Time's Invention of the Year: iTunes Music Store

[MacBytes]

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Time's Invention of the Year: iTunes Music Store

Posted on MacBytes.com

Approved by arn

[tazo]

ya just cant buy that kind of publicity

[Keynoteuser]

They mention that Apple needs to add the Beatles soon. Did the author somehow miss the statement in the last month that NO ONE will be selling Beatles tunes on the net? They don't want to join the digital revolution, so no one will have their songs.

[TomSmithMacEd]

I want to see iTMS succeed so bad. So you know this put a smile on my face when I saw it. Of course it is true to. Someone find me a better invention.

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by tazo
ya just cant buy that kind of publicity

very true. this is a great way to reach a lot more people. people that may have heard about the service and dismissed it. good for apple. good for time for recagnizing it

[Sonofhaig]

Now get out there and sell more ipods....
SELL, SELL, SELL!
Because Apple isn't making much on the music service. itunes and ipod are unbeatable!

[1macker1]

re-invention maybe, but they didnt invent online music.

[SoonToGetAMac]

Originally posted by Sonofhaig

Because Apple isn't making much on the music service. itunes and ipod are unbeatable!

I wonder how much Apple had to spend for all of bandwidth for proving the iTunes for Windows file to 1.5 million+ people.

[ucs308]

Wow.. So Apple doubles thier profit on iTunes sales by charging me the wrong sales tax, and never handing it over. Now I understand why they chose to ignore the problem.

[punter]

10c profit or revenue? That 10 cents covers all the web costs like hosting?? that's crazy. How are they breaking even? it's probably all for loss until you bring ipod sales into the equation.

And then 5+ other companies jump in on it too. Seems crazy!

[sushi]

Originally posted by ucs308
Wow.. So Apple doubles thier profit on iTunes sales by charging me the wrong sales tax, and never handing it over. Now I understand why they chose to ignore the problem.

?????

Please explain.

TIA,

Sushi

[mainstreetmark]

Originally posted by Keynoteuser
They mention that Apple needs to add the Beatles soon. Did the author somehow miss the statement in the last month that NO ONE will be selling Beatles tunes on the net? They don't want to join the digital revolution, so no one will have their songs.

I'm of the opinion that anyone who will ever buy a Beatles album has quite likely already done so. I think all my Beatles have been purchased, listened to, worn out, lost, found and sold.

[morlium]

Originally posted by punter
10c profit or revenue? That 10 cents covers all the web costs like hosting?? that's crazy. How are they breaking even? it's probably all for loss until you bring ipod sales into the equation.

the 10c is after 25c per song is spent on web and administrative costs.
Apple makes about 35c per song.

[humara]

I find it hard to believe that 2003 was such a bad year that Time awarded a music store as the invention of the year. If you stop to think that this is just a last ditch effort of a dying industry. Not apple. The music industry. Those greedy ba*tards won't be able to force music down the entire world's throat anymore. The internet is going to change the paradigm of music distribution forever. Not even apple can stop that.
The beetles not allowing their music to be distributed over the internet is a prime example of how this business model will die within years. As the record companies continue to consolidate, it will be only a matter of time before 1 or 2 companies that are left go out of business. Musicians are freed from their corporate masters.

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by Keynoteuser
They mention that Apple needs to add the Beatles soon. Did the author somehow miss the statement in the last month that NO ONE will be selling Beatles tunes on the net? They don't want to join the digital revolution, so no one will have their songs.

Sorry to go slightly off topic but has anything materialized with that supposed lawsuit against Apple for the iTMS?

[zim]

Hummmm, is Time making up for the pre iMac release form way back?

I would have to say that in-terms of greatest inventions of the year, the iTMS, even if the concept is not new, the product is, is one of my most used therefore most appreciated inventions of the year, so I agree with Time

[Qunchuy]

Originally posted by humara
The beetles [sic] not allowing their music to be distributed over the internet is a prime example of how this business model will die within years. As the record companies continue to consolidate, it will be only a matter of time before 1 or 2 companies that are left go out of business. Musicians are freed from their corporate masters.

And where will those freed musicians go to distribute their music? This business model does not live and die based on the fortunes of the record companies. It seems that the iTunes Music Store is continuing to add "indies" even as the corporate masters fail to hold on to them. I'd say Apple has enough infrastructure, both physical and conceptual, to weather even a major implosion in the Big Label music industry.

[humara]

• And where will those freed musicians go to distribute their music? This business model does not live and die based on the fortunes of the record companies. It seems that the iTunes Music Store is continuing to add "indies" even as the corporate masters fail to hold on to them. I'd say Apple has enough infrastructure, both physical and conceptual, to weather even a major implosion in the Big Label music industry.

Qunchy, I see your point. It will be interesting to see the iTMS live on after the record companies fail. I hadn't thought of it like that since I feel as iff Apple is just a puppet at this point in the game. Now i have a different perspective on it. Now we'll see how Apple can evolve the iTMS to live on without the majors. But even the "indies" at this point are also part of the same problem. I feel that record companies, no matter what size they are, pose serious roadblocks on the road to a truly independent music scene.

[Java]

First off, I must say that it was a great article. Very well written.

Second, I'm asking MR members to cast their vote in the Time Poll. I've attached an image of how it is looking as of the time of my post.

I'm off to buy another song.

-Java

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
Now get out there and sell more ipods....
SELL, SELL, SELL!
Because Apple isn't making much on the music service. itunes and ipod are unbeatable!

Yes! That and more advertising on college campus's. College kids will buy iPods if given the impetus.

I really think it would benefit Apple if they would include a $10.00 gift certificate for the iTunes Music Store. That's integration!

[T.Rex]

Originally posted by mainstreetmark
I'm of the opinion that anyone who will ever buy a Beatles album has quite likely already done so. I think all my Beatles have been purchased, listened to, worn out, lost, found and sold.

Actually, the Beatles are consistently one of the highest selling artists year in, year out. I think a few years ago when their "Beatles 1" album came out, they were number one in sales.

The Beatles music is pretty timeless, every generation sees the birth of new Beatles fans. I'm 21 now, but by the time I was 18 I had bought every single Beatles cd - every single one - and I can tell you there are tons of people my age in the same boat.

[xStep]

Originally posted by TomSmithMacEd
I want to see iTMS succeed so bad. So you know this put a smile on my face when I saw it. Of course it is true to. Someone find me a better invention.

First iTMS is not an invention. It is a good innovative use of available technology. Even though I haven't yet bought anything from it, I have used it enough to know it is very well done.

A better invention; The toilet, where you can sit down to read your latest geek magazine.

[ITR 81]

The Beatles suit over Apple is because of the Apple name o It's all over the name because the Beatles has record company called Apple records and with Apple going into the music business they think it will confuse people. I think they are just paranoid.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by ITR 81
The Beatles suit over Apple is because of the Apple name o It's all over the name because the Beatles has record company called Apple records and with Apple going into the music business they think it will confuse people. I think they are just paranoid.

No.

Incorrect.

:brings the holy light of Beatles Truths:

1)
The Beatles record company Apple Corps sued apple Computer for its name in the first lawsuit.

Apple computer settled this and in doing such they said they would not enter the music buisness or anything sound related.

2) Apple Corps again sued Apple Computer for breach of their Settlement. Apple computer gave their computers not only sound capabilities, but included speakers (*worth noteing if they brought this same lawsuit now it would be thrown out of court) Apple losses and settles

3) (Most Recent) And Probably the most blatant breach apple creates an online music store.

I find this to be the most blatant, apple deals with the record companies for an online Music Dealing Service.

This lawsuit is ongoing.

[Jookbox]

i guess i'm the only who cant stand the crappy quality of the files. i bought two albums, but i think i'll just stick to cds for now.