Apple Sells Two Million Songs in 16 Days 180
burgburgburg writes "According to Apple's latest press release, iTunes Music Store has sold over two million songs in the 16 days that it has been open. Quick calculations show this is around 1.44 songs per second. And as was the case last week, over half of the songs purchased so far were purchased as albums. Over 4,300 songs were added to the system yesterday, including older catalog stuff (Doors, John Coltrane, Charles Mingus), new albums (Cold, Lizz Wright, and Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs), prerelease tracks (Michelle Branch, Da Brat, Jesse Harris and Kenna) and more."
What surprises me, given their user base (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that there is no mechanism for indie bands and labels to get a piece of this action. This is a neat service, but it really only helps the big guys, while Apple has always been about the littleguy.
Re:What surprises me, given their user base (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What surprises me, given their user base (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What surprises me, given their user base (Score:3, Informative)
Uhh, all the albums I play in XMMS [xmms.org] are without gaps in between tracks (other than those on the CD) thanks to the XMMS Crossfade Plugin [mynetcologne.de]. There's nothing intrinsic to the MP3 format that causes the gaps. To do this on the iPod, Apple would have to transfer the next song into the 32- or 64-MB buffe
Re:What surprises me, given their user base (Score:2)
Re:What surprises me, given their user base (Score:2)
With an online digital-only store, that's irrelevant. A huge obscure catalogue could take up a few dozen gig of sto
Re:What surprises me, given their user base (Score:2, Insightful)
Trout Music (home of Trout Fishing in America) is in the midst of the process right now.
Re:What surprises me, given their user base (Score:2)
there is no mechanism for indie bands and labels to get a piece of this action
I've been submitting requests for my favorite indies. Use the "Requests & Feedback" link in iTunes. Horseflies [thehorseflies.com], anyone?
We'll see if Generalissimo Jobs was serious (Score:3, Interesting)
We haven't seen much in the way of results yet, and it's still okay to be a little skeptical. It'd make me feel better to see a new category full of smaller labels introduced with some fanfare.
In general Apple'd be smart to add big new sections of content -- "We're opening a new such-and-so wing of the store" -- rather than adding the Doors one day and Alanis Mor
Apple Records must be pissed (Score:5, Funny)
Apple records DID sue apple!! (Score:4, Informative)
When apple incorporated as apple they supposedly signed an agreement with apple records not to go into the record production bussiness.
from Wikipedia:
At one point, Apple Records sued Apple Computer for trademark infringment because the computer company broke their earlier agreement not to add sound to its computers. The case was settled out of court. Apple computers ever since have included a sound labelled sosumi ("So, sue me").
The label became successful, surviving the legal dissolution of the Beatles in 1974, and continuing to issue new material till 1976, although the holding company, Apple Corps., Ltd., is still in existence. The label was resurrected around the time of the Anthology for use on all Beatles CDs.
Europeans know how to use it for Illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Europeans are too smart, and the RIAA is getting nervous because they don't have control over all those Montenegrins, Serbians, and Andorrans.
When all those German techno records starting moving to the top of the store, Steve Jobs new there was a problem. He put on his best black turtleneck and headed for the server room, but when he looked in the mirror, he realized that he was Dietre from Sprockets.
Man! That was a weird dream!
unt now... (Score:5, Insightful)
About time. Apple got a clue. Cheap singles, downloadable, mix and match. Just the formula that's been obvious for years now, just needed to be done on a big scale from a brand name outfit. Any of the big guys could have done this, software side, hardware side, music industry side. People asked them, they knew about it.
Just shows how many bad ideas can get investor money and interest, and how long a good idea can lay there begging to be picked up, even when millions of people are pointing at it, going "hey, look, a good idea!"
And just think the bigger push for better and cheaper broadband now, just from this one move, and it's a "legit" move, too, zero "controversy" about it or it's legality. It would be *nice* if it was cheaper than a dollar,and a scosh more flexible, but all in all it's a good start anyway.
Re:unt now... (Score:2)
The way things stand now, nothing is simpler than using the Apple Music Store. Current offerings have been more painful to use than walking out your front door and buying a real CD, and th
Re:unt now... (Score:2)
Yes. The new 'iClue' will be availible from the Apple store next quarter, priced $500. A version for windows users will be availible soon after, but costing $2000.
They don't have to buy Universal... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, it would be cool if they got big enough as a content reseller to influence the DRM debate in favor of common sense.
Re:They don't have to buy Universal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is dependent upon the whole music industry cooperating with them.
Re:They don't have to buy Universal... (Score:2)
Legal jujitsu!
I like it.
A ways to go with even the "mainstream" alt music (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, they still only have part of the Cibo Matto album "Viva! La Woman," and have only two albums from They Might Be Giants.
But it is getting there. I'm very pleased I was able to download Cake's "Short Skirt/Long Jacket" without paying for the rest of the album, which frankly sounds exactly the same as their last three albums, only without the novelty of being fresh and new.
Once the Apple catches up stocking the stuff I just mentioned, then maybe they will move on to the more obscure bands and indie labels.
Re:A ways to go with even the "mainstream" alt mus (Score:2)
And they don't have any White Stripes or the FREAKING BEATLES. c'mon!
Re:A ways to go with even the "mainstream" alt mus (Score:2)
I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:2)
Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:5, Insightful)
Eather that or Mac users are more willing to pay for stuff. I think Mac users who realize that they are in the minority actually pay for stuff that they find as a value. There is probably a sience of obglation to pay for stuff so they can keep their favorate platform and have it supported. As long as Apple Computers and the supporting software is profitable then they will still make products and software and impove opon them, If it isn't profitible then they wouldnt be supporing the idea. That is why I will pay for Red Hat or Susa CD's not the fact I want to wast my cash. But to help keep selling Linux Distributions profitible for the companies. And the companies will invest their resources into linux.
Re:Kazaa for the mac (Score:2)
Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, it is cheaper to steal than to buy. No, this is not particularly insightful, nor even especially interesting. No, you are not smart for pointing this out.
Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:2, Insightful)
However, for the record and because I can't pass up a challenge: the crime known as "copyright infringement" is a special class of the general activity known as "theft."
theft: the act or instance of stealing
steal: to take without right or permission
take: to get into one's possession
All definitions come from dictionary.com.
Is copyright infringement "theft" in the sense defined in the criminal statutes? No. But neither is embezzl
Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:2)
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevole
Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:2)
You sir, are totally incorrect in the above statement. I now present you with a fuller posting of text of the letter from which I drew the quote.
Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
13 Aug. 1813Writings 13:333--35
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature
Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:2)
Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:2)
You state that works are seized by the government and placed into the public domain. But the US govt. cannot sei
Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:2)
To put this into perspective... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:To put this into perspective... (Score:2)
Re:To put this into perspective... (Score:4, Funny)
Eminem has a slightly larger user base, I suspect.
Re:To put this into perspective... (Score:3, Insightful)
More perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple's current market capatalization [yahoo.com] is 6.781 billion, as of this writing.
Barring continued unlikely exponential growth, this won't "save" the company (to the extent it might need "saving". However, I suspect that it is certainly a profitable aspect of the company, probably already profitable (though hard to tell), so even should The Worst happen, this will probably be spun off successfully; too lucrative to disappear in
right, but... (Score:2)
Also, keep in mind that they are planning on having a Windows version out soon, which could tremendously increase the market. If it scales linearly with marketshare, that will be a pretty big number.
Re:More perspective (Score:2, Insightful)
AAPL's 2002 revenues were $5,742 million. Net profits were $65 million.
So, $45 mil extra in revenues is indeed insignificant... about 0.7% of 2002 revs. Furthermore, they have to pay the music companies... Word is they will have to pay about 65% of the gross revenues to
Re:More perspective (Score:2)
45 million dollars in my pocket would set me up for life.
45 million dollars for a multi-billion dollar company is operating expenses for a day or two.
The bigger you are, the more you need to keep you alive. And like an animal, a company can only "cut back" so much before it becomes untenable and simply dies. Unlike animals, portions of it can live on, but the point is that while the service may seem impressive, and it is, it should
Re:More perspective (Score:2)
For financial analysts and the stock obsessed this is a significant change. It will grow even more significant next year when the Windows version of the iTunes sto
Re:More perspective (Score:2)
What's the Microsoft web service that is currently expanding their revenue as much as Apple is gaining from the iTunes store? How about something that's as profitable as
Re:To put this into perspective... (Score:3, Insightful)
The important point here really is that sales per average day have not diminished much since last week. 1 million in 7 days, 2 million in 16. This seems to indicate that the initial sales are not just a spike, they will be consistant. Eminem selling 7 million albums was a spike in both his own sales and in the sales of CDs in general.
Re:To put this into perspective... (Score:5, Informative)
And: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And: (Score:2)
I believe you are mistaken. The Soundscan system [soundscan.com] tracks barcodes as they are scanned by record stores. Thus, they track sales to consumers.
Re:To put this into perspective... (Score:3, Informative)
They count sales every week. Most records don't sell more records its second week than its first week (One by the Beatles being an obvious exception). The simple fact is that no record has ever sold 7 million copies in two weeks. The poster who said so was pulling numbers out of thin air.
So that means... (Score:2)
Re:Naaaw, that's old (Score:3, Funny)
(or maybe "Bill, I....", forget it).
Re:To put this into perspective... (Score:2)
How lossy is lossy? (Score:2)
Re:How lossy is lossy? (Score:5, Interesting)
128 bit ACC ->AIFF -> 128bit mp3
produces 11% RMS distortion of the original waveform. enought to hear.
on the otherhand
128 bit ACC -> AIFF -> 128 bit ACC
produces 6% RMS distortion.
I have not yet tested higher bit rates for MP3. however I would be surprised if 6% was not an aupper bound. This is not a pyscho acoustic test, merely an RMS test. 6% is quite acceptable for most listeners since a change of speakers or room can produce a simmilar effect. what is not clear is how this affects sounds humans are espically perceptive too such as the crach of symbols or noise in quiet passages.
Finally I have made an intriguing observation. I compared the AIFF I got off my CD to the ACC-> AIFF I downloaded from iTunes Music store. interestingly, the waveforms are not only different but the Pitch isdifferent. that's right the music plays just slightly (imperceptibly) slower on the iTunes version. I'm not sure why. Are not CD's digital, and if so what could cause the rate of playback to change. (were talking millseonds per second shifts in rate of play). It's also unlcear why the waveform of the ACC I purchased and the one I generated off the CD differed in ways besides pitch. The difference was larger than the difference between MP3 and ACC encoding using itunes. this suggests that the en-codec that apple is using is not the SAME one as the one found in itunes and introduces considerably more distrotion than the one found in itunes.
Re:How lossy is lossy? (Score:2)
To quote Fark: "Duke sucks."
(Funny joke, though I'm a Duke fan.)
Re:How lossy is lossy? (Score:3, Interesting)
128 bit ACC -> AIFF -> 128 bit ACC...6% RMS
Well, yeah, its the same psychoacoustic model, you're only hearing the generation loss in AAC to AAC - you're hearing a model mismatch in AAC->MP3. Can you run the numbers on:
CD->128bit mp3->AIFF->128 bit ACC
and see how that compares? That would be an interesting number.
Re:How lossy is lossy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple went back to the master tapes for a lot of their recordings. Jobs claimed in his announcement that some Music Store files would actually sound better than commercial CDs, which are not always made from such good sources.
If the track was converted to digital format from scratch, rather than using the same digital source as your CD, it would be reasonable to expect (minor) differences in playback speed and waveform.
It's a good thing for Apple. (Score:2, Interesting)
But that's beside the point! iTunes rocks! I love it! No
Re:It's a good thing for Apple. (Score:2)
And this is a problem?
Re:It's a good thing for Apple. (Score:2)
Their days are doomed... (Score:2)
[/endofsarcasm]
Think about this people: if they did this for a year, there would be 45,411,840 songs purchased in one year... from ONE RETAILER!
1 dollar per song, 45 million dollars. 1 retailer.
Lobby that to your bitches in the government!
Re:Their days are doomed... (Score:5, Insightful)
The first press release was that over 1 million sold in the first week. The second release was that over 2 million sold in 16 days. Using those numbers it would indicate that sales are slowing down, otherwise it should have been two million in 14 days.
Is this statistically accurate? No. My point is that two weeks is just WAY TOO SMALL a sample to determine the long term economic viability of this project.
I'd like to see it succeed, as I've felt the industry always needed something to replace the 45 single. Good luck to Apple, but to say "if they did this for a year" is one huge if
Re:Their days are doomed... (Score:2)
No, the numbers will skyrocket once the newness wears off. Because, just as soon as there is a week-on-week downturn, the Windows version gets released and the cycle starts again at a much higher volume (or so the theory goes - studies show Mac users pay far more often for their software so that might extend into music too).
Some hope (Score:2)
On the other hand the market keeps growing. In that same million dollar first week only about one million mac users downloaded the new iTunes. There are however 25 million mac users in total. I suspect there will be a spike the first couple of weeks as early adopters/geeks try it out. Immediately after that it will fall off for a few weeks/months but going forward it will continue to grow as the installed base continues t
Re:Their days are doomed... (Score:2)
Apple's got 5M active OS X users and maybe 1 in 5 of those downloaded iTunes 4. If you don't have a US billing address credit card you can't purchase yet either. Eventually the mac market will peak but it isn't even close yet. The Windows market hasn't even been launched, just announced for
A Win In The War For Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh and iTunes4, with cover art, an intergrated music store, my ipod interface, and streaming (and downloading) capabilities for my friends over the net, please show me the windows app that lets me do this out of the box with a great interface to boot. For 'free' on every mac.
Stupid Pricing games... (Score:5, Interesting)
Like Coldplay's Parachutes album. It's priced at $11.99 -- WTF happened to 9.99 albums? But it's only 10 songs (one of which is a whole 46 seconds long). OK, so buy them individually. Sorry, nope. Track 10 is marked "album only." The other Coldplay Album is 10.89 for 11 songs, basically the price per song.
Now perhaps the record labels are forcing these limitations on Apple. Maybe they are the reason that a CD of 18 songs is for some reason missing one track and available "partial album only" so you have to buy all remaining 17 songs at 99 cents per. I mean, how can you sell some albums like Dream Theater's Scenes from a Memory or 6DOIT which are complete album-long epics and offer it as "partial album only?" Heaven forbid I get 70 minutes worth of music for only $9.99. If you sell little 3 minute songs you can get over 20 songs on a CD that way... That's less than 50 cents a track. Oh my guiddy aunt, can't allow that.
(Maybe I *will* go back to aquiring my CDs the old fashioned way after all... Maybe the record labels want that to happen. Maybe they want iTMS to fail. Maybe I will fail to clarify what I mean by "old fashined way" with respect to aquiring my CDs.)
OTOH (Score:2)
Admittedly, Fela Kuti may not be exactly super-popular, but maybe that's the point.
I do hope they fix the "Partial Album" problem though, it's a real PITA. I am curious to know whether that's a licensing or technological issue.
Please to tell me (Score:4, Insightful)
Great, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
As everybody probably agrees, this is a great step in the right direction. This is exactly the kind of system that will bring "MP3s" (i know they're not MP3s, but that's what everybody actually means when they say "digital audio" or whatever) to the masses, legally. However, there are a few problems.
These songs are all AAC. Now, a good deal of the "new" or "lesser-known" formats that Apple has picked up on, they've turned into pretty much ubiquitous formats, for all systems. So, the fact that AAC is largely unsupported by most media players, hardware players, and other audio utilities is only going to be an issue for a little while. Once Apple has propogated AAC all throughout the PC world, it'll be just as popular as Vorbis or MPC. But there are several problems with this. Number one, as everybody knows, it's all DRM. That means that i'm paying just about the same price as a retail CD (or probably a little less, but not much), but i can only play those songs on approved hardware. (I haven't read up on Apple's AAC DRM scheme, but i assume it's much like WMA's.) So that's one problem. Another problem is, AAC is lossy, and not everybody likes it, for that reason and others. If i'm paying for a song, i want it in full, crystal-clear, lossless quality, so that i can encode it into my lossy format of choice, in order to make it compatible with my desired hardware/software. Or, at least, i'd like the option to (i understand that not everybody wants to download a full lossless CD). Of course, if they ever did go lossless, they'd have to get rid of the DRM (or it would be mostly pointless).
But i think, realistically, everybody knows that that's not going to happen. No matter how far the music industry goes with this, the music will ALWAYS be DRM. There is never going to be a service that offers just plain MP3s/Vorbises/FLACs/WAVs/<insert desired audio format>. It's always going to be restricted-access media, because the RIAA can't bear to let their content go freely to the user.
In other words, it's a step in the right direction, but i think it's the last one.
Make It Self-Serve (Score:2)
That would be huge. Create "vendor" accounts that can produce real CDs "on demand" for $10 at your local record shop. They have machines that do this: feed in audio data and
Re:I thaught it was (Score:2)
Trollilicious! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Trollilicious! (Score:2)
Re:Trollilicious! (Score:3, Funny)
Freak!
How dare you despoil the sacred Pepperoni with the dastardly Black Olive!
The holy trinity of pizza are thus: Pepperoni, Italian Sausage, and Green Bell Pepper.
Oh yeah - NOBODY expects the Pizza Inquisition!
Re:Trollilicious! (Score:3, Funny)
Our main weapon is fear.
And surprise.
Our TWO main weapons are fear and surprise.
And ruthless efficiency.
Our THREE main weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency.
NOOOOObody expects the Pizza Inquisition!
Destroy the Pizza Infidels (Score:2)
Mmmmmm.... roasted stomach pizza....
Oh, and don't forget... (Score:2)
*Pfeh!*
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time-a, you silly Pizza Infidel!
Re:Trollilicious! (Score:2)
Re:Trollilicious! (Score:2)
Re:seconds (Score:2)
You're thinking of the square root of 2 songs per second , which is about 1.41 songs per second.
Or maybe you were thinking of floppy disc sizes (1.44MB) and it struck a chord somewhere, causing you to post in error to SlashDot, attracting the inevitable flamage and the comeuppance you deserve, because as we all know, nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition!
Stupid neurons. Always so associative. And it's 6am here, give me a break
Number of servers (Score:2)
of course the problem is the spike loads, and I would imagine that for every song downloaded 20 get listened to.
If we figure the peak period is 100 times larger and the lisenting and web services are another factor of 10 in load thats a couple thousand servers.
anyone have a better guess?
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple has what, < 5% of the desktop market share? If these figure hold steady, then the Windows release of iTunes could generate close to a billion (1000 million) dollars.
That's what's impressive. Not that they have a service that could generate $50 million/year, but they have a potential US market (not a world market, but a US market) that is 20x larger to expand into. Start adding in Canada, Mexico, the EU, India, Japan... and there's a amazingly huge amount of money to be made by Apple.
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:2)
Okay, let's not get carried away. India and Mexico are unlikely to have the purchasing power and Internet infrastructure to present a market comparable to the US, Canada, EU, or Japan.
It would be very interesting to know the percentage of broadband users among the customers of the iTunes Music Store. I would suspect that it is close to 100%.
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:2)
Sure. I didn't say it wasn't worth pursuing, just that you don't want to expect similar revenue from India.
The US has a 10 trillion dollar GDP, about 200 million telephone lines, and 166 million Internet users. India has a 2.7 tr
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, for a company that has only 3% of computer marketshare, and an even smaller percent (85% ? of Mac users use OSX and lets imagine 90% downloaded Itunes 4) For a company that caters to this small of an audience, I would say two million songs in two weeks isn't bad. Macs have often been stepping stones before major software breaks out (I call it getting usability down, think AOL started on the Mac)
>This means total sales for the year would be >about $50 million, which in corporate terms is >pocket change.
It is pocket change. Now lets do some extrapolation of data shall we? 2 million songs in 16 days. Imagine if (when) this software is realeased for free on Windows, as it is currently under development. Lets say 90,000 downloads per day for mac users would extrapolate to be almost 3,000,000 for PC users, (thinking in strict terms of market share) so in two weeks time (after this software is set up for windows) we could see a revenue stream of over $1 Billion a year. Hardly chump change.
>Two million songs means that the average Apple >user is buying songs at a rate of 2-3 a year. >Hardly a figure that would impress anyone.
Are you Alomex, the great spreader of Fear uncertainty and doubt (FUD)? Or do you just wanna be a karma whore? The fact remains that the service has only been available for a little of two weeks, so each mac user downloaded two to three songs in two weeks. A song a week. (using your data)
>The only positive spin out of two million songs >sold is that it does prove that iTunes is not a >dud. Any other implication beyond that is pure >hype.
Positive Spin, in two weeks Apple has become the largest legit online music service company. And they can make money at this. They HAVE the backing of the music industry. They will soon have indy bands.
Please, take a moment to look at what the facts are before posting. I am getting annoyed with Karma whores spreading fake information about Microsoft, Apple, anything that doesn't run on or is Linux. The right tool for the right job.
Damn
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:2)
No. Songs are being purchased at a rate of two-three a year.
This is not the same as 2-3 songs per user in two weeks.
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:4, Informative)
According to this osOpinion.com article [osopinion.com] Apple claims 5 million users for OS X (as of January, this year). Assuming no one else started using OS X since then (pretty poor assumption, but whatever), we see that 5 million users downloaded 2 million songs in 16 days. This is a rate of 125,000 songs per day. At 365 days a year, we see 45.6 million songs per year. Spread across our 5 million users we see 9.12 songs per year. Admittedly not huge, but still 3x larger than your numbers.
Admittedly, this is based on some schetchy assumptions. 1) Purchasing rates won't remain at this level. 2) The number of OSX users I'm sure is higher now than it was in January.
But still, not what you claim.
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:2)
I had assumed that all Apple users could access the iTunes music store web site, however upon reading your comment I went to the Apple web site and indeed it seems you need OS X to access the iTunes music store...
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:2)
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:2)
Are there any stats around on what other online music retailers are selling? That's the downloadable music kind, not simply ordering CDs. I do suspect the iTunes music store sales to slow down in time, but are apple outstripping other retailers by 2:1, 10:1, or more? Is their one million songs in the first week really that impressive in relative terms?. I find it pretty good going in absolute numbers, considering th
Re:Unimpressive... (Score:2)
I'm going to be very interested in what the sales figures do after the advertising kicks in.
What would impress you? (Score:4, Informative)
We're not buying any numbers about the rate of sales to "the average Mac user" unless you've got a source or a much clearer description of your supposed stat -- what population are you using, please? -- but let me ask you this: What would "impress" you? Apparently a profitable online method for music retailing that convinces the big labels to allow unintrusive, intuitive DRM in the files and a per-song sales model, that doesn't impress you... Not when it's only selling around 90 songs a minute or around 1.4 songs a second.
In 16 days, Apple's store has more than doubled the sales from the other "legit" online music resellers put together last year. I wonder if they're at all impressed. If not, we shouldn't expect them to try to move to a similar sales model...
Re:Millions and Millions served Weekly (Score:2)
Re:Millions and Millions served Weekly (Score:2)
no, this is for only 2.5% of the market as 50% of apple's market is outside the USA.
even MORE likely (Score:3, Informative)
Even more likely he's a troll who posts the same freaking comment on every Apple discussion.
Re:BullSh*t (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Upgrade to X (Score:2)