MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Jun 30, 08 - 08:00 am Comment from: shen

"The MTV co-owned outlet is web-based and..."

wha? what is this "MTV" and what do they know about music?

In terms of the small amount of music I buy from iTunes, I've so far not been restricted by the DRM so as such it's not really a factor I've considered. That said, the increasing allowances on behalf of the music cartels towards other stores is making me consider what I buy - mostly in terms of not buying their stuff at all.

This is definitely collusion and I wonder about its legality. Apple's legal beagles should be studying this carefully.

Apple doesn't care about the music, they only want you to buy an iPod. Their early success tying iTunes & iPod together gave them the lead in device sales. (that, and a superior product) But the on the whole, Apple doesn't care where you get your music from and if these guys can get DRM free music, you can just import it into ITunes anyway. Look at the big picture.

Yet another useless store that sells music online - most people wont hear about this and will continue to:
(a) download from Limewire etc.
(b) borrow friends and family CD's and copy them into their computers
(c) buy music from iTunes store
(d) buy CD's - which are ALL DRM-FREE.

Music, although its pleasurable, is NOT one of life's essentials, and the majority are NOT going to make great efforts to get it from X or Y website that has DRM free, blah blah.

You wont die of Dengue fever if you dont get a 256 kbps copy of Eno's first album.....

On the other hand, you wont die or be arrested if you download 'illegally' either.
Laws dont stop normal behaviour made possible by legally purchased technology.

Most people copy DVD's of movies they rent - did you know that?

"...another example of the industry banding together in order to compete with Apple..."

That's hardly "competition."

Makes one wonder sometimes, whether somewhere deep inside the Apple core, there's a contingency plan c,d,e or m for a content providing (creating/facilitating) scheme for the distant future. I mean, isn't that how most iLife etc. stuff came about when Adobe tried and played too coy/cute?

Now, say you have $20B+ and a few former employees from Pixar, Disney what-not happens to be your friends (ok, fine.. acquaintances) and you can somehow persuade the whole independent artists community to contribute somehow on a fair deal while maintaining complete independence (not available from studios)... what exactly can that do for a hobby or two, even for just a bit?

Jun 30, 08 - 08:37 am Comment from: standardmess

The way I see it, this is all part of Jobs' master plan. By remaining as stalwart as possible on the pricing of music downloads, he has forced the music companies to capitulate -- by offering DRM-free downloads at other stores. Ultimately, all this does is help Apple by making the call for the eradication of DRM (as discussed in his famous open letter) a reality. The whole benefit of DRM-free music is that regardless of where it is bought, you can play it on an iPod.

Apple doesn't need the iTunes music store to survive. All Apple needs is content. The iTunes music store was created because at the time, most legally purchased music was locked up in PlaysForSure and other DRM that was far too clunky and kludgy for Apple to license and build its iPod around.

I think this really all bodes well for Apple. Plus, as other posters have alluded to, many people will still buy tracks from iTunes because (1) it's still easier and (2) many people don't really know what DRM means anyhow.

Jun 30, 08 - 08:37 am Comment from: Mr. Reeee

Simply trying to copy Apple... the failures continue to pile up... or squeeze them out won't change Apple's dominance. It's all about the iPod, stupid! When these people figure out... never mind, IF is more to the point.

I've never bought anything from the iTunes Store, nor do I know many people who have. We all just rip our own CDs.

Besides, for the music I'm passionate about, I rip using Apple Lossless. I wouldn't pay anything less. With my own CDs, I've got the choice.

everyone already uses itunes
game over

Who needs Limewire when you can take your laptop in to your public library and copy away in Apple's Lossless format?

"If you answer "no," you should think harder about the question."

If you don't agree with me, work harder to agree with me? How self serving. Really. Apple should work harder at not being a horses ass all the time.

I've been ripping all my music as mp4 (aac) because I'm an audio-snob. I've bought a couple of songs at 256mp3 from Amazon because they weren't available from iTunes. The songs were from the 70's so audio quality is fine for 256k mp3. 128k mp3 is not acceptable. I wonder what Real's bit rate is?

Jun 30, 08 - 08:53 am Comment from: Predrag

It should be corrected to state "...banding together in an atempt to compete with Apple...".

Labels had no choice but to do this. From their perspective, Apple was becoming this enormous Microsoft of music business, with an unchallenged monopoly and what's worse, it was telling them how to run their own business. Obviously, music industry has plenty of execs who think highly of themselves, and they just couldn't wrap their mind around the fact that Apple figured it out and became what it is today (in THEIR music business, no less) by offering music customers EXACTLY what they want. These CEOs somehow believe Apple was lucky because of the iPod. They think that the customers would still buy if they offered subscription, tiered/bundled pricing and other mind-boggling schemes they've been pushing onto the innocent, unsuspecting public in all other spaces.

They simply don't get it. Apple's success lies in the simplicity. A buck per song. Period. You buy the song, it's yours (more or less; for vast majority of users, this is practically true, as they can move that song between their computers, iPods and such). No monthly subscription, no stupid restrictions (Can't burn this on a CD; you have to pay extra), no special conditions (you must connect your music player to your computer in order for your music to continue to work; make sure that computer is connected to the internet).

Will the labels' attempt to offer as many alternatives as possible (first Amazon, now Real, and many smaller ones along the way) change the habits of iPod-loving masses? Very, very doubtful. For those that don't know what is DRM, the move makes little sense. For those who do know what is DRM (people like us here), we also know what stands behind these new ventures, such as Rhapsody. While 256kbps, DRM-free MP3 files may have some allure, we know better. We know that by defecting from Apple over to these 'alternatives' serves to undermine the very idea that confirmed that music can be sold digitally successfully, as long as it is offered in a simple, unencumbered way.

While Apple now sells more music than anyone else in the US, this is still rather small percentage. The business model is working well, both for labels, AS WELL as for consumers (us). As i said: buck a song. Simple. If labels, by some weird set of circumstances, succeed in displacing Apple as no. 1 digital music seller, we will very quickly lose our buck-a-song model and will soon be back to bundles (a.k.a. albums-only sales), premium pricing and all these wonderful marketing strategies these bean-counting geniuses have thought up in their corporate offices.

Fortunately, labels are very unlikely to succeed.

Another US-only effort. Bah.

My iPod touch won't hold much at Apple Lossless rates so I use mp4.

Collusion? No

Capitalism? Yes

Jun 30, 08 - 09:05 am Comment from: ElderNorm

Techno dudes aside, most of us that spend money like things easy and that just work. That is why we buy at iTunes (as well as download cds etc).

And like its said above, Apple makes money selling iPods and just breaks even selling songs. But sell them they do. What is it now,...... 5 BILLION songs. I guess this iTunes thing just works.

PS.... I stopped by a Walmart last week and asked the music teckno dude how well the Zunes were selling. This is what he said.

"Oh, the Zunes, they sell ok. We sold a couple this week." "But what bites my butt is when a customer comes in and says, "I want to buy an iPod (so I have to go over and unlock the display) and I ask them which iPod they want and they say........... "I heard you have one for, like, $39". Of course, they are talking about an mp3 player. I wish they would just ask for an mp3 player!"

Dudes..... iPods are now so standard that the term iPod is used when refering to ANY mp3 player..... as in....... "I have decided to buy an iPod today. Let me see that Zune thing over there. It looks shiny."

It should be an interesting

en

I buy only from iTunes.
I don't give a damn about DRM because all I use my music with is iPod

Jun 30, 08 - 09:10 am Comment from: qka

@Alec
take your laptop in to your public library and copy away

A little discretion might be in order.
Check the CD out of the library, take it home, rip it, then return it.
It's no so blatant.

Also, it increases the library's circulation statistics, which come into consideration when their funding comes up with the relevant bodies.

More circulation may lead to more funding, which may lead to them purchasing even more CDs.

I have to agree that this does little to hurt Apple. It evens sounds like SJ may have forced the industry into a corner by forcing them to keep prices down, and even offer DRM-free as incentive to purchase from these alternate sources.
Yes, iTunes was basically created to provide additional content and convenience for the iPod. The convenience and quality of iTunes remains, and it shows in the five billion download figure. These other outlets only add to available content, . . . and iPod sales.
We have watched Apple become number one in music retailing in just five short years. Apple stores have become the overwhelming leader in all brick and mortar retail, not just computers! Macs moved completely and very successfully to Intel, in less than a year. The OSX turnaround is looking more and more brilliant all the time. The iPhone has caused an earthquake in the cellphone industry, and might lead to a sea change there, as well.
Gee, do you think this competition is really a serious problem for Cupertino?

BusinessWeek: This begs the question 'Why?'

No it doesn't. Begging the question refers to logical fallacy.

Jun 30, 08 - 09:24 am Comment from: Webbyswim

Capitalism? No. This screams more of socialism. I look at it 2 ways, either get the music you want directly from the artist and strip out music cartel labels, or just pirate it all.

The only way to make a stand is to hit them where it hurts, the wallet. It worked before then Apple came in and rescued the industry. They are getting greedy again. It's time to make the music execs hurt again.

Jun 30, 08 - 09:25 am Comment from: Predrag

What's ironic in the whole story is, when labels fail in their effort to displace Apple from no. 1 position, it will actually be for their own good! Were they to succeed, and reduce Apple's dominance, that would mean that consumers became frustrated by Apple's lack of choice, or restrictions, or combination of those and other factors. Make no mistake about it, soon after pushing iTunes out of the top spot, labels would quickly change their model, put back the DRM, impose sales restrictions or premium pricing and do all those other things they've been asking from Apple. This would drive people back to piracy.

Apple's continued success and growth virtually guarantees solid profit margins for the labels, as well as nice growth. Very soon, digital will replace CDs as the dominant medium. When that happens, iTunes solid growth will translate into labels' solid profit growth.

How DO these CEOs walk through doors, with egos as big as theirs...?

Jun 30, 08 - 09:29 am Comment from: jjjj

go to http://mp3.rhapsody.com - they are giving away 100,000 albums (a $10 credit each). I downloaded Ethiopiques 21 - a solo piano album of Ethiopian music. Good Stuff.

256kbps bit rate.

I primarily use Rhapsody as a streaming service. I think it works just fine.

MDN, please don't talk about collusion against Apple. Apple doesn't hold the exclusive right to sell major label music, nor do they hold the exclusive right to put music on an iPod. The major labels should be able to put their music anywhere they can agree, in a format they are OK with.

However, should Apple be able to sell drm-free MP3's if all the others are playing? Absolutely. There should be some sort of favored-nation status for iTMS.

jjjj - the collusion against Apple to which MDN refers IS the refusal to allow them to sell DRM-free tracks on the same terms as other retailers.

On the other hand, maybe the other retailers' terms prohibit selling at $.99, and Apple won't increase their pricetag. In which case, it's not collusion.

Are you one of those LSD people?

You know, I'm starting to wonder if this really is the Music Cartels doing. What if it is actually Apple not letting them sell their music DRM-free on iTunes. Think about this:

1. Apple looks like its for DRM-free music
2. Record Co.s look bad for colluding against Apple
3. Other Stores look bad for cheating poor Apple
4. People buy from Apple's DRMed iTunes anyway.
5. Apple continues it's DRM lock in.
6. Apple sells more iPods/iPhones

Kind of silly. iTunes continues to grow. iPod sales grow year over year. Although Apple would be happy to sell w/o DRM, the truth is as people's music libraries become more populated with DRM laden track, the less likely those people will purchase anything other than the iPod, unless Apple misses several steps an the iPod begins to suck beyond belief. So, in effect the cartels are f'ing themselves.

The poor, sad "The Great Apple Fanboy Massacre" once again calls the kettle black.

Poor, pathetic fanboy "The Great Apple Fanboy Massacre"?, you're the last one who should be talking about getting out for some fresh air, because according to your "logic", the only thing worse than posting here (instead of interacting with other people), would be to troll here, instead of interacting with other people.

Poor, sad little troll, why don't you heed your own advice?

Jun 30, 08 - 10:34 am Comment from: Jubei

Isn't that tactic by the cartels illegal? If not, it should be.

After 5 billion songs sold from iTunes these creeps keep trying all sorts of trickeries to bring it down....

Jun 30, 08 - 10:34 am Comment from: AlanAudio

It's well known that Apple makes a tiny profit per sale on stuff sold through the iTunes store. Although it's not much, when they sell a few billion tracks, they get to make a respectable amount of money.

Does any other on-line music store either break even or make a profit ? I've yet to see any financial results that say they do, but maybe I've simply missed them.

Apple can't really lose here. Music is sold either via Apple or elsewhere, but it's listened to on iPods, so Apple's business is healthy. It doesn't worry Apple if that tiny profit from an iTunes track is not made, but if one of Apple's rivals makes a loss on that sale instead, it's going to strengthen Apple's position by comparison.

In the meantime, the record labels are getting their customers used to buying tracks at less than a dollar apiece and without DRM too. Apple doesn't seem to be losing any business and the labels are trimming their profits without Apple having to negotiate lower prices. It all adds up to good news for Apple in the longer run and in the short run too.

Oh, excuse me, I forgot that Dubya is running things- being 'The Decider' and all. They don't enforce the anti-trust laws, just like they don't enforce worker safety, environmental, consumer protection, FISA, and other laws. They are not really fond of The Bill of Rights- excepting the Second Amendment.

What the Music Cartel is doing is in-your-face illegal under US law. However, just like with the Micro$oftopoly case handed Bush after he was appointed President, he'll take a pass.

Jun 30, 08 - 12:38 pm Comment from: standardmess

@AppleJack & @AlanAudio:

Exactly!

@Dallas,
Your conspiracy theory is wrong. If Apple were deliberately keeping DRM, don't you think the labels would be touting that to expose them? Try to think the problem thru, will ya?

It's mostly irrelevant-these downloads don't work with iPod, as I understand. That's like designing a car that doesn't work on concrete.

Yes, it is illegal... just like payola (pay for play).

However, the illegality of payola hasn't stopped the music industry from continuing to engage in it... as it has for about the past 60 years at least. Every ten years or so there's a big public stink raised, Congress investigates, passes new legislation (or not)... and it continues anyway.

It's not really a Republican vs. Democrat issue, conservative vs. liberal issue, or any political entity vs another issue.

It's a SIG (special interest group) issue, and the only way to bring SIGs under control, is to just forbid SIG lobbying.

But, that's the problem, you see. In order for that to work at all, absolutely all SIG lobbying has to be outlawed, and most SIG supporters aren't going to want that... let alone the organization themselves... or the politicians who receive money from them.

If you are a _______ (PETA, NRA, GreenPeace, NEA, AFL-CIO, etc., etc., etc., fill in the acronym of any SIG) supporter, then you aren't going to want your "good" organization prevented from "positively" influencing "wayward" politicians.

It's just a matter of whose ox is getting gored.

Jun 30, 08 - 05:02 pm Comment from: drcaddy

Ok, how's this one: My girlfriend has a Zune (yeah that's not a typo, she's the only person I know who has one. Brown. Squirts. The whole deal). ANYWAY, she buys her music......from ITUNES! iTunes plus, of course. But nevertheless, that's the first place she looks.

Everytime I read something about another "store" offering DRM free music, I buy another album on iTunes.

So where's the anti-trust lawsuit directed at the music cartels?!

How can they seriously defend disadvantaging one store over all others?

Come on America - you're such a litigious society usually - perhaps you could actually embark on a lawsuit that makes sense for once.

If you want to know why itunes has DRM, the record company execs have already given you the reason. Each of the big media CEO's has explicitly said that the majority of music on iPods is stolen, and that iPod users are thieves, therefore itunes is a facilitator for committing the crime. Since Apple is enabling piracy and theft then the record companies have no choice but to severely limit and penalize Apple for this egregious behavior.
Conversely, Amazon, Rhapsody, Emusic customers do not use iPods /iTunes therefore they are free of pirated music and therefore have earned the trust of big media and relaxed restrictions.
Consider DRM the equivalent of buying music under probation.

The big media CEOs make assumptions. All their assumptions are wrong. Their biggest and worst assumption, the one that is most insulting to existing and new iPod users, is that they think DRM or no-DRM actually matters to people who are savvy about digital music or simply want a good digital experience. Today's music industry seems to be run by people who do not love music but love only money. They do not know their product, and they do not know their customers.

Some of us older than 30 can remember literally taping songs off of radio broadcasts, and lent/borrowed/trade countless record albums to/from friends and families and then made tapes of them. I would think all the *music piracy* would've crumpled the music industry in the 70s and 80s. Yet music THRIVED.

The music industry has no clue about the demographic that actually has the most money to spend want in digital music experience. They can thank their DRM-free partners Amazon and Wal-Mart for destroying my local record store where I used to pay CDs at full price, but now buying nothing from those corporate outlets since their selections SUCK. In late 90s I averaged about a new CD a week. Since then it's been less than a handful CDs a year that I bought and then put in my iTunes library. And I have not downloaded anything illegally. There is a simple reason: There Is Nothing Worth Stealing. THAT is the music industry's REAL problem.