Apple vs The Rest
p2p news / p2pnet:- “It’s a big game of chicken,” says Bobby Rosenbloum, attorney for Jimmy Buffett, Sheryl Crow and others. “My bet is Apple will reach terms with the labels.”
He’s quoted in a Rolling Stone item which also says, “Since the iTunes Store opened in April 2003, Apple has sold 500 million songs and come to dominate the online-music marketplace with more than seventy percent of worldwide digital sales. Now, the honeymoon is over. Label executives have begun to question the contracts they signed with Apple, criticizing Jobs over song prices and the proprietary technology that makes iPods incompatible with non-Apple technologies.”
iTunes was, and still is, a loss-leader for Apple’s iPod, so it’s no big surprise that downloads are “incompatible with non-Apple technologies”.
And given its raison d’etre, it’s ironic that it’s perceived as a genuine music service.
When iTunes first showed up, it was costing Apple money. Now it’s breaking even, or perhaps doing somewhat better than that. But all this really means is: iTunes is both a self-supporting sales vehicle for iPod and derivatives, and a crutch the cartel’s IFPI and its other pseudo-trade organizations quite literally can’t do without.
The labels claim digital sales are booming. This is sheer nonsense. They’re virtually non-existent and to all intents and purposes, iTunes is the only korporate music ‘service’ going.
And its sales of sales of 500 million, stacked against what’s happening in the real world of online music, don’t amount to a hill of beans.
The chart on the left comes from Big Champagne p2p statistics collected since 2003 and they represent the average number of people around the world who are logged onto the p2p networks at any given time in any given day.
And yet the labels claim efforts such as their vicious repeat attack on 14-year-old Britanny Chan is having a significant deterrent effect.
“The biggest issue is Apple’s refusal to raise prices to higher than 99 cents per song.” Says the Rolling Stone article.
“Most labels want a more flexible scheme – something like $1.49 for a new hit and 99 cents or less for older songs. And compatibility is another, issue, says the story.
“Apple’s FairPlay copy protection is incompatible with non-Apple products such as Microsoft’s Windows Media Player and Napster’s song-download service. So if you buy a song on Napster, it won’t play on an iPod. At first, labels accepted this arrangement, but now that Apple sells the bulk of downloaded music and seventy-five percent of all digital-music players, some say Apple has an unfair monopoly. In retaliation, Sony BMG and EMI introduced copy-protected CDs that aren’t compatible with iPods.”
Actually, it doesn’t really matter if iTunes is compatible or not. And korporate pricing is only of interest to the tiny handful (compared to those who use the p2p networks) of dedicated people who’ll pay through the nose for ‘product’ that’s scarcely worth a dime per download.
Sooner or later the labels will have to come to terms with the fact that they depend on us. We don’t depend on them.
To make this happen faster, bug the hell out of your local congress person, MP, or whoever is supposed to represent you, wherever you are. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, demonstrations.
And if you’re into organizing, organize a petition, get everyone you know to sign it and then hand-deliver it to your political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
- Mohandas Gandhi
See:-
Rolling Stone – Apple, Labels Feud Mounts, October 5, 2005
IFPI – IFPI reports booming business, October 4, 2005
vicious repeat attack – Big Music wants Britanny Chan, October 05, 2005
October 7th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
“…but now that Apple sells the bulk of downloaded music and seventy-five percent of all digital-music players, some say Apple has an unfair monopoly.”
Unfair monopoly? this coming from the recording industry? wow I needed a good laugh.
“In retaliation, Sony BMG and EMI introduced copy-protected CDs that aren’t compatible with iPods.”
good for them. keep doing it. pretty soon all your junk will be so incompatible to everything else your sales will continue to fall.
October 7th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
iTunes is fabulous. You’re actually BUYING your music. WIth Napster, you don’t buy a thing. You are leasing your music. If you stop or can’t afford however much per month, all your music goes away. You don’t own it anymore, not that you ever did…
October 8th, 2005 at 1:33 am
fabulous???
First you pay the same amount (more or less) for the songs as if you bought the CD, therefore…. If I buy a song I’m going to want to play it in my sterio, my car, my DVD player, transfer it to any of my computers that I want as well as my IPod Just like I would with a store bought CD. right now I can’t do that with Itunes. soooooo I don’t really own the song do I.
Second the quality of the DRM compressed audio is much lower than an actual CD.
And third MP3’s and other non DRM formats CAN do everything I’d expect from a CD purchase even transfer to my Ipod.
So for the same money you’d rather have DRM limitaions and lower quality?? You may consider that fabulous but I don’t.
October 8th, 2005 at 2:05 am
First: A) Where do you buy new CDs for $10? And how soon after iTunes Music Store came out were you able to do that?
First: B) And why can’t you do all that with a song from ITMS? I do it all the time.
Second: Hmmm. I’m torn about that one. With regular Pop/Rock/Country/most R&B tunes it’s certainly no worse than listening to the radio and often better. None of that “compress it til it sounds like a pancake” stuff. Heck, even most of the pop cds out there are already so horribly compressed that data compression doesn’t make a wit of difference. I still hear the tape hiss from those old songs from the 70s. Which is worse? There is definitely a difference when it comes to most classic music.
But then I remember when the argument was “The audio quality of a CD is much lower than an actual vinyl record.”
Third: See above. Of course your position here pretty much negates your complaints in your second point. It seems you don’t care as much about fidelity as you proclaim.
Where do you buy singles for $1.00? I can’t find a place anywhere.
I will almost always buy the CD of an album I really want. Bela Fleck’s Perpetual Motion for instance. Dump it in iTunes (I definitely use AAC encoding) and safely tuck the original away as my “back-up”(after I have thoroughly read through everything).
But for that nostalgic tune by Ambrosia that brings back fond memories or the ocassional more current tune like U2’s Vertigo, I am not spending even $10 for the album just for that one song. And I don’t care enough about the fiedlity of that song (which would not be how I remember listening to it anyway).
And no one does all that easier than iTunes.
Joe (just so I am not totally “anonymous”) F.
October 8th, 2005 at 3:23 am
you can buy CD’s for $10 lots of places if you know where to look. I personally don’t buy RIAA music anyway but I know an individual who’s a regular poster on a competing website (I say competing for a reason) who claims he gets all the new releases and nastolgic releases for around that much (give or take a couple bucks). he’s a lawyer and self proclaimed music lover.
$1.00 per song is way too much
I do care about fidelity, but for less money fidelity wouldn’t be as big an issue. for the same amount…… it is.
finally if you can burn it, play the cds on any medium, and transfer it to any amount of computers you want then it’s wide open to (argggggg) piracy. why would they put DRM in it if it does no good.
As far as quality of sound goes, ask any professional musician (I mean real musicians who know how to sing and write songs, not Pop divas who only know how to wiggle their behinds and lip sync) if it doesn’t matter. bet you’d be suprised.
“And no one does all that easier than iTunes.” OOOOOOOOOOK, if you say so.
October 8th, 2005 at 3:55 am
That’s funny. I work with a lot of professional musicians (some pop, some rock, some jazz, some classical, and some even let me play with them, but most of the time I just light them) and they love thier iPods and iTunes. How many have you asked?
The DRM satisifies the RIAA, which I agree is pretty much just the mob with bad fashion tastes. And I am thankful Apple has made their DRM so user friendly, which is not what the RIAA is doing with CDs nor what they want, (what dweebs). Compared to what the RIAA is doing, Apple’s scheme is far easier to work with. That said the only thing I find worse than the RIAA stealing from the artists is others stealing the song and guaranteeing the artist sees no money.
Nice talking with you!
Joe
October 8th, 2005 at 7:07 am
it’s been fun. I love spirited discussions. I’ve heard both sides. I can’t see paying the .99 cents a song and I never will. I tunes may have it’s place but is just a minor player overall. I don’t want anything to do with DRM.
October 8th, 2005 at 7:09 am
If Itunes is as flexible as you say, then do you have any idea what the DRM is supposed to protect??? or is it just window dressing that Mr. Jobs has fooled the industry with to keep them pacified.
October 8th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
“If Itunes is as flexible as you say, then do you have any idea what the DRM is supposed to protect??? or is it just window dressing that Mr. Jobs has fooled the industry with to keep them pacified.”
That’s the way I see it. I mean, I am sure Apple takes their DRM very seriously, thus the measures they take to protect it. But it really is easy to work with and for the user it can be pretty much a non-issue. Without DRM I can’t see how the music industry would have let Apple sell their music.
As for a buck a song, inflation adjusted that’s dirt cheap. I remember paying $1 for a vinyl 45. OK, if you liked the B side, it came out to .50 a song. But that was the early/mid-70s. To take the song with you, you still had to record it to a cassette which, before metal tapes, was crap and died a quick death. But even CD “singles”, when they were somewhat popular a few years back, cost up to $5.
Compared to what the RIAA had and wants, Apple has staked out a fairly decent middle ground. Compare how Jobs talks about music and music lovers to how the RIAA talks about music lovers and the disdain they show their customers. Jobs constantly talks about the customer. Does the RIAA even know they have customers?
Joe
October 8th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
“If Itunes is as flexible as you say, then do you have any idea what the DRM is supposed to protect??? or is it just window dressing that Mr. Jobs has fooled the industry with to keep them pacified.”
That’s the way I see it. I mean, I am sure Apple takes their DRM very seriously, thus the measures they take to protect it. But it really is easy to work with and for the user it can be pretty much a non-issue. Without DRM I can’t see how the music industry would have let Apple sell their music.
As for a buck a song, inflation adjusted that’s dirt cheap. I remember paying $1 for a vinyl 45. OK, if you liked the B side, it came out to .50 a song. But that was the early/mid-70s. To take the song with you, you still had to record it to a cassette which, before metal tapes, was crap and died a quick death. But even CD “singles”, when they were somewhat popular a few years back, cost up to $5.
Compared to what the RIAA had and wants, Apple has staked out a fairly decent middle ground. Compare how Jobs talks about music and music lovers to how the RIAA talks about music lovers and the disdain they show their customers. Jobs constantly talks about the customer. Does the RIAA even know they have customers?
Joe
October 8th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
iTunes exists to sell iPods. Everything is incidental to that ; )
Cheers!
October 8th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
A) Local music stores run sales shortly after a CD is released. I just don’t see the need too. Go to Half.com and go look for a used CD. I’ve bought hundreds from there and not a single one has any audible issues.
You get the CD, case, liner notes, art, etc etc. And your single price can somtimes be as low as 10-25cents given the number of songs and total price.
As for vinyl being better, it is, and will remain so for acoustic music. Music when recorded is in analog form, or it used to be, and then put onto an analog medium. It remains in that state until pressed to albums. Conversely, to convert old stuff to new CD format requires an A/D conversion. Sampling rates and such degrade the sound. I think where most people misunderstand the problem is cost vs SNR/THD. CDs give you a better sound when spending less. If money is no object then vinyl will give you the best sound. And when I talk quality components I’m talking Pipe Dreams, Nordost Flatline and players like JA Michell Gyrodec SE Turntables. Can most of us afford stuff like that? I know I can’t but I have been to enough high end component shows and have heard enough vinyl to know it gives you a great sound.
October 9th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
It depends on how compliant Steve Jobs is feeling – after all Apple does not really need iTunes. Bearing in mind that they have only sold (on average) 21 iTunes songs per iPod, it is obvious that the main reason people buy iPods is NOT iTunes