Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Music Industry Fears Apple and is also Subject to iTunes Popularity Rankings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks for that.
I am still checking out that list, but most of those seem to be old. I'll try to edit that list down to models you can currently buy new.
Um... Old... Yes, that's rather the point. The old ones work. If the old ones, that came out long before iPods and iTunes can work then any can work, new or old, unless the manufacture purposely does something to make it not work with iTunes. iTunes, and Apple, aren't biased against any players, although frankly Apple ought to sink it's teeth into the Zune periodically, just for amusement...
Dafinition:
Dead Horse = something that's fun to beat if you can't catch up with the real thing.
I read that article and it seems to me like the music industry is YET again trying to paint Apple as the bad guys and they the badly done to poor little old music industry.
Well let's NEVER forget what they actually want. They want us to RENT our music for the rest of our lives. Never to own it, never to be able to 'stop payment' or 'disconnect' from their subscription nightmare. To keep paying month in month out, year in year out otherwise your CUT off from everything. It may seem harmless right now but in a world without any other option 20 years from now when the records and the CD's are long gone you should consider the trap that they are trying to set.
At this stage it will make zero difference to them who or what music get's made or released because you will have to 'buy in to all of it' to get any of it.
I'll make it very clear to the music industry right now ( and yes I'm only one voice) but I WILL NEVER EVER IN MY ENTIRE LIFE EVER SUBSCRIBE TO A MUSIC LEASE SERVICE.
I seriously recommend everyone give the implications of the future where you can no longer buy or own music some serious consideration.
I fully expect TV and movies and video games to go the same way...
Well let's NEVER forget what they actually want. They want us to RENT our music for the rest of our lives. Never to own it, never to be able to 'stop payment' or 'disconnect' from their subscription nightmare. To keep paying month in month out, year in year out otherwise your CUT off from everything. It may seem harmless right now but in a world without any other option 20 years from now when the records and the CD's are long gone you should consider the trap that they are trying to set.
At this stage it will make zero difference to them who or what music get's made or released because you will have to 'buy in to all of it' to get any of it.
I'll make it very clear to the music industry right now ( and yes I'm only one voice) but I WILL NEVER EVER IN MY ENTIRE LIFE EVER SUBSCRIBE TO A MUSIC LEASE SERVICE.
I seriously recommend everyone give the implications of the future where you can no longer buy or own music some serious consideration.
I fully expect TV and movies and video games to go the same way...
I agree!! The subscription model is not for serious music fans.
Or anyone with brains!!
I, for one, am mad at the Great Apple!
While Phil was announcing the variable pricing he quipped that consumers would find that the majority of tracks would be $0.69, I was a little excited about it.
Granted I am just a small time consumer to Apple as I only have 768 tracks in my library, all purchased from iTunes. Most of my stuff is old from the 60's, 70's and 80's. Not a single track that I own is in the $0.69 category and Apple wants over $230 to upgrade my library to iTunes Plus. I have yet to find a track at $0.69 that I would want and I am forced to pay $1.29 for anything that I do want.
To make this short, Phil lied. It was a 30% price hike and I am mad about it and for the first time I purchased about 40 tracks from Amazon today.
While Phil was announcing the variable pricing he quipped that consumers would find that the majority of tracks would be $0.69, I was a little excited about it.
Granted I am just a small time consumer to Apple as I only have 768 tracks in my library, all purchased from iTunes. Most of my stuff is old from the 60's, 70's and 80's. Not a single track that I own is in the $0.69 category and Apple wants over $230 to upgrade my library to iTunes Plus. I have yet to find a track at $0.69 that I would want and I am forced to pay $1.29 for anything that I do want.
To make this short, Phil lied. It was a 30% price hike and I am mad about it and for the first time I purchased about 40 tracks from Amazon today.
Um... Old... Yes, that's rather the point. The old ones work. If the old ones, that came out long before iPods and iTunes can work then any can work, new or old, unless the manufacture purposely does something to make it not work with iTunes. iTunes, and Apple, aren't biased against any players, although frankly Apple ought to sink it's teeth into the Zune periodically, just for amusement...
Dafinition:
Dead Horse = something that's fun to beat if you can't catch up with the real thing.
I guess I don't understand the point you are trying to make then. Are you trying to say that Creative could still support OS X and still synch with iTunes if they wanted to? They purposely decided not to do this?
Is it not just as likely that only old players still work because Apple changed iTunes not to allow any other model to work and only grandfathered in these models because they existed before iTunes? In fact, would that be the more likely scenario since Apple is in the business of selling iPods?
Creative doesn't currently support OS X.
Rio players do, but they are ridiculously outdated assuming you can find one and they still tout "Plays for Sure".
So the answer is that you can't really get a non-iPod that works with iTunes out-of-the box anymore, and you have not been able to for a while.
You seem to think it is the device manufacturer's fault this is the case. I do not agree with that. And thinking Apple is not biased against any other players is, quite frankly, naive.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5G77 Safari/525.20)
They haven't started the variable pricing yet. It's 1-3 months away.
The upgrade price is outrageous but you're actually paying for the higher bitrate. If you don't like it, complain to Apple. There may not be much they can do (part of the contract) but they should know that loyal customers are upset.
kresh said:
They haven't started the variable pricing yet. It's 1-3 months away.
The upgrade price is outrageous but you're actually paying for the higher bitrate. If you don't like it, complain to Apple. There may not be much they can do (part of the contract) but they should know that loyal customers are upset.
Frankly, I don't understand why anyone with speakers worth more than $100 would be building a collection from iTunes. Until Apple starts selling lossless, I'd just be buying the occasional pop track, but never a full album. For the same price, what's the point?
On the price note, a while back, SJ stated that tiered pricing ($1.99 per new non-DRM track,) will serve only to reduce sales and push many potential purchasers (at $0.99 or $0.69) into the piracy realm. I think SJ was right then, and I think he's right now. The music labels just don't get it.
On the price note, a while back, SJ stated that tiered pricing ($1.99 per new non-DRM track,) will serve only to reduce sales and push many potential purchasers (at $0.99 or $0.69) into the piracy realm. I think SJ was right then, and I think he's right now. The music labels just don't get it.
In most cases it is the fault of manufacturers. Rather than stick to a standard system for syncing media to your device they favour using poorly made software designed by them that they expect you to use as your music player on your computer as well. If this software is released for windows only then the device is labelled as non OS X compatible. (sony are the worst for this imo).
At least they still give you the option of mass storage mode, allowing you to just drag/drop files/playlists directly from itunes/finder/explorer onto the device.
These exes' are lying. Otherwise we would have fixed .99 songs with all the other perks we have now. The way it should be.
The NY Times reports on the heated negotiations that led to the announcement at Macworld that Apple would be dropping Digital Rights Management (DRM) from all iTunes music. In exchange, the music labels were given their long-requested variable pricing model. In addition, Apple was able to secure over-the-air iTunes music downloads for the first time.
Apple, however, was said to have a strong upper hand in the negotiations according to music executives:Steve Jobs, himself, was reportedly responsible for a particularly heated exchange with Sony Music on Christmas eve.
Also interesting is that Apple holds another powerful bargaining chip with the control over the iTunes homepage itself as well as the popularity rankings.The influence of Apple's home page promotions and popularity charts has been the subject of much debate amongst App developers, but it seems Apple may be well aware of their impact.
Article Link: Music Industry Fears Apple and are also Subject to iTunes Popularity Rankings
I'm not quite sure what there is to complain about.
100% of iTunes sales are legal licensed copies. Zero piracy.
A much larger portion of the sale goes to the publisher who captures a portion of the previously typical retail profit, now don't forget the graff paid to radio stations to play records.
It makes music buying have less "drag" so people tend to buy more titles, not less.
It gives more people access to sales channels at all, including kids who cannot drive for example.
As for Top 100 lists, the prior keeper of the holy grail was Billboard, with all its faults including graff.
Apple has a model that directly shows actual results without the "error".
I suspect the "error" was to the great advantage of the marketing departments of record companies, hence loss of that is a pisser.
Steve wants the Beatles on Apple. Sony and the Beatles are resisting that. It is one of Steve's life goals.
Rocketman
100% of iTunes sales are legal licensed copies. Zero piracy.
A much larger portion of the sale goes to the publisher who captures a portion of the previously typical retail profit, now don't forget the graff paid to radio stations to play records.
It makes music buying have less "drag" so people tend to buy more titles, not less.
It gives more people access to sales channels at all, including kids who cannot drive for example.
As for Top 100 lists, the prior keeper of the holy grail was Billboard, with all its faults including graff.
Apple has a model that directly shows actual results without the "error".
I suspect the "error" was to the great advantage of the marketing departments of record companies, hence loss of that is a pisser.
Steve wants the Beatles on Apple. Sony and the Beatles are resisting that. It is one of Steve's life goals.
Rocketman
The music execs just have their panties in a wad because their control over music is lessened with Web-based services. Independent labels have more access with places like iTunes, Amazon and MySpace, and it's pissing off the alpha dogs of the industry. Kate Voegele became a hit artist through MySpace Records, iTunes and a recurring role on "One Tree Hill." More people can pull stuff that like because they're good and not just connected.
As far as the impact of the Top 10 lists, boo hoo. iTunes is just listing the top songs sold. Billboard has been doing it for years without this much whining. It's not Apple's fault that people think Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus and The Jonas Brothers are good because they show up on a Top 10 list.
As far as the impact of the Top 10 lists, boo hoo. iTunes is just listing the top songs sold. Billboard has been doing it for years without this much whining. It's not Apple's fault that people think Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus and The Jonas Brothers are good because they show up on a Top 10 list.
I see your point but disagree. Amazon rose a lot with its mp3 store, but it was still trailing iTunes by a long shot even though Apple sold most of the music there with DRM.
Most of the stuff I buy from Amazon is on sale. In fact, I think all of it has been either $5 or severely reduced (like the daily stuff that seems to be $2 instead of $10). I'm happy for the two robust competitors, but Apple still holds a big edge because of iPods being awesome and the iTunes store just looking prettier.
What if it a like was like subscribing to a magazine?
Say there was a music writer you respected and they put a weekly article and embed the tracks but you only had a weeks lease on those tracks?
I would pay for that, but thats the only way I can think of that I'd pay for music that goes away if I stop paying.
When you sub to a mag you get to keep the issues you get. So your example is slightly flawed.
The music industry fears Apple because it is run by people who are both greedy AND stupid. That's a really bad combination!
Yes!
Very insightful and I agree. This story probably originated from one of the music companies to be used as a bargaining chip against Apple. I will never use a music subscription service (and I work for a Telecommunications company that offers one). I'd hate to be an executive for a Music Label - because they look stupid even if they aren't. Torrents and pirating stuff is just dis-honest - I don't care what you say about that... It's a shame that the Music Labels have been so short-sighted and really they are to blame for the state of the industry. Imagine if one of the bigger ones started a decent digital service when CD sales began to decline - and we had two major players - iTunes and...? eTunes? Unfortunately this didn't happen. The way that they have treated Apple/iTunes since it's inception has been poor - and more recently I'd call it disgraceful. Nothing short of a bullying tactic. Let's not forget that they are still making money - just not as much as they used to.
Very insightful and I agree. This story probably originated from one of the music companies to be used as a bargaining chip against Apple. I will never use a music subscription service (and I work for a Telecommunications company that offers one). I'd hate to be an executive for a Music Label - because they look stupid even if they aren't. Torrents and pirating stuff is just dis-honest - I don't care what you say about that... It's a shame that the Music Labels have been so short-sighted and really they are to blame for the state of the industry. Imagine if one of the bigger ones started a decent digital service when CD sales began to decline - and we had two major players - iTunes and...? eTunes? Unfortunately this didn't happen. The way that they have treated Apple/iTunes since it's inception has been poor - and more recently I'd call it disgraceful. Nothing short of a bullying tactic. Let's not forget that they are still making money - just not as much as they used to.
...by any other name
I trust Apple as much as a record label. They are really only interested in making money. There is no 'love of music' going on. I continue to buy music on CD, and see that as the only useful format.
All the itunes people are getting is a sonically second rate version of something an artist has worked hard to make sound as good as it can. You then have to buy something like an ipod to get the damn thing to work. Strangely Apple make those, and also make money out of those too.
The poor artist gets screwed in the process too. Apple were bitching about not paying greater royalties to artist not long ago.
Truly open formats would not tie you to a device. Apple have profitted from DRM by a different name, but only allowing purchased itunes content to work on an ipod.
Personally, I hope the itunes store sinks quicker than it took to gain it's monopoly.
I trust Apple as much as a record label. They are really only interested in making money. There is no 'love of music' going on. I continue to buy music on CD, and see that as the only useful format.
All the itunes people are getting is a sonically second rate version of something an artist has worked hard to make sound as good as it can. You then have to buy something like an ipod to get the damn thing to work. Strangely Apple make those, and also make money out of those too.
The poor artist gets screwed in the process too. Apple were bitching about not paying greater royalties to artist not long ago.
Truly open formats would not tie you to a device. Apple have profitted from DRM by a different name, but only allowing purchased itunes content to work on an ipod.
Personally, I hope the itunes store sinks quicker than it took to gain it's monopoly.
Sony is the company that sold mini disc players (MD) with line-in and USB-ports and blocked copying from MDs to PC (how many artists were released on MD, 2?) by reason of "we need to protect our artists". Obviously Sonys artists are so awful (*sarcastic, I in fact like several*) that they need to be protected from other peoples demos.
Seriously, for years now I'm yet to see them ever being on the consumers side. They even (in Japan) promised lots of upcoming games compatible with the PS2 HDD and had a huge drive TWO WEEKS before announcing that they would drop HDD support in the then upcoming smaller PS2.
Steve Jobs is said to be a "real mean customer" when he wants to, but imho whatever it was Sony most likely had it coming.