That was the quote that leapt out at me too. Looks like it did for several others here, before this thread descended into political bickering.
I somewhat disagree. What torpedoed CD sales was greed on the part of the RIAA and the corporate retail giants they struck deals with. Even though CDs were cheaper to produce than tape or vinyl, offered superior sound quality to the former, the same portability as the former, and was more durable than the latter. Yet after a while, CD prices climbed such that the average CD was $13 to $14. What happened?
Well the big box stores like Circuit City and Best Buy made a deal with the RIAA. Let us sell your CDs cheaper than our competition. They sold/bought the RIAA on this and the big box stores were able to drive the small music stores - who actually catered to music fans and not just top 40 listen-in-their-car folds - out of business. Once the competition was out of the way, the big box stores slowly could demand their own price until most older material was normally priced in that $13-$14 range.
People, of course, weren't going to tolerate this forever. Especially for the top 40 listeners who only wanted the latest radio hit and not all the fluff that constitutes most of your normal album.
About the same time as the big box stores had solidified their monopoly of CD sales, Napster hit the scene. Right away it attracted two distinct groups of music listener - the aforementioned top 40 listener who wanted only wanted a song or two off an album, and the music affacionados who wanted out-of-print material or import stuff that the RIAA wouldn't release in to all countries.
So what really killed CDs wasn't digital downloads, it was the greed of the RIAA and the big music retailers who built up public apathy to the point that when digital downloads became available to the masses, they flocked to it and never looked back.
Yes it's a concern but CD sales were slowing well before iTMS, maybe even before Napster came along.
I could also make the case that the changes to way we get our music - namely radio - has changed too. Thanks in large part to corporate monoloplies of our radio airwaves, we have more radio stations than before but they play less and less variety of music. Everything is some slice of adult contemporary, classic rock, or modern country, often with very narrowly defined playlists compared to just 20 years ago. Jazz and classical tend to only exist on public radio, and any other format (indie rock, folk, bluegrass, etc.) is not available except in the largest of markets.
This means that many of bands and music formats that specialized in the album format don't get widespread attention. The acts that do get the radio airplay are - wait for it - tailored for the radio and its 4 minute pop format.
The sales of the blank CD suprassing music CDs is new to me but it makes perfect sense. I agree completely that iTMS saved the music industry from complete piracy. The RIAA wanted to live on their CD monopoly forever and the public wasn't going to sustain it. Even if digital distribution over the Internet was delayed a few years it would have been more apparant that CD sales would have plummeted on their own. The emergence of Napster gave the RIAA a scapegoat. Instead of giving up their old-wolrd monopoly and embracing digital distribution before it destroyed them, the RIAA tried to sue their way back to the status quo. Before they had time to watch that fail, in came Apple with iTMS which embraced the new world while still making a profit off of it and the rest is history.
The TV and film industry are just starting to hit the growing pains that the music industry has hit. While TV and film are not as easily consumed as music, they are still commodity items that people buy faster than they can consume. Note that no one bought whole seasons of shows on VHS (which would fill a row on your bookshelf each year) but they became popular with the DVD format. Few wants the same mountain of DVDs at home like that they had with CDs and of course with the emergence of mobile devices, digital video has greater portability than DVD.
And more and more people that their montly cable or satellite bill, which just keeps growin, is just not sustainable.
In comes Apple again, offering these old-world industries a chance to jump into the new world quickly and profitably. But they all want the same lofty pre-recession profits they once had when money was flowing freely (and arguable, irresponsibly and unsustainably) even though all the predictions and guidance suggest they will lose more and more if they don't change with the times.
Agreed wholeheartedly Crusty. It will be an intereting 5 years. And whoever can get the content people want in the way people want will win the spoils.
Sorry, but I don't follow. How does losing the small shops destroy the CD? So CD's cost $12-14 each. Best Buy and Circuit City make a deal to sell for less. Small shops go out of business, and prices return to $12-14. That's it? That's the argument? I could get a good deal for a few years, but now I can't? Yes, it's lamentable that the smaller shops are gone, but that alone didn't kill the CD. In my opinion, CDs are dying simply because people don't really want the whole album contents. They just want a song or two.
Personally I think the record companies were just put in a no-win situation as soon as the Internet took off. The problem of course, is that CDs aren't copy protected. Anybody could rip songs and make them available on the Internet. Criminals everywhere (I refuse to use the more romantic term of Pirate) began stealing music left and right. The record companies felt they needed to find some alternative, so when Apple came calling, they answered. They made their music available over the Internet. And because stealing music was so prevalent, they forced Apple (et al) to copy protect that music. The problem was that they also refused to stop selling the unprotected source (CDs). So theft continued. Eventually, they gave up on DRM simply because they refused to stop selling non-DRM music.
Right now there is a DVD rental store three blocks from my house that rents movies for $1 per night. People can watch their DVDs as many times over that night as they want to watch them.
Netflix has many TV shows and thousands of movies available via streaming for as little as $8.99 per month. I utilize them regularly. My per movie cost is way under a dollar. I'm not one to save TV shows and I don't collect DVDs. Renting appeals more to me.
I'd consider buying TV shows for 99 cents or renting them for as much as a 25 cents. I'd prefer 10 cents. Maybe that seems cheap but it's closer to the price I'm already paying. I wonder what price Netflix could charge if they ended their mail centered program and switched to totally digital streaming delivery. If they would allow people to fully buffer their content so that the quality would equal the DVD then that would obviate the need for DVDs. That is probably in their future.
Some people just love their TV shows and must have them. How many people record TV soap operas forever? That is probably the market for TV rentals and sales more than the casual viewer. On one forum I read that someone had several terabytes of movies. That's a lot.
Sure I don't agree with Murdoch on anything politically, BUT the Fox Network is more than just Fox news. Murdoch is visionary, much like SJ. When I was growing up in the 70s and early 80s there were 3 TV channels and you called IBM when you needed to manage data. Murdoch and SJ play huge roles in changing that landscape. Right now SJ want to increase his role in content distribution and Murdoch runs one of the largest content creators in the world. Sorry people, but they HAVE to work together!
I beg to differ. Certainly all his policies lean socialistic. More government control of everything.
Bush increased the federal government more than any president in history, signed into law a huge unfunded medical giveaway, loaned trillions of dollars interest free to the people who have the worst credit history in history. Obama has a ways to go to catch up to that.
I don't consider 99 cents a discount to something that is normally free. They should not look at this as a chance for tranditional revinue to be erroded, but a chance to try and hold onto tranditional viewers who are jumping ship.
Bush increased the federal government more than any president in history, signed into law a huge unfunded medical giveaway, loaned trillions of dollars interest free to the people who have the worst credit history in history. Obama has a ways to go to catch up to that.
You're just talking debt. Yes, Bush screwed up royally. That Medicare drug benefit bill was ungodly expensive. Obama of course, has made that debt look like small potatoes. 1.4 trillion dollar deficit in one year alone. But ObamaCare is the difference. He has signed into law a bill that forces the American public to purchase certain services. By penalty of law. You must buy insurance. Don't buy it and you go to jail. Never before has the US Government forced citizens to do such a thing. This is precedent setting. And it's effed up. That's socialism.
No, he is a millionaire because he is a capitalist and was hand-picked by big moneyed interests as the one to most effectively make them even richer.
What friggin planet do you live on if you don't think Obama is a capitalist? You think he'd get to be president if he intended to upset the apple cart? How do you imagine these things work? You think he got elected via contributions from Daily Worker readers? He's a Democrat. He represents huge wealth.
He is not a communist or a socialist.
I thought I heard it all, but this was the one thing I didn't realize I was missing. Name any business Obama has participated in or owned in his life. Other than writing two memoirs, his entire career has been in either in social services or politics. Other than the memoirs, every paycheck he has ever received has come from taxpayers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David
Bush increased the federal government more than any president in history, signed into law a huge unfunded medical giveaway, loaned trillions of dollars interest free to the people who have the worst credit history in history. Obama has a ways to go to catch up to that.
Really? No wonder some people don't like Murdock. His news corporations present the facts that make it pretty hard to continue living in your dream world. Did you mean to type "Obama" and accidentally typed "Bush"? Seriously, I can't even begin to figure out how you've managed to skip by the last two years. Not to mention the previous two when democrats ran the House and Senate.
Think what you will about Murdoch, but the mere invocation of his name has turned this Apple blog into a left vs. right, I'm right and you're wrong, pitched battle. I have my opinions too, but let's try to leave the "I'm the sole repository of truth and the American way and you're a terrorist lover" rhetoric to the talking heads on cable and radio. Please?
I thought I heard it all, but this was the one thing I didn't realize I was missing. Name any business Obama has participated in or owned in his life. Other than writing two memoirs, his entire career has been in either in social services or politics. Other than the memoirs, every paycheck he has ever received has come from taxpayers.
None of that has any bearing whatsoever on whether the man believes that capitalism is the best type of economic system.
He can be a capitalist whether or not he has owned a business. He can be a capitalist despite his career choices.
You seem confused as to what a capitalist is, or perhaps you use some sort of limited, idiosyncratic meaning. Either way, if you believe that anybody other than a capitalist could be elected as POTUS, I think you are a bit ignorant of the existing power structures.
However, this stuff is off-topic, so I'll bow out. Believe anything that you enjoy believing.
You're just talking debt. Yes, Bush screwed up royally. That Medicare drug benefit bill was ungodly expensive. Obama of course, has made that debt look like small potatoes. 1.4 trillion dollar deficit in one year alone. But ObamaCare is the difference. He has signed into law a bill that forces the American public to purchase certain services. By penalty of law. You must buy insurance. Don't buy it and you go to jail. Never before has the US Government forced citizens to do such a thing. This is precedent setting. And it's effed up. That's socialism.
Why don't you see the ungodly expensive bush medical bill as precedent setting, it was socialism. Same with bush loaning bankers trillions of dollars interest free, socialism.
That's why I dislike fox new, their distortions and how they endlessly repeat them until others do the same.
(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES- The Secretary shall not?
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.
Right now there is a DVD rental store three blocks from my house that rents movies for $1 per night. People can watch their DVDs as many times over that night as they want to watch them.
Netflix has many TV shows and thousands of movies available via streaming for as little as $8.99 per month. I utilize them regularly. My per movie cost is way under a dollar. I'm not one to save TV shows and I don't collect DVDs. Renting appeals more to me.
I think that the target customer Apple has in mind has plenty of disposable money and places a high value on convenience.
The economy arguments you give apply to a lot of people, but there are million and millions of Apple customers who wouldn't think twice about spending more money in exchange for more convenience.
I didn't give up buying CDs until iTunes got rid of the DRM and increased the quality. DRM is the same reason I haven't bought any TV shows or Movies from iTunes. I want personal control over what I purchase. Rentals are a different story. I watch too much TV to spend a dollar per show regularly, but I would definitely rent movies. I might even rent episodes of TV shows I missed, or can't get on Hulu/Netflix. All that aside, I still wish there was hope for a subscription based service so I can give the cable part of my comcast bill the boot.
But you can already rent movies on iTunes, so why don't you? I would love TV rentals from iTunes because I already rent a fair few movies and can't see why TV shows should be any different. I also currently buy certain shows, the few that I think are of lasting value and I'm likely to watch more than once, but there are lots of other, more ephemeral TV programs that are entertaining once, but aren't worth purchasing that rentals would be great for.
One proviso though - no ads in shows I pay for! You either make your money from free content with ads in it or from sales/rentals of your content, you don't get to go to the well twice.
Comments
All the other news organizations gave a million dollars to republican governors? Please post links.
Is that the Dr. David formerly of Corvus and Apple?
.
That was the quote that leapt out at me too. Looks like it did for several others here, before this thread descended into political bickering.
I somewhat disagree. What torpedoed CD sales was greed on the part of the RIAA and the corporate retail giants they struck deals with. Even though CDs were cheaper to produce than tape or vinyl, offered superior sound quality to the former, the same portability as the former, and was more durable than the latter. Yet after a while, CD prices climbed such that the average CD was $13 to $14. What happened?
Well the big box stores like Circuit City and Best Buy made a deal with the RIAA. Let us sell your CDs cheaper than our competition. They sold/bought the RIAA on this and the big box stores were able to drive the small music stores - who actually catered to music fans and not just top 40 listen-in-their-car folds - out of business. Once the competition was out of the way, the big box stores slowly could demand their own price until most older material was normally priced in that $13-$14 range.
People, of course, weren't going to tolerate this forever. Especially for the top 40 listeners who only wanted the latest radio hit and not all the fluff that constitutes most of your normal album.
About the same time as the big box stores had solidified their monopoly of CD sales, Napster hit the scene. Right away it attracted two distinct groups of music listener - the aforementioned top 40 listener who wanted only wanted a song or two off an album, and the music affacionados who wanted out-of-print material or import stuff that the RIAA wouldn't release in to all countries.
So what really killed CDs wasn't digital downloads, it was the greed of the RIAA and the big music retailers who built up public apathy to the point that when digital downloads became available to the masses, they flocked to it and never looked back.
Yes it's a concern but CD sales were slowing well before iTMS, maybe even before Napster came along.
I could also make the case that the changes to way we get our music - namely radio - has changed too. Thanks in large part to corporate monoloplies of our radio airwaves, we have more radio stations than before but they play less and less variety of music. Everything is some slice of adult contemporary, classic rock, or modern country, often with very narrowly defined playlists compared to just 20 years ago. Jazz and classical tend to only exist on public radio, and any other format (indie rock, folk, bluegrass, etc.) is not available except in the largest of markets.
This means that many of bands and music formats that specialized in the album format don't get widespread attention. The acts that do get the radio airplay are - wait for it - tailored for the radio and its 4 minute pop format.
The sales of the blank CD suprassing music CDs is new to me but it makes perfect sense. I agree completely that iTMS saved the music industry from complete piracy. The RIAA wanted to live on their CD monopoly forever and the public wasn't going to sustain it. Even if digital distribution over the Internet was delayed a few years it would have been more apparant that CD sales would have plummeted on their own. The emergence of Napster gave the RIAA a scapegoat. Instead of giving up their old-wolrd monopoly and embracing digital distribution before it destroyed them, the RIAA tried to sue their way back to the status quo. Before they had time to watch that fail, in came Apple with iTMS which embraced the new world while still making a profit off of it and the rest is history.
The TV and film industry are just starting to hit the growing pains that the music industry has hit. While TV and film are not as easily consumed as music, they are still commodity items that people buy faster than they can consume. Note that no one bought whole seasons of shows on VHS (which would fill a row on your bookshelf each year) but they became popular with the DVD format. Few wants the same mountain of DVDs at home like that they had with CDs and of course with the emergence of mobile devices, digital video has greater portability than DVD.
And more and more people that their montly cable or satellite bill, which just keeps growin, is just not sustainable.
In comes Apple again, offering these old-world industries a chance to jump into the new world quickly and profitably. But they all want the same lofty pre-recession profits they once had when money was flowing freely (and arguable, irresponsibly and unsustainably) even though all the predictions and guidance suggest they will lose more and more if they don't change with the times.
Agreed wholeheartedly Crusty. It will be an intereting 5 years. And whoever can get the content people want in the way people want will win the spoils.
Sorry, but I don't follow. How does losing the small shops destroy the CD? So CD's cost $12-14 each. Best Buy and Circuit City make a deal to sell for less. Small shops go out of business, and prices return to $12-14. That's it? That's the argument? I could get a good deal for a few years, but now I can't? Yes, it's lamentable that the smaller shops are gone, but that alone didn't kill the CD. In my opinion, CDs are dying simply because people don't really want the whole album contents. They just want a song or two.
Personally I think the record companies were just put in a no-win situation as soon as the Internet took off. The problem of course, is that CDs aren't copy protected. Anybody could rip songs and make them available on the Internet. Criminals everywhere (I refuse to use the more romantic term of Pirate) began stealing music left and right. The record companies felt they needed to find some alternative, so when Apple came calling, they answered. They made their music available over the Internet. And because stealing music was so prevalent, they forced Apple (et al) to copy protect that music. The problem was that they also refused to stop selling the unprotected source (CDs). So theft continued. Eventually, they gave up on DRM simply because they refused to stop selling non-DRM music.
Netflix has many TV shows and thousands of movies available via streaming for as little as $8.99 per month. I utilize them regularly. My per movie cost is way under a dollar. I'm not one to save TV shows and I don't collect DVDs. Renting appeals more to me.
I'd consider buying TV shows for 99 cents or renting them for as much as a 25 cents. I'd prefer 10 cents. Maybe that seems cheap but it's closer to the price I'm already paying. I wonder what price Netflix could charge if they ended their mail centered program and switched to totally digital streaming delivery. If they would allow people to fully buffer their content so that the quality would equal the DVD then that would obviate the need for DVDs. That is probably in their future.
Some people just love their TV shows and must have them. How many people record TV soap operas forever? That is probably the market for TV rentals and sales more than the casual viewer. On one forum I read that someone had several terabytes of movies. That's a lot.
Is that the Dr. David formerly of Corvus and Apple?
.
It's not. I should probably do a search before I admit ignorance but I don't know about the Corvus and Apple Dr. David.
I beg to differ. Certainly all his policies lean socialistic. More government control of everything.
Bush increased the federal government more than any president in history, signed into law a huge unfunded medical giveaway, loaned trillions of dollars interest free to the people who have the worst credit history in history. Obama has a ways to go to catch up to that.
It's not. I should probably do a search before I admit ignorance but I don't know about the Corvus and Apple Dr. David.
Corvus was a company that made hard disk drives for microcomputers in the early 1980's. Later they made LANs and Computers.
Dr. David Ramsey was someone I knew who worked for Corvus, then, later, Apple.
I just followed a hunch based on your name.
.
Bush increased the federal government more than any president in history, signed into law a huge unfunded medical giveaway, loaned trillions of dollars interest free to the people who have the worst credit history in history. Obama has a ways to go to catch up to that.
You're just talking debt. Yes, Bush screwed up royally. That Medicare drug benefit bill was ungodly expensive. Obama of course, has made that debt look like small potatoes. 1.4 trillion dollar deficit in one year alone. But ObamaCare is the difference. He has signed into law a bill that forces the American public to purchase certain services. By penalty of law. You must buy insurance. Don't buy it and you go to jail. Never before has the US Government forced citizens to do such a thing. This is precedent setting. And it's effed up. That's socialism.
No, he is a millionaire because he is a capitalist and was hand-picked by big moneyed interests as the one to most effectively make them even richer.
What friggin planet do you live on if you don't think Obama is a capitalist? You think he'd get to be president if he intended to upset the apple cart? How do you imagine these things work? You think he got elected via contributions from Daily Worker readers? He's a Democrat. He represents huge wealth.
He is not a communist or a socialist.
I thought I heard it all, but this was the one thing I didn't realize I was missing. Name any business Obama has participated in or owned in his life. Other than writing two memoirs, his entire career has been in either in social services or politics. Other than the memoirs, every paycheck he has ever received has come from taxpayers.
Bush increased the federal government more than any president in history, signed into law a huge unfunded medical giveaway, loaned trillions of dollars interest free to the people who have the worst credit history in history. Obama has a ways to go to catch up to that.
Really? No wonder some people don't like Murdock. His news corporations present the facts that make it pretty hard to continue living in your dream world. Did you mean to type "Obama" and accidentally typed "Bush"? Seriously, I can't even begin to figure out how you've managed to skip by the last two years. Not to mention the previous two when democrats ran the House and Senate.
I thought I heard it all, but this was the one thing I didn't realize I was missing. Name any business Obama has participated in or owned in his life. Other than writing two memoirs, his entire career has been in either in social services or politics. Other than the memoirs, every paycheck he has ever received has come from taxpayers.
None of that has any bearing whatsoever on whether the man believes that capitalism is the best type of economic system.
He can be a capitalist whether or not he has owned a business. He can be a capitalist despite his career choices.
You seem confused as to what a capitalist is, or perhaps you use some sort of limited, idiosyncratic meaning. Either way, if you believe that anybody other than a capitalist could be elected as POTUS, I think you are a bit ignorant of the existing power structures.
However, this stuff is off-topic, so I'll bow out. Believe anything that you enjoy believing.
Wow. "worker ownership of the means of production"? Right out of Pravda - and nearly all American Universities during the 60's. Love the rhetoric.
Google it. You know where it's from, but you forgot.
And the point is that none of those guys subscribe to any of that stuff.
I beg to differ. Certainly all his policies lean socialistic. More government control of everything.
Much the same could be said of most modern politicians. But none of them (except maybe Bernie Sanders) are socialists.
You're just talking debt. Yes, Bush screwed up royally. That Medicare drug benefit bill was ungodly expensive. Obama of course, has made that debt look like small potatoes. 1.4 trillion dollar deficit in one year alone. But ObamaCare is the difference. He has signed into law a bill that forces the American public to purchase certain services. By penalty of law. You must buy insurance. Don't buy it and you go to jail. Never before has the US Government forced citizens to do such a thing. This is precedent setting. And it's effed up. That's socialism.
Why don't you see the ungodly expensive bush medical bill as precedent setting, it was socialism. Same with bush loaning bankers trillions of dollars interest free, socialism.
That's why I dislike fox new, their distortions and how they endlessly repeat them until others do the same.
(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES- The Secretary shall not?
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.
Right now there is a DVD rental store three blocks from my house that rents movies for $1 per night. People can watch their DVDs as many times over that night as they want to watch them.
Netflix has many TV shows and thousands of movies available via streaming for as little as $8.99 per month. I utilize them regularly. My per movie cost is way under a dollar. I'm not one to save TV shows and I don't collect DVDs. Renting appeals more to me.
I think that the target customer Apple has in mind has plenty of disposable money and places a high value on convenience.
The economy arguments you give apply to a lot of people, but there are million and millions of Apple customers who wouldn't think twice about spending more money in exchange for more convenience.
Corvus was a company that made hard disk drives for microcomputers in the early 1980's. Later they made LANs and Computers.
Dr. David Ramsey was someone I knew who worked for Corvus, then, later, Apple.
I just followed a hunch based on your name.
.
I had heard of Corvus but couldn't recall what they did.
Now, who is this apple you speak of?
Horseshit.
Agreed, Rupert Murdoch is also horseshit.
I didn't give up buying CDs until iTunes got rid of the DRM and increased the quality. DRM is the same reason I haven't bought any TV shows or Movies from iTunes. I want personal control over what I purchase. Rentals are a different story. I watch too much TV to spend a dollar per show regularly, but I would definitely rent movies. I might even rent episodes of TV shows I missed, or can't get on Hulu/Netflix. All that aside, I still wish there was hope for a subscription based service so I can give the cable part of my comcast bill the boot.
But you can already rent movies on iTunes, so why don't you? I would love TV rentals from iTunes because I already rent a fair few movies and can't see why TV shows should be any different. I also currently buy certain shows, the few that I think are of lasting value and I'm likely to watch more than once, but there are lots of other, more ephemeral TV programs that are entertaining once, but aren't worth purchasing that rentals would be great for.
One proviso though - no ads in shows I pay for! You either make your money from free content with ads in it or from sales/rentals of your content, you don't get to go to the well twice.