NPD ‘Apple 91%’ claim
p2pnet news view | Advertising:- “Move over Microsoft,” says beta news. “Apple can claim big, big market share numbers, too.”
Sure. Apple can (and does) claim whatever it wants. But that doesn’t make it so.
“According to NPD, in June, nine out of 10 dollars spent on computers costing $1,000 or more went to Apple,” says the story, going on, “Mac revenue market share in the ‘premium’ price segment was 91 percent, up from 88 percent in May.”
Did the May figures emanate from NPD as well? And could the June numbers have had anything to do with? »»»
The perceptions of value the two brands offer has shifted dramatically in the eyes of 18- to 34-years-olds since Microsoft began running its `Laptop Hunters` campaign in late March …
Apple`s value perception has fallen considerably, while Microsoft`s has risen.
Under discussion were computers costing $1,000 and up. And while you think about that, also think about this:
NPD once claimed iTunes was beating LimeWire.
International Flavors & Fragrance and Wrigley
In what has to be one of the most patently ridiculous headlines ever, “Apple iTunes Music Store more popular than most peer-to-peer file sharing services,” said MacDailyNews.
Behind the stats was, Yup, NPD, “a market research firm which suddenly appeared out of nowhere in late 2003 and which the mainstream media immediately began quoting as an authority on music and file sharing,” said p2pnet.
iTunes, “tied with LimeWire as the second-most-popular digital music service in March, 2005,” said MacDailyNews, going on, “Both iTunes and LimeWire were used by 1.7 million households.”
When p2pnet first came across NPD, adidas International, International Flavors & Fragrance and Wrigley typified its client base, but it was nonetheless churning out `studies` and `reports` bolstering entertainment cartel claims.
These days, the lamescream media quote everything it comes out with as proven fact.
However, when NPD says Apple has 91% of anything, let alone “computers costing $1,000 or more,” we have wonder if it isn’t a load of old bollocks.
But Apple really likes NPD.
In its story on NPD’s iTunes utterance, One of the music industry`s questions has been when will paid download stores compete head-to-head with free P2P download services, MacDailyNews had NPD spokesman Russ Crupnick (right) saying, going on, That question has now been answered.
So it has, said p2pnet —- “Not in Crupnick`s life-time.”
And we wonder if the same might not apply to NPD’s statement about Apple computers.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
beta news – Apple has 91% of market for $1,000+ PCs, says NPD, July 22, 2009
anything to do with this – Microsoft: `Now let`s talk about Apple`, July 16, 2009
MacDailyNews -Apple iTunes Music Store more popular than most peer-to-peer file sharing services, June 7, 2005
p2pnet – `iTunes is beating LimeWire`, June 7, 2005
really likes NPD – Is iTunes making money?, March 18, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Damn it, Jon!
You’re gonna have all the Macophiliacs flamin’ away now!
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Why have you got such a hard-on for Apple, Jon? This might be a puff-piece, but I don’t recall Apple suing a single child or single mother like others I could mention.
Just curious.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
“Why have you got such a hard-on for Apple, Jon?”
Other things aside, here’s why – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24416
Cheers!
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:30 pm
/props a book up against his mac mini to obscure it from random viewing…
move along.., nothing to see here..
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Actually, I disagree.
My research says that as far as music files are concerned, digital sales stores like iTunes are now accounting for more (file) transactions in the music world than P2P file sharing.
I think NPD may be aggregating all digital paid downloads and confusing them with the iTunes only store.
I have discovered that where the download is available as a one click option, users do not mind paying a moderate fee.
Although I am unable to say the same of video content.
Video music clips, documentaries, TV programs and movies are still poorly represented in didgital downloads and P2P is a mile ahead of the digital distribution paid for downloads.
Probablty has something to do with day/date release.
Everybody wants the hottest and best stuff now – and can’t be bothered to wait for the “official” digital download.
In the music world the content industry appears to have learnty its lesson and “stars” new music is becoming available for paid download a lot quicker.
However I question the attitude of the content industry in supporting iTunes in preference to non – AAC – e.g. 320 kbit’s mp3’s.
Music (P2P) downloading will not stop until:
(a) buying music is as easy as “search” +”click” in emule.
(b) pricing regime is based on actual – not artificial value. (i.e.: Led Zeppelin – Stairway to Heaven – is worth 99 cents. Ring my bell (Collette) isnt.)
Therefore – the ISP’s will have to be involved as revenue collectors and provided they are paid a commission, I don’t consider they will object. To force them to become unpaid regulatory police is only damaging to the online economy.
Just my 10c worth.
Articulated and well formed comment (including flames) welcomed and will be responded too.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Actually, I disagree.
My research says that as far as music files are concerned, ALL legal download offerings COMBINED are still accounting for less (file) transactions in the music world than P2P file sharing.
Just my small corner of the world in the file sharing world, I can easily account for well over 8 million file transfers accumulated as early as 2003. And I am aggregating all file sharing downloads similiar to NDP. It will take approximately 12 years of legal downloading to possibly catch unauthorized downloading, and that is if every single file sharing individual stops right now, allowing legal alternatives to catch up.
stw
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Unfortunately your small corner of the world really is quite small.
Last years revenue share for digital music downloads was 12 billion dollars @ 99 cents per track that equals – gee 12 billion tracks in one year.
That equates to 92 tracks per man woman and child connected to the internet.
My ed2k server would suggest that in a country of 22 million people, the actual downloading of music tracks per emule user equates to only 12 tracks per year per person.
The disparity of 80 tracks provides sufficient margin for me to say that empirically, paid for music outdistances fle sharing music.
The days of Music for free via P2P have essentially passed.
The content industry (music only) is winning by listening to the user and delivering what they want. Easy access to downloads provided in a convenient timely fashion. (Again I refer to day/date rellease methodology).
The P2P world has succeeded in creating a new industry for the content companies which they are now reaping the benfits of handsomely.
This is the way of the world and has been for a long time.
Innovators innovate and big business collects.
Qualification: My numbers are indicative only of English speaking countries. The content industry is not showing the same interest – either by way of interdiction or by way of digital sales for non-english speaking communities.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:18 am
“That equates to 92 tracks per man woman and child connected to the internet.”
…Which, in itself is, of course, a plausible statistic, well within the boundaries of logical reasoning!
July 24th, 2009 at 12:25 am
@DA – You’re right. I missed a zero in the spreadsheet when I retyped it. Sorry folks – I’m wrong. File sharing is still winning by 2.8 tracks per year per man woman and child – which of course only pay for 9.2 tracks each PA.
Damn I hate it when I make a mistake. Better go back to Excel school – or get new glasses.
Surfer – you’re right but only marginally and the difference is closing fast.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:04 am
I kinda thought free was beating paid Tom, regardless of how small my corner is.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:28 am
But only just. Two years ago the digital revenue was only 4 billion.
At last the content compnaies are giving in to the wave.
Not-withstanding that Apple has brown-nosed all the way to hell and back, their strategy has won them the place of leading Content Industry cohort.
My father had a saying when I was a little boy….
Borrow 5 pounds and you have to pay it pay it back.
Borrow 5 billion pounds and let the other guy worry about when you will pay it back.
Translated – iTunes is almost on Par with the biggest music companies on a revenue dollar basis. Another couple of years and iTunes, Amazon and Google will be able to call the shots on pricing.
That’s when the real value of music will emerge.
We had to have the “illegal” innovators do the HARD lab-rat stuff before the creators could reap the benefits.
File sharers see themselves as “Free” evangelists. I see them as merely extremely disposable pawns in a much larger game for global fiscal domination.
That doesnt mean I want to see file-sharers stop sharing. I believe that it is only through file sharing that the world will continue to learn and be innovative.
Besides file sharing is kinda like the ISP business. In the nineties, I was trying to sell Internet access services – along came these smartarses that decided there was a model in giving away free internet services. Did I ask the Government ot close them down?
Nope – I figured that eventually they would die a natural death.
They did.
As will music file sharing – as soon as the alternative is acceptable to the paying consumer.
Of course surfer, I have decided that you will most probably be the last hold-out…….
However, wotif – you could get a free happy meal if you bought Lady Gagga’s latest song?
Would you still be a hold-out?
Obviously not. What mankind is experinecing at the moment is the revaluation of the real value of non-current content.
What is yesterday’s tune actually worth?
What is todays number one actually worth?
How long will it be worth that?
As an investment, should I obtain some digital copies to trade in the future?
There-in lies the problem for the content companies. There is too little value in music as a long term tradeable value proposition.
Therefore – make your money and get out.
It’s like selling a painting. It gets sold. That’s it. The only way to make more money is to sell prints of the painting for a much lower price.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:59 am
“…which of course only pay for 9.2 tracks each PA.”
“…File sharing is still winning by 2.8 tracks per year.”
…And, ya don’t see anything wrong with that number, either, Tom?
In other words, you’re saying:
1) “PAID” = every internet user on the planet PAYING FOR +9 tracks a year; AND…
2) “PIRATES” (that’s “everyone” MINUS all the paying downloaders) account for “everyone” acquiring 12 tracks a year.
Doing the final math, by adding up all the pirated tracks and all the paid tracks (according to your numbers), that gives us a grand total of EVERY USER accounting for +21 tracks EVERY YEAR.
Though your numbers still don’t begin to approach plausible, you can’t argue with what you, yourself, have outlined – the “pirates” download enough to blow your “per global user” figure on their own. And, since they’re a much smaller number than the “paying” crowd, as you say, that speaks volumes for their impact.
One factor you also can’t account for is the underground activity, which would blow your numbers right out of the water!
July 24th, 2009 at 3:21 am
Underground activity?
I believe that the only underground activity that I dont monitor is Port 80 HTML (rapishare and it’s ilk).
But I dont need to. Ipoque in Germany are doing a creditable job and report that it represents only 6.5% of the glovbal file sharing traffic – so I can just tack on 6.5% to my numbers.
You missed the thrust of argument – the content companies want you to file share.
1.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:22 am
File sharing gives them:
1.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:25 am
Damn Im going to give up in a moment……
(I/R keyboard and someone in the neighbourhood has an I/R transmitter on the same frequency – I think).
OK if everyone file shares…..
The content companies get:
1. Taxbreaks
2. Income from litigation settlements that goes to them not the creators/authors of the content.
3. Higher sales through marketing by Filesharers.
/End Rant
July 24th, 2009 at 4:54 am
I don’t think I’m missing anything, Tom.
Your point seems to revolve around some notion that file sharing will ultimately end up profiting Big Media.
My point is quite the contrary.
The content industries can waste all their money trying to…
a) sue the entire global file sharing community out of existence;
b) have all file sharing that’s “contrary to their business model” legislated out of existence;
c) by up all the trackers they think are central to file sharing and try to “monetize” their investment;
d) bribe every provider on the planet to control file sharing out of existence;
e) extort every provider via threat of legal actions to control file sharing out of existence, and via government lobbying all over the globe to create new laws in which to better extort these providers…
…the fact remains, all they’ll succeed in doing is bankrupting themselves and losing every potential customer. They can also spin all the propaganda they want, at their expense, in an effort to sway public opinion – as long as they’re doing any of the above, they’ll just lose all credibility. This is pretty much where things stand now.
File sharing isn’t like the Recording Industry Labels, in that, it isn’t producing something at a cost, it doesn’t depend on being bankrolled to survive, and isn’t obligated to satisfy any shareholders. It’s an activity, not a business. And, it’s a decentralized activity that can’t be controlled, as it has no one static “place of origin”. Its arena is the entire WWW.
The content industries won’t be making anything from file sharing, because they won’t be around when file sharing becomes an accepted norm. It will more likely be the content *creators* making money from direct interaction with the buying public that will be left. The whole idea of a “middle man” may very well have been defeated by file sharing. This scenario is what most file sharers would find most welcome and worth all the trouble getting to. Most file sharers would gladly pay the artist directly. It’s the Big Ass Middlemen they’ve objected to all along… not the idea of paying someone for their work.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:56 am
(comment banned?)
July 24th, 2009 at 8:57 am
@ DA:
“Itâs an activity, not a business. And, itâs a decentralized activity that canât be controlled, as it has no one static ‘place of origin’. Its arena is the entire http://WWW.”
Good one.
Cheers!
July 24th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
” You missed the thrust of argument – the content companies want you to file share. ”
On that we agree.
Why else would they ‘leak’ their content to P2P.
On the one hand, they generate PR, and on the other they can lend credibility to their
arguments against filesharers to lawmakers.
It’s win/win for them.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
@Jon:
“is the entire http://WWW.â
I only typed 3 Ws.
Why does WP insert the rest?
(There’s nothing following that could be construed as a URL.)