iTunes Digital Music Sales Fall 13 Percent as Apple Prepares Beats Music Refresh

[Robstevo]

I use Spotify today and it is great! i have not bought a single CD since Spotify was new.

Apple should hurry up and jump on the music streaming business right now, what are they waiting for?

I hope Apple will go for high quality streaming service like lossless or at least 320 kbps, and it should be selectable for home use and Smart phones.

I leave Spotify the day Apple release music streaming service, if the price is the same or lower, if the content is the same or better(more), if you can make your own play lists.

I also think apple can only suceed if the service is cross platform , as in they release a desktop application , browser application , android application etc

Because the great thing about all access and spotify is that you can basically play it on any platform without being restricted.

At work every day I simply fire up my browser and boom my entire library is there to play without having to use my phone.
I'm all in piece of mind that when I go onto my android nexus 5, that I can access my music library via Google music , I go on my iPhone 6 plus and my music library is there via Google music , I go on my Mac etc it's incredibly convenient.

 

[Tech198]

That's not good..

If it's falling, not increasing, isn't this a bad idea?

 

[furqan8421]

Should Apple even care? In the past the music store was something that brought people to using iPods. Now the draw is the App Store. From what I heard before the music store doesn't make much money for apple anyway

 

[willbfree]

I'm all for more quality, but ABX blind listening test have proved that even in a perfect listening environment, people can't tell the difference between 256 kbps lossy and lossless audio format. Maybe if you are an audiophile with audio equipment worth several thousand dollars and are listening to a specific type of music. But how many people do? How much better will music sound for all of us who listen to music with the crappy headphones that came with our iPhone, on our laptop speakers or our TV?

Good question. I'd expect that as people get older and start buying their own homes, or having long term rental situations (as opposed to, say, living in dorms), they are more likely to buy speakers. If the generations that started with iTunes via earbuds are reaching that age, then I'd imagine it will be a great many people, and that it will occur more suddenly than steadily.

You mention TV, and of course many people buy pretty fancy speaker setups for their movie watching even while they are still students. But generally speaking I think with age and income come speakers.

People already have the opportunity to buy "the best". They can buy CDs and they can also buy hi-res 96kHz/24bit AIFF/FLAC/WAV music at many online music stores (HDtracks, Magnatune, Qobuz, ...), but that hasn't really affected sales.

Even though I like the idea of high-res music, I prefer convenience. I don't think any of those niche sites have a chance of attracting hardly anyone. But their existence (as well as the tiny niche of people who for some reason buy vinyl records) suggests there may be a market that a more popular company could realize much more successfully. I heard that Steve Jobs liked vinyl too, so he wasn't someone who rejected higher quality music. I figure he was waiting until there was enough indication of demand. I think that indications are here now.

Regarding CDs, we tend to forget that CD sales are neck and neck with digital sales and have been for the past few years. I'm sure digital will win, but yeah there are people like me who buy CDs and rip them to Apple Lossless or at least to 320kbps mp4, who really want to stop buying CDs once the same (or better) quality is available from iTunes.

Sometimes, when a musician sells his or her music losslessly via their own website I tend to skip the CD and buy that now.

 

[thekeyring]

That's not good..

If it's falling, not increasing, isn't this a bad idea?

It's believed to be falling because people are streaming music. Services like Spotify are growing in popularity.

It'll be interesting to see if Apple will make it profitable, or if it even needs to, with such good hardware sales.

 

[UpperQuadrant]

Maybe because people want high-quality music, not outdated AAC 256 kb/s crap

I'm wondering if ALL MP3 sites are seeing a similar drop or is it just iTunes.

I know that vinyl sales have been increasing and high res 24 bit/DSD have been rising, but the high res market is tiny due to lack of content. There's only about 2,000 albums available in 24 bit or DSD digital download, which is so small, it's not a threat to iTunes, Amazon, or Google Play MP3/MP4 downloads.

As far as high res, it's a can of worms. Not enough content, it's more expensive, and most mobile devices don't have the internal DACs to play these files.

 

[canonical]

Downloads are for noobs

Face it - downloads ... like fast food ... is for noobs.

Music falls into 2 classes:
(i) DISPOSABLE: stream, download etc (Spotify, You-tube, iTunes etc)

(ii) COLLECTIBLE: stuff that defines you, which you want to keep and own and cherish: Collectibles are almost always PHYSICAL items: CDs and LPs (if you are a vinyl fan) and Hi-res Super Audo (SACD) in pure DSD. They sometimes have rarity, you can touch them and feel them, and they have purpose and intent when you play them. Many of my SACDs are worth vastly more than I paid for them: some hundreds of dollars (though that is not, of course, why I buy them).

Downloads are not collectible .. they have zero re-sale value. They also have a culture of de-valuing the content, because they are inherently worth nothing. Try and sell your download collection and see what you get for it.

 

[canonical]

If you choose uncompressed AIF or WAV file, then nothing can sound better.

Lol - do you listen to music with white plugs in your head?

Serious audiophiles listen today using hi-res Super Audio discs (or sometimes digital versions of same) that have vastly higher sampling rates than CD (which, in turn, has vastly more information content than MP3 etc).

I agree - not everybody can tell the difference ... but then not everybody can tell the difference between fine wine and plonk. Most people are happy to eat at McDonalds, and most people listen to MP3s. But, if you take your music seriously, and especially if you listen to acoustic instruments (e.g. classical music, or jazz), the benefits of hi-res are especially noticeable, which is why high-res formats like SACD are most successful in these market segments.

 

[UpperQuadrant]

gonna get me pono

Pono will go out of business, so I wouldn't waste my money on their system. They only got 25,000 people in the first month. They need to have HUNDREDS of MILLIONS to keep that service a profitable business.

----------

Face it - downloads ... like fast food ... is for noobs.

Music falls into 2 classes:
(i) DISPOSABLE: stream, download etc (Spotify, You-tube, iTunes etc)

(ii) COLLECTIBLE: stuff that defines you, which you want to keep and own and cherish: Collectibles are almost always PHYSICAL items: CDs and LPs (if you are a vinyl fan) and Hi-res Super Audo (SACD) in pure DSD. They sometimes have rarity, you can touch them and feel them, and they have purpose and intent when you play them. Many of my SACDs are worth vastly more than I paid for them: some hundreds of dollars (though that is not, of course, why I buy them).

Downloads are not collectible .. they have zero re-sale value. They also have a culture of de-valuing the content, because they are inherently worth nothing. Try and sell your download collection and see what you get for it.

I don't think it's even legal to sell your download collection since it's not the original version, it's a copy and it's illegal to sell copies unless you have legal permission. I know someone that tried to sell their catalog of CDs and digital downloads and I told the guy that was interested in buying it to talk to an attorney to find out if the digital stuff is even legal to sell.

 

[cube]

Yes, but still pretty limited catalog (for my tastes); and the Euro to Dollars price is high. I have bought a couple of albums from them, though. When the CD price was just as high (a couple of artists) - around $15.

The Euro has been cheap for a long time. What is expensive everywhere are high resolution audio and uncompressed streaming (except for a trickle of SACD and DVD-A bargains at Amazon) .

 

[macUser2007]

I'd imagine an audiophile would never have been on iTunes in the first place...nor would they be on any streaming services?

Only if the "audiophile" has little or no understanding of audio and the limits of human hearing. These are the same "audiophiles" who spend $2k on a power cord and $200 a foot for speaker wire. There is a lot of mythology in the "audiophile" community, perpetuated by an industry which needs to grow somehow.

High bitrate streaming (320k) should generally be indistinguishable from lossless. No A/B/X test I've seen supports the claims "audiophile" snake-oil salesmen make about higher sampling rates.

Here is just one description of an actual test: http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

But, just like with religion, people will believe what they believe in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

 

[UpperQuadrant]

Only if the "audiophile" has little or no understanding of audio and the limits of human hearing. These are the same "audiophiles" who spend $2k on a power cord and $200 a foot for speaker wire. There is a lot of mythology in the "audiophile" community, perpetuated by an industry which needs to grow somehow.

High bitrate streaming (320k) should generally be indistinguishable from lossless. No A/B/X test I've seen supports the claims "audiophile" snake-oil salesmen make about higher sampling rates.

Here is just one description of an actual test: http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

But, just like with religion, people will believe what they believe in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

Actually, AIX did a recent sound sample where they had a 16/44 (converted it to 24/96 and then an actual 24/96 file and there are some listeners that said they were able to tell the difference and they had I think 4 different songs to listen to. In a short duration test, it's almost impossible to tell that much between two things because the test is too short. People listening to things in a short duration can only detect the loudest volume passages, but to hear the subtleties, it takes a long time, especially if they aren't familiar with the song in the first place. Plus the type of gear used to listen to or create the sound files can many times negate the differences, but others can reveal them.

There are just as many scam artists in the audio recording industry as there are scam artists in the "audiophile' industry. Most audio engineers mixing albums can't hear the difference in cables, because their listening abilities aren't that good.

Do you think Bob Ludwig has good listening abilities? He's probably the most experienced and requested mastering engineer in the world, he used awfully expensive cables in his mastering studio and he gladly ripped out ALL of the cabling and went to a more expensive cabling mfg that SOUNDED better. Go talk to him see what he says about audio cables.

Now, changing from 16/44 to 24/96 or 24/192, you get more dynamic range. this you can tell on good equipment with a good quality recording, especially if there's no audio compression or anything else in the audio food chain of the recording to alter the recording quality.

Go listen to a pair of Audeze or Sennheiser HD800's compared to another brand of headphones that only have a frequency response of 20hz to 20kHz and see if you can't tell the difference. the frequencies above 10kHz are going to give you more a sense of "air" in the recording, which for acoustic instrument recordings, it's a little more noticeable, plus it's the wider dynamic range is why people want higher res files.

 

[UpperQuadrant]

Only if the "audiophile" has little or no understanding of audio and the limits of human hearing. These are the same "audiophiles" who spend $2k on a power cord and $200 a foot for speaker wire. There is a lot of mythology in the "audiophile" community, perpetuated by an industry which needs to grow somehow.

High bitrate streaming (320k) should generally be indistinguishable from lossless. No A/B/X test I've seen supports the claims "audiophile" snake-oil salesmen make about higher sampling rates.

Here is just one description of an actual test: http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

But, just like with religion, people will believe what they believe in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

Here's an interview with Bob Ludwig. http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue58/ludwig.htm

 

[UpperQuadrant]

Good question. I'd expect that as people get older and start buying their own homes, or having long term rental situations (as opposed to, say, living in dorms), they are more likely to buy speakers. If the generations that started with iTunes via earbuds are reaching that age, then I'd imagine it will be a great many people, and that it will occur more suddenly than steadily.

You mention TV, and of course many people buy pretty fancy speaker setups for their movie watching even while they are still students. But generally speaking I think with age and income come speakers.



Even though I like the idea of high-res music, I prefer convenience. I don't think any of those niche sites have a chance of attracting hardly anyone. But their existence (as well as the tiny niche of people who for some reason buy vinyl records) suggests there may be a market that a more popular company could realize much more successfully. I heard that Steve Jobs liked vinyl too, so he wasn't someone who rejected higher quality music. I figure he was waiting until there was enough indication of demand. I think that indications are here now.

Regarding CDs, we tend to forget that CD sales are neck and neck with digital sales and have been for the past few years. I'm sure digital will win, but yeah there are people like me who buy CDs and rip them to Apple Lossless or at least to 320kbps mp4, who really want to stop buying CDs once the same (or better) quality is available from iTunes.

Sometimes, when a musician sells his or her music losslessly via their own website I tend to skip the CD and buy that now.

It all depends on your budget and what you want to listen to. For the masses, they typically listen to pop/rock/hip hop which isn't meant to be heard on nice speaker systems, nor are they going for sonic accuracy. the "audiophile" crowd typically listens to classical, acoustic Jazz and music that is trying to obtain sonic accuracy of a performance of typically acoustic instruments and they don't typically alter the original sound through the recording process. vinyl has it's attraction because it tends not to sound flat and lifeless, which a lot of digital recordings do. Another reason why people are buying vinyl is purely for the collectibility since they are now higher quality pressings in limited edition so they buy an album now I vinyl because they think the price is going to up 30 years from now, especially if they keep it in pristine condition, so a lot of the people buying vinyl are either the purists and collector market. The masses don't really care much about sound quality, hence the reason why they use so much signal processing, pitch correctio, etc. Etc. Back in the earlier days, they took sound quality a little more seriously in pop recordings because they were recording acoustic instruments like drums, piano, guitar and vocalist that could actually sing and they didn't really have much signal processing at their disposal. Now, most pop music is done on a computer where they use tons of plug-ins to create a sound they want and it's typically artificial sounding at best.

 

[SmileyBlast!]

I think you mean "over $3.5 Billion dollars in one month" and therefore "...in under 5 months."

That said, I doubt everyone would pay for it. I doubt I would add this, I already pay for another streaming service.

Yep you are right. I meant they should charge less than $10 for an entire year of service. Everyone would sign up. Maybe it's not enough money for the Recording artists though.

 

[Tech198]

So, new icon, new branding .....

Here's a few suggestions: iBeats.. TuneBeats..

However, if Apple reckons this is gonna bring users back to iTunes.. think again...

How many users use iTunes Radio ?

Maybe if Apple offered their own streaming service, like all others do, that may help from computer as well.

(In addition to buying like the old fashion days, you just pay a monthly fee to Apple, and stream whatever music u like..)