I agree that it was never a great deal. $10 is still too much for music in a volatile, limited, and DRM riddled format. The only thing it had going for it was the ability to pick and choose singles. This is all the more true since most of the albums I looked for (never bought) are more the $10. Albums on iTMS seem to be as much as at traditional stores. Though this is not the case for all albums, it is the case for far too many. One of the biggest marketing pushes for iTMS was the $10 album. Now, that claim feels more like bait and switch.
On sound quality:
I believe the biggest difference between people?s claims of good quality vs. poor quality is the equipment you use to listen to music. On my iBook speakers, AAC sounds great. Through my studio monitor headphones, it sounds like crap. I actually returned a pair of high quality in-ear headphones (not Apple?s) because they made my 160kb and lower MP3s sound worse than through cheap plugs. The better you sound system, the more obvious the compression. If you are use to blasting everything at the loudest volumes, then it may not matter one way or another. Quality becomes less of an issue at certain volumes.
I agree that it was never a great deal. $10 is still too much for music in a volatile, limited, and DRM riddled format. The only thing it had going for it was the ability to pick and choose singles. This is all the more true since most of the albums I looked for (never bought) are more the $10. Albums on iTMS seem to be as much as at traditional stores. Though this is not the case for all albums, it is the case for far too many. One of the biggest marketing pushes for iTMS was the $10 album. Now, that claim feels more like bait and switch.
On sound quality:
I believe the biggest difference between people?s claims of good quality vs. poor quality is the equipment you use to listen to music. On my iBook speakers, AAC sounds great. Through my studio monitor headphones, it sounds like crap. I actually returned a pair of high quality in-ear headphones (not Apple?s) because they made my 160kb and lower MP3s sound worse than through cheap plugs. The better you sound system, the more obvious the compression. If you are use to blasting everything at the loudest volumes, then it may not matter one way or another. Quality becomes less of an issue at certain volumes.
Excellently said (wish I could have put it that concisely).
Yes I agree with the quality of equipment thing. I just turn off now when people start rattling on about how good AAC is through crappy in-ear headphones.
But be careful. You can get your head kicked in round here for not towing the party line on iTMS. And if you really want to know about copyright, DRM and the wider implications for music and IT in general, you'll have to go some place else for that.
All this hand-wringing and belly-aching over some overpriced albums that aren't worth the time spent downloading them anyway?
What about the albums that are insanely cheap compared to what you'd get in the store? I've gotten a couple great jazz albums for like $4. Blue Train and A Love Supreme for starters. Why is no one talking about that?
iTMS could stand to be improved but it's certainly much better than anything out there and it stands to get better as labels get the hint that their days of gouging customers are nearly over.
50+ Million songs have been downloaded via iTunes.
That's at the very least 25 Million tracks that could have been received via more unscrupulous ways. Yet certain individuals would still prefer slap us in the face. What I mean is
Just a quick perusal of iTMS shows that
N.E.R.D album is $16.99
Wyntom Marsalis = $16.99
The new Cypress Hill- By Song only?
Wow I guess there's only so much Apple can do. But I hope these people realize that we just want music. That's all
yes, they are kinda getting screwed but i mean apple is still doing a great service to the music industry by doing this... they sell songs online so thath people like it. i like it.,,, so instead of buring now i buy real cheap
i saw the new janet was $16.99 but then i saw the hundreds of great vintage (riverside and prestige labels) jazz titles they've added to iTunes in the last 2 weeks and frankly i forgot all about wynton and janet at 17 clams.
riverside stuff is second only to blue note (and some may argue that) for jazz in the fifties. "monk's music" is one i'd highly recommend, coltrane is on it.
as for expensive titles cast your economic vote and don't buy 'em.
I think some are missing the point. Apple's marketing push was largely based on price. .99 songs and $9.99 albums. That formula is no longer the case. As far as bargains, Some of you act like there is no discount bin in a regular music store. Some of my favorite CDs I purchased for $4 to $6. iTMS has no monopoly on that. Such deals are not at all unique. Besides the consistency in DRM and the fact that tracks play on the iPod, there is little difference between iTMS and any other store out there. How long will it be before variable DRM joins variable pricing? It is clear that the initial agreements that formed iTMS have fallen apart and that introduces uncertainty. For this reason, the price hikes are a big deal for industry watchers.
Mac Voyer, I think you completely missed the point. Nothing has changed. Variable pricing isn't something new. $9.99 for an album was just a guideline. To insinuate that variable licensing is just around the corner because some albums are more expensive is just silly.
Apple's marketing push was not at all based on price anyway. It was based on access, ease of use, sound quality, and extra features (previews, album art, exclusives) in comparison to illegal file sharing.
I think some are missing the point. Apple's marketing push was largely based on price. .99 songs and $9.99 albums. That formula is no longer the case. As far as bargains, Some of you act like there is no discount bin in a regular music store. Some of my favorite CDs I purchased for $4 to $6. iTMS has no monopoly on that. Such deals are not at all unique. Besides the consistency in DRM and the fact that tracks play on the iPod, there is little difference between iTMS and any other store out there. How long will it be before variable DRM joins variable pricing? It is clear that the initial agreements that formed iTMS have fallen apart and that introduces uncertainty. For this reason, the price hikes are a big deal for industry watchers.
Some would say that you, too, are missing the point. If you go into best buy, their cds are different prices, too. Many of them are way overpriced. The sky is not falling.
Mac Voyer, I think you completely missed the point. Nothing has changed. Variable pricing isn't something new. $9.99 for an album was just a guideline. To insinuate that variable licensing is just around the corner because some albums are more expensive is just silly.
Apple's marketing push was not at all based on price anyway. It was based on access, ease of use, sound quality, and extra features (previews, album art, exclusives) in comparison to illegal file sharing.
I don't think you can expect the rest of the music buying public to be as forgiving of iTMS as people here, let alone the non-music buying public.
Firstly, a lot of Apple's marketing push was based on price. In particular, making it so cheap and easy that people wouldn't bother to file share. If that's what Apple really believe is going to happen then they are not only fools but have misread the whole file sharing thing.
Think about it. There are undoubtedly those who illegally download music just to avoid paying. Are they going to use iTMS? No. If they don't want to pay, it doesn't matter how you wrap the package, they will still avoid paying. If all file sharers are nothing more than thieves then you can kiss iTMS's arse goodbye (at least in its current form) because it will not achieve what the labels want.
Why else might people use P2P? 2 main reasons. Firstly, to sample music - iTMS does a poor job here compared to the file sharing networks. Secondly, because of financial constraints. Not only do kids not have the money to afford all the music they want, neither can their parents. Parents with download limits on their internet connections are giving their kids music budgets on their illegal downloads - and it's costing them a lot less than buying from iTMS. And if you think the album art or exclusives will make a difference to their buying habits, I think you're kidding yourself.
To a certain extent the explanation of the music industry's problems can be reduced down to a simple one of over-supply. At least in respect to the cost of commercially available music.
At the moment, my guess would be that most iTMS customers are ex-CD buyers (ie. they're already purchasing music legally). And sooner or later that market will end up being divided up between iTMS and the competition. It's all very well for a bunch of US Mac fanatics around here to say iTMS store is fantastic and doing just fine but that won't make it happen in the real world.
All this hand-wringing and belly-aching over some overpriced albums that aren't worth the time spent downloading them anyway?
What about the albums that are insanely cheap compared to what you'd get in the store? I've gotten a couple great jazz albums for like $4. Blue Train and A Love Supreme for starters. Why is no one talking about that?
iTMS could stand to be improved but it's certainly much better than anything out there and it stands to get better as labels get the hint that their days of gouging customers are nearly over.
Yeah, I just got Miles Davis Bitches Brew--Six buck for over two hours of music. A Love Supreme will probably be my next buy. For new releases, iTunes kind of sucks, but for back catalog it rules. Most of the stuff I've bought isn't carried in my local Borders.
Variable licensing would kill iTunes, but I don't think variable price will.
I don't think you can expect the rest of the music buying public to be as forgiving of iTMS as people here, let alone the non-music buying public./
Oh I think you can. Contrary to whatever your belief may be, the buying public barely complains about paying up to $20 for a CD. The non-music buyers aren't the target of the iTMS, and never have been.
Quote:
Firstly, a lot of Apple's marketing push was based on price. In particular, making it so cheap and easy that people wouldn't bother to file share. If that's what Apple really believe is going to happen then they are not only fools but have misread the whole file sharing thing.
There was no push, only a statement. The vast majority of songs are available for $0.99. The vast majority of albums are available for $9.99. Most file sharers don't file-share because they want to screw the man. They file share because they have a nice fast internet connection, and it takes a couple of clicks to possibly get the music they want. It doesn't cost them a cent either, but that's just a little bit of incentive. The value of the iTMS is the complete package. ~70 million downloads by the end of April say you're wrong anyway.
Quote:
Think about it. There are undoubtedly those who illegally download music just to avoid paying. Are they going to use iTMS? No. If they don't want to pay, it doesn't matter how you wrap the package, they will still avoid paying. If all file sharers are nothing more than thieves then you can kiss iTMS's arse goodbye (at least in its current form) because it will not achieve what the labels want.
Ugh this is like arguing with a broken record. Those people make up the minority of file-sharers, plain and simple. I didn't use Scour.net, Napster, Morpheus, Kazaa because I didn't want pay for music. I used them because I was trying the music out, too lazy to truck myself to the store, and/or not particularly pleased by the thought of buying a CD with 2-3 songs I might like.
Quote:
Why else might people use P2P? 2 main reasons. Firstly, to sample music - iTMS does a poor job here compared to the file sharing networks.
iTunes does an exemplary job of allowing you to sample music. You get the sample on demand. You get a feel for the song. Ever use Poisoned? You'll cue a dozen downloads and maybe two of them will download...at all.
Quote:
Secondly, because of financial constraints. Not only do kids not have the money to afford all the music they want, neither can their parents. Parents with download limits on their internet connections are giving their kids music budgets on their illegal downloads - and it's costing them a lot less than buying from iTMS. And if you think the album art or exclusives will make a difference to their buying habits, I think you're kidding yourself.
Free is cheaper than not-free? Oh. My. God! On the contrary, at least with the iTMS, parents have a bit of control vs. just handing them a credit card. And yes, every little incentive helps.
Quote:
To a certain extent the explanation of the music industry's problems can be reduced down to a simple one of over-supply. At least in respect to the cost of commercially available music.
The problem isn't over-supply, it's just gouging.
Quote:
At the moment, my guess would be that most iTMS customers are ex-CD buyers (ie. they're already purchasing music legally). And sooner or later that market will end up being divided up between iTMS and the competition. It's all very well for a bunch of US Mac fanatics around here to say iTMS store is fantastic and doing just fine but that won't make it happen in the real world.
I used p2p to try music before deciding to buy it. In fact, before I discovered MP3s, Scour.net and Napster, I owned 3 CDs total. Now I have several hundred at least. But yes, I was not adverse to buying music before, just like most other p2p users.
P2P users, as Eugene states, are not cheapskates that merely want to rob the artists. We're music lovers who may have such an appetite for music, in particular new music, that we use P2P as a testing ground.
Since i've started using iTMS over half my purchases are from artists that are new to me. The previews let me hear the groove and i've not been disappointed. This is the future. Most of my songs purchased will get very little major radio play. I'm glad I can support them and hear music that is new and different.
OK first off that non-music buyers was the wrong phrase. I meant the non-paying music consumers ie. the P2Pers. I know plenty of people who complain about the price of buying a CD.
70 million downloads since April? Illegal downloads are counted in the billions I'm afraid. And I agree with you that most P2Pers are probably trying out music so don't give me that broken record crap. What I'm trying to do here is consider iTMS in terms of what consumers actually want, the characteristics of the music listening public and how well it delivers on that compared to the available alternatives.
I don't see iTMS giving parents any more control than they have over their kids illegal downloads. I've already indicated, for me at least, a 30 second preview does not count as a viable sample of a song. Maybe it will for the vast majority but I have my doubts if the whole song is available for free. So a kid on a limited budget might purchase a favorite song from iTMS but download another 20 for free. Moreover, music has become something of a disposable commodity insofar as kids will listen to a song for a few months then go off it and never listen to it again. Parents know this and I don't think they want o fork out even $0.99 over and over again for stuff they know will be consigned to the trash can in a few months.
Yes gouging is an issue but exactly what has iTMS done to stop that? I can see that for people already purchasing CDs it's quite attractive. What I'm not convinced of is that it competes well against the file-sharing networks. And that's where the real money is to be made.
What I'm not convinced of is that it competes well against the file-sharing networks. And that's where the real money is to be made.
I thought you were one of those people (like downhillbattle.org) that was disappointed that Apple hadn't reinvented the entire music industry overnight by breaking millions of existing contracts between artists and labels.
Or one of those people who point to Magnatunes or other such sites with what are effectively unsigned bands' tracks available to download. Bear in mind that I've nothing against unsigned bands, as long as you realise that no-one (*slight* exaggeration) wants to listen to them.
But now you're saying Apple can make more money by illegally giving away songs for free????????????
Please explain how iTunes Music Store (or any legal competing service) could be better in the real world (one were you don't get to make up the rules of law or economics, or pretend that everyone else thinks and acts the same as you and your friends).
OK first off that non-music buyers was the wrong phrase. I meant the non-paying music consumers ie. the P2Pers. I know plenty of people who complain about the price of buying a CD.
You are never going to sell to people who don't ever buy music. That's why the RIAA figures, much like the SBA's, are always so inflated. Even if you eliminated all P2P, most of these people would just go back to listening to the radio.
What you can do is sell to that sub-section who enjoy music and want to support bands, but prefer to get the music on-line. The question for iTunes and the like is if that is a large enough group to make it a viable business. So far, it seems to be making money for both Apple and the artists--not huge sums, but probably enough to make things worth while.
Some experimenting with price is inevitable as they try to find the sweet spot that maximized profit. Having all albums and all tracks the same price is probably not wise finically, but it sure is nicer for us users.
OK first off that non-music buyers was the wrong phrase. I meant the non-paying music consumers ie. the P2Pers. I know plenty of people who complain about the price of buying a CD.
Circle of friends. You obviously belong to one mindset, so your friends are likely of the same mindset.
Quote:
70 million downloads since April? Illegal downloads are counted in the billions I'm afraid.
And so what? The iTMS is one service compared a dozen or so major distributed p2p networks. Not all the data being transferred is music. You're speaking as if 70 million is a negligible number. It's not.
Quote:
And I agree with you that most P2Pers are probably trying out music so don't give me that broken record crap. What I'm trying to do here is consider iTMS in terms of what consumers actually want, the characteristics of the music listening public and how well it delivers on that compared to the available alternatives.
You do sound precisely like a broken record. Consumers want everything for free, yet the iTMS is here and so far thriving. That must be puzzling you, right?
Quote:
I don't see iTMS giving parents any more control than they have over their kids illegal downloads. I've already indicated, for me at least, a 30 second preview does not count as a viable sample of a song. Maybe it will for the vast majority but I have my doubts if the whole song is available for free.
30 seconds of the song is free. The whole song is a whopping $0.99. The vast majority of pop out there only has 30 seconds of non repeated melody anyway.
Quote:
So a kid on a limited budget might purchase a favorite song from iTMS but download another 20 for free. Moreover, music has become something of a disposable commodity insofar as kids will listen to a song for a few months then go off it and never listen to it again. Parents know this and I don't think they want o fork out even $0.99 over and over again for stuff they know will be consigned to the trash can in a few months.
People do the same with CDs. Or is the physical sales model also not viable?
Quote:
Yes gouging is an issue but exactly what has iTMS done to stop that? I can see that for people already purchasing CDs it's quite attractive. What I'm not convinced of is that it competes well against the file-sharing networks. And that's where the real money is to be made.
iTMS makes it a lot, lot easier to distribute your music and brand without contracting yourself to a major record label. Tell Shawn Fanning what you just told me.
Circle of friends. You obviously belong to one mindset, so your friends are likely of the same mindset.
And so what? The iTMS is one service compared a dozen or so major distributed p2p networks. Not all the data being transferred is music. You're speaking as if 70 million is a negligible number. It's not.
You do sound precisely like a broken record. Consumers want everything for free, yet the iTMS is here and so far thriving. That must be puzzling you, right?
30 seconds of the song is free. The whole song is a whopping $0.99. The vast majority of pop out there only has 30 seconds of non repeated melody anyway.
People do the same with CDs. Or is the physical sales model also not viable?
iTMS makes it a lot, lot easier to distribute your music and brand without contracting yourself to a major record label. Tell Shawn Fanning what you just told me.
you make some good points that if i continued my subscription in this post i would only repeat what you have said? i agree completely with what he says in this post
I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to these posts because I know when people start using phrases like "one of those people" and "you obviously belong to one mindset" that any valuable debate has flown out the window.
So I'll just say this. I don't use P2P. Never have. I don't see where I said that Apple should illegally give away free songs. But you want to put words in my mouth, go ahead. I couldn't give a flying f**k.
I do make my living full time as a dance artist and cop the music industry's shit on a daily basis. I changed my views about a lot of this stuff after considering the way I promote and sell my art and the music industry's approach. And no the two aren't directly comparable because dancers and choreographers can't really mass produce their work. But I certainly give stuff away for free because it's great for business.
And yeah I'm jumping around from one narrow aspect of the whole music debate (iTMS) to wider issues (characteristics of the music market in general). Sosumi. I do think iTMS is helping to stir the pot a bit as are music consumers, P2P, yeah the downhillbattles and EFFs of this world, the garageband.coms and the independent labels. But I'm not going to just accept that iTMS is the be all and end all when there is clearly a lot more going on.
Comments
I agree that it was never a great deal. $10 is still too much for music in a volatile, limited, and DRM riddled format. The only thing it had going for it was the ability to pick and choose singles. This is all the more true since most of the albums I looked for (never bought) are more the $10. Albums on iTMS seem to be as much as at traditional stores. Though this is not the case for all albums, it is the case for far too many. One of the biggest marketing pushes for iTMS was the $10 album. Now, that claim feels more like bait and switch.
On sound quality:
I believe the biggest difference between people?s claims of good quality vs. poor quality is the equipment you use to listen to music. On my iBook speakers, AAC sounds great. Through my studio monitor headphones, it sounds like crap. I actually returned a pair of high quality in-ear headphones (not Apple?s) because they made my 160kb and lower MP3s sound worse than through cheap plugs. The better you sound system, the more obvious the compression. If you are use to blasting everything at the loudest volumes, then it may not matter one way or another. Quality becomes less of an issue at certain volumes.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
On iTMS:
I agree that it was never a great deal. $10 is still too much for music in a volatile, limited, and DRM riddled format. The only thing it had going for it was the ability to pick and choose singles. This is all the more true since most of the albums I looked for (never bought) are more the $10. Albums on iTMS seem to be as much as at traditional stores. Though this is not the case for all albums, it is the case for far too many. One of the biggest marketing pushes for iTMS was the $10 album. Now, that claim feels more like bait and switch.
On sound quality:
I believe the biggest difference between people?s claims of good quality vs. poor quality is the equipment you use to listen to music. On my iBook speakers, AAC sounds great. Through my studio monitor headphones, it sounds like crap. I actually returned a pair of high quality in-ear headphones (not Apple?s) because they made my 160kb and lower MP3s sound worse than through cheap plugs. The better you sound system, the more obvious the compression. If you are use to blasting everything at the loudest volumes, then it may not matter one way or another. Quality becomes less of an issue at certain volumes.
Excellently said (wish I could have put it that concisely).
Yes I agree with the quality of equipment thing. I just turn off now when people start rattling on about how good AAC is through crappy in-ear headphones.
But be careful. You can get your head kicked in round here for not towing the party line on iTMS. And if you really want to know about copyright, DRM and the wider implications for music and IT in general, you'll have to go some place else for that.
What about the albums that are insanely cheap compared to what you'd get in the store? I've gotten a couple great jazz albums for like $4. Blue Train and A Love Supreme for starters. Why is no one talking about that?
iTMS could stand to be improved but it's certainly much better than anything out there and it stands to get better as labels get the hint that their days of gouging customers are nearly over.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Ok i'm a bit disappointed here.
50+ Million songs have been downloaded via iTunes.
That's at the very least 25 Million tracks that could have been received via more unscrupulous ways. Yet certain individuals would still prefer slap us in the face. What I mean is
Just a quick perusal of iTMS shows that
N.E.R.D album is $16.99
Wyntom Marsalis = $16.99
The new Cypress Hill- By Song only?
Wow I guess there's only so much Apple can do. But I hope these people realize that we just want music. That's all
yes, they are kinda getting screwed but i mean apple is still doing a great service to the music industry by doing this... they sell songs online so thath people like it. i like it.,,, so instead of buring now i buy real cheap
riverside stuff is second only to blue note (and some may argue that) for jazz in the fifties. "monk's music" is one i'd highly recommend, coltrane is on it.
as for expensive titles cast your economic vote and don't buy 'em.
Apple's marketing push was not at all based on price anyway. It was based on access, ease of use, sound quality, and extra features (previews, album art, exclusives) in comparison to illegal file sharing.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I think some are missing the point. Apple's marketing push was largely based on price. .99 songs and $9.99 albums. That formula is no longer the case. As far as bargains, Some of you act like there is no discount bin in a regular music store. Some of my favorite CDs I purchased for $4 to $6. iTMS has no monopoly on that. Such deals are not at all unique. Besides the consistency in DRM and the fact that tracks play on the iPod, there is little difference between iTMS and any other store out there. How long will it be before variable DRM joins variable pricing? It is clear that the initial agreements that formed iTMS have fallen apart and that introduces uncertainty. For this reason, the price hikes are a big deal for industry watchers.
Some would say that you, too, are missing the point. If you go into best buy, their cds are different prices, too. Many of them are way overpriced. The sky is not falling.
Originally posted by Eugene
Mac Voyer, I think you completely missed the point. Nothing has changed. Variable pricing isn't something new. $9.99 for an album was just a guideline. To insinuate that variable licensing is just around the corner because some albums are more expensive is just silly.
Apple's marketing push was not at all based on price anyway. It was based on access, ease of use, sound quality, and extra features (previews, album art, exclusives) in comparison to illegal file sharing.
I don't think you can expect the rest of the music buying public to be as forgiving of iTMS as people here, let alone the non-music buying public.
Firstly, a lot of Apple's marketing push was based on price. In particular, making it so cheap and easy that people wouldn't bother to file share. If that's what Apple really believe is going to happen then they are not only fools but have misread the whole file sharing thing.
Think about it. There are undoubtedly those who illegally download music just to avoid paying. Are they going to use iTMS? No. If they don't want to pay, it doesn't matter how you wrap the package, they will still avoid paying. If all file sharers are nothing more than thieves then you can kiss iTMS's arse goodbye (at least in its current form) because it will not achieve what the labels want.
Why else might people use P2P? 2 main reasons. Firstly, to sample music - iTMS does a poor job here compared to the file sharing networks. Secondly, because of financial constraints. Not only do kids not have the money to afford all the music they want, neither can their parents. Parents with download limits on their internet connections are giving their kids music budgets on their illegal downloads - and it's costing them a lot less than buying from iTMS. And if you think the album art or exclusives will make a difference to their buying habits, I think you're kidding yourself.
To a certain extent the explanation of the music industry's problems can be reduced down to a simple one of over-supply. At least in respect to the cost of commercially available music.
At the moment, my guess would be that most iTMS customers are ex-CD buyers (ie. they're already purchasing music legally). And sooner or later that market will end up being divided up between iTMS and the competition. It's all very well for a bunch of US Mac fanatics around here to say iTMS store is fantastic and doing just fine but that won't make it happen in the real world.
Originally posted by torifile
All this hand-wringing and belly-aching over some overpriced albums that aren't worth the time spent downloading them anyway?
What about the albums that are insanely cheap compared to what you'd get in the store? I've gotten a couple great jazz albums for like $4. Blue Train and A Love Supreme for starters. Why is no one talking about that?
iTMS could stand to be improved but it's certainly much better than anything out there and it stands to get better as labels get the hint that their days of gouging customers are nearly over.
Yeah, I just got Miles Davis Bitches Brew--Six buck for over two hours of music. A Love Supreme will probably be my next buy. For new releases, iTunes kind of sucks, but for back catalog it rules. Most of the stuff I've bought isn't carried in my local Borders.
Variable licensing would kill iTunes, but I don't think variable price will.
Originally posted by crazychester
I don't think you can expect the rest of the music buying public to be as forgiving of iTMS as people here, let alone the non-music buying public./
Oh I think you can. Contrary to whatever your belief may be, the buying public barely complains about paying up to $20 for a CD. The non-music buyers aren't the target of the iTMS, and never have been.
Firstly, a lot of Apple's marketing push was based on price. In particular, making it so cheap and easy that people wouldn't bother to file share. If that's what Apple really believe is going to happen then they are not only fools but have misread the whole file sharing thing.
There was no push, only a statement. The vast majority of songs are available for $0.99. The vast majority of albums are available for $9.99. Most file sharers don't file-share because they want to screw the man. They file share because they have a nice fast internet connection, and it takes a couple of clicks to possibly get the music they want. It doesn't cost them a cent either, but that's just a little bit of incentive. The value of the iTMS is the complete package. ~70 million downloads by the end of April say you're wrong anyway.
Think about it. There are undoubtedly those who illegally download music just to avoid paying. Are they going to use iTMS? No. If they don't want to pay, it doesn't matter how you wrap the package, they will still avoid paying. If all file sharers are nothing more than thieves then you can kiss iTMS's arse goodbye (at least in its current form) because it will not achieve what the labels want.
Ugh this is like arguing with a broken record. Those people make up the minority of file-sharers, plain and simple. I didn't use Scour.net, Napster, Morpheus, Kazaa because I didn't want pay for music. I used them because I was trying the music out, too lazy to truck myself to the store, and/or not particularly pleased by the thought of buying a CD with 2-3 songs I might like.
Why else might people use P2P? 2 main reasons. Firstly, to sample music - iTMS does a poor job here compared to the file sharing networks.
iTunes does an exemplary job of allowing you to sample music. You get the sample on demand. You get a feel for the song. Ever use Poisoned? You'll cue a dozen downloads and maybe two of them will download...at all.
Secondly, because of financial constraints. Not only do kids not have the money to afford all the music they want, neither can their parents. Parents with download limits on their internet connections are giving their kids music budgets on their illegal downloads - and it's costing them a lot less than buying from iTMS. And if you think the album art or exclusives will make a difference to their buying habits, I think you're kidding yourself.
Free is cheaper than not-free? Oh. My. God! On the contrary, at least with the iTMS, parents have a bit of control vs. just handing them a credit card. And yes, every little incentive helps.
To a certain extent the explanation of the music industry's problems can be reduced down to a simple one of over-supply. At least in respect to the cost of commercially available music.
The problem isn't over-supply, it's just gouging.
At the moment, my guess would be that most iTMS customers are ex-CD buyers (ie. they're already purchasing music legally). And sooner or later that market will end up being divided up between iTMS and the competition. It's all very well for a bunch of US Mac fanatics around here to say iTMS store is fantastic and doing just fine but that won't make it happen in the real world.
I used p2p to try music before deciding to buy it. In fact, before I discovered MP3s, Scour.net and Napster, I owned 3 CDs total. Now I have several hundred at least. But yes, I was not adverse to buying music before, just like most other p2p users.
Since i've started using iTMS over half my purchases are from artists that are new to me. The previews let me hear the groove and i've not been disappointed. This is the future. Most of my songs purchased will get very little major radio play. I'm glad I can support them and hear music that is new and different.
70 million downloads since April? Illegal downloads are counted in the billions I'm afraid. And I agree with you that most P2Pers are probably trying out music so don't give me that broken record crap. What I'm trying to do here is consider iTMS in terms of what consumers actually want, the characteristics of the music listening public and how well it delivers on that compared to the available alternatives.
I don't see iTMS giving parents any more control than they have over their kids illegal downloads. I've already indicated, for me at least, a 30 second preview does not count as a viable sample of a song. Maybe it will for the vast majority but I have my doubts if the whole song is available for free. So a kid on a limited budget might purchase a favorite song from iTMS but download another 20 for free. Moreover, music has become something of a disposable commodity insofar as kids will listen to a song for a few months then go off it and never listen to it again. Parents know this and I don't think they want o fork out even $0.99 over and over again for stuff they know will be consigned to the trash can in a few months.
Yes gouging is an issue but exactly what has iTMS done to stop that? I can see that for people already purchasing CDs it's quite attractive. What I'm not convinced of is that it competes well against the file-sharing networks. And that's where the real money is to be made.
Originally posted by Amorph
I had a nice long reply all composed, and I clicked Submit, and OW 5 crashed.
I'll reply tomorrow. Sorry.
*Still waiting* MeH!
Originally posted by crazychester
What I'm not convinced of is that it competes well against the file-sharing networks. And that's where the real money is to be made.
I thought you were one of those people (like downhillbattle.org) that was disappointed that Apple hadn't reinvented the entire music industry overnight by breaking millions of existing contracts between artists and labels.
Or one of those people who point to Magnatunes or other such sites with what are effectively unsigned bands' tracks available to download. Bear in mind that I've nothing against unsigned bands, as long as you realise that no-one (*slight* exaggeration) wants to listen to them.
But now you're saying Apple can make more money by illegally giving away songs for free????????????
Please explain how iTunes Music Store (or any legal competing service) could be better in the real world (one were you don't get to make up the rules of law or economics, or pretend that everyone else thinks and acts the same as you and your friends).
Originally posted by crazychester
OK first off that non-music buyers was the wrong phrase. I meant the non-paying music consumers ie. the P2Pers. I know plenty of people who complain about the price of buying a CD.
You are never going to sell to people who don't ever buy music. That's why the RIAA figures, much like the SBA's, are always so inflated. Even if you eliminated all P2P, most of these people would just go back to listening to the radio.
What you can do is sell to that sub-section who enjoy music and want to support bands, but prefer to get the music on-line. The question for iTunes and the like is if that is a large enough group to make it a viable business. So far, it seems to be making money for both Apple and the artists--not huge sums, but probably enough to make things worth while.
Some experimenting with price is inevitable as they try to find the sweet spot that maximized profit. Having all albums and all tracks the same price is probably not wise finically, but it sure is nicer for us users.
Originally posted by crazychester
OK first off that non-music buyers was the wrong phrase. I meant the non-paying music consumers ie. the P2Pers. I know plenty of people who complain about the price of buying a CD.
Circle of friends. You obviously belong to one mindset, so your friends are likely of the same mindset.
70 million downloads since April? Illegal downloads are counted in the billions I'm afraid.
And so what? The iTMS is one service compared a dozen or so major distributed p2p networks. Not all the data being transferred is music. You're speaking as if 70 million is a negligible number. It's not.
And I agree with you that most P2Pers are probably trying out music so don't give me that broken record crap. What I'm trying to do here is consider iTMS in terms of what consumers actually want, the characteristics of the music listening public and how well it delivers on that compared to the available alternatives.
You do sound precisely like a broken record. Consumers want everything for free, yet the iTMS is here and so far thriving. That must be puzzling you, right?
I don't see iTMS giving parents any more control than they have over their kids illegal downloads. I've already indicated, for me at least, a 30 second preview does not count as a viable sample of a song. Maybe it will for the vast majority but I have my doubts if the whole song is available for free.
30 seconds of the song is free. The whole song is a whopping $0.99. The vast majority of pop out there only has 30 seconds of non repeated melody anyway.
So a kid on a limited budget might purchase a favorite song from iTMS but download another 20 for free. Moreover, music has become something of a disposable commodity insofar as kids will listen to a song for a few months then go off it and never listen to it again. Parents know this and I don't think they want o fork out even $0.99 over and over again for stuff they know will be consigned to the trash can in a few months.
People do the same with CDs. Or is the physical sales model also not viable?
Yes gouging is an issue but exactly what has iTMS done to stop that? I can see that for people already purchasing CDs it's quite attractive. What I'm not convinced of is that it competes well against the file-sharing networks. And that's where the real money is to be made.
iTMS makes it a lot, lot easier to distribute your music and brand without contracting yourself to a major record label. Tell Shawn Fanning what you just told me.
Originally posted by Eugene
Circle of friends. You obviously belong to one mindset, so your friends are likely of the same mindset.
And so what? The iTMS is one service compared a dozen or so major distributed p2p networks. Not all the data being transferred is music. You're speaking as if 70 million is a negligible number. It's not.
You do sound precisely like a broken record. Consumers want everything for free, yet the iTMS is here and so far thriving. That must be puzzling you, right?
30 seconds of the song is free. The whole song is a whopping $0.99. The vast majority of pop out there only has 30 seconds of non repeated melody anyway.
People do the same with CDs. Or is the physical sales model also not viable?
iTMS makes it a lot, lot easier to distribute your music and brand without contracting yourself to a major record label. Tell Shawn Fanning what you just told me.
you make some good points that if i continued my subscription in this post i would only repeat what you have said? i agree completely with what he says in this post
exit PS stage left
So I'll just say this. I don't use P2P. Never have. I don't see where I said that Apple should illegally give away free songs. But you want to put words in my mouth, go ahead. I couldn't give a flying f**k.
I do make my living full time as a dance artist and cop the music industry's shit on a daily basis. I changed my views about a lot of this stuff after considering the way I promote and sell my art and the music industry's approach. And no the two aren't directly comparable because dancers and choreographers can't really mass produce their work. But I certainly give stuff away for free because it's great for business.
And yeah I'm jumping around from one narrow aspect of the whole music debate (iTMS) to wider issues (characteristics of the music market in general). Sosumi. I do think iTMS is helping to stir the pot a bit as are music consumers, P2P, yeah the downhillbattles and EFFs of this world, the garageband.coms and the independent labels. But I'm not going to just accept that iTMS is the be all and end all when there is clearly a lot more going on.