May I suggest that anyone who is insulted by the insinuation that iPods are used to house pirated content direct their feedback towards the financial times, who were the people to originally state this. Head over to their website and request that they either back up the claim or remove it. You can use the two articles I linked to earlier in this thread as evidence.
Apple needs to start to press their advantage. They should act like the record label they have become. Cut out the labels (all worthless middlemen) and sell music from major artists and independents directly to consumers. This would cut the feet off the labels and it could result in a drastic cut in digital music prices for everyone.
This is the next logical step for Apple, otherwise they won't remain in their power position.
...2) Negotiate all of them into allowing Apple to sell DRM Free Music, and not just a select few Albums, but their entire catalogs that are on iTunes and beyond including Music Video.
That's an awfully good point. Apple should say to the big labels (other than EMI), "So you want subscription, eh? Ok then, we'll give it to you, but you have to give us DRM-free for our non-subscription downloads."
Give and take. And if the major labels don't like it, well, screw 'em. Compromise is a virtue.
Quote:
There's no need to hope it makes the Zune look even more like a failure. If Microsoft were to drop off the face of the Earth tomorrow, it couldn't possibly make the Zune look even worst.
I disagree. While MS's efforts so far have been derivative and fairly pathetic, the key in dealing with them is to never let them get any traction. Even an obvious copy of a good product can eventually grab a good-sized chunk of the market, if the company backing it has several years and several billions of dollars to throw away on it. Look at the Xbox 360.
When you knock MS down, you don't let them get up again.
You never will. The iTunes Music Store lets you license the music for a flat rate, but you certainly don't own anything when you buy from it. You still have to comply with the iTunes user agreement or you're breaking the law, and whether your license is transferable is still up to the licensor. That people buying from the iTMS music store feel they own something is a nice myth.
When you buy a CD, you only own the physical plastic and metal substrate, by the way. The pattern of 1's and 0's is still owned by the record labels and licensed to you for home use.
Thank you. That said, a person can legally re-sell a CD if they don't like it. iTunes purchases have much less resale value. One advantage that could be had downloaded media could have isn't offered by iTunes, that is replacing a file that was lost or damaged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Appleinsider, would you please stop using "subscription" when you actually mean "rental". Or do you actually mean subscription not rental? Anyway, some clarification would be nice.
I still think you are focused on a very narrow use of the word. The dictionary definition looks to be broader than yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Waaah.
If Apple offered subscription, they very likely would NOT take away the option for people to buy songs outright. People need to chill. \
I don't get that either. The services that offer subscription also sell tracks too. It's not a dilemma. Offering a new service doesn't mean that the old service will be taken away.
Cut out the labels (all worthless middlemen) and sell music from major artists and independents directly to consumers. This would cut the feet off the labels and it could result in a drastic cut in digital music prices for everyone.
They can't do that until the contracts that the "major artists" have with their labels run out. That can be a long time.
They can't do that until the contracts that the "major artists" have with their labels run out. That can be a long time.
Many of the large groups self-publish anyway. They use the labels for distribution. The larger, more powerful groups could defect to iTunes distribution tomorrow if the economics were there. I'm pretty sure that they still make a nice bit of coin selling CDs and other related merchandise.
I would definitely be interested in a music subscription - depending on the price. I think a $9.99 per month is a good deal; anything more is too much. I think it would benefit Apple in the long run as well.
They have already blown their 99 cent per song price model with the EMI deal (another positive in my opinion).
Apple needs to be careful and not blow the whole ipod/itunes model with their arrogance. True, they are #1 in music sales and their ipod sales are excellent - but 5 years from now it's anyone's game.
I seem to recall Jobs stating a few years back there was no need for a video player as well - he seems to have changed his mind on that topic.
If Apple is looking long term they would do well with a subscription model for music and movies - that would help secure not only the ipod but the iTV as well. I don't see a compelling reason (for myself at least) to buy an iTV; a subscription model might change that for me.
Apple needs to start to press their advantage. They should act like the record label they have become. Cut out the labels (all worthless middlemen) and sell music from major artists and independents directly to consumers. This would cut the feet off the labels and it could result in a drastic cut in digital music prices for everyone.
Now that is music to MY ears. Who wouldn't love to release an album on the Apple label?
That's an awfully good point. Apple should say to the big labels (other than EMI), "So you want subscription, eh? Ok then, we'll give it to you, but you have to give us DRM-free for our non-subscription downloads."
Give and take. And if the major labels don't like it, well, screw 'em. Compromise is a virtue.
Exactly
Quote:
I disagree. While MS's efforts so far have been derivative and fairly pathetic, the key in dealing with them is to never let them get any traction. Even an obvious copy of a good product can eventually grab a good-sized chunk of the market, if the company backing it has several years and several billions of dollars to throw away on it. Look at the Xbox 360.
When you knock MS down, you don't let them get up again.
The only competitor that could actually be considered a serious competitor to Apple right now is SanDisk. Microsoft's efforts are a lot more then pathetic; they are just too damn stupid!
Let's take their Xbox 360, they have shipped about 10 Million units by the end of December by stuffing the channel with their 4.4 Million consoles, they then reported that as sold and moved on. They vowed to sell 1 Million Zunes by June, at the current pace that the Zune is selling, that would take a mircale, or a curse depending on how you look at it.
When taking a crack at deducing a ballpark estimate of how many Zunes Microsoft had sold in January, I was careful to word it: "based on NPD?s numbers and my math, it would appear Microsoft sold $7.2 million in Zunes in January via retail outlets, which at $250 each would be just short of 29,000 units."
David Dennis wrote, ?It's unfortunate these [NPD] figures are not given in units. For your math to be correct, the average selling price per MP3 player has to be about $250. This segment is purely MP3 players, not hard drive MP3 players, so in reality the selling price is probably about $150-175. If the average selling price is $175, then 1,287,361 units were sold. If we assume 3.2% of those were Zunes, that would mean they sold 41,195 Zunes.
?Of course this makes very little difference, really. Let's say Microsoft started selling the Zune during the holidays in late November-December, and that they sold 80,000 during that popular period. Then they sell 41,195 Zunes a month from January-May. That means the most likely Zune sale count is 285,975 [by June 2007].
?Ouch. There are flops and there are flops. Until I wrote that number I had no real idea of how catastrophic the Zune was. It really merits your Hindenburg picture.
?How can Ballmer lie so pointlessly? I can understand how he can lie but now how he can lie when he's so easily found out? He must be afraid of how his shareholders are reacting, and figures the Zune will be forgotten by July. I mean we'll remember it as a spectacular bad example, but we're just a bunch of Apple fanatics, right??
That's a fairly old article, but even now, if the Zune was actually selling, it would be all over the internet, so I doubt it's doing any better. I expect it will turn out something like this, as June 07 approaches, Microsoft will have about a Million Zunes manufactured, they will then proceed to stuff the channel and then report it as sold. The press will take it to heart, warn Apple to beware of Microsoft, completely ignore the only real competition Apple may have: SanDisk, and later, a random blogger will debunk Microsoft's numbers by pointing out that Microsoft merely stuffed the channel with "Shipped" Zunes and reported them as "Sold."
Sebastian
Fun Fact: I have only seen 3 Zunes anywhere outside of the Internet, and one of those was replaced by an iPod Nano
Did the Music studios get a percentage of record player sales? No.
It seems to me that they are complaining that Apple gets too much money from ipod sales.
ipods have nothing to do with piracy. If there were no ipods, there would still be piracy (see cassettes).
What if they sold music for what it's worth? What if they started to promote live music (not just the BIG names on tour, but anyone who wants to perform and can draw a reasonable crowd at a reasonable price)?
What if they started respecting musicians as something more than money?
They didn't start getting percentages until tapes, because that was the first widespread copying medium. Not many people in the 60s had record presses to pirate LPs...
Piracy with tapes didn't affect sales so much because the quality was so bad - while lots of tapes were copied, most people who liked the music would buy eventually. CD-Rs made on home computers, especially early CD-writers have shorter lifespans than industrially pressed CDs. MP3s, however are much easier to share and retain quality. The elimination of the cheap looking blank CD and the ugly case designs further remove certain stigma of piracy.
Is $12-20 more than than an album is worth? You seem to imply this, which makes me think you don't really put much value in music.
Also, big labels generally help all of their artists with touring, and generally take care of advertising very well. I've worked as a sideman with a lower-level Universal Artist in Denmark, as well as a Canadian on Sony, and both got great touring support. Why should they support artists who aren't signed to their label?
When it comes down to it, all record companies are businesses. If they don't sell records, they don't sign bands, and the first to go are always the smallest sellers. The more piracy occurs, the less chances a lot of bands will get, and the more the labels will stick with "sure things"...
Also, Apple is just as dependent on the labels as they are on it (more so, actually). If the labels decide the iTunes model doesn't work, they can very easily get together and force apple to do whatever they want. Imagine if Apple said no to subscription, and a few labels jumped ship, while Microsoft went with subscription? The most important thing to iTunes is still content, and the labels still control that. If they're not happy with how things are working now, they'll change it.
Is $12-20 more than than an album is worth? You seem to imply this, which makes me think you don't really put much value in music.
It's expensive compared to what it gets. For $20, one can get a fourty minute audio track, maybe a music video or two, or one can often get a newly released movie with two discs, one with a two hour feature and another with two hours of bonus footage. After a while, the price might go down $10 or less. Price almost never goes down with music.
The record industry has been pulling a pretty big ruse, like the one where they claim that most iPods are just loaded with mostly pirated music. It also turned out that people that downloaded the most often bought the most music too. Their average sales volume per title has been going up as well, but that effect is tamped by releasing fewer titles and signing fewer bands.
Well, the first article says 70% of music on MP3 players is legally obtained, which means 30% stolen, which does seem like a lot to me. Also, this stolen number should be increasing as P2P gets more popular, and people run out of CDs in their personal collections to rip...
The second article says iPod users buy more albums than other music player users, but we can assume there that, since iPods are the most expensive players available, their users probably have more cash to spend... It further gives no figures as to how many albums iPod users were buying before they got their iPods, which would be a much more helpful figure....
The fact is, music sales are going down dramatically, even when MP3 sales are included in the figure. But people aren't listening to less music or reducing the variety of music they possess. Why is this? Do you think it has nothing to do with illegal downloading and P2P sharing?
.... iTunes still beats buying the CD on price, if not quality. ....
How do you figure that a lossy encoded mp3 version of a song is better quality than a CD (which is recorded at 16 bits /44.1 KHz)? Even at higher sampling rates (see the new 'higher quality' mp3 versions of EMI's records) the amount of data loss and the subsequent quality drop is still significant. (do a side by side comparison of a CD track and an MP3 track on a good quality player and you'll hear the difference)
I am amazed that the recording industry has managed to get the buying public thinking that they are not making very much money on sales of MP3 files when there is absolutely no overhead for the file past the cost of actually making the original file. The same file can be sold over and over again with absolutely no material cost to the label (i.e.: CD medium, cases, artwork, inserts, distribution channels etc.). Apple apparently gives 64 cents of each 99 cent sale to the recording label. (That 64 cents is just about all profit for the label minus the small percentage that goes to the artist for royalties)
And now the recording industry would like to make money from you on a monthly subscribtion fee for RENTING a song??? I put out good money for CD's of music, and this means that I can play them anywhere, anytime I like, without worrying about a DRM demon telling me that my purchase has expired, "please put in another quarter to hear the song again....".
And the last point, would someone please show me the actual data that says that going to a subscription model would reduce piracy. A person who is pirating music is not going to care one little bit that a subscription service is available, they are still going to pirate copies of music. (the pirated mp3's are quite often of even a lower quality than the original mp3, so that they are smaller in size enabling more songs to be stored in a smaller space)
Just to put my comments in perspective I run a small recording studio and I have been doing audio production work for a few years.
It's expensive compared to what it gets. For $20, one can get a fourty minute audio track, maybe a music video or two, or one can often get a newly released movie with two discs, one with a two hour feature and another with two hours of bonus footage. After a while, the price might go down $10 or less. Price almost never goes down with music.
Sorry, do you come from a city where the music store doesn't have a bargain bin? Also, in my experience, the low cost DVDs tend to be the ones that were overproduced or not selling. Lord of the Rings still costs over 20 bucks, but Lord of the Dance can be had for 10...
Most major label CDs where I come from cost 12-15 bucks. Also, most nowadays have closer to 50-60 minutes of music (except punk rock or vinyl reissues). Independents cost more, but then, so do smaller, independent films!
I can't remember the last time I could watch the same movie more than 2 times a year, but I've got a lot of records that I can listen to 2 times a day... DVDs have to be cheap, because if they cost more than 3 rentals, very few people would buy, because the replay value is low. The second disc with bonus material is an attempt to increase the value, but how many times can you listen to Quentin Tarantino talk about how interesting his move is, or Jessica Simpson talk about how much fun she had? Bonus material is also very cheap to make, all current movie contracts include clauses to do DVD bonus material as part of the promotional side of the contract...
Finally, and most obviously, the DVD release is very cheap to make. In most cases, the movie has already covered expenses (at the very least) in the theatres. Music doesn't work this way.
I am amazed that the recording industry has managed to get the buying public thinking that they are not making very much money on sales of MP3 files when there is absolutely no overhead for the file past the cost of actually making the original file. The same file can be sold over and over again with absolutely no material cost to the label (i.e.: CD medium, cases, artwork, inserts, distribution channels etc.). Apple apparently gives 64 cents of each 99 cent sale to the recording label. (That 64 cents is just about all profit for the label minus the small percentage that goes to the artist for royalties)
The material costs are actually very low. I can get runs of 500 CDs printed at about 2 bucks each, and labels can get it done, in bigger quantities for much cheaper. Distribution is now handled much like Coca-Cola is bottled, with production centres spread out regionally so transport isn't too expensive. Also, with CD sales, they sell the whole album, but via iTunes, a lot of the time people are only buying a couple tracks.
Imagine if people could choose to save money on a Mac by not having Safari, Garageband, iDVD, address book, Mail, .Mac, iChat or any of the other programs I never use included, how much money apple would lose....
And the last point, would someone please show me the actual data that says that going to a subscription model would reduce piracy. A person who is pirating music is not going to care one little bit that a subscription service is available, they are still going to pirate copies of music. (the pirated mp3's are quite often of even a lower quality than the original mp3, so that they are smaller in size enabling more songs to be stored in a smaller space)
Think of it as an investment by the music industry in the (near) future. The subscription service puts DRM into the tracks and players so that when the subscription runs out, the tracks don't work. This doesn't affect current thieves or casual loaners of CDs to friends for copying.
However, in 5 years, when CDs are no longer produced, new material will not have a source for "ripping", unless they can get their hands on the master recordings or crack the DRM.... "Buying" a track would probably involving getting a mulitple year license or something, while "renting" or "subscribing" would be monthly.
The apple model of iTunes/OSX/iPhone/ATv fits the idea of DRM perfectly, as a user's identity and music rights can be easily maintained through the whole system. In that way, people faithful to the Apple brand are the least affected by DRM (compared to somebody who has 3 or 4 companies' gear and software to move music around on).
Think of it as an investment by the music industry in the (near) future. The subscription service puts DRM into the tracks and players so that when the subscription runs out, the tracks don't work. This doesn't affect current thieves or casual loaners of CDs to friends for copying.
However, in 5 years, when CDs are no longer produced, new material will not have a source for "ripping", unless they can get their hands on the master recordings or crack the DRM.... "Buying" a track would probably involving getting a mulitple year license or something, while "renting" or "subscribing" would be monthly.
The apple model of iTunes/OSX/iPhone/ATv fits the idea of DRM perfectly, as a user's identity and music rights can be easily maintained through the whole system. In that way, people faithful to the Apple brand are the least affected by DRM (compared to somebody who has 3 or 4 companies' gear and software to move music around on).
Interesting, what you are hinting at here is a long term plan to force the consumer into renting the music. If correct this is extremely worrying as it means the music that I like to listen to, (and have currently compiled a large CD collection of) would continually have to be 'renewed'. I would see this as more incentive to invest in DRM removal technology and pirating than as a way for record companies to gain more sales. On top of that, as I mentioned earlier, mp3s are much lower in audio resolution than a CD is which therefore makes for a much poorer listening experience.
It is evident that technology constantly changes and improves, so it is easily conceivable that a different file format (non-mp3) could come along that would be both small and have high audio resolution. However I don't believe that even high quality downloads within a rental or subscription based model will work well as it effectively prohibits people from 'collecting' music because their 'rental' licence would either expire due to time out or on the number of playbacks. For instance I have CD's in my collection which were purchased back when CD's first started to appear, I can still play these (and frequently do) whenever the mood strikes me, if these were 'rentals' I would never have purchased them in the first place.
Comments
Let me buy and pay for my music once, and then leave me alone.
This is the next logical step for Apple, otherwise they won't remain in their power position.
I'm all for it as long as Apple can...
...2) Negotiate all of them into allowing Apple to sell DRM Free Music, and not just a select few Albums, but their entire catalogs that are on iTunes and beyond including Music Video.
That's an awfully good point. Apple should say to the big labels (other than EMI), "So you want subscription, eh? Ok then, we'll give it to you, but you have to give us DRM-free for our non-subscription downloads."
Give and take. And if the major labels don't like it, well, screw 'em. Compromise is a virtue.
There's no need to hope it makes the Zune look even more like a failure. If Microsoft were to drop off the face of the Earth tomorrow, it couldn't possibly make the Zune look even worst.
I disagree. While MS's efforts so far have been derivative and fairly pathetic, the key in dealing with them is to never let them get any traction. Even an obvious copy of a good product can eventually grab a good-sized chunk of the market, if the company backing it has several years and several billions of dollars to throw away on it. Look at the Xbox 360.
When you knock MS down, you don't let them get up again.
.
If the ITMS goes this way, I will be the first to cancel my account and never return.
Let me buy and pay for my music once, and then leave me alone.
Waaah.
If Apple offered subscription, they very likely would NOT take away the option for people to buy songs outright. People need to chill.
.
You never will. The iTunes Music Store lets you license the music for a flat rate, but you certainly don't own anything when you buy from it. You still have to comply with the iTunes user agreement or you're breaking the law, and whether your license is transferable is still up to the licensor. That people buying from the iTMS music store feel they own something is a nice myth.
When you buy a CD, you only own the physical plastic and metal substrate, by the way. The pattern of 1's and 0's is still owned by the record labels and licensed to you for home use.
Thank you. That said, a person can legally re-sell a CD if they don't like it. iTunes purchases have much less resale value. One advantage that could be had downloaded media could have isn't offered by iTunes, that is replacing a file that was lost or damaged.
Appleinsider, would you please stop using "subscription" when you actually mean "rental". Or do you actually mean subscription not rental? Anyway, some clarification would be nice.
I still think you are focused on a very narrow use of the word. The dictionary definition looks to be broader than yours.
Waaah.
If Apple offered subscription, they very likely would NOT take away the option for people to buy songs outright. People need to chill.
I don't get that either. The services that offer subscription also sell tracks too. It's not a dilemma. Offering a new service doesn't mean that the old service will be taken away.
Cut out the labels (all worthless middlemen) and sell music from major artists and independents directly to consumers. This would cut the feet off the labels and it could result in a drastic cut in digital music prices for everyone.
They can't do that until the contracts that the "major artists" have with their labels run out. That can be a long time.
They can't do that until the contracts that the "major artists" have with their labels run out. That can be a long time.
Many of the large groups self-publish anyway. They use the labels for distribution. The larger, more powerful groups could defect to iTunes distribution tomorrow if the economics were there. I'm pretty sure that they still make a nice bit of coin selling CDs and other related merchandise.
They have already blown their 99 cent per song price model with the EMI deal (another positive in my opinion).
Apple needs to be careful and not blow the whole ipod/itunes model with their arrogance. True, they are #1 in music sales and their ipod sales are excellent - but 5 years from now it's anyone's game.
I seem to recall Jobs stating a few years back there was no need for a video player as well - he seems to have changed his mind on that topic.
If Apple is looking long term they would do well with a subscription model for music and movies - that would help secure not only the ipod but the iTV as well. I don't see a compelling reason (for myself at least) to buy an iTV; a subscription model might change that for me.
This is incorrect.
Article 1.
Article 2.
Right you are. I think this is a case of trying to repeat a falsehood
enough times that people start repeating it, a feedback loop develops,
and some people start believing it. The technique worked well (for a
while) for some US politicians, who shall remain nameless.
Apple needs to start to press their advantage. They should act like the record label they have become. Cut out the labels (all worthless middlemen) and sell music from major artists and independents directly to consumers. This would cut the feet off the labels and it could result in a drastic cut in digital music prices for everyone.
Now that is music to MY ears. Who wouldn't love to release an album on the Apple label?
That's an awfully good point. Apple should say to the big labels (other than EMI), "So you want subscription, eh? Ok then, we'll give it to you, but you have to give us DRM-free for our non-subscription downloads."
Give and take. And if the major labels don't like it, well, screw 'em. Compromise is a virtue.
Exactly
I disagree. While MS's efforts so far have been derivative and fairly pathetic, the key in dealing with them is to never let them get any traction. Even an obvious copy of a good product can eventually grab a good-sized chunk of the market, if the company backing it has several years and several billions of dollars to throw away on it. Look at the Xbox 360.
When you knock MS down, you don't let them get up again.
The only competitor that could actually be considered a serious competitor to Apple right now is SanDisk. Microsoft's efforts are a lot more then pathetic; they are just too damn stupid!
Let's take their Xbox 360, they have shipped about 10 Million units by the end of December by stuffing the channel with their 4.4 Million consoles, they then reported that as sold and moved on. They vowed to sell 1 Million Zunes by June, at the current pace that the Zune is selling, that would take a mircale, or a curse depending on how you look at it.
Original Article
Units vs Dollars
When taking a crack at deducing a ballpark estimate of how many Zunes Microsoft had sold in January, I was careful to word it: "based on NPD?s numbers and my math, it would appear Microsoft sold $7.2 million in Zunes in January via retail outlets, which at $250 each would be just short of 29,000 units."
David Dennis wrote, ?It's unfortunate these [NPD] figures are not given in units. For your math to be correct, the average selling price per MP3 player has to be about $250. This segment is purely MP3 players, not hard drive MP3 players, so in reality the selling price is probably about $150-175. If the average selling price is $175, then 1,287,361 units were sold. If we assume 3.2% of those were Zunes, that would mean they sold 41,195 Zunes.
?Of course this makes very little difference, really. Let's say Microsoft started selling the Zune during the holidays in late November-December, and that they sold 80,000 during that popular period. Then they sell 41,195 Zunes a month from January-May. That means the most likely Zune sale count is 285,975 [by June 2007].
?Ouch. There are flops and there are flops. Until I wrote that number I had no real idea of how catastrophic the Zune was. It really merits your Hindenburg picture.
?How can Ballmer lie so pointlessly? I can understand how he can lie but now how he can lie when he's so easily found out? He must be afraid of how his shareholders are reacting, and figures the Zune will be forgotten by July. I mean we'll remember it as a spectacular bad example, but we're just a bunch of Apple fanatics, right??
That's a fairly old article, but even now, if the Zune was actually selling, it would be all over the internet, so I doubt it's doing any better. I expect it will turn out something like this, as June 07 approaches, Microsoft will have about a Million Zunes manufactured, they will then proceed to stuff the channel and then report it as sold. The press will take it to heart, warn Apple to beware of Microsoft, completely ignore the only real competition Apple may have: SanDisk, and later, a random blogger will debunk Microsoft's numbers by pointing out that Microsoft merely stuffed the channel with "Shipped" Zunes and reported them as "Sold."
Sebastian
Fun Fact: I have only seen 3 Zunes anywhere outside of the Internet, and one of those was replaced by an iPod Nano
Did the Music studios get a percentage of record player sales? No.
It seems to me that they are complaining that Apple gets too much money from ipod sales.
ipods have nothing to do with piracy. If there were no ipods, there would still be piracy (see cassettes).
What if they sold music for what it's worth? What if they started to promote live music (not just the BIG names on tour, but anyone who wants to perform and can draw a reasonable crowd at a reasonable price)?
What if they started respecting musicians as something more than money?
They didn't start getting percentages until tapes, because that was the first widespread copying medium. Not many people in the 60s had record presses to pirate LPs...
Piracy with tapes didn't affect sales so much because the quality was so bad - while lots of tapes were copied, most people who liked the music would buy eventually. CD-Rs made on home computers, especially early CD-writers have shorter lifespans than industrially pressed CDs. MP3s, however are much easier to share and retain quality. The elimination of the cheap looking blank CD and the ugly case designs further remove certain stigma of piracy.
Is $12-20 more than than an album is worth? You seem to imply this, which makes me think you don't really put much value in music.
Also, big labels generally help all of their artists with touring, and generally take care of advertising very well. I've worked as a sideman with a lower-level Universal Artist in Denmark, as well as a Canadian on Sony, and both got great touring support. Why should they support artists who aren't signed to their label?
When it comes down to it, all record companies are businesses. If they don't sell records, they don't sign bands, and the first to go are always the smallest sellers. The more piracy occurs, the less chances a lot of bands will get, and the more the labels will stick with "sure things"...
Also, Apple is just as dependent on the labels as they are on it (more so, actually). If the labels decide the iTunes model doesn't work, they can very easily get together and force apple to do whatever they want. Imagine if Apple said no to subscription, and a few labels jumped ship, while Microsoft went with subscription? The most important thing to iTunes is still content, and the labels still control that. If they're not happy with how things are working now, they'll change it.
Is $12-20 more than than an album is worth? You seem to imply this, which makes me think you don't really put much value in music.
It's expensive compared to what it gets. For $20, one can get a fourty minute audio track, maybe a music video or two, or one can often get a newly released movie with two discs, one with a two hour feature and another with two hours of bonus footage. After a while, the price might go down $10 or less. Price almost never goes down with music.
The record industry has been pulling a pretty big ruse, like the one where they claim that most iPods are just loaded with mostly pirated music. It also turned out that people that downloaded the most often bought the most music too. Their average sales volume per title has been going up as well, but that effect is tamped by releasing fewer titles and signing fewer bands.
This is incorrect.
Article 1.
Article 2.
Well, the first article says 70% of music on MP3 players is legally obtained, which means 30% stolen, which does seem like a lot to me. Also, this stolen number should be increasing as P2P gets more popular, and people run out of CDs in their personal collections to rip...
The second article says iPod users buy more albums than other music player users, but we can assume there that, since iPods are the most expensive players available, their users probably have more cash to spend... It further gives no figures as to how many albums iPod users were buying before they got their iPods, which would be a much more helpful figure....
The fact is, music sales are going down dramatically, even when MP3 sales are included in the figure. But people aren't listening to less music or reducing the variety of music they possess. Why is this? Do you think it has nothing to do with illegal downloading and P2P sharing?
Amen over here.
.... iTunes still beats buying the CD on price, if not quality. ....
How do you figure that a lossy encoded mp3 version of a song is better quality than a CD (which is recorded at 16 bits /44.1 KHz)? Even at higher sampling rates (see the new 'higher quality' mp3 versions of EMI's records) the amount of data loss and the subsequent quality drop is still significant. (do a side by side comparison of a CD track and an MP3 track on a good quality player and you'll hear the difference)
I am amazed that the recording industry has managed to get the buying public thinking that they are not making very much money on sales of MP3 files when there is absolutely no overhead for the file past the cost of actually making the original file. The same file can be sold over and over again with absolutely no material cost to the label (i.e.: CD medium, cases, artwork, inserts, distribution channels etc.). Apple apparently gives 64 cents of each 99 cent sale to the recording label. (That 64 cents is just about all profit for the label minus the small percentage that goes to the artist for royalties)
And now the recording industry would like to make money from you on a monthly subscribtion fee for RENTING a song??? I put out good money for CD's of music, and this means that I can play them anywhere, anytime I like, without worrying about a DRM demon telling me that my purchase has expired, "please put in another quarter to hear the song again....".
And the last point, would someone please show me the actual data that says that going to a subscription model would reduce piracy. A person who is pirating music is not going to care one little bit that a subscription service is available, they are still going to pirate copies of music. (the pirated mp3's are quite often of even a lower quality than the original mp3, so that they are smaller in size enabling more songs to be stored in a smaller space)
Just to put my comments in perspective I run a small recording studio and I have been doing audio production work for a few years.
It's expensive compared to what it gets. For $20, one can get a fourty minute audio track, maybe a music video or two, or one can often get a newly released movie with two discs, one with a two hour feature and another with two hours of bonus footage. After a while, the price might go down $10 or less. Price almost never goes down with music.
Sorry, do you come from a city where the music store doesn't have a bargain bin? Also, in my experience, the low cost DVDs tend to be the ones that were overproduced or not selling. Lord of the Rings still costs over 20 bucks, but Lord of the Dance can be had for 10...
Most major label CDs where I come from cost 12-15 bucks. Also, most nowadays have closer to 50-60 minutes of music (except punk rock or vinyl reissues). Independents cost more, but then, so do smaller, independent films!
I can't remember the last time I could watch the same movie more than 2 times a year, but I've got a lot of records that I can listen to 2 times a day... DVDs have to be cheap, because if they cost more than 3 rentals, very few people would buy, because the replay value is low. The second disc with bonus material is an attempt to increase the value, but how many times can you listen to Quentin Tarantino talk about how interesting his move is, or Jessica Simpson talk about how much fun she had? Bonus material is also very cheap to make, all current movie contracts include clauses to do DVD bonus material as part of the promotional side of the contract...
Finally, and most obviously, the DVD release is very cheap to make. In most cases, the movie has already covered expenses (at the very least) in the theatres. Music doesn't work this way.
I am amazed that the recording industry has managed to get the buying public thinking that they are not making very much money on sales of MP3 files when there is absolutely no overhead for the file past the cost of actually making the original file. The same file can be sold over and over again with absolutely no material cost to the label (i.e.: CD medium, cases, artwork, inserts, distribution channels etc.). Apple apparently gives 64 cents of each 99 cent sale to the recording label. (That 64 cents is just about all profit for the label minus the small percentage that goes to the artist for royalties)
The material costs are actually very low. I can get runs of 500 CDs printed at about 2 bucks each, and labels can get it done, in bigger quantities for much cheaper. Distribution is now handled much like Coca-Cola is bottled, with production centres spread out regionally so transport isn't too expensive. Also, with CD sales, they sell the whole album, but via iTunes, a lot of the time people are only buying a couple tracks.
Imagine if people could choose to save money on a Mac by not having Safari, Garageband, iDVD, address book, Mail, .Mac, iChat or any of the other programs I never use included, how much money apple would lose....
And the last point, would someone please show me the actual data that says that going to a subscription model would reduce piracy. A person who is pirating music is not going to care one little bit that a subscription service is available, they are still going to pirate copies of music. (the pirated mp3's are quite often of even a lower quality than the original mp3, so that they are smaller in size enabling more songs to be stored in a smaller space)
Think of it as an investment by the music industry in the (near) future. The subscription service puts DRM into the tracks and players so that when the subscription runs out, the tracks don't work. This doesn't affect current thieves or casual loaners of CDs to friends for copying.
However, in 5 years, when CDs are no longer produced, new material will not have a source for "ripping", unless they can get their hands on the master recordings or crack the DRM.... "Buying" a track would probably involving getting a mulitple year license or something, while "renting" or "subscribing" would be monthly.
The apple model of iTunes/OSX/iPhone/ATv fits the idea of DRM perfectly, as a user's identity and music rights can be easily maintained through the whole system. In that way, people faithful to the Apple brand are the least affected by DRM (compared to somebody who has 3 or 4 companies' gear and software to move music around on).
Think of it as an investment by the music industry in the (near) future. The subscription service puts DRM into the tracks and players so that when the subscription runs out, the tracks don't work. This doesn't affect current thieves or casual loaners of CDs to friends for copying.
However, in 5 years, when CDs are no longer produced, new material will not have a source for "ripping", unless they can get their hands on the master recordings or crack the DRM.... "Buying" a track would probably involving getting a mulitple year license or something, while "renting" or "subscribing" would be monthly.
The apple model of iTunes/OSX/iPhone/ATv fits the idea of DRM perfectly, as a user's identity and music rights can be easily maintained through the whole system. In that way, people faithful to the Apple brand are the least affected by DRM (compared to somebody who has 3 or 4 companies' gear and software to move music around on).
Interesting, what you are hinting at here is a long term plan to force the consumer into renting the music. If correct this is extremely worrying as it means the music that I like to listen to, (and have currently compiled a large CD collection of) would continually have to be 'renewed'. I would see this as more incentive to invest in DRM removal technology and pirating than as a way for record companies to gain more sales. On top of that, as I mentioned earlier, mp3s are much lower in audio resolution than a CD is which therefore makes for a much poorer listening experience.
It is evident that technology constantly changes and improves, so it is easily conceivable that a different file format (non-mp3) could come along that would be both small and have high audio resolution. However I don't believe that even high quality downloads within a rental or subscription based model will work well as it effectively prohibits people from 'collecting' music because their 'rental' licence would either expire due to time out or on the number of playbacks. For instance I have CD's in my collection which were purchased back when CD's first started to appear, I can still play these (and frequently do) whenever the mood strikes me, if these were 'rentals' I would never have purchased them in the first place.