRM. Irrespective of the fact other MP3 stores were selling DRM free MP3s before Apple, and EMI said at the time it was them that requested Apple get rid of the DRM.
Is it also really the music labels setting the prices for each track and not Apple. Kinda weird don't you think? Most shops set their own prices to ya know complete! And if its the music labels choosing that higher price, why is Amazon 20p cheaper on every track? They have an even more varied pricing but are always cheaper.
I sense a little bit of the usual Apple Marketing in the air. Blame the guy the public don't deal with and they'll all be on your side.
It's interesting you believe that interpretation of events. Just how short is your memory?
It falls apart in the face of dirt-easy breaking. Even Steve Jobs said all you needed to do is burn the album to CD and rip it back. People that didn't mind the quality of 128kbps music didn't seem to mind re-encoding it. It is the RIAA that was insistent on DRM until iTunes took over too much of their business for their tastes. Non-DRM was their way outside of iTunes to sell music to iPod users. They were trying to push DRM into MP3 players even before the iPod was made available.
It wasn't until Amazon's MP3 store (Sept 2007) was there any authorized non-DRMed downloaded music from major labels, everything before that was encrypted, regardless of store.
More money per sale = more profits.
No, only more profit per sale. If total sales sales stay the same, you're golden. If not, you might end up with either no change in profit, or less profit, or none at all, or a loss, depending on how badly sales are impacted.
The record labels don't seem to be able to understand this simple issue.
Calling you out for proclaiming a poster stupid for not reading despite the article specifically stating individual songs is splitting hairs? You're the one trying to split hairs by saying you can get lower prices by buying albums despite that being the case since day off the iTMS.
The individual song price change gave a 30¢ rise and drop alternative making 69¢, 99¢, and $1.29 options for individual songs. The poster pointed out that they have seen the higher price but never the lower priced option.
Your examples are for 05¢ to 67¢ song prices in albums has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread or the poster you called stupid for not reading. You don't call that splitting hairs?
Point taken, I'm just as guilty of not being as clear as the general tone of some posters on these boards. My point, if I can try again, is simply this:
If you read the whole story certain pieces of info jump out at you, i.e.:
"Last August, Apple's iTunes was found to be a quarter of all music sales in the U.S. That makes iTunes by far the largest music retailer, ahead of second-place Walmart with 14 percent. In all, digital downloads make up 35 percent of music sales, and iTunes accounts for 69 percent of online sales. But despite iTunes' popularity, CDs still remain the top-selling format, with 65 percent of overall sales".
That would indicate to me that the majority of people buying music today prefer a CD (read album) for whatever reason, over an individual song. That info is being completely overlooked in the rush to attack iTunes / music industry .
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of iTunes downloads, single as opposed to albums, then we all could have a clearer idea of what's going on.
All I'm trying to point out is that the iTunes model is not all bad ... and in any case... Apple is not responsible for music pricing for any artist whose publishing rights are owned by Music labels, AFAIK.
So you're admitting that you're helping others steal from the artists. While I don't have much use for the RIAA, most music artists are not super wealthy.
Stealing????? Heavens no.
Free promotion for the artist... yes.
I don't charge them for my time or technology to distribute their music. That's what has the RIAA scrambling.
Stealing is what the RIAA does. They view p2p as another thief stealing from the cookie jar.
When Napster and Kazzam and p2p networks were at their height, music sales were %600 higher then they had ever been. Thats a fact.
The RIAA tried to kill p2p because artists were making crazy money touring and album sales were through the roof. They got scared that artists would start to realize they didn't need their marketing machine, might want to OWN their own intellectual property, might not want to be slaves to a suit for 7 or 8 years.
The RIAA killed it's own gold rush to maintain control and an illegal monopoly.
So don't give me the 'Stealing from artists' RIAA BULLSHIT.
You have to be a complete brain dead zombie to buy into RIAA propaganda.
Music Labels ARE going to disappear. If they were smart, they would change their business model to be event organizers or marketing support.
Artists are going to be on top again one day soon. The days of music slavery are screeching to a halt.
I, for one, look forward to what a world of free music, where the artist is in control, is going to sound and look like.
Love it, people actually believe it was Apple that wanted to remove DRM. Irrespective of the fact other MP3 stores were selling DRM free MP3s before Apple, and EMI said at the time it was them that requested Apple get rid of the DRM.
Is it also really the music labels setting the prices for each track and not Apple. Kinda weird don't you think? Most shops set their own prices to ya know complete! And if its the music labels choosing that higher price, why is Amazon 20p cheaper on every track? They have an even more varied pricing but are always cheaper.
I sense a little bit of the usual Apple Marketing in the air. Blame the guy the public don't deal with and they'll all be on your side.
Amazon took a slight loss on some song to get people in their music store. Sometimes they even sell a whole new album for 2.99. That's just the way they operate.
Apple on the other hand is not really in the music selling business. Selling songs is just a way to support the iPod ecosystem. They are not planning to lose money on selling songs. Profit generated from both the music store and the app store makes up to about 10% of their total revenue.
And yes Apple does want to remove DRM, not necessarily because they are the white knight of anti-DRM movement, but because it's something really annoying to support. Specially at the time other MP3 players manufacturers wanted to be able to license Apple's DRM as well. If you want to know how annoying DRM is, just look at Microsoft's playsforsure. Zune got it's very own DRM scheme for a reason.