Apple May Be Holding Back The Music Biz

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Dec 13, 2005.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
  2. macrumors 68020

    Cooknn

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Location:
    Fort Myers, FL
    #2
    That's crap. I know a lot of people with iPods - and none of them use file sharing sites to get their songs. Sure they use CD's. Freaking music companies want them to buy their stuff again?!
     
  3. Moderator emeritus

    angelwatt

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    <quote>... iPod owners mostly fill up their players from their own CD collections ... "You have this device consumers love, but they're being restricted from buying anything other than downloads from Apple." says Chris Gorog, CEO of Napster Inc.</quote>

    Apparently Chris Gorog doesn't realize you can put purchased CDs on the iPod since he is ranting about only being able to make use of Apple iTunes downloads. People always try to simplify the situation and make others look bad, but in reality for us who know they are lying see what dooshbags they really are.

    I think Apple is helping re-awaken the music business by providing new ways of obtaining music they want. Certain music artist don't like this because now customers only end up buying what they like and don't have to buy the crappier songs artist put on their CDs just to fill it up. If the artist make better music sales will follow.

    ~ if they sing it well, we will listen. ;)
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    Passante

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Location:
    on the sofa
    #4
    Another Business Week anti Apple article

    This is the third Business Week article that either takes a swipe at Apple or allows its competitors to trash them.
     
  5. macrumors 603

    SiliconAddict

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #5
    The fact of the matter is consumers want their cake and want to eat it too. Tough [bleep] If you don't like iTunes go buy a Dell DJ, go to Napster, and stop bitching you big babies.
     
  6. macrumors 603

    SiliconAddict

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #6

    Ummm I know 3 others with iPods. All use P2P because they are anti-DRM.
     
  7. macrumors 68020

    Cooknn

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Location:
    Fort Myers, FL
    #7
    I would venture to guess that they are in the extreme minority.
     
  8. macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #8
    The subject title should really read... The Music Biz May Be Holding Back The Music Biz with all their crazy DRM schemes. Apple, if anything, has made music more accessible to the masses.

    Take my sister for example. In the last year, she's bought herself three! iPods, ever since she got a taste of iPod awesomeness when her company bought her a 4G iPod as a Christmas bonus. Since then, she's acquired a shuffle and a nano. Between her 3 iPods and my 5, that's already 8 in the family. I'll be getting another iPod by MWSF 06, so it's either a video iPod or a black shuffle.

    ps. My sister has become a music whore. She doesn't own a Mac and relies on my extensive iTunes library to serve her music needs.


    Here's to the Crazy Ones [​IMG]
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    #9
    I always get bothered when people say that "X" music store locks you in to buying a "Y" branded player, or that buying a "Y" branded player locks you in to "X" music store. It's complete and utter BS. Almost everyone knows that these players play the universal mp3 format, and if it doesn't, it's not worth it anyway. If you have your own CD's (or illegal mp3's even) you can rip them and play them on both the iPod or the Zen, so you're not locked into anything. You don't even have to use the online music stores to purchase music. Plus, the information for working around the DRM is simple enough, and widely known. The DRM is only there for the record companies anyway. :mad:
     
  10. -hh
    macrumors 68020

    -hh

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2001
    Location:
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    #10
    Actually, Gorog is just plain lying, because its in his best interest to make this type of claim (everyone in the biz already knows that virtually all CD's can be ripped straight into iTunes).


    However, what is disturbing is that BW made this "iPod consumers steal" (sic) type of claim without clear attribution.

    I've left feedback at the Business Week article requesting a citation for this claim - - preferably from an *independent* research that substantiates the claim that their article's author made.

    Maybe the claim is true, or maybe not. But it is BusinessWeek's journalistic integrety that is on the line, since they're the ones that allowed the article to appear (perhaps through poor editing) that BW themselves made the claim.


    Anecdotally, I believe that the claim is false, since we've personally found that owning an iPod reinvigorated our interest in music overall, which has resulted in roughly a 500% increase in our rate of music acquisition (all of which were through legal means). It won't necessarily show up in any downloading surveys, since we prefer to buy the physical CD media and rip it in, since this affords us a permanent archive copy (at higher encoding) and an unequivicable licence.

    We're also keeping an ancient analog-out CD player around, in case future DRM controls become too onerously consumer-unfriendly: we'll simply port everything digital-analog-digital to make the Millenium Act's provisions irrelevant: we can legally do this under the existing laws that gives consumers Fair Use rights to copies that aren't 100% digital (let them try to sue: I have liability insurance and I know how to counter-sue). The bottom line is that I'm the consumer and I vote with my wallet.



    -hh
     
  11. Moderator emeritus

    SilentPanda

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Bamboo Forest
    #11
    Even if this article isn't false, how is the fact that people are either getting music via CD's or P2P Apples fault? The author seems to state that because people have the iPod people are buying CD's and ripping them to their iPods (good for the music industry) or using P2P (bad for the music industry). Apple hasn't created a P2P network. I personally have purchased near 2,000 songs from the iTune Music Store and given up on P2P since the launch of the iTunes Music Store. I own an iPod Shuffle but I rarely use it for song playing... mostly I use it to transfer songs from my home to my work or bring data from one place to the next.

    I fail to see the correlation that this author is making between the iPod hurting the music industry. If he wants to argue that the iTunes Music Stores fixed pricing is hurting the music industry I would at least listen. That's like saying my Desktop Computer is hurting the music industry.

    While I am a very small sample, I can guarantee you that I have purchased more music because of the iTunes Music Store simply due to the ease of access I now have to it.
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    mainstreetmark

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Saint Augustine, FL
    #12
    Based on what! Your gut feeling?

    The iTMS has been, and continues to be, a place where you can buy "common" stuff. I don't know anyone who uses iTMS - not one person (besides me sometimes).

    Personally, I hate the crap on the radio, but if I liked it, iTMS would be the place for me. All the thousands of independent bands currently running around the planet should be in iTMS for people like me, but they're not. They can't get in unless they're tied to a music label, and if they're tied to a music label, then that means someone has decided that the music is marketable to a large audience and therefore it's very "plain", if you will. Kind of why Budweiser is the best selling beer - it offends no one.

    I miss the old Napster, where any band anywhere could put their stuff online. You'd hear some song on an independent radio station, download their songs from Napster, and next thing you know, you show up at their shows an buy the all their CDs. Those days are never coming back, and all we have now is RIAA-approved music for legal downloads. Screw that.
     
  13. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Location:
    Saint Paul, Minnesota
    #13
    Bogus indeed

    While the cost of a song is only 99c each, the miniscule drop in sales could easily be explained by the fact that it's the season for buying gifts. Buying gifts requires cash, and unless you work seasonally, thats a finite amount. On top of that theres the time and effort to actually get those gifts. So a miniscule drop is irrelevant.

    On top of that the quote "Music labels say they'd sell and earn more by offering an old Uriah Heep tune for 39 cents and a new Usher track for $1.29". While I may be showing my age, I do recall a similar quote back in the late 80's when we were supposed to see a price DROP in CD's and that didn't happen either. Was that Job's fault too? So who's the bigger BS'er here? :rolleyes:
     
  14. Moderator

    840quadra

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Location:
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    #14
    Are you serious? LESS then a half % ? Call me when it shifts 20%!

    So, tell me, how many ITMS gift cards were sold this quarter, or last quarter ?

    I honestly don't care how good or bad ITMS does, but "numbers" like this would be thrown out of almost any other article for being to miniscule. Hardly worth the time to type and upload the data!
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    Seasought

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    #15
    Critics say Apple's proprietary technology and its refusal to offer more ways to buy or to stray from its rigid 99 cents a song model is dampening legal sales of digital tunes

    Another article about how upset certain content providers are that Apple isn't changing their policy or working with them.

    Basically...

    "Apple won't work with us. We're angry but will try and make it look like we think Apple is causing problems for everyone."

    I guess none of us ever really do leave high school politics behind.

    :(
     
  16. macrumors 603

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #16
    In the past year I've less than 5 albums. Did I copy the rest? No.

    The music out there isn't worth buying, the majority of it is absolutely crap.

    If the music industry raises the quality of music with talant ( rather than manufactured bands ) then they may see a rise in music sales, rather than a continual slump.

    Its far too easy for music companies to cry piracy, they need to look at themselves to see what music is actually being produced.

    The RIAA and other organisations around the world give the music industry a bad name with their continued antics. In Europe, music companies want access to data that would be available for only national security ( terrorists and other serious crimes ) - again, this puts them in a bad light. What makes their industry so special they need that kind of access to data?

    The music industry is killing itself faster than piracy is.

    However, I do agree that there needs to be more competition - i.e., Apple licensing out fair play. Competition is *good*.
     
  17. macrumors 68020

    Cooknn

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Location:
    Fort Myers, FL
    #17
    Hmmm. Let's see :rolleyes: Apple's iTunes music store now sells more music than Tower Records or Borders, according to analyst firm the NPD Group. I think that my venture to guess was accurate. If you could measure the number of songs on existing iPods and broke out what was purchased from iTunes vs downloaded via P2P, those downloading illegally are in a very small minority. Prove me wrong :cool:
     
  18. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    #18
    Buy non-RIAA CDs. Pirate the rest. If you can, burn them to disk and send them to RIAA members. Let's see if we can get at least 1000 to Sony (the ringleaders :mad:)
     
  19. Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #19
    Not to mention that most business stats are stated in relation to the same quarter last year, not the previous quarter, in order to, in part, minimize seasonal anomalies.
     
  20. macrumors demi-goddess

    Clix Pix

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    8 miles from the Apple Store at Tysons (VA)
    #20
    If anything, the music business is gaining something from people like me. I just recently bought an iPod after I discovered the wonders of iTunes. It immediately revitalized my interest in music, and I've had a great time finding and downloading favorite songs from the iTunes music store, in addition to putting songs from my own CDs into my iTunes collection. In some instances, where I like only a particular song or two from a given artist, it's been great to be able to download that from the ITMS -- I'd never bought nor would I buy the entire CD for just one or two tunes, so the artist and music industry are benefitting by my purchasing individual songs that I like. I also have downloaded a few entire albums, but not many. It's actually quicker and easier to simply click the "buy" button and download than it is to dig out my own CD and copy it into my iTunes library and in a few cases I have done just that.

    OTB
     
  21. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #21
    Do the math :)

    Let's play with statistics, shall we?

    Here's two that get quoted a lot at the moment...

    Apple have 80% share of legal music download sales (which can only be played in iTunes or on an iPod)

    Apple have 75% share of MP3 player sales (by value or volume, not sure which, but hey let's say it's by volume, coz if it was by value that would mean less a slightly smaller share of the market in terms of actual players)

    From these two statistics we can therefore state that on average, iPod owners download one third more legal music than other MP3 player owners. (75% of people consume 80% of the legal downloads, leaving 20% of the tunes for the other 25% of consumers)

    Not sure how this equates to holding back the music industry. Acording to the figures (and we all know stats can never lie ;) ) if everyone had iPods, there would be an immediate increase in legal dowloads of nearly 8% or something...

    ...And it is nice to see that Napster have been reduced to having to bash Apple to get any press coverage at all these days...
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    neonart

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Location:
    Near a Mac since 1993.
    #22
    Incredible!

    If you where to read just the headline, like so many do, you'd think Apple is a horrible monster. What a load of garbage!

    So sales drop 0.44% and they rush to Chris Gorog to give them the answer!

    Here are some of the HUGE FLAWS in the comments and implications of this article:

    1)End of year sales slump is Apple's fault. WRONG. Gifts are up (iPods, iTunes cards), personal purchases (iTunes songs) are down. Wait for the uphill.

    2)Apple and it's iPod are the villains because the two are locked in. WRONG. The iPod and iTunes are a package, just like your cable box and it's service. And when the two are the best and most popular choices, there is no need to damage the package to please your competition. I sure would not want to be Apple and take blame for crappy downloads from Napster making my best selling device look like crap. Or have people feeling disillusioned because they've paid monthly for music and they could no longer pay and their iPod is now empty.

    3)Apple has less choice. WRONG. Apple has no less choices than Napster (1 file format). In fact they provide music to Mac and Windows users equally whereas Napster excludes Apple users. Apple also now offers videos, TV shows, podcasts, etc. Apple may not have a subscription service, but if they did, would that make Napster happy? NO. That would probably just nail the coffin shut.

    4) Record companies "looking beyond Cupertino for answers". Sure, Napaster will fix their problems...Pffft. Right. NO other online place sells more music for Record companies than Apple does. Where exactly would they go?

    Weather apple pricing should be changed is up to them and the greedy record labels. I personally like the 99¢ price since I know how much any song I want will cost me from the moment I think about it. I seriously doubt they will lower any prices, but can guaranty they will raise them.

    This article was a joke, but good job BusinessWeek for plugging Napster.
    :rolleyes:
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    neonart

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Location:
    Near a Mac since 1993.
    #23
    LOL! You're right!

    Maybe they can't afford real advertising so they're going for this! :D
     
  24. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    #24
    Recording industry wants prices to go DOWN?!?

    With all thye BS in the article, this is the one statement I'd love to see attributed.

    EVERY recording industry moron who gets interview space complains about how 99 cents is way too little for popular songs ('cause they never learned that per-unit profit * volume means the popular songs still make a sh*tload more money than the back catalogue). I have never, EVER, heard them complain that 99 cents was too high for the old Bee Gees 'Greatest' Hits collection. I want attribution here. Just WHO is now making this novel and pariaic statement that prices should go lower?

    Also, of course, there's the micro-payments issue. If you pull much below $0.99 per song then you start getting charges which are not allowed by credit card companies (or, rather, the card company charges more to put your transaction through than you are making on the sale). For this to happen Apple will have to start supporting a "lump payment" option (lump songs together into a single payment until you reach at least $0.99 to charge), and either carry a "tab" for the single-song buyers, force pre-payment of multiple songs, or just flat out say you can't buy one song at a time.

    Personally, I find that when I'm buying "back catalogue" items I already spend a whole lot less than I do for "current" songs. I know which songs I want on the back catalogue, and when I'm buying that one Guns 'N Roses song I like, I sure as hell don't want to be taking a risk on the rest of the album, because I've heard the whole thing before when my college roommie played it and no, sir, I don't want it. On "current" songs, I'm much more likely to take a risk on the entire album, as there's much less chance that I've already heard the stinkers, and, likewise, a much larger chance that an unknown song might actually turn out to be something I'll like. On the other hand, the times when I'm buying a whole album that's been out for several years, I'm buying that because I know for a fact that I like every single song on it; even with previews and being able to download new albums on a per-song basis, I find I average about 50% satisfaction on new music. All in all, what that means is that buying "old" music is effectively cheaper than buying new music already ...

    Anyway, back on topic: I don't see per-song prices going down any time soon. There are administrative roadblocks, and historically the recording industry has NEVER pushed for long-term lower prices on any segment of their catalogues. The CD transition is just one example of this. Remember, this is an industry that strongly believes that people would buy records at $20-30 per disk if the transition to such a pricing structure is made slowly enough and uniformly enough (the only reason they haven't is because they got caught and brought down for price-fixing the last time they tried). There's no way in hell they believe you should be able to get a "classic" album, no matter what its provenance, for $5 or less.
     
  25. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    #25
    Assuming you're talking about independent labels, many bands have put high-quality MP3 copies (meaning 192-256kbps or even more) online. It doesn't cost much to operate a web site, and requiring the use of BitTorrent to download the song saves site bandwidth and doesn't lose any customers who would have been comfortable with Napster back in the day either.

    Look around. If your favorite "indie" band isn't doing this, it's a conscious choice by them or their label to avoid viral marketing of their "sound". Cost of distribution is simply no longer a valid excuse.
     

Share This Page