I wonder what percentage of those rentals are the weekly (Friday - Monday) 99¢ iTunes teaser movies?
That's been the bulk of my iTunes rentals since I have a NetFlix subscription and typically watch 10+ (Blu-ray if available) movies/month. Based on that level of viewing, NetFlix remains cheaper, plus, I like the subtitles and extras (cut scenes/director comments/etc) which are on the DVDs but not available when rented from iTunes.
Still, iTunes is a great resource for impulse rentals and I've used it a few times.
I haven't bought a single iTunes movie since they can't be archived off my TV. Always the fear that I might have to do a hard reset and lose all the purchased movies.
Rentals AND purchases. The average could be higher, perhaps $6 to $8.
Whatever the market is doing today so far (I haven't checked my realtime account yet) Apple's stock should be rising from this news, which shows three very good things.
One is the expanded music library of over 8 million songs.
Two is the sale of over 5 billion songs, which shows, as I've been saying for years now, that most consumers couldn't care less about DRM and quality issues. This makes the DRM hating geeks come out of the woodwork, but it's true, most consumers don't give a sh*t about DRM.
And three is the really good news about movie purchases and rentals. Even though Apple has many fewer movies than their main competitors, their new pricing and renting schedules are proving to be palatable to consumers, as I also said it would, and leading to industry leading business. Variable pricing is not the bugaboo that some seem to think it is. Consumers agree that different things have different values, and they don't mind paying more for something they value more.
All your points are spot-on. Best post of this thread.
Two is the sale of over 5 billion songs, which shows, as I've been saying for years now, that most consumers couldn't care less about DRM and quality issues. This makes the DRM hating geeks come out of the woodwork, but it's true, most consumers don't give a sh*t about DRM.
I've said it before, but how many of those 5 billion songs are the 3 or more free songs that Apple "sells" every week? I think I remember Apple stating there are 50 million iTunes Store accounts, so if they each average out to downloading 1 of the free songs each week, they account for over a quarter billion songs each year. That would quickly deflate the 5 billion figure.
Likewise, I still take issue with how sales are calculated by translating 12 digital tracks into an album for comparison to physical sales. It seems like a lot of new albums include more than 12 tracks especially with the preorder bonus tracks that Apple uses to get users to buy the full album. I purchased Alanis Morissette's new album from iTunes only because I wanted the bonus track only iTunes offered and the code to early order concert tickets (which I still haven't received). That album had 17 tracks on it, so Apple gets counted as selling about 1 1/2 albums from my sole purchase.
I've said it before, but how many of those 5 billion songs are the 3 or more free songs that Apple "sells" every week? I think I remember Apple stating there are 50 million iTunes Store accounts, so if they each average out to downloading 1 of the free songs each week, they account for over a quarter billion songs each year. That would quickly deflate the 5 billion figure.
Likewise, I still take issue with how sales are calculated by translating 12 digital tracks into an album for comparison to physical sales. It seems like a lot of new albums include more than 12 tracks especially with the preorder bonus tracks that Apple uses to get users to buy the full album. I purchased Alanis Morissette's new album from iTunes only because I wanted the bonus track only iTunes offered and the code to early order concert tickets (which I still haven't received). That album had 17 tracks on it, so Apple gets counted as selling about 1 1/2 albums from my sole purchase.
You're right. Apple has probably only sold 5 or 6 songs.
Good God! iTunes' music and video store is an incredible phenomenon, and a huge success, and you are wasting your time deconstructing press releases to find where they have sexed up their numbers? Everybody puts the best face legally possible on their results.
Wouldn't the recent decision by many ISPs to charge per gig start making a dent in downloads the more people that are affected by it? It is not so much of an issue in Europe (where legal iTunes shows are thin on the ground), but here in the South Pacific bandwidth costs. There are certainly no plans for some sort of FIOS here either.. one wonders if there are plans for an iTunes movie service, but that is another thread.
It might only add an extra $1.30 or whatever depending on ISP, but that might be enough to tip the odds in favour of your average American either travelling to the store or getting the entertainment through more nefarious means..
Any word on NBC's outside attempts with NBC.com, Hulu, Amazon and Zune Marketplace or whatever other distribution devices NBC has chosen? I wonder if the execs at NBC are still trying to figure a way to come back to iTunes while saving face or if they feel they are justly compensated through the ad supported distribution means they currently support with their programming.
Not to diminish any of NBC's shows but none of them ever caught my fancy so I never viewed them or bought them while on iTunes and I DEFINITELY did not go looking for any of their shows elsewhere. I am curious to know, those that loved NBC's programs such as, The Office, Scrubs, 30 Rock or whatever, when the content dried up at iTunes did any of you venture to alternate sites to find the NBC content and if you did back then, are you still today?!
Just curious...
Yes, I venture to bittorrent because it is the only method that will allow me to play NBC shows on my iPod touch. i don't usually download illegally, but NBC has left me with no other alternative.
NBC has gotta be on crack to ignore the world's largest music retailer, which may soon be the world's largest digital movie retailer. That's like NBC not selling their DVDs at WalMart.
When will media companies realize that DRM restrictions HURT their business? My VHS tapes don't have DRM, and when I record shows on VHS there is no broadcast flag preventing me from doing so, so why do media companies feel that new digital media has to have more restrictions than analog media? Do they really think that their DRM schemes, broadcast flags, and aggressive lawsuits against their own customers are really going to stop people from being able to pirate the shows and put them on the internet?
Media companies: piracy is unstoppable as long as you make it more convenient to download illegally. If media companies made it easy to access their content on a variety of platforms and not just the Boob Toob or on a standard computer, people would have no incentive to bother with piracy given the risk.
Wouldn't the recent decision by many ISPs to charge per gig start making a dent in downloads the more people that are affected by it? It is not so much of an issue in Europe (where legal iTunes shows are thin on the ground), but here in the South Pacific bandwidth costs. There are certainly no plans for some sort of FIOS here either.. one wonders if there are plans for an iTunes movie service, but that is another thread.
It might only add an extra $1.30 or whatever depending on ISP, but that might be enough to tip the odds in favour of your average American either travelling to the store or getting the entertainment through more nefarious means..
i like the idea of charging per GB because it fairly charges people who are using the network more than a grandma or grandpa who check their email once a week. namely, bittorrent users who seed 24/7. if the ISPs get the same flat rate from everyone, they have to raise that rate to cope with filesharers and heavy downloaders and it's not fair to people who don't suck up the bandwidth.
However, I don't think that rates I'm seeing ISPs introduce are very fair, I think they are a bit steep. Also, there comes an issue of how hard/easy it is to check your monthly bandwidth allowance, which I'm sure you can do on these companies web sites or account page, but it would be convenient if there was some solution that told you as you were browsing (maybe a FF extension?)
Or what about programs that come on your computer that "phone home" or use the network without the user being aware? usually that's pretty light usage, but programs like Microsoft Windows and Office and all those check for updates, and send information to Microsoft from time to time, and most users don't know about it, but it would increase their bandwidth consumption.
I've said it before, but how many of those 5 billion songs are the 3 or more free songs that Apple "sells" every week? I think I remember Apple stating there are 50 million iTunes Store accounts, so if they each average out to downloading 1 of the free songs each week, they account for over a quarter billion songs each year. That would quickly deflate the 5 billion figure.
Likewise, I still take issue with how sales are calculated by translating 12 digital tracks into an album for comparison to physical sales. It seems like a lot of new albums include more than 12 tracks especially with the preorder bonus tracks that Apple uses to get users to buy the full album. I purchased Alanis Morissette's new album from iTunes only because I wanted the bonus track only iTunes offered and the code to early order concert tickets (which I still haven't received). That album had 17 tracks on it, so Apple gets counted as selling about 1 1/2 albums from my sole purchase.
Sold songs are songs that are paid for, not given away. Even if they were, they would account for what, 100 million? That would be a drop in the bucket. It's not likely that more that a very small fraction of people download the free songs. Why would someone download songs they weren't interested in? The answer is that most people wouldn't. And that still isn't sold songs.
If Apple said that the total was "downloaded" songs, that would be different. but that's not what they're saying. It's what you are saying.
I also don't get what you are saying about your purchasing Alanis's album. Did you, or did you not purchase the album? If you did, then you purchased however many tracks that were on the album.
As brick and mortar companies offer specials, and music companies give bonus tracks on CD's as well, what you are saying has no relevance. Apple isn't doing anything that anyone else isn't doing, and you must compare it that way. You don't get to pick and choose what you think should count.
Yes, I venture to bittorrent because it is the only method that will allow me to play NBC shows on my iPod touch. i don't usually download illegally, but NBC has left me with no other alternative.
NBC has gotta be on crack to ignore the world's largest music retailer, which may soon be the world's largest digital movie retailer. That's like NBC not selling their DVDs at WalMart.
When will media companies realize that DRM restrictions HURT their business? My VHS tapes don't have DRM, and when I record shows on VHS there is no broadcast flag preventing me from doing so, so why do media companies feel that new digital media has to have more restrictions than analog media? Do they really think that their DRM schemes, broadcast flags, and aggressive lawsuits against their own customers are really going to stop people from being able to pirate the shows and put them on the internet?
Media companies: piracy is unstoppable as long as you make it more convenient to download illegally. If media companies made it easy to access their content on a variety of platforms and not just the Boob Toob or on a standard computer, people would have no incentive to bother with piracy given the risk.
Actually, you DO have another alternative. The alternative is to not watch the shows on your iPod. Pretty simple. Why do people think that because they want something that isn't offered, they have the right to just take it?
Sold songs are songs that are paid for, not given away. Even if they were, they would account for what, 100 million? That would be a drop in the bucket. It's not likely that more that a very small fraction of people download the free songs. Why would someone download songs they weren't interested in? The answer is that most people wouldn't. And that still isn't sold songs.
Well, because they're free. People have nothing to lose by downloading them and giving them a try. If they don't like them, they can easily and without concern delete them. I used to religiously fire up iTunes and download all 3 new songs. I have several hundred songs on my computer acquired that way. And they could account for up to 150 million per week if every one of the 50 million iTunes accounts downloaded all 3 one week. Multiple that by 52 weeksa and you end up with over a quarter billion songs. That would hardly be considered an unsubstantial portion of the 5 billion purchases Apple states.
Quote:
If Apple said that the total was "downloaded" songs, that would be different. but that's not what they're saying. It's what you are saying.
Have you downloaded any of the free tracks? If so, go look at your iTunes account. As far as I can tell, those tracks are being counted as purchases in the system. The fact that the cost is $0.00 doesn't discount the fact that the iTunes Store is listing them as purchases.
I was asking the question as to how is Apple counting the free songs. Has Apple ever said they AREN'T counting the free songs as purchases? If they haven't, then you have no more knowledge of whether they are or not included in the 5 billion total. IF they are being counted, it could greatly skew sales figures in iTunes favor.
Quote:
I also don't get what you are saying about your purchasing Alanis's album. Did you, or did you not purchase the album? If you did, then you purchased however many tracks that were on the album.
If I purchased that album at a store, it counts as one album. With the fact that it included 17 tracks, that iTunes purchase gets counted as 1.4 albums for iTunes. Which means a brick and mortar store has to sell 40% more of that album to equal iTunes artificial album count. A more extreme example would be the latest Janet Jackson album with its 22 tracks (even though one is all of 10 seconds in length). That equates to 1.8 albums, meaning the local Best Buy has to sell 80% more than iTUnes.
Quote:
As brick and mortar companies offer specials, and music companies give bonus tracks on CD's as well, what you are saying has no relevance. Apple isn't doing anything that anyone else isn't doing, and you must compare it that way. You don't get to pick and choose what you think should count.
The point is that the more tracks iTunes sells, the higher their album sales look. Bonus tracks for a brick and mortar store may help entice people to buy it from them, but they don't artificially inflate sales numbers like they do for the iTunes Store. If Target's version has 12 regular tracks and 12 extra tracks, it STILL only counts as one album. On iTunes, that would get counted as 2 albums. Do you see my point?
They were about 1.5 months short of selling 5B is 5 years.
At the current rate of 50K movies per day they will sell 18.25M per year. At $4 per movie rental (which I assume is the most common) that is $73M per year in revenue.
Holy cow bells! However, in the article, it says that 50,000 movies are rented and purchased everyday.
Holy cow bells! However, in the article, it says that 50,000 movies are rented and purchased everyday.
I was using a low ball estimate of what is probably the most common sale. I also didn't factor in any growth over the next 12 months, which should easily get over 100K per day (again, at the low end) this time next year.
Have you downloaded any of the free tracks? If so, go look at your iTunes account. As far as I can tell, those tracks are being counted as purchases in the system. The fact that the cost is $0.00 doesn't discount the fact that the iTunes Store is listing them as purchases.
Unless you have evidence that Apple is counting sings that they give away as songs that are purchased, in their numbers, you can't say anything about that. You are the one making that assertion, so you have to show some proof of it. In my quarterly reports Apple often mentions purchases of music. I'm confident that it's exactly what they mean.
Quote:
I was asking the question as to how is Apple counting the free songs. Has Apple ever said they AREN'T counting the free songs as purchases? If they haven't, then you have no more knowledge of whether they are or not included in the 5 billion total. IF they are being counted, it could greatly skew sales figures in iTunes favor.
Thy don't have to state a negative, only a positive., If they were counting them, then they should state that.
In their financials, when they mention these numbers, they must state numbers that reflect income.
Quote:
If I purchased that album at a store, it counts as one album. With the fact that it included 17 tracks, that iTunes purchase gets counted as 1.4 albums for iTunes. Which means a brick and mortar store has to sell 40% more of that album to equal iTunes artificial album count. A more extreme example would be the latest Janet Jackson album with its 22 tracks (even though one is all of 10 seconds in length). That equates to 1.8 albums, meaning the local Best Buy has to sell 80% more than iTUnes.
That's only sort of true. While it is true that we rarely see singles being sold anymore, they used to comprise a very large portion of music sales before the digital era. What's happening at Apple, and other download sites, it that music sales are going back to that early era of the "45". So counting songs is correct. The music companies are the ones who are so concerned about albums. no one else is.
So, sales are termed as "songs". The songs counts used for the music industry in calculating Apple's place. That makes sense, as few people buy albums from iTunes in comparison to song buyers (about one third), and this bothers the music industry. They want to see music sold in chunks.
Quote:
The point is that the more tracks iTunes sells, the higher their album sales look. Bonus tracks for a brick and mortar store may help entice people to buy it from them, but they don't artificially inflate sales numbers like they do for the iTunes Store. If Target's version has 12 regular tracks and 12 extra tracks, it STILL only counts as one album. On iTunes, that would get counted as 2 albums. Do you see my point?
Except that Apple isn't saying that they sold some number of albums, they are counting by the song, so why do you keep bringing it up? You're the one counting by the album.
Put up your 2 cents, but don't expect any change back.
I like to see people think things out. All too often, people don't.
They take, or see, a small slice of what is happening, and assume that it's everything that is, or will be. That's where their arguments get into trouble.
I remember way back when Apple first came out with Quicktime.
It was 160 x 120 16 bit video at 15 fps, with 8 bit mono.
People were laughing at it in the industry. I wrote some (paid) pieces in some industry publications as to why it would take over video, editing and other areas. But people really dumped on me. They thought I was nuts for even suggesting such a wild thing.
Guess what?
The same thing is true for a number of other arguments. We have to look to the future to see whether things will be important, not what happens upon release. Too bad, some people can't seem to look ahead.
Comments
That's been the bulk of my iTunes rentals since I have a NetFlix subscription and typically watch 10+ (Blu-ray if available) movies/month. Based on that level of viewing, NetFlix remains cheaper, plus, I like the subtitles and extras (cut scenes/director comments/etc) which are on the DVDs but not available when rented from iTunes.
Still, iTunes is a great resource for impulse rentals and I've used it a few times.
I haven't bought a single iTunes movie since they can't be archived off my TV. Always the fear that I might have to do a hard reset and lose all the purchased movies.
Rentals AND purchases. The average could be higher, perhaps $6 to $8.
Whatever the market is doing today so far (I haven't checked my realtime account yet) Apple's stock should be rising from this news, which shows three very good things.
One is the expanded music library of over 8 million songs.
Two is the sale of over 5 billion songs, which shows, as I've been saying for years now, that most consumers couldn't care less about DRM and quality issues. This makes the DRM hating geeks come out of the woodwork, but it's true, most consumers don't give a sh*t about DRM.
And three is the really good news about movie purchases and rentals. Even though Apple has many fewer movies than their main competitors, their new pricing and renting schedules are proving to be palatable to consumers, as I also said it would, and leading to industry leading business. Variable pricing is not the bugaboo that some seem to think it is. Consumers agree that different things have different values, and they don't mind paying more for something they value more.
All your points are spot-on. Best post of this thread.
So much noise here.......
All your points are spot-on. Best post of this thread.
So much noise here.......
Thanks.
A lot of people aren't thinking it all the way through.
Two is the sale of over 5 billion songs, which shows, as I've been saying for years now, that most consumers couldn't care less about DRM and quality issues. This makes the DRM hating geeks come out of the woodwork, but it's true, most consumers don't give a sh*t about DRM.
I've said it before, but how many of those 5 billion songs are the 3 or more free songs that Apple "sells" every week? I think I remember Apple stating there are 50 million iTunes Store accounts, so if they each average out to downloading 1 of the free songs each week, they account for over a quarter billion songs each year. That would quickly deflate the 5 billion figure.
Likewise, I still take issue with how sales are calculated by translating 12 digital tracks into an album for comparison to physical sales. It seems like a lot of new albums include more than 12 tracks especially with the preorder bonus tracks that Apple uses to get users to buy the full album. I purchased Alanis Morissette's new album from iTunes only because I wanted the bonus track only iTunes offered and the code to early order concert tickets (which I still haven't received). That album had 17 tracks on it, so Apple gets counted as selling about 1 1/2 albums from my sole purchase.
I've said it before, but how many of those 5 billion songs are the 3 or more free songs that Apple "sells" every week? I think I remember Apple stating there are 50 million iTunes Store accounts, so if they each average out to downloading 1 of the free songs each week, they account for over a quarter billion songs each year. That would quickly deflate the 5 billion figure.
Likewise, I still take issue with how sales are calculated by translating 12 digital tracks into an album for comparison to physical sales. It seems like a lot of new albums include more than 12 tracks especially with the preorder bonus tracks that Apple uses to get users to buy the full album. I purchased Alanis Morissette's new album from iTunes only because I wanted the bonus track only iTunes offered and the code to early order concert tickets (which I still haven't received). That album had 17 tracks on it, so Apple gets counted as selling about 1 1/2 albums from my sole purchase.
You're right. Apple has probably only sold 5 or 6 songs.
Good God! iTunes' music and video store is an incredible phenomenon, and a huge success, and you are wasting your time deconstructing press releases to find where they have sexed up their numbers? Everybody puts the best face legally possible on their results.
It might only add an extra $1.30 or whatever depending on ISP, but that might be enough to tip the odds in favour of your average American either travelling to the store or getting the entertainment through more nefarious means..
A lot of people aren't thinking it all the way through.
In my defense, I chose $4 to low-ball the estimate for the sake of the argument.
Any word on NBC's outside attempts with NBC.com, Hulu, Amazon and Zune Marketplace or whatever other distribution devices NBC has chosen? I wonder if the execs at NBC are still trying to figure a way to come back to iTunes while saving face or if they feel they are justly compensated through the ad supported distribution means they currently support with their programming.
Not to diminish any of NBC's shows but none of them ever caught my fancy so I never viewed them or bought them while on iTunes and I DEFINITELY did not go looking for any of their shows elsewhere. I am curious to know, those that loved NBC's programs such as, The Office, Scrubs, 30 Rock or whatever, when the content dried up at iTunes did any of you venture to alternate sites to find the NBC content and if you did back then, are you still today?!
Just curious...
Yes, I venture to bittorrent because it is the only method that will allow me to play NBC shows on my iPod touch. i don't usually download illegally, but NBC has left me with no other alternative.
NBC has gotta be on crack to ignore the world's largest music retailer, which may soon be the world's largest digital movie retailer. That's like NBC not selling their DVDs at WalMart.
When will media companies realize that DRM restrictions HURT their business? My VHS tapes don't have DRM, and when I record shows on VHS there is no broadcast flag preventing me from doing so, so why do media companies feel that new digital media has to have more restrictions than analog media? Do they really think that their DRM schemes, broadcast flags, and aggressive lawsuits against their own customers are really going to stop people from being able to pirate the shows and put them on the internet?
Media companies: piracy is unstoppable as long as you make it more convenient to download illegally. If media companies made it easy to access their content on a variety of platforms and not just the Boob Toob or on a standard computer, people would have no incentive to bother with piracy given the risk.
Wouldn't the recent decision by many ISPs to charge per gig start making a dent in downloads the more people that are affected by it? It is not so much of an issue in Europe (where legal iTunes shows are thin on the ground), but here in the South Pacific bandwidth costs. There are certainly no plans for some sort of FIOS here either.. one wonders if there are plans for an iTunes movie service, but that is another thread.
It might only add an extra $1.30 or whatever depending on ISP, but that might be enough to tip the odds in favour of your average American either travelling to the store or getting the entertainment through more nefarious means..
i like the idea of charging per GB because it fairly charges people who are using the network more than a grandma or grandpa who check their email once a week. namely, bittorrent users who seed 24/7. if the ISPs get the same flat rate from everyone, they have to raise that rate to cope with filesharers and heavy downloaders and it's not fair to people who don't suck up the bandwidth.
However, I don't think that rates I'm seeing ISPs introduce are very fair, I think they are a bit steep. Also, there comes an issue of how hard/easy it is to check your monthly bandwidth allowance, which I'm sure you can do on these companies web sites or account page, but it would be convenient if there was some solution that told you as you were browsing (maybe a FF extension?)
Or what about programs that come on your computer that "phone home" or use the network without the user being aware? usually that's pretty light usage, but programs like Microsoft Windows and Office and all those check for updates, and send information to Microsoft from time to time, and most users don't know about it, but it would increase their bandwidth consumption.
I've said it before, but how many of those 5 billion songs are the 3 or more free songs that Apple "sells" every week? I think I remember Apple stating there are 50 million iTunes Store accounts, so if they each average out to downloading 1 of the free songs each week, they account for over a quarter billion songs each year. That would quickly deflate the 5 billion figure.
Likewise, I still take issue with how sales are calculated by translating 12 digital tracks into an album for comparison to physical sales. It seems like a lot of new albums include more than 12 tracks especially with the preorder bonus tracks that Apple uses to get users to buy the full album. I purchased Alanis Morissette's new album from iTunes only because I wanted the bonus track only iTunes offered and the code to early order concert tickets (which I still haven't received). That album had 17 tracks on it, so Apple gets counted as selling about 1 1/2 albums from my sole purchase.
Sold songs are songs that are paid for, not given away. Even if they were, they would account for what, 100 million? That would be a drop in the bucket. It's not likely that more that a very small fraction of people download the free songs. Why would someone download songs they weren't interested in? The answer is that most people wouldn't. And that still isn't sold songs.
If Apple said that the total was "downloaded" songs, that would be different. but that's not what they're saying. It's what you are saying.
I also don't get what you are saying about your purchasing Alanis's album. Did you, or did you not purchase the album? If you did, then you purchased however many tracks that were on the album.
As brick and mortar companies offer specials, and music companies give bonus tracks on CD's as well, what you are saying has no relevance. Apple isn't doing anything that anyone else isn't doing, and you must compare it that way. You don't get to pick and choose what you think should count.
Yes, I venture to bittorrent because it is the only method that will allow me to play NBC shows on my iPod touch. i don't usually download illegally, but NBC has left me with no other alternative.
NBC has gotta be on crack to ignore the world's largest music retailer, which may soon be the world's largest digital movie retailer. That's like NBC not selling their DVDs at WalMart.
When will media companies realize that DRM restrictions HURT their business? My VHS tapes don't have DRM, and when I record shows on VHS there is no broadcast flag preventing me from doing so, so why do media companies feel that new digital media has to have more restrictions than analog media? Do they really think that their DRM schemes, broadcast flags, and aggressive lawsuits against their own customers are really going to stop people from being able to pirate the shows and put them on the internet?
Media companies: piracy is unstoppable as long as you make it more convenient to download illegally. If media companies made it easy to access their content on a variety of platforms and not just the Boob Toob or on a standard computer, people would have no incentive to bother with piracy given the risk.
Actually, you DO have another alternative. The alternative is to not watch the shows on your iPod. Pretty simple. Why do people think that because they want something that isn't offered, they have the right to just take it?
Sold songs are songs that are paid for, not given away. Even if they were, they would account for what, 100 million? That would be a drop in the bucket. It's not likely that more that a very small fraction of people download the free songs. Why would someone download songs they weren't interested in? The answer is that most people wouldn't. And that still isn't sold songs.
Well, because they're free. People have nothing to lose by downloading them and giving them a try. If they don't like them, they can easily and without concern delete them. I used to religiously fire up iTunes and download all 3 new songs. I have several hundred songs on my computer acquired that way. And they could account for up to 150 million per week if every one of the 50 million iTunes accounts downloaded all 3 one week. Multiple that by 52 weeksa and you end up with over a quarter billion songs. That would hardly be considered an unsubstantial portion of the 5 billion purchases Apple states.
If Apple said that the total was "downloaded" songs, that would be different. but that's not what they're saying. It's what you are saying.
Have you downloaded any of the free tracks? If so, go look at your iTunes account. As far as I can tell, those tracks are being counted as purchases in the system. The fact that the cost is $0.00 doesn't discount the fact that the iTunes Store is listing them as purchases.
I was asking the question as to how is Apple counting the free songs. Has Apple ever said they AREN'T counting the free songs as purchases? If they haven't, then you have no more knowledge of whether they are or not included in the 5 billion total. IF they are being counted, it could greatly skew sales figures in iTunes favor.
I also don't get what you are saying about your purchasing Alanis's album. Did you, or did you not purchase the album? If you did, then you purchased however many tracks that were on the album.
If I purchased that album at a store, it counts as one album. With the fact that it included 17 tracks, that iTunes purchase gets counted as 1.4 albums for iTunes. Which means a brick and mortar store has to sell 40% more of that album to equal iTunes artificial album count. A more extreme example would be the latest Janet Jackson album with its 22 tracks (even though one is all of 10 seconds in length). That equates to 1.8 albums, meaning the local Best Buy has to sell 80% more than iTUnes.
As brick and mortar companies offer specials, and music companies give bonus tracks on CD's as well, what you are saying has no relevance. Apple isn't doing anything that anyone else isn't doing, and you must compare it that way. You don't get to pick and choose what you think should count.
The point is that the more tracks iTunes sells, the higher their album sales look. Bonus tracks for a brick and mortar store may help entice people to buy it from them, but they don't artificially inflate sales numbers like they do for the iTunes Store. If Target's version has 12 regular tracks and 12 extra tracks, it STILL only counts as one album. On iTunes, that would get counted as 2 albums. Do you see my point?
They were about 1.5 months short of selling 5B is 5 years.
At the current rate of 50K movies per day they will sell 18.25M per year. At $4 per movie rental (which I assume is the most common) that is $73M per year in revenue.
Holy cow bells! However, in the article, it says that 50,000 movies are rented and purchased everyday.
Holy cow bells! However, in the article, it says that 50,000 movies are rented and purchased everyday.
I was using a low ball estimate of what is probably the most common sale. I also didn't factor in any growth over the next 12 months, which should easily get over 100K per day (again, at the low end) this time next year.
As someone said, I'm gruff and opinionated.
Have you downloaded any of the free tracks? If so, go look at your iTunes account. As far as I can tell, those tracks are being counted as purchases in the system. The fact that the cost is $0.00 doesn't discount the fact that the iTunes Store is listing them as purchases.
Unless you have evidence that Apple is counting sings that they give away as songs that are purchased, in their numbers, you can't say anything about that. You are the one making that assertion, so you have to show some proof of it. In my quarterly reports Apple often mentions purchases of music. I'm confident that it's exactly what they mean.
I was asking the question as to how is Apple counting the free songs. Has Apple ever said they AREN'T counting the free songs as purchases? If they haven't, then you have no more knowledge of whether they are or not included in the 5 billion total. IF they are being counted, it could greatly skew sales figures in iTunes favor.
Thy don't have to state a negative, only a positive., If they were counting them, then they should state that.
In their financials, when they mention these numbers, they must state numbers that reflect income.
If I purchased that album at a store, it counts as one album. With the fact that it included 17 tracks, that iTunes purchase gets counted as 1.4 albums for iTunes. Which means a brick and mortar store has to sell 40% more of that album to equal iTunes artificial album count. A more extreme example would be the latest Janet Jackson album with its 22 tracks (even though one is all of 10 seconds in length). That equates to 1.8 albums, meaning the local Best Buy has to sell 80% more than iTUnes.
That's only sort of true. While it is true that we rarely see singles being sold anymore, they used to comprise a very large portion of music sales before the digital era. What's happening at Apple, and other download sites, it that music sales are going back to that early era of the "45". So counting songs is correct. The music companies are the ones who are so concerned about albums. no one else is.
So, sales are termed as "songs". The songs counts used for the music industry in calculating Apple's place. That makes sense, as few people buy albums from iTunes in comparison to song buyers (about one third), and this bothers the music industry. They want to see music sold in chunks.
The point is that the more tracks iTunes sells, the higher their album sales look. Bonus tracks for a brick and mortar store may help entice people to buy it from them, but they don't artificially inflate sales numbers like they do for the iTunes Store. If Target's version has 12 regular tracks and 12 extra tracks, it STILL only counts as one album. On iTunes, that would get counted as 2 albums. Do you see my point?
Except that Apple isn't saying that they sold some number of albums, they are counting by the song, so why do you keep bringing it up? You're the one counting by the album.
Mel,
Guess i wont bother putting my 2 cents up anymore. Your opinion = truth , unless that argument also "has no credence"
Put up your 2 cents, but don't expect any change back.
Put up your 2 cents, but don't expect any change back.
Put up your 2 cents, but don't expect any change back.
I like to see people think things out. All too often, people don't.
They take, or see, a small slice of what is happening, and assume that it's everything that is, or will be. That's where their arguments get into trouble.
I remember way back when Apple first came out with Quicktime.
It was 160 x 120 16 bit video at 15 fps, with 8 bit mono.
People were laughing at it in the industry. I wrote some (paid) pieces in some industry publications as to why it would take over video, editing and other areas. But people really dumped on me. They thought I was nuts for even suggesting such a wild thing.
Guess what?
The same thing is true for a number of other arguments. We have to look to the future to see whether things will be important, not what happens upon release. Too bad, some people can't seem to look ahead.