iTMS Named Fortune's Product Of The Year 356
Demolition writes "To go along with Time Magazine calling the iTunes Music Store the Invention Of The Year, Fortune Magazine has come along and proclaimed iTunes Music Store as the Product Of The Year. As it says in the article, 'With the success of its iTunes Music Store, Apple is almost single-handedly dragging the music industry, kicking and screaming, toward a better future.'" Also, Fortune named the G5 one of the 25 Best Products of the Year for Design.
Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, signing deals with smaller indie labels is far better. It means that the indie labels get a share of the profit and can start to grow a bit.
It does really seem that Apple has finally hit the nail on the head here and if they are lucky they might convert this to market share so alternate OSes at least get discussed with the 'family'..
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, it wasn't just any indie band. It was Pearl Jam. Not so long ago, they told their then label in no uncertain terms exactly what it could shove exactly where. They've been selling recordings of their concerts for a few years now, largely through their web site... hit http://www.pearljam.com/d [pearljam.com]
Better future? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Better future? (Score:5, Insightful)
The artists concern is probably because it's a lot harder to make money selling things at $1 compared to selling things at $15-$20. It's a very valid business concern.
I'm sure there are also some artists concerned because they make albums that are meant to be listened to as a whole, but there aren't that many of them these days.
Re:Better future? (Score:5, Insightful)
While true, it hardly matters. I'll willingly pay a buck each for the three songs I like from an album that will not sixteen dollars to have those three songs and six or seven other songs I can't stand.
I have gone throuh some artists entire catalogs on iTMS and out of nine CDs, I've only purchased twelve songs. That's a pretty sucky ratio. But even so, they are better off as I was not willing to go out and buy all of those CDs just to get to the few songs on them that I liked.
The real problem is that too many artists spew out piles of garbage with just a few good songs on each CD. When artists make entire albums worth buying, I buy them. Otherwise, I'm stick with just buiying the songs I like, thank you.
Re:Better future? (Score:3)
Indeed, I've found that the best albums I've bought are ones wherein I didn't like every song right out of the gate. What I think this indicates is that truly great art takes a long time to grok, but once you grok it it's like the veil falling from your eyes and you fall in love with it.
Consider Rush's Vapor Trails. I bought it the day it came out, having heard only "One Little Victory" on the radio once (and not really paying attention to it; the fact that Rush had a new album out soon registered with
Re:Better future? (Score:2, Interesting)
The iTunes store is starting to give independent record labels (K, Matador, et. al) an equal footing with these big labels, but the independent labe
Not all songs can be purchased individually (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not all songs can be purchased individually (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not all songs can be purchased individually (Score:4, Interesting)
Then how did I buy Rhapsody In Blue (13:44 long) individually?
Re:Not all songs can be purchased individually (Score:5, Informative)
The second rule at least can be broken by major label artists. For instance, Talk Talk's great experimental album "Spirit of Eden" is 6 tracks long and costs $13.99. You can't buy track one, except as part of the album, so that's how they get you to pay more than 99 cents per song. While that album-only song IS longer than 7 minutes, I am not sure all of them are.
Re:Better future? (Score:3, Insightful)
bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
Bullshit. Napster didn't prove they weren't inclined to pay for it, even if people wanted to legitimately purchase music downloads, they couldn't.
Napster proved the demand for downloadable music exists. I like iTMS. I use iTMS. I give jobs credit for convincing the suits, not for a prodcust or invention of the year.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
iTunes does not have any of these problems... yet I can't use it in Canada... I can buy an iPod, but can't buy music for it. I have no choice but to download music without paying for it... and I've gone through all the damn hoops trying to legally purchase music... The government and the Canadian version of the RIAA (whatever the hell they're called) has successfully made it so difficult for me (and all Canadians with tastes for music other than the crap on the radio) to buy music that I have no reasonable alternative but to continue to get my music from the underground...
Napster may have proven that there is a demand, but I'm sure I'm not the only Canadian that has proven we are willing to jump through a crap load of hoops to try and buy music instead of just downloading it for free.
So who's at fault here? Apple for not selling music outside the states? The RIAA for being anal? The Canadian government and their damned heritage law (forcing everyone to download at least 50% canadian content)? Or is it me (and people like me), that put up with all this crap, trying to go legit, and hitting a brick wall?
Open Source Music (Score:5, Funny)
Do you think SCO would then accuse the musicians of using some crappy old song they came up with a while ago as the basis of all the Open songs?
Well I'm willing to take that risk.
Re:Open Source Music (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Open Source Music (Score:2, Funny)
Already been done. [gnu.org]
and remove the entire monetary component out of the industry?
that's not the only thing that's been removed.
Because. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Because. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Open Source Music (Score:2)
That's pretty much all the record labels do anyway. I think I could name about a billion pop/rock songs from the last decade that use a 1-5-6-4 progression for the verse, chorus or even the entire song, just as an example.
Re:Open Source Music (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Open Source Music (Score:2)
I'm going to get tracked down and killed for this one, aren't I?
Re:Open Source Music (Score:5, Interesting)
there were before mp3's as well, if there weren't mp3's i'd still be listening to
that's what pisses me off about the "but without money from records nobody would create music!!" comments, it's proven to be false. you don't need to be doing it full time, and if you do you're much more probable to be better off doing gigs(as most are). maybe there wouldn't be ghetto dreams about stardom and fast cars and drive by shooting rivaling labels artists, but that would just be an added _bonus_. riaa(that is, recording companies and local equivalents in other regions) act like you couldn't live without them. if you want a living from music, go get some music education and become a music teacher(that's the most probable way you end up really living off from music).
Re:Open Source Music (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Open Source Music (Score:3, Interesting)
Who's on first? (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that what Apple usually does? Dragging the rest of the world forward. e.g. firewire, usb.
Love it or hate it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the people trying to follow in their path. BuyMusic.com?? This is probably the most pathetic attempt of all with their wacky buying schemes and crazy DRM. Even their commercials were dead-on rip-offs.
Now here comes MS and Wal-Mart to try their hand. Sure, they are going to sell songs through their shere retailing power (and monopoly in the case of MS) but do you think their store is going to be half as cool?
I am sure this is going to set off a flamewar about the problems with iTunes, but just give iTunes their due for once for their innovation. Everybody else is just trying to catch up and be half as cool. Who do you really want to buy songs from? iTunes with its coolness factor or from Wal-Mart where that stupid smiling face can show you around and shoot arrows at your song prices so that they go from 99 cents to 89 cents.
Re:Love it or hate it... (Score:2, Funny)
iTMS vs Napster (Score:5, Interesting)
I tried out napster for a few days. I felt it was a pathetic attempt at copying the iTMS. Things were sorted incorrectly and information was scattered around making it almost impossible to find anything I really wanted. And to top it off they're spamming me
Re:iTMS vs Napster (Score:2)
That's not a sign the company's sinking, that's just a sign they want your money. I got emails from Netflix offering $10 off the first month after I cancelled their service.
Time Time Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Time Warner is also a member of the RIAA.
I smell something good for business.
Somehow, this got posted on Slashdot...
Time Time Time Is On My Side (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Time Time Time (Score:2)
Insightful? (Score:2)
Re:Time Time Time (Score:4, Insightful)
Far be it from me to say anything nice about the most recent conglomerate to have swallowed the only TV cable provider available around here, but Warner just sold off its record business and music publishing (ASCAP/BMI type fee collecting) assets.
Re:Time Time Time (Score:5, Funny)
Your username is Malicious.
That rhymes with "delicious".
Cookies are delicious.
A cookie theft exploit was recently discussed regarding Apple's Safari.
You often see monkeys when you're on a safari.
I smell monkey shit. I think it's coming from your post.
Well it's the marketing scheme of the year (Score:3, Insightful)
What's more Apple gives all of this money they collect to the music industry who themselves have to do virtually nothing for it but trade a bit of paper. Kicking and screaming. Yeah, right. In the back rooms the execs are shouting bloody Hosannas day and night. They can't get the public to pay for DRMed CDs but Apple has somehow gotten them to buy DRMed rips for a premium price.
I'll keep doing it the old fashioned way until I get a better deal, thank you very much.
KFG
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year (Score:3, Interesting)
Except at the mall you can't buy single tracks off an album. As far as album sales go, I agree with you. I'd buy the CD from a regular store first. However, there are any number of single tracks I've bought from iTMS simply bec
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year (Score:4, Insightful)
Also bear in mind that I grew up in an age when the majority of music was sold as a single for fairly nominal fee. Why did this practice die out?
Because the public prefered to buy albums. Not only can an album be a better artistic work than a single (think Sgt. Pepper or Tommy), but they're overall a better deal. Even if you occasionally get the worst of the deal in a particular instance.
And if you buy a CD for a single tune, well, rip it and then sell the CD. Or find a friend who has it and rip his.
Sneakernet still works and happens completely under the radar.
KFG
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets see, downloading music: 2 minutes.
Next time I'll be in a mall...could be months.
Minutes...months...
You're right, its allmost the same!
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year (Score:5, Interesting)
Most Americans are horrible at "time and efficiency" analysis of their own lives, generally "saving" seconds at the cost of later hours and for no particular purpose.
Much as they the gambler thinks he "won" ten bucks on the lottery the other night and ignores the five hundred he spent to become a "winner."
People who sell convienience make a good living off of this tendency. You spend money to avoid irritation, not save time, and don't even count the time you have spend to earn that money into the equation.
It does not take you only two minutes to download a song. You are not counting your losses, such as the time to fire up the app and find the song.
Your milage may vary, of course, but in my case (and in the case of most Americans I would posit)even if I have to make a special trip to the store (open 24/7) for music I'm there inside of ten minutes by bicycle and can do my grocery shopping in the same store while I'm at it, thus saving the time I would have otherwise spent on the special trip to the grocery store.
Or, conversely, I can go do my grocery shopping and pick up several CDs of music at no more expense in time than it takes to toss them into my cart and the additional time it takes to ring them up while ringing up my groceries.
No, I'm afraid that, overall, what you save isn't so much time as it is saving having to move your butt out of your chair. Which is a different issue, and which, in all likelyhood, you have to move anyway to earn the money, so just stop at the music store you pass on your way home from work.
Saving irritation ( and needing to have it now is an issue of irritation, not time)is not the same thing as saving time and/or money, and more often than not must be payed for with greater irritation and money later.
KFG
But none of that is the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) They are clear, up front, about what they are offering, how it works, and what the technical restrictions are.
2) If you aren't a normal mac user, it's not as appealing to you.. realize that mac users tend to already use itunes, and use it a lot, and the store is just THERE.. in the same interface you use to organize ALL your music. You can browse the store the same way, listen to samples the same way, and once you set up your account, which is very, very easy, you can purchase songs with a click.
So.. if you feel it violates your rights, great... don't use it.
what you fail to realize is that not every consumer is concerned with owning everything.. on a tight budget, sure, iTMS is not a great deal, necessarily.... but it IS the first big, working example of how this can work. The fact that the record labels are getting all the cash is simply because all the artists signed with those labels.. did you know any artist can submit stuff to the iTMS to be sold? Those that do aren't under the grip of big labels.. their deal is with Apple.
If you were sitting in front of a Mac, in your office, with a disposable income to spend on "entertainment", you might find that making a couple clicks in the morning to get a couple new tracks to listen to suits you just fine... I mean, what does it matter to you where you can copy it if you are going to do all your listening in one place?
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year (Score:5, Informative)
Apple gives the same deal to independent labels. CDBaby records are generally available at iTunes, and the artists are getting a pretty good deal with them.
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year (Score:3, Informative)
News flash: When you buy at the mall, the arist gets just as much, if not less of a percentage. At least Apple tells you the business model and where money guys, I'd like to see the RIAA make that information easily accessible.
Apple is doing it's best to try to wake the RIAA up to the new age, and some back scracthing will have to take place before any proress is made.
If you want a better deal, buy indie. Goto a show and hand
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year (Score:4, Insightful)
I bought a hard to find album for 9.99.
Nearest palace was 30 minute drive, and it would of cost 17.99, so iTunes was cheaper.
It was 15 minutes from the time I installed iTunes, to the time I had the album downloaded, so it was quicker.
I can make all the copies I want, in any format I want, so I fail to see how I have lost any rights.
What I don't get, is a cover and a jewel case.
Not woth 8 bucks more.
I also consider the look and feel iTunes superiour to musicmatch.
For the record, I do not own a MAC. I haven't bought an Apple product since the Apple IIc.
If I wasn't going to be 'transitioned' out of my job at the end of the year, I'd consider buying a Mac.
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year (Score:5, Insightful)
- You won't buy from the iTMS music store because despite taking your money they do pretty much nothing except distribute music to you, and almost all of the money goes to the corrupt music-industry middlemen, and you consider this Wrong.
- So instead you are going to pay extra to buy from Best Buy or some other music retailer who despite taking your money does pretty much nothing except distribute the music to you, and almost all of the money goes to the corrupt music-industry middlemen, and you don't see anything wrong with this.
Or is the problem here entirely that you're angry the paper-thin DRM on iTMS store purchases is a little more intricate to convert to raw AIFF than a CD is, yet people will still buy it?BTW, slashdot says this is my 900th logged-in post. Just for the record.
Re:Well it's the marketing scheme of the year (Score:3, Insightful)
I simply buy the item from store one. On those items in which the situation is reversed I'm perfectly happy to patronize store two as well.
Nor is there any reason for me to be angry with people w
Apple sets the pace (Score:5, Insightful)
Since all the other players dont have anything to sell after the fact, they probably are gonna lose money with the suits taking such a huge chunk of it.
10 years from now when Apple gets the iVMS (Internet Video & Music Store) going over everyone's new FTTH 100MB and you can have tens of thousands of films on yer desktop for 99 cents ( or whatever )on top of the music you have now, thank Apple. They made it possible.
And I have no doubt that if S. Jobs is still running Apple, they'll be the only ones to get it right, just like ITMS.
Re:Apple sets the pace (Score:4, Insightful)
That's nonsense. You think that iTunes, or OS X, or the iPod, is just packaging? Just a "skin"?
There's lot's of innovative architecture and layers of solid coding beneath the surface.
Not to mention the work that they did on the server side to make the buying experience clean and easy.
There's also another part they had to write that we never see,
that's the system admin side that let's them add content to the store, monitor and balance
the user traffic, and handle the user accounts and credit card and gift certificate transactions.
If that wasn't enough, they did a clean port to windows,
wrangle and manage the record company contracts
and run a national print and tv ad campaign.
Oh yeah, and designed the market leading iPod.
And after all that, they managed to package things "well". Arguably better than anyone else.
Pretty good for that little "hardware" company.
Slow Shredder! (Score:3, Insightful)
"While it's slow, it looks so friendly you won't mind the wait."
Yeah. The first time maybe. After that, a little thing called "my life" might take priority over its cute aesthetics.
Apple products deserve these awards because, beautiful they may be, they are also extremely accessible. I wish more reviewers would consider that the primary factor.
integrated, easy and hassle-free!! (Score:3, Interesting)
it's seems very integrated, easy and hassle-free!
sure, i haven't actually purchased a song through it, since it is currently not available in canada.
but, i have browsed though it and taken advantage of the preview feature a few times.
i hope the doors open in canada for iTMS soon... before i have to pay a levy on my digital media too!! see [slashdot.org]
iTMS an "invention" (Score:2, Insightful)
sorry.
it's not an invention. what is gonna be next years invention? an online movie store, where u can download mpegs for $4.99?
ppl dont know what an invention means anymore? most ppl had already thought of that model long before apple or any corp. executive did. but we dont have the resources to do it.
of course, im not speaking out against apple cos im sure they didnt ask to be named "invention of the year". just the idiots who review the "inventions" and judge
What is an "invention?" (Score:5, Insightful)
- Dictionary.com
iTMS seems to fit the bill as a new process for buying music.
Matt Fahrenbacher
Re:iTMS an "invention" (Score:2, Insightful)
Others may have had the idea to sell music over the internet before. But Apple put the work in to make it work well enough that people want to use it. That's the art of an inventor.
Cant wait to see how they will do it... (Score:5, Interesting)
In general recorded audio and video material will be price adjusted to reflect differences in local purchasing power. For example, the Lion King Special Edition VHS goes for US$ 20.99 in the US [amazon.com]. In Brazil the same *legit* product goes for about one third of that price (R$ 24.60 which is worth US$ 8.40 [livrariasaraiva.com.br] in today's exchange rate).
This difference in pricing has to be done in order to "milk" different local markets, each with a different pricing point requirement. This is, after all, the motivation behing the DVD region coding scheme (not realease dates, mind you).
Now, it will be interesting to see an internet site selling buckets of bits for different prices depending on where (it thinks) you physically are, won't it. Of course they could leave the third world to be served solely by that most efficient institution, the pirate market.
is an online store a 'Product'? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now the G5 winning for being one of the 25 Best Products of the Year for Design, that goes without saying; that thing is perfect. I got to play with one a few weeks back, opened it up and got to gaze inside. One of those running Gentoo would fit perfectly under this desk!
CB
iTunes and the iTMS. Flexibility and choice. (Score:3, Insightful)
I own a powerbook and all of my music is in iTunes. However, none of it came from the iTMS. I still buy CDs and rip them in because i prefer my mp3s at a higher encoding rate. If Apple changed their 'tune' in that regard and offered higher quality mp3s, I might be persuaded. Until then, I'm very content to use it as a music jukebox. It does that job very well.
An invention of the year? Nah. A really handy piece of software with flexibility and room to grow? Sure.
Re:What's next (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's next (Score:5, Insightful)
The one valid point I've seen on that site is that iTMS is helping the major record labels stay alive, and without it, the labels might have a harder time of doing so. Lots of hypothetical there, and considering that iTMS's 20 million songs sold is still nothing more than a tiny blip in the overall annual U.S. music market of some billions of songs, it warrants skepticism.
As far as the artists not getting much money out of the deal... exactly how is that any worse than what they already had? The labels were screwing them before, and they're contractually obligated to the labels, so it's not like they can just sell direct to iTMS (or anyone else) and make an "end run" around the labels. If artists sign contracts that suck, that may be their fault, it may be the label's fault, but it's certainly not Apple's or anyone else's fault.
And of course it almost completely ignores indie labels that are now getting people's music on iTMS. People who go through those labels are taking home as much as 55-60% [cdbaby.net] of that 99 cents a song. That's a pretty damn good cut of the money.
Basically, it strikes me as the same sort of shrill our minds are made up, don't bother us with mitigating facts rant as that put forth by those guys who decided that just because their iPod battery wore out, all iPod batteries must suck, and it was perfectly okay to go commit acts of vandalism as a result. :)
Bands, take note! Apple will talk to you (Score:4, Interesting)
I got a band I will not mention listed in Itunes. The parent poster is morose for the wrong reasons.
Try it. Apple, surprisingly, is not all that horrible to deal with. Only moderately horrible.
Re:What's next (Score:5, Funny)
You know, I think Wal-Mart is horrible for this country (price fixing, anti-competitive behaviour, etc). This justifies the $20,000 or so worth of merchandise I've shoplifted so far this year.
The big banks are just as bad. They are paying out lower and lower interest rates on savings and money market accounts, and filling their own coffers even more as a result. So that makes it okay that I robbed a Bank of America last month.
And of course, the middlemen in the music industry make buying a CD futile, or at least downloading one from iTMS. I think I'll open up Kazaa again.
Re:What's next (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of people get screwed into crappy contracts everyday because there really aren't any viable alternatives. Read your cell phone service agreement, or your ISP's terms and conditions, or anyone of the many click-through agreements for software you've installed. You'll be appalled at the things you have signed away. And really you have little choice.**
It's not really any different for musicians. Yeah, they can give the major labels the finger and go sign with an indie label or if they're really adventurous start their own label. But the reality is that their chances for success in going that route are almost zero. If you think the success rate for bands signed to major labels is pretty low, you should see the success rate for indie artists. Even if you assume and allow for indie artists being "less talented" (which I would argue is untrue), the difference is huge. So really, if you want a chance at being able to make a good living or even striking it rich, you're only choice is to sign with the majors, and get stuck with a bad deal.
---
**Yeah, you can argue that "well you don't have to use the software", but this is pretty bogus. You're only real option is you don't want to agree to the terms is to use a computer or not, or to get a cellphone or not, since almost all software and almost every cell company use the exact same "give us your first-born" terms in their agreement.
Re:What's next (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but this depends on how you define "success." If you define it as "selling ten million records over the course of a career" then yes, it's beyond the grasp of most, if not all, indie artists. If you define it as "making a reasonable profit off your own music," then it might be a little different.
Acts signed to major labels appear to either make vast sums or go broke (or
Re:What's next (Score:3, Interesting)
From most of the people I know, I would say that being in an "indie band" is only something you do in addition to your day job because you would starve otherwise. Most have ambitions to at least be able to one day support themselves making music.
Re:What's next (Score:3, Interesting)
I, however, would define "success" minimally as "making music that would be worth listening to." But for those who's asperations revolves around quitting their day jobs, allow me to present the only formula that has ever been found to work consistently, no matter how the business is being run...
How to make money as a musician:
1. Be pretty.
2. Be capable.
3. Sell out.
Any questions?
Cute (Score:4, Insightful)
ITunes is the opportunity for artists to sell straight through Apple. Think about the opportunity for the artist. If your song is a winner, write a deal with Apple and watch your self win a windfall.........
The reason music is so expensive is that the stupid Record Companies pay potential winner groups big bucks to sign exclusive deals. One out of ten of those groups actually sell any records. So the 1 out of 10 pay for the other nines up front money.
With ITunes, you can potentially move the Record company out of the picture. More for the artist and more for Apple.
But crap, Apple is a dumb computer company. What do they know.
Re:Cute (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What's next (Score:5, Insightful)
1) What's "it"? Why do you, as a consumer, care where Apple gets its profits? Apple is in the business of making money. It so happens that iPod and iTMS are an unbeatable suite of products. iTMS is so good, it works very well on its own, without the iPod. You're not forced into buying _anything_.
2) Apple doesn't need to be worrying about getting more money into the hands of the artist -- that's the artist's and the label's fight. Apple barely nets anything on the music sold. Why should it fork over more to the artist?
If the artists hate their labels, they should leave them and form their own "artist-centric" label. Expecting Apple, a technology company, to whip the RIAA and artists into financially-fair shape, is unreasonable.
Use the tech because it's cool. Or don't. But don't expect technology companies to move mountains.
Re:What's next (Score:3, Interesting)
2) I don't EXPECT anything. But I'm not buying from Apple or anywhere else until they get their shit together and stop doing what they're doing. However, I think Apple forming an artist-friendly label is MUCH more likely (or at least advantageous) than artists doing it themselves because artists haven't got the money to start it and Apple could split the money gained by muscling out the RIAA (if it somehow could) between themselves and the artists.
Re:What's next (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What's next (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's next (Score:3)
Re:What's next (Score:2)
Great idea! The [macworld.com] Beatles' [drownedinsound.com] lawyers [macminute.com] will [audioworld.com] love [foxnews.com] it [wired.com], I'm [bbc.co.uk] sure [digiverse.net]. *rolls eyes*
Re:What's next (Score:4, Interesting)
MC Hammer (associating this name with the word "artist" is admittedly a reach) could have done it easily except his dumb ass felt that he needed an "entourage", several houses, enough jewelry to tip the planet out of it's orbit, and a car collection first.
They're just two of many who've had the chance to start something like this but instead they get the bucks and say (mostly) "fuck the ones that didn't". Their stories can be seen weekly on VH1's "Behind the Music".
Many successful artists could do this and should do this long before it becomes Apple's responsibility. Let the relative handful who actually made more bank than they can spend start an artist friendly label that gets more money to the person who created the work. Apple will be doing fine to sell the product and get it's (more than fair) share.
Re:What's next (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple does do something different. They treat every one the same. Big lable indie lable, it doesn't matter, you all get the same deal from Apple. Big lables get just as much exposure on iTMS as the indies.
Re:What's next (Score:5, Insightful)
Happily, over time, it is possible for people to sell their product without the RIAA. It will take both time and sales to make it happen.
The best way to encourage that model is to buy music on-line from your favorite independent artist! But remember, don't blame the artists who aren't independent - they're likely just as depressed with their contractual obligations as you are!
Re:What's next (Score:2, Funny)
Because I love Cascade, and I hate iPods.
Re:What's next (Score:5, Insightful)
The service pays for itself, but any money Apple gets out of it pays for maintenance, infrastructure and bandwidth.
Where Apple gains, with ITMS, is in iPod sales that ITMS generates, and the increased mindshare of Win users that have started to look more at the Apple brand for what it can offer, other than QuickTime.
If you've been on a corporate network with just a few Macs like I have, the sudden explosion of iTunes software running on Windows in the subnet appearing in music sharing list is amazing. Suddenly, 5 times as many people on the subnet are using--every day-- Apple branded software and (in some case) hardware.
ITMS and the iPod have been labeled the best marketing trojan horses any company could have thought of to increase it's mindshare.
Re:What's next (Score:3, Insightful)
My belief is that he knows that he's lying, at least by omission, when he says so. Maybe in order to fool the competitors into thinking "hey, Apple doesn't make money out of the store, they just cash on the iPods, so we need to make our own (failed) iPods to cash ourselves".
iTunes is what, three monthes old on the P.C.
Re:Yeah... (Score:2)
Yay! The world can get better... too bad it had to take Apple to make it legitimate.
Re:Yeah... (Score:2)
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah... (Score:2, Insightful)
assuming that number is accurate, how would that differ from traditional means of sales...CD production, distribution to stores, and so on. I would think the RIAA would get less than 80 in that scenario.
Re:invention? (Score:2)
Re:invention? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:invention? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:invention? (Score:2, Informative)
penguinoid was refering to the new napster which happens to be very similar to iTMS, yet windows only
Re:"Kicking and screaming", eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Apple's cut is as big as you think it is.
I've seen figures stating the RIAA cut is 60-80 cents/song, leaving 40-20 cents per song to Apple.
I do consulting for several clients that take CCs over the net. A typical example of CC/gateway costs is 2.25% + .30 per transaction. So a .32 of a $1.00 charge is immediately taken by the CC company. The numbers vary a bit, and are lower with larger volumes, but at a minimum they're problably paying 1.25% + .20/transaction.
I suspect very few people buy songs 1 at a time -- gift certificates are $20. I personally buy about 5 songs at a time, but friends of mine might buy 1-2 albums at a time, which minimizes the bite of the transaction fees.
After that they still have to pay for bandwidth, development costs, probably a FTE or 2 for maintainence, etc.
I don't think Apple is growing rich off iTMS, and I don't think BuyMusic, Napster, HPMusic, etc. will either.
Re:How can it be an invention? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How can it be an invention? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Magnatune is more important. (Score:2, Funny)
Don't people have to have heard of you to become important?
No fan noise. Practicality to spare (Score:4, Interesting)
When the G5 is in target disk mode, however, the fan control software does not load. The fans start faster than normal and rather quickly ramp up to full speed-- presumably that is a fail-safe in the hardware. When those fans are going full blast, you can feel the air moving for quite an impressive distance behind the G5.
As for whether that many fans is overkill or not, look at it this way: Apple's previous Power Mac case form factor was in use since 1999 (about 4.5 years). With the G5 enclosure, I think it appears overengineered to us now but was designed with an eye toward housing future CPUs in years to come-- CPUs that will really need all that cooling capability.
~Philly
An experiment to try at home... (Score:5, Interesting)
The design of the G5 is to use two fans in each zone, one gently blowing, one gently sucking. The result is that you're never slamming air against a wall, which is actually where a lot of the fan noise come from.
The 2.0ghz G5 chip consumes97 watts of power [eetimes.com]
From a cursory investigation, a Pentium IV seems to take between 60 and 100 watts [geek.com]
As to whether its revolutionary, I doubt it - its just solid engineering without concern with having to fit old form factor bits into the box. (PeeCees have much more homogenous designs, since Macs always come from a single vendor.)
Re:G5 Design - noise? practicality? (Score:5, Interesting)
The G5 is dramatically less noisy than the G4 (mirrored doors). The fans on my single-processor 1.8GHz model almost never run fast enough to notice, or even hear, during use. When the machine wakes from sleep, the fans do spin up for a moment to the point that they sound like, well, fans. But then they slow down again and get plenty quiet. And the fans also run quite a lot when the machine is in FireWire disk mode (for those that don't know, most Macs can start up in a mode where they function as external FireWire disk drives). In disk mode, the fans start off fairly quiet and eventually increase to what must be their maximum speed (and noise level). Other than waking from sleep and disk mode, though, I hardly hear the G5. Same goes for my buddy's dual processor 2.0GHz G5.
Are we likely to see the "multiple zone" principle copied into cheap Wintel enclosures?
The three zone cooling system seems to work really well. As described above, the fans don't seem to need to spin very fast to move enough air through the machine to cool the processor(s) withouth making much noise. I'd guess that the G5 processor produces less heat than a Pentium, as I've always understood that the Pentium is a significantly larger chip than any of the PPC chips. But I could be wrong. Take a look at the power consumption figures for each to get a better idea.
As for whether you'll see this sort of cooling system in Wintel machines, I'd say it's a definite maybe. As soon as you pop the side panel off a G5, you realize that machine is one very carefully designed unit. The entire front and rear panels serve as air intake and exhaust panels, respectively, and the processors and their very large heat sinks are placed at the constriction in the middle, so that air flows quickly over them. To make this work, a manufacturer has to be able to control the case design, placement of components, heat sink design, fans, etc. You can't just design a case with mesh front and back panels and slap in any motherboard. I don't think most Wintel buyers are willing to pay for that much design. A few desktop makers like maybe Sony could probably pull it off. More likely, I think you might see this sort of design appear in higher end machines like servers.
There's a lot more about the G5 design that's elegant than just the case. For example, the top hard disk drive mounts up inside the case in a position where it can't slide straight out. It looks at first like it could be a problem to get that drive out, but in fact the guide rails that hold the drive just drop the drive down, and it pops out with no problem. You can remove most of the components without tools. The side panel makes an incredibly satisfying 'click' when you press it into place. The case can be locked closed with a padlock, but the hasp for the lock folds down under the latch when you're not using it, so that it doesn't spoil the clean, flat look of the back. The power button is significantly improved over the G4.
In short, the G5 is probably the best designed machine Apple has produced in years, maybe ever. I wish Apple would get the G5 design team to build a car!
Re:G5 Design - noise? practicality? (Score:2)
Re:Are they? (Score:3, Insightful)
As a former audiophile, I remember saying te same thing when the CD first started appearing.