Apple Is Now the #1 US Music Retailer 251
Quantrell writes "A leaked e-mail shows that Apple hit the #1 spot for music sales in January. The article speculates that consumers cashing in their holiday gift cards may have played a role; but of course Wal-Mart and the other retailers sold gift cards too. The news is a mixed bag for the record labels. 'For the music industry, there is a dark side to Apple's ascension to the top of the charts. Buying patterns for digital downloads are different, as customers are far more likely to cherry pick a favorite track or two from an album than purchase the whole thing. In contrast, brick-and-mortar sales are predominantly high-margin CDs.'" We recently discussed Wal-Mart's role in the music business, back when they were selling nearly 20% of US music. For January Apple was at 19% and Wal-Mart at 15%.
And that means (Score:2, Insightful)
It's Apple iTunes with DRM Forever!
Re:And that means (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's nice to see RIAA power fading but Apple is still a digital restrictions enabler. We shall see what they do with their power. Right now, the artist still gets the RIAA shaft from Apple the same as they do any other music store money wise. Has Apple even been able to break the RIAA, "our way or the highway" rule and sell both RIAA music and independent music?
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Apple will sell just about anything. Several talk radio hosts have regular iTunes paid downloads, and none of them have RIAA contracts.
That's not good enough. (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought about this for a while and don't like it. Replacing the RIAA with Apple is not the equivalent of creating a free market for music. With digital restrictions, Apple will be in charge in a way that the RIAA was but worse. You say:
Apple will sell just about anything. Several talk radio hosts have regular iTunes paid downloads, and none of them have RIAA contracts.
It sounds good, but I can replace the words like this:
Future_monopoly will sell just about anything. Several talk radio hosts have
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, artists got it worse. Theoretically artists should have benefited financially from digital downloads but the opposite is occurring thanks to the labels. Apple takes their $0.29 from every $0.99 track to pay for the hosting, distribution, credit card fees, etc. The remaining $0.70 goes to the label to take their cuts before passing the royalties to the artists. However, the labels are taking their cuts as if the sale was a physical medium and are still charging the artists for manufacturing and distribution costs. Manufacturing costs no longer apply, and Apple handles the distribution. But I'm sure somewhere in the fine print of the record deal that allows the label to charge for whatever they want.
I'm not sure the amount of independent artists that Apple has but a few years ago they signed some major indie labels. [apple.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple takes their $0.29 from every $0.99 track to pay for the hosting, distribution, credit card fees, etc. The remaining $0.70 goes to the label to take their cuts before passing the royalties to the artists. However, the labels are taking their cuts as if the sale was a physical medium and are still charging the artists for manufacturing and distribution costs. Manufacturing costs no longer apply, and Apple handles the distribution.
As a consumer buying something I know to be digital (with presumably lower distribution costs than a physical product), I'd expect at least part of the cost to be passed on to me. Given the choice of a CD or a DRM free digital download for the same price, I'd usually take the CD. Maybe that will change in future when more and more releases become digital only.
Also, don't forget that a lot of advertising costs can probably be saved using the iTunes store. Consumers get to try before they buy, find track
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Spoken like someone who never ever worked in the record business, specifically retail & shipping. Ever heard of warpage, bro'? Like, due to 60 shrink-wrapped'records being jammed in every box (standard), high heat, back of the UPS truck? No? Well, back in LA and all over the South we had tons of records that never made it to the shelves. Did they 'break'? Well, no, not exactly. They warped, to an unplayable state. Period. In the early 70s some of the Indie labels and European exporters started using 'loose' wrap, to avoid a a lot of the warping. But that took up space in the standard boxes, so the Big Labels (in the US, UK & Germany) never did get on board with that.
CDs? I wouldn't know, I went back into stagework and studios about 3 seconds after CDs started moving in the shops.
Don't get me wrong, the labels are the most organized gang of corrupt cocksuckers you ever want to know, but the 'breakage' thing did have real relevance after the vinyl content dropped, and the use of tight shrinkwrap became dominant.
I know the allowances for 'returns' on cassettes was much lower than the percentage on LPs, also.
"Breakage" was a concept that retailers had to fight for. The Big Labels didn't just cough it up out of the goodness of their hearts, and it was only after the fact that the Labels realized they could cut corners on inventory & accounting, by just giving all the jobbers and retail chains the same deal. But the retailers were 'caught' between US, the music fans, and THEM, the artists... and as a result, people used to hate the retail chains (I know I did, I worked for a few big ones), but the reality is, we the fans, AND the artists, had the same, common enemy: The Labels... not Sears, or Tower Records... not The Whorehouse (Oops, I meant 'Warehouse'), and not even Apple or Amazon.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Independent artists get what their distributor gives them. If you go through CD Baby, which anyone can do and is non-exclusive, you get about $0.63 per download.
iTunes sales through CD Baby are very, very favorable to the artist. But then, that's just the way CD Baby's always been.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am an indie musician with music on iTunes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Face it Apple loves DRM. Especially because the RIAA demands it. He gets to pretend he hates DRM to get in good with the consumers but that's exactly what's providing a lock-in to Apple brand media players. If Apple hated DRM as much as is claimed they wouldn't have a problem licensing their DRM out to Microsoft, or Sansa.
I know that Apple is the best underdog we have to root for against Microsoft but if on
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If Apple hated DRM as much as is claimed they wouldn't have a problem licensing their DRM out to Microsoft, or Sansa.
I don't necessarily disagree with your belief that Apple likes DRM, but you miss one point. Any DRM security goes out the window as soon as it is opened up or licensed to others. If this happens to Apple, the record companies renege on their agreements, Apple has to make up a whole new DRM scheme, and Apple looses market share.
No, Apple is far better off not opening up their DRM, and it may be for more than one reason.
Re:And that means (Score:4, Insightful)
If Apple licenced their DRM it would only have the affect of PROMOTING it. Look what's happening now - more and more tacks on iTMS are drm FREE, and will work with any music player you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And that means (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And that means (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple sells DRM free tracks. But how many people do you know that buy from iTMS that have a DRM free collection? Even if you bought just one DRMed album, you'd have to keep using Apple's products to maintain that investment.
Don't get me wrong. I have an iPod. But I refuse to buy from iTMS. I'd rather give the same money to Amazon and get my tracks in plain unencumbered MP3.
Re: (Score:2)
They license PlaysForSure v1. They have not and will not license PlaysForSure v2 which only works on the Zune and the Zune will not play PlaysForSure v1. So if you bought a DRM track previously, you'll have to buy it again to work on Zune.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you even read? You
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't force Apple to do anything because I'm not aware of any other successful DRM-free ventures and Apple were already doing well with their DRM stuff at the time. It was never any benefit for Apple to have DRM -- they don't need to lock people in as they seem to have no trouble selling iPods based on their good points alone.
Do you honestly believe the labe
Re:And that means (Score:5, Insightful)
You should be thankful for Apple and the fact that they are #1. It's because of Apple that the labels have allowed Amazon to sell MP3's without any kind of DRM whatsoever. If Apple had never gotten such a stranglehold on the digital marketplace, most of the labels would have never allowed Amazon to sell DRM free music. I'm glad that Apple is where it is and I hope that people continue to buy music from them. I won't be among them but as long as Apple keeps doing what it's doing, the labels will allow Amazon and others to sell music without DRM as a counterweight and smart consumers will be able to purchase legit, DRM free music.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Apple has the market share for MP3 players, namely the ipod.
2. That makes it impossible to sell music that won't play on the ipod.
3. Apple refuses to use any DRM scheme but its own, and refuses to let other people use that.
4. It's impossible for anyone else to sell DRMed music.
I think that's a good thing. I think Apple has, ironically, killed DRM on music forever.
Re:And that means (Score:4, Interesting)
There's nothing ironic about it: it's one of their stated goals. Simply because they have better gamesmanship than to outwardly admit that restricting their DRM has this effect doesn't mean it hadn't occurred to them.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bean was a great little player... the problem is, Sony's DRM, their proprietary format, and their lame program all suck. Now Sony is dumping their Connect (music store / software combo) stuff and anyone w
one future of music distribution (Score:3, Insightful)
i say "one future of music distribution" because i am also leaning towards this idea [arstechnica.com]
Re:one future of music distribution (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really think it shows that? I don't.
I think it shows that people are ever more shallow in their music tastes and now only want those one or two big hits, ignoring the rest of the material. How many times have you listened to an album, or an artist's entire catalogue, and come to love one of the b-sides or album tracks more than the one or two big hits? For me it's a lot.
But then I suppose I'm not buying Britney or whatever the big thing is that the idiot children listen to these days.
Opposite for me (Score:3, Interesting)
iTunes has let me buy single songs from albums and if after repeated listens I still want to hear it, I buy the album. But I will buy the album on a CD rather than a download.
You pays your money, you takes your choice...
Re: (Score:2)
Like you, my favorite songs usually end up being the ones that don't get any radio play. B-sides and other "unreleased" tracks in particular are always faves of mine as well. I've got an entire box set by one artist full of that kind of material and it'
Re: (Score:2)
I think it shows that people are ever more shallow in their music tastes and now only want those one or two big hits, ignoring the rest of the material. How many times have you listened to an album, or an artist's entire catalogue, and come to love one of the b-sides or album tracks more than the one or two big hits? For me it's a lot.
To answer your question, plenty of times; but it pales in comparison to how many times (especially in the last years before I stopped getting my music that way), that I have found there are just one or two songs worth listening to. (and even when there are other songs worth listening to, they are greatly out numbered by drivel that seems to exist only to justify the price I paid)
Maybe people are more shallow, or maybe the contractual obiligations that come with getting an RIAA label to publish your mus
Re: (Score:2)
More control to the actual artist would be better perhaps.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Are you saying that people should be forced to buy the entire album so they listen to the lesser known songs that are possibly very good? If someone wants to try ou
Re: (Score:2)
No. No I'm not. I'm saying it would be a shame if they weren't ever made because the labels figured out that the profits lie in one or two big songs, and that most people wouldn't buy the rest of the album and give it a good listen.
"Also, more often than not, there are typically only 3-4 good songs on an album (there are exceptions, of course) and most consumers would no
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's something else entirely.
The way in which we think about music is completely changing. The notions of albums, singles, B-sides and EPs are disappearing because m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this harks back to that old argument about popularity and artistic merit, and whether the two are in any way related. Personally I think it would be sad if we lost the album, and the current practice of bands turning out more tracks than just the catchy, instant-hit type. It could limit the support artists get from labels even further (we're only going to pay for you to produce two songs, both must be hits, otherwise goodbye), and it could limit th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Some quick background - I was involved with a fringe music scene for about 15 years, from the late 80s until the early 00s. It will take much more than changes in the business side of music to stop the artistic side. How we get to the art will change - it has changed. The good news: it's easier and cheaper for artists to produce super-high-quality music. Distribution is near-free. Motivated, talented folks can keep more $$ in their
Re: (Score:2)
Being of the (retired) goth persuasion myself, I'm not really that affected by whether the winner of american idol puts out a whole album or just a song, but at present there still needs to be some patronage for music to be heard and available. I suppose that's something else that the internet is changing as we speak.
Re:one future of music distribution (Score:4, Interesting)
The industry grew used to being able to bully consumer, and now digital music is forcing them to accept that many consumers want to buy singles again. However, this means that their profits are going to be lower. Possibly on the level of what they used to make before they stopped selling singles.
For all of this, this does not mean the death of the album. Bands that want to produce albums still will. Most people who truly appreciate music and don't want to hear the stuff on the radio, or whatever their friends like will likely not have a problem finding albums of songs. However, those people are rarely the huge money makers for the industry (there are exceptions). Most of the money makers are the flavors of the week that they market endlessly, and end up selling millions of CDs. This practice of the industry's will end up being hurt as the sales end up being reduced due to "cherry picking".
Phil
Hopfully (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the new format. It's very clean looking.
Re:Hopfully (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily, you can still click once to submit your comment.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except Walmart is now the #1 US Music Retailer (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope you're right and Apple manages to positively influence the market. Probably some truth to it, but Brick and Mortar is still king.
Correlation and Conjecture (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so much a mixed bag as it is further evidence that the RIAAs business model is flawed.
Here they have the worlds largest brick-and-mortar store and the most influential online music retailers moving ungodly units of their crappy products and still they cry poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are raking in the profits, how is their Business model flawed??
What does them crying poverty, have anything to do with their business model??
Dark Side for Both Apple & Wal-Mart (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, Wal-Mart has also done the same thing by basically dictating that it will start selling CDs at $9-$10 or it won't sell them at all. I'm kind of shocked the music industry just sat back and let that happen (even though it joys me to see people able to buy Beatles albums at a decent price). I mean, why should Wal-Mart be able to dictate MSRP? Oh, that's right, they are the all-encompassing Wal-Mart
Either way, I find it humorous that what seems to be a 'dark side' for the RIAA is actually beautiful for the end consumer. I wish the RIAA would step back and look at how they could maximize profits now that distribution could be digital. Would I still be spending ~$20 a month on music if each song were ten cents? No, I'd probably go nuts and be spending $50 a month and I bet people that spend no money on music would start to slowly $5 or $10 for some popular albums. Just a though, I really wish they would look more at maximizing profits by lowering cost on something that can be copied for free and distributed cheaply.
Re: (Score:2)
Wal-Mart is
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Apple's stance is fixed pricing is better for them as their business is far simpler with fixed prices. Variable pricing makes their accounting alone a lot more complex. Also it makes it easier on the consumer. The downside to variable pr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I could care less about the top 40 or flavor of the week singles as that is not something I'd ever want to listen to. But I could see how someone like Britney Spears would feel the punch of fans just getting "Oops, I Did It Again" and not being forced to pay for the filler crap that barely passes as music on the rest of the album.
Not that I'm a Britney fan, but let's build on this logic. I'll simplify the numbers for the discussion.
The price is $12 for album B. If they make it available separately, the price is $2 for the mega-hit cut three or B3, and the price is also $2 for the lame stinkers B1, B2, B4, B5... B8. In aggregate, buying B is cheaper than buying B1...B8 a la carte. However, if buying B is the only way to get B3, and nobody wants the other cuts, then the value proposition is too low. The labels decry this sort
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you say that. I have never spent a penny in online music until Allofmp3 came along (it seems so long ago...). It was just so easy to put like 10 dollars and then download a lot of music at really good quality... at BETTER quality than illegal p2p releases.
Unfortunately, the
Re: (Score:2)
If you went to the grocer and wanted to buy a couple of oranges only to find out you need to buy the tree with all it's oranges and discover there are only two edible fruits on it, you'd be outraged. Sorry eggs only come in sterling silver 12 packs with 10 cracked.
Sure you occasionally have to buy multi-packs of things, but they're generally of equal quality.
Digital delivery lets you buy what you want. It will eventually win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
of a PVR to that and it's really hard to see the difference between
that and torrenting.
Even just a regular early 80's radio with a tape deck can be used in
much the same way.
It's not bullshit to acknowledge that nothing has really changed.
The industry is crying wolf but their bubblegum pop is not really
any easier to "mooch" than it was 20 years ago.
Article is wrong .. M (Score:5, Informative)
What the article is talking about is a 1 week period in January (most likely caused by all the people using their Christmas gifts of iTunes gift cards) where the store sold more music. Overall though, it still remains number two.
Re: (Score:2)
So that would be 10million to 0.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh-oh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh-oh (Score:4, Insightful)
Why no album discount? (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't want the album to go away. I think it's a great conc
Re: (Score:2)
As an aside, I'd appreciate iTunes letting me easily select blocks of music I could keep in the same order, even when listening to randomized music. "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" should always be followed by "With a Little Help from My Friends" (and maybe the album's entirety).
I stumbled across this yesterday, and I haven't had a chance to try it out personally.
Maybe put the songs you want played together in the same grouping, then change your shuffle preferences to shuffle by grouping?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As for you second comment...you can use playlists to keep albums in order. When you want to randomize playb
Re: (Score:2)
For a few bucks, I'll take the risk of buying a bunch of crap because there's probably
Re: (Score:2)
Albums with more than 10 songs do get that discount; those with less do occasionally as well. Of course, her albums are less than that on Amazon, and DRM free.
No, Apple is now the #1 US Recording Retailer (Score:2)
Here's how to tell which is which.
If the goal is to make it the same every time it's played, it's a recording.
If the goal is to make it different every time it's played, it's music.
Re: (Score:2)
If the goal is to make it different every time it's played, it's music.
So if you feed the MIDI track into a drum machine with drum hit randomization, it's music?
A return of the concept album? (Score:2)
I compare it to TV, where I think maybe the reason why serials are more popular nowadays is because there is so little time left for the story after the commercial that shows that are just one big long story (like Lost or Heroes) make more sense than trying to do a simple hour long drama.
If I were in the music industry, I'd be doi
Well, duh (Score:2)
Isn't that the whole figgin' point? If you know there's only 1 or 2 tracks you want from an album, the absence of cheap singles like back in the vinyl days makes digital the clear winner.
CD singles were a joke: when albums were $8.99, a 45 was $1 to $1.49, and gave you the hit and generally a non-album B-side. When a CD album is $15.99, t
Not shopping even with gift cards (Score:2)
For a guy self nicknamed LoudMusic you'd think I'd be more into music technology, but I just don't get it. I own an iPod and I don't use it.
For all of you griping about Apple's DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the recording industry, stupid. (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple's sales are so high because it is simply selling a lot of music that isn't available in any Walmart - the recording industry has no idea how to sell less popular tracks in a brick-and-mortar store. So they go unsold. Stupid.
No wonder Walmart is thinking less and less of the recording industry.
Could be. (Score:3, Interesting)
If the CD and other restrictionless media goes away we will all be media poor again. It will be like going back to pre taping life where only special people with expensive equipment could make and sell recordings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Could be. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, no it won't.
You or I can still make recordings and distribute them with or without DRM if we wish.
It'll just mean we can't (easily) make copies.
I agree, it's a worse situation than what we have now, but it's not like pre-taping days in that the tools are available to all to distribute media.
gnutoo is twitter (Score:2)
Still got modded down as usual though.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That's what Amazon is for (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They're all 99Â. It's been that way for a while. They were initially more expensive, but when Amazon started offering 99Â DRM-free MP3's, Apple matched their pricing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, yes. I do.
No "WHOOSH" needed...I get the joke. But there is an interesting point to all this. It's getting harder and harder to actually buy good music as so few artists are album-oriented anymore. People like to decry the popularity of single-song services like iTunes or say that they charge too much for albums, but the reality is that the popular artists all produce albums with only one good track followed by a bunch of shit. And then they want you to buy the album? Try producing worthwhile son
Better than mp3sparks.com (Score:2)