Analyst sees stark future for iTunes

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, May 17, 2005.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
  2. Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #2
    All credibility lost right here:

    Read no further.
     
  3. Moderator

    840quadra

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Location:
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    #3
    Really?

    I would like to see his research results showing how many iTunes donloading customers actually own an iPod. I think the customer number would be higher then all of the total iPod devices sold to date.

    Though I may be wrong.
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    Akron, OH
    #4
    Why do I have a feeling that this "market research" involved watching a Napster ad, recieveing a check, then writing the article? Nothing to bolster your stock prices that have fallen after Yahoo announced a subscription model than have so called "experts" say you'll toppel the giant....
     
  5. Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #5
    Exactly.

    I'll repeat again:

    Apple has the player, the jukebox and the store. No one else does.

    End of story.
     
  6. macrumors G4

    Applespider

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    #6
    I'm not quite so sure about that one; I know more iPod owners who haven't downloaded music from iTunes (10 in my dept at work) than non-iPod owners who have (1 - Mum who's now thinking iPod).

    Tho with over 10m iPods and 400m songs sold and it being unlikely that everyone's bought 40 songs, then there must be quite a few non-iPod owners buying too.
     
  7. macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #7
    I bought over 100 songs from iTMS before I finally bought an iPod shuffle a couple weeks ago.
     
  8. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    #8
    If this is what passes for research . . .

    can I be an analyst? Does this guy actually get paid to put out this crap?

    He assumes that Apple would change nothing in response to subscription services gaining market share. Like many others, he assumes that Apple will "repeat the mistakes it made in the PC world." Apple never enjoyed anything like the market share it has with iPods. All the economies of scale favor Apple. The ecosystem of third-party products is built primarily for the iPod. That was never the case with the Mac.

    Down the road, I think it is very possible that Apple will license the iPod's operating system to other manufacturers. But this will only happen when margins fall to the point where there is more profit in selling the content than the players.

    This guy may not have noticed, but introducing the Shuffle, while maintaining close to 90% market share of hard-drive players, has allowed Apple to seize greater overall market share during the past few months. It's hard to say how long this can continue, but there is a war over formats right now and Apple is in a very strong position. Why cave in to Microsoft now? I have to believe that Apple is keeping very close watch on market trends and consumer preferences. They will make the move at the right time.

    Besides, the future for Napster looks much bleaker with Yahoo now in the picture. How long can Napster take quarterly losses of $15-20 million? Before the new Yahoo service, they could perhaps count on market share growth to bring profitability, but that is highly in doubt at this point.
     
  9. emw
    macrumors G4

    emw

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #9
    Yup, buying 10,000 songs on CD is a lot of money - no one would ever do that. :rolleyes:
     
  10. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #10
    And not to belabor the obvious, but:

    * Songs cost .99 only as singles--in which instance, they're MUCH cheaper than buying the whole CD for just one song. The average price I've paid for songs is around .70 (not counting freebies) because when you do want an album, the cost is usually less than .99/song. (And less than I can buy a physical CD for around here--convenience aside.)

    * Few people NEED to fill 10,000 songs. Few people buy the really big players, and those that do often use the space for other kinds of data, or simply like the idea of the space "just in case" they someday need it.

    * Even if you DO put 10,000 songs on your player, and even change them monthly, you can't listen to them all. What good does that quantity of songs loaded from Napster do you if you never hear them? If a tree falls in the woods... ?

    * Imagine the labor and download time involved with finding and then obtaining 10,000 songs from Napster. Yeah, THAT'S a realistic scenario :rolleyes:
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    #11
    Obvious fraud.

    Martin Olausson is obviously a paid FUDster because he cannot even keep his story straight. He goes on and on about how much more expensive the iTunes model is compared to subscription models, but then he says:

    OK. If they are dissatisfied with the revenue generated from download sales, how are they going be satisfied with the (much smaller) revenue generated by subscriptions? The FUD is caught in its own lies.

    If revenue is the driving factor for the continuing participation of the major record companies, the obvious future is to not allow their wares to be distributed by the supposedly cheaper subscription model but to go exclusively with the fair download-and-own iTunes model.
     
  12. macrumors 603

    SiliconAddict

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #12


    Credibility regained here:

    Bolded for emphasis. Tell me what possible incentive does Apple have to go to a subscription model if they are sitting at 70% online music sales, 90% hard drive based music player, and not having their sales nibbled at by subscriptions. I personally doubt they would be making more money off of a subscription based system then an outright purchase. Idiots. This is more Apple trashing because its trendy.
     
  13. Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #13
    I bet this guy doesn't own, nor does his company own, a single share of Apple, either.
     
  14. macrumors 603

    SiliconAddict

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #14

    Well to be fair go to www.quicktime.com and look at the download for quicktime for Windows. You can't download just quicktime anymore. The only option is Quicktime WITH iTunes which I think is BS on Apple's part.
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    mklos

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Location:
    My house!
    #15
    Yes, but you have the option to install either or. Apple did this to make it easier for noobies. You need to have QuickTime installed in order to use iTunes.
     
  16. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #16
    They still have it separate for Win98. Is that actually a different build of QuickTime, or did they simply not bother to mention the NT family?
     
  17. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC CANADA
    #17
    Take a 'nother look hoobie...

    http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/win.html

    They label the QuickTime-only option for Win 98/ME because iTunes doesn't work with those versions, but the QuickTime is the same.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    Fender2112

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #18
    Incentive? The other 30% :D
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    asif786

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK.
    #19
    i must say, i love the new apple quicktime site design!

    back on topic, i love downloading from itunes. there's a number of reasons why i do so:

    i) in london a cd-single is £2.99-£3.99. i find this a high price to pay when you only want one song..

    ii) it's so convenient - i hear a song a like and i just search and buy. i can have the song found and downloaded within 15 seconds if i want. that's luxury.

    iii) it's supporting apple. i would rather buy this song from apple instead of hmv. it's great to see the numbers and know that you contributed..

    iv) i dont care much about quality. as long as it sounds decent, i'm happy. it's certainly better than some of the terrible encoding some other services give (except allofmp3).

    the one thing i dont like is the fact that i cant listen to my music using itunes sharing (without authorization first). this kind of annoys me, but there's always ways around that if you can be bothered.

    overall, i think itunes is great. i'm not much of a money saver, but there's no way i'm going to pay the recording industry £4 for a cd single.

    and lastly, cd's make clutter. and i *hate* clutter. so there. :)
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    Fender2112

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #20
    I was also a bit troubled about this. I can understand bundling QT when you download iTunes. But if all I want is QT i should not have to download iTunes to get it.

    The only thing I can figure is that Apple is pushing Quicktime the same way MS pushes WMA by bundling it with other stuff.
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2004
    #21
    iTunes too costly, but subscription brings in more money???

    I can't believe the number of "analayts" who miss this point. They say on the one hand that paying 0.99/song is too costly, but on the other the record companies like the greater income from subscription services! The record companies know the truth: the subscription model costs the consumer more money, which allows them to make more money.

    It's a zero sum game, so the model most preferred by the recording industry is the one consumers should avoid.
    ;)
     
  22. NOV
    macrumors 6502

    NOV

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #22
    The only benefit I see from other services is the fact they sell through a 'normal' website and not through a specialized application like iTunes. It's not a big thing but it may be a treshold in attracting potential new customers.
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    Fender2112

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #23
    I have a feeling that in a year or two when things settle, there will a mix of paid and subscription services. These are two different models which allow customers to have a choice. It's not much different from the video business where rentals and purchases coexist.

    I think Apple will offer subscriptions before the end of the year. Log in to iTunes and take your pick. Rent songs or buy the ones you like. Want a video? Click here to view on demand for 24 hours. Or click here to download a burnable copy.

    It's coming, just a matter of time.
     
  24. NOV
    macrumors 6502

    NOV

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #24
    does a subscription service allows you to burn cd('s) from your rented stuff?
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    Fender2112

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #25
    I don't view this as a benefit. The user is at the mercy of compatibilty between the web site and web browser.
     

Share This Page