Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Now Number #1 Music Retailer

Thataboy said:
1. No, they are from hundreds (thousands?) of labels. Just not a few major ones. That's not a small problem, but there IS tons of solid non-DRMed content on iTunes. Stop listening to the crap Sony/BMG puts out ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not, I'm just pointing out that two-thirds of iTunes download catalogue is still low quality DRM. Regardless of musical preferences this needs sorted out.

2. We have no idea how much Amazon has sold, but I have the feeling it's not a ton. Maybe in a few years they will take a bite out of iTunes.
Click to expand...

I think they will. Remember, they only launched in September and their site is, to say the least, a bit basic although their catalogue is not.

Maybe more than a few years. Are the big labels really going to blow off years extra revenue in the #1 music store for the sake of a bargaining position? I don't think they will.
Click to expand...

They will unless Apple come back with a really, really good offer. No supplier will willingly tie themselves to one distributor unless the reward/risk equation is heavily in their favour. Again, remember they're still sellign through iTunes - just lower quality DRM versions.

Moreover, they have little legitimate bargaining position. Is it "flexible pricing" they are after? iTunes clearly already allows this for album prices, and Amazon single prices are 99 cents OR LESS.
Click to expand...

A lot of people get worried at 'flexible pricing' but this does not neccessarily mean increased cost for the customer - it just means that the distributor pays more to the supplier but these costs are often aggregated accross the product catalogue.

The big labels have no goal but to decrease Apple's market share...
Click to expand...

Incorrect. They have no goal but to maximise profits whilst protecting market position. This isn't about damaging Apple, it's about protecting their own interests.

alas, in a year, Apple has gone from #3 to #2 to #1, even while Amazon was around.
Click to expand...

Amazon's download service was only launched in late September 2007.

So the labels lost their gambit, are losing revenue, and all for no discernible reason. I think their abstention from iTunes Plus will not last much longer.
Click to expand...

But they're not for the reasons outlined above.

People want "digital downloads" -- well theyve had a ton of options for years (do I have to go over them all?), including WalMart. Some were even DRM free. And yet people still chose iTunes. With 128kbps AAC. And DRM.
Click to expand...

Catalogue and ease of distribution are king. Apple aced this with the integration between the iPod and iTunes. Genius, sheer genius.

iPods drove much of that away from WMA-stores, but people chose that too. Why would people forego cheaper WMA players and stores for the pricer iPod/iTunes? People wanted that seamless, integrated hardware/software experience.
Click to expand...

Exactly - something not lost on Amazon who seamlessly integrate with iTunes.

That desire for seamless integration extends to digital purchases -- people want to click Store, hit Buy, and be done with it. You can't argue with #1. Amazon offers a compelling product, but it is a hideous user experience, and does not have the appearance of integration (even though the Downloader helps achieve integration).
Click to expand...

I would disagee here - I think it needs a lot of work (but then so did iTunes in its first iterations). The actual product integration is seamless.

I have a feeling Amazon's sales are mostly from techies who know what a bitrate is, know what DRM is, and aren't afraid to use downloader/importer software to have their files traverse the web to desktop to iTunes to iPod.
Click to expand...

To start with probably but this will change - Amazon's act of genius was to include the downloader. By doing this they did what others struggled with - use your competitors technology for your own advantage.

For the other 99% of the population, there's iTunes -- and the big labels would do well to suck it up, join the party, and MAKE SOME MORE MONEY.
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't. As mentioned they already make money, they just want to protect their interests by encouraging competition. That's good for them and, ultimately, good for the customer. It's just basic economics - monopolies are ultimately bad for everyone.
 
Eraserhead said:
According to Warwick's Bandsoc studio time seems to be about £200/day. So you can record an album for £1000 or so. Selling an album for £5 on iTunes means you need to sell about 300 copies to break even.
Click to expand...

Aren't most albums around £8 on iTunes? Of course the artists don't have to worry about packaging, shipping, shelf space etc. If Play.com can sell me the physical album for £5 (including postage), why can't iTunes sell me a digital one for the same price considering it's far cheaper to sell music that way?

If iTunes was all like iTunes Plus, 256Kb/sec and DRM free I would buy all my music on it. As it is I can get music cheaper, and better quality, in physical form from Play.com.
 
Interesting.

Appleinsider.com is reporting that iTunes briefly held #1 spot before conceding it back to Walmart. I wonder where the discrepancy is coming from...

In my view, everything is speculation until there's an official press release.

From Appleinsider.com:
The sudden surge to the top was likely fueled by iTunes holiday gift card redemptions, because a few weeks later Apple would relinquish that lead back to Wal-Mart.

Still, landing firmly in the No. 2 position was a crowning achievement for the Cupertino-based company, as was duly noted in a February press release. That's because prior to gift card run-up it had only managed to muster up enough sales to rank No. 3 behind both Wal-Mart and Best Buy.

What's of particular interest from Ars's report, however, is that it includes an NPD chart of the top 10 music retailers from that one week in January with their associated share of the market. NPD declined to release those specific share percentages back in February when Apple definitively claimed the No. 2 spot.
 
Eraserhead said:
According to Warwick's Bandsoc studio time seems to be about £200/day. So you can record an album for £1000 or so. Selling an album for £5 on iTunes means you need to sell about 300 copies to break even.
Click to expand...

£1000 to record the album - but how much to grease the palms of NME so kids will actually want it?
 
I think the biggest news here is that a company which provides solely digital downloads has finally eclipsed a company who still deals in physical media, in terms of monthly purchases. I wonder if this will hold up. Personally, I'd still rather buy and burn the CD for the increased audio quality and physical packaging/artwork.

Also, I guess I put my post about this in the wrong place.
 
avigalante said:
Interesting.

Appleinsider.com is reporting that iTunes briefly held #1 spot before conceding it back to Walmart. I wonder where the discrepancy is coming from...

In my view, everything is speculation until there's an official press release.

From Appleinsider.com:
The sudden surge to the top was likely fueled by iTunes holiday gift card redemptions, because a few weeks later Apple would relinquish that lead back to Wal-Mart.

Still, landing firmly in the No. 2 position was a crowning achievement for the Cupertino-based company, as was duly noted in a February press release. That's because prior to gift card run-up it had only managed to muster up enough sales to rank No. 3 behind both Wal-Mart and Best Buy.

What's of particular interest from Ars's report, however, is that it includes an NPD chart of the top 10 music retailers from that one week in January with their associated share of the market. NPD declined to release those specific share percentages back in February when Apple definitively claimed the No. 2 spot.
Click to expand...

Expect something from the NPD in the next few days, there's is quite a bit of confusion over these figures at the moment.
 
MongoTheGeek said:
But how do iTunes gift cards sold at Walmart count?

A walmart sale?
An iTunes sale?
Niether?
Both?

I call shenanigans.
Click to expand...

I would think that they wouldn't count under the "music" category for Walmart's business. So they don't count for Wal-mart.

Unless you were just being silly.
 
zombitronic said:
Also, I guess I put my post about this in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

That's weird, normally when a forum member posts a story before the MacRumors team they give that member the credit for it. Your thread was posted MUCH earlier than the official Page 1 thread but seems to have been missed. Maybe it was in the wrong forum as you said? It might've been spotted if it had been in the iTunes forum.

Keep trying though! :)
 
Presumably Amazons figures include physical CD sales - which I suspect are still a lot higher than digital sales.

Also would their business model work so well if they didnt piggy back off the itunes software to get the songs onto the ipods? After the actual purchase they are using the quality of apples software/hardware experience to garner customer satisfaction.

Not to say that there is anything wrong with Amazon - I cant even use their music store in the UK - would be nice to. But I suspect if they didnt have the freedom afforded by the studios and apples software they would be doing no better than the Zune music store (if its still going).
 
If this is based on January data, I would expect Walmart to regain the lead in February. Apple probably sold a bunch based on gift cards sold during December and redeemed in January, while Walmart doesn't sell as many gift cards, or at least gift cards that go towards music.
 
Good news. But I've started buying more of my downloaded music from Amazon lately. Once I got the Amazon downloader figured out, and knew that everything I bought there was going straight into iTunes, it became a no-brainer. DRM-free, higher bit rate, and usually less money. I will generally compare whatever I'm looking for between the 2 now. If it's not available on iTunes+ and it is on Amazon, I'm generally getting it there. :eek:
 
Eraserhead said:
That may well be true, but I'm pretty sure these figures are US only, and the US != the World.
Click to expand...

The figures say iTunes is the number one music retailer in the world, meaning iTunes sells more music than any other retailer in the world.

“We launched iTunes less than five years ago, and it has now become the number one music retailer in the world,” said Eddy Cue, Apple’s vice president of iTunes. “We are thrilled, and would like to thank all of our customers for helping us reach this incredible milestone.”
 
Does Amazon sales count their digital store, their regular store (the actual CDs) or a mixture of the two?
 
That's good news. Now we have to wait until it becomes the #1 in the DRM-free retailers list. Right now, I buy albums on iTunes only if they're DRM-free - and if not, I look on Amazon, and it's usually there.
 
Good news: Apple is #1
Avg news: They need volume to make any profit
Bad news: #1 music player + #1 music seller = alot more scrutiny
 
Wow, Apple is the big dog now.

It goes to show you, when you give consumers what they want, how they want it, when they want it, at a reasonable price with reasonable restrictions, you will sell a ton.

Why do content providers have to be convinced of this?
Hoping a similar thing happens with video content (IMHO, no one is there right now if you want to get away from discs).
 
That good to hear! Maybe they can leverage this status to offer even more DD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back