Members Brittanylips Posted February 23, 2006 Members Share Posted February 23, 2006 One Billion Songs "It's the end of the world as we know it..." -Peace, Love, and Brittanylips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted February 23, 2006 Members Share Posted February 23, 2006 I can just see Dr. Evil now -- "One billion downloads." But seriously, isn't it interesting that it took a freakin' computer company with a tiny market share to make this happen? Just goes to show what COULD have happened if record companies had decided to embrace the technology instead of fight it. More power to Apple, but jeez, if the record companies had even the slightest degree of foresight they coulda stomped Apple. The fact that they didn't says as much about their stupidity as it does about Apple's intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kiwiburger Posted February 23, 2006 Members Share Posted February 23, 2006 Greed is blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Frantag Posted February 23, 2006 Members Share Posted February 23, 2006 Originally posted by Kiwiburger Greed is blind. But greedy people see and know exactly what they want. And don't stop until they get it. All of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted February 23, 2006 Members Share Posted February 23, 2006 But you're describing smart greedy people, not stupid ones! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Geoff Grace Posted February 24, 2006 Members Share Posted February 24, 2006 Originally posted by Brittanylips:One Billion Songs McDonald's - watch out!!! Best, Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members steadyb Posted February 24, 2006 Members Share Posted February 24, 2006 Trivia question answer... Song Number Song/Album & Artist 1,000,000,000 X & Y by Coldplay 999,900,000 Fresh AZIMIZ by Tadd Mingo999,800,000 Stupid Girls by P!nk999,700,000 Dear Abby by John Prine999,600,000 Welcome 2 Detroit by Marshall Mathers999,500,000 Hypnotize by Daron Malakian999,400,000 Under My Thumb by Keith Richards999,300,000 The Red by Pete Loeffler999,200,000 Alternative Entry Form999,100,000 Tell It to Jesus by The Addison Singers999,000,000 All That I've Got (Album Version) by The Used Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kiwiburger Posted February 24, 2006 Members Share Posted February 24, 2006 Thinking about it some more ... maybe the record companies are smarter than they seem. Apple has done all the hard work, and provided the hardware and IT support. One billion mp3 downloads would cripple your average internet provider. The record company's still own the songs. I presume they have negotiated a large chunk of those royalties for themselves (and hopefully their artists too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted February 24, 2006 Members Share Posted February 24, 2006 > I don't think they did, which is why they want to re-negotiate what they get out of the deal. They didn't take Jobs seriously, although to be fair, they're not the first to make that mistake....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Weathered Posted February 24, 2006 Members Share Posted February 24, 2006 Well, as was said before about the whole music downlaoding thing: They marked the price on CDs up quite a bit and never gave consumers another option. iTunes downloads are the option. That being said, from what I understand, the artists aren't getting a whole lot of the income, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ernest Buckley Posted February 24, 2006 Members Share Posted February 24, 2006 I applaud Apple for taking the chance and capitalizing. You`re all a bunch of frustrated PC users. Stop crying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted February 24, 2006 Members Share Posted February 24, 2006 Originally posted by Brittanylips One Billion Songs "It's the end of the world as we know it..." -Peace, Love, and Brittanylips Well, they cheated. They sold a bunch of songs over and over again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brittanylips Posted February 24, 2006 Author Members Share Posted February 24, 2006 Originally posted by Anderton > I don't think they did, which is why they want to re-negotiate what they get out of the deal. They didn't take Jobs seriously, although to be fair, they're not the first to make that mistake....... Actually, from what I understand, the deal is almost one-sided in favor of the record companies. Of the .99 per song, I believe the record company gets .70. The rest goes to artists, licencing, marketing, credit card processing, and hosting. Apple doesn't make anything from the actual sale of music. Their profits come from the sale of hardware driven by the downloads. I don't really think the record company's greed got in the way of an in-house iTunes (not that they're not greedy), but I think it's more of a lack of imagination and expertise. They just can't do iTunes so they partner with it, just as they partnered with companies like Tower Records in the past. Given the tectonic shift, I think it takes a company like Apple or Google to create a centralized online hub. At the same time, a non-record company hub (like Tower in the past) is able to sell music from a variety of otherwise competing sources. One company's online store wouldn't neccessarily sell another's music, and consumers want one stop shopping. In a sense, iTunes is like an Apple-created consortium that functions as a service to the record industry, and a trojan horse for its own hardware. "1 Billlllllllion Songs" a la dr. evil -Peace, Love and Britlips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted February 25, 2006 Members Share Posted February 25, 2006 Originally posted by Brittanylips Actually, from what I understand, the deal is almost one-sided in favor of the record companies. Of the .99 per song, I believe the record company gets .70. The rest goes to artists, licencing, marketing, credit card processing, and hosting... That's not precisely accurate. (Althouth your later assertion that they don't make any money off the iTunes store was true at my last reading on the subject.) I believe the record company gets something like that (I was thinking in the range .65 to .70) but then THEY pay the artists, licenssing, etc -- all the regular costs associated with a label selling records. The CC processing and site operation costs come out of the remaining .30 or so. And, at my last reading, the iTunes store was losing money -- but that was a while back. And, as you suggest, they've been making it up (and then some) on iPod sales. Since the iTunes store locks people into the iPod and the iPod locks people into the iTunes store (for purchases, as opposed to rips), they've got a tight little system. For the time being. [but as I sit listening to album after album I always wanted to buy but never got around to on my subscription service, which is only $5 a month for far superior 160 kbps WMAs, I think people who are buying inferior 128 kbps media for a buck a song from iTunes and Napster and others must just be nuts.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members amplayer Posted February 25, 2006 Members Share Posted February 25, 2006 Originally posted by Brittanylips Actually, from what I understand, the deal is almost one-sided in favor of the record companies. Of the .99 per song, I believe the record company gets .70. The rest goes to artists, licencing, marketing, credit card processing, and hosting. Apple doesn't make anything from the actual sale of music. Their profits come from the sale of hardware driven by the downloads. I know they are doing really well on iPod sales, but it is hard to imagine they don't make anything at all from the online music sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brittanylips Posted February 25, 2006 Author Members Share Posted February 25, 2006 blue2blue - I think you may be largely right; basically the .30 that Apple retains per song goes towards running the site (I had heard that that included some liscencing, but maybe not). amp: strange as it may seem, Apple doesn't make a cent from iTunes. What Apple takes home barely pays the room and board. For them, it's all in the Pods. The current battle is over a proposed sliding scale: $1.50 (or more) for new songs, less than .99 for old ones. Record companies traditionally use, and are asking for, a sliding scale. Apple wants to keep it .99 per song. Since Apple basically uses iTunes as iPod bait, they want to keep the bait as yummy as possible. -PL&B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members amplayer Posted February 26, 2006 Members Share Posted February 26, 2006 Originally posted by blue2blue [but as I sit listening to album after album I always wanted to buy but never got around to on my subscription service, which is only $5 a month for far superior 160 kbps WMAs, I think people who are buying inferior 128 kbps media for a buck a song from iTunes and Napster and others must just be nuts.] The files you get from iTunes are MUCH better than 128 kbps mp3 files. It is difficult for me even to tell the difference between the files from the iTunes store and a 16-bit 44.1 Khz wave file. I have not read the Apple shareholder docs, so I'm only guessing here. But as far as iTunes profitability goes, I'd be surprized if Jobs plans to only break even long term. It is probably similar to the amazon.com business model: That is, gain market share first and worry about profitability as a longer term goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted February 26, 2006 Members Share Posted February 26, 2006 Originally posted by amplayer The files you get from iTunes are MUCH better than 128 kbps mp3 files. It is difficult for me even to tell the difference between the files from the iTunes store and a 16-bit 44.1 Khz wave file.I have not read the Apple shareholder docs, so I'm only guessing here. But as far as iTunes profitability goes, I'd be surprized if Jobs plans to only break even long term. It is probably similar to the amazon.com business model: That is, gain market share first and worry about profitability as a longer term goal. Absolutely. (On both counts.) The format sold at iTunes is 128 kbps AAC, which by virtually all accounts is superior to regular old 128 kbps mp3. The format sold at most other stores I investigated last year is 128 kbps WMA, which is arguably equivalent. (I've read some extensive blind-fold testing. And, on balance, there seemed to be a bit of an edge to the WMA format over a broad array of styles at higher bitrates... but it was split, for sure, for instance, people tended to like the AAC better for classical music in one study I saw. Not by a lot. I think the same study WMA got the edge for jazz. But the results seemed very close and usually at 192 and above most folks couldn't tell the diff from one to another and often to the uncompressed control.) Anyhow, Apple is the only major store (I know of) selling AACs, whereas the rest of the stores sell DRM protected WMAs. (Only Emusic of the big stores -- and they're not really a store, per se -- sells unprotected Mp3s at this point.) So, anyhow, I don't think the difference between AAC and WMA is worth arguing about at a given bitrate -- but on my subscription service (MusicMatch On Demand) and at its store (which I believe is open to anyone), the media is encoded at 160 kbps, according to the MM site. And that should trump any 128 kbps stream, to my way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members amplayer Posted February 26, 2006 Members Share Posted February 26, 2006 Originally posted by blue2blue Anyhow, Apple is the only major store (I know of) selling AACs, whereas the rest of the stores sell DRM protected WMAs. (Only Emusic of the big stores -- and they're not really a store, per se -- sells unprotected Mp3s at this point.) Actually, even though I like the quality of the files Apple is selling just fine, I still don't generally purchase them. What I don't like is a format that only plays back on certain devices. I have an iPod, but I also have an iRiver mp3 player. The AAC files won't play back on the iRiver device but they will play on the iPod. Even if I only had an iPod, I still wouldn't like the way Apple makes you "authorize" your devices. I paid for it, and I want to play it back on any/all devices I have.I think you get the same problem with WMA files, and unfortunately, wma files also will only play back on some devices and not on others. This is why I prefer mp3 files, even though the quality of mp3 files is arguably not as good as AAC or wma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members deanmass Posted February 26, 2006 Members Share Posted February 26, 2006 Apple legitimized digital format as a music of selling music, provided the software to bridge the gap between nerds and non-nerds. The hardware, while cool, and still my fave, doe not matter. The deliver and ease of use are what made it take it... Jobs is a genius, Apple rocks. I also believe they are lining the pockets fo the musicians MORE so than the comapnies, but I could be wrong, but if so, I think that is already starting to happen as the market accepts self promotion/delivery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.