MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Just...because.

And collusion aint just what they do to the river in Scranton.

if the 4 major labels would let iTunes sell DMR free music, then they would.

don't blame apple, blame the labels.

I find myself buying more music from amazon lately than itunes because it is dmr free.

the Amazon interface is ..... what's the word -
' unwieldy ' ?

Mar 26, 08 - 02:29 pm Comment from: silverhawk

me thinks megame is the alias for cub report Jefferson Graham.

Da rivers in Scranton are very colluded, heyna?

Mar 26, 08 - 02:33 pm Comment from: ElderNorm

But, But, But,........ what are the numbers?? Without numbers, number 2 could be at 4% of sales!!! If Apple has 80% that leaves 20% to be split up several ways.


NUMBERS.

en

Mar 26, 08 - 02:42 pm Comment from: IEEE1394®

@MDN Take:

Right on, brothas! Basic Journalism 101. Figures that USA Today would not know the basics in Journalism. For reference, I graduated as a Photojournalist back in 2003 after 7 years of undergraduate "study". <cough> I may no longer be a Photojournalist, but "attributing sources" and "verifying facts" were among the very top things taught to us. I left Photojournalism, in part, because I saw the rise of its downfall in the mid-late 90's. And it seems to just keep getting worse. :-(

Mar 26, 08 - 02:44 pm Comment from: Buster

Amazon = #2 in more ways than 1

Know what I mean?

The USAToday article says "Apple, which claims an 80% share of digital music sales".

I don't think that Apple actually claims that based on their own data; as far as I can remember, Jobs' slides point to NPD as the source of such data.

Mar 26, 08 - 02:47 pm Comment from: Journo

I cannot tell you people how dead on MDN is with their comments.

MDN provides a very valuable service.

What you see here is MDN holding a major mainstream media entity accountable for running a planted PR piece as "news" along with an edit for syndication that was obviously intended to hide who's spreading the PR piece.

Graham should be ashamed - whether he knew what was going on or not. So should the USA Today.

Great job, MDN! Kudos!

Ok, if they sell DRM free music on Amazon, but that same track is on sale at iTunes with DRM, WTF?

Why is there intent from the music industry to stick it to Apple for pulling their asses out of the fire in the first place.

And if we all remember back in the day, Apple didn't want DRM. This was imposed onto them by the RIAA (don't get me started).

All of this has made me horribly disenfranchised by the record label industry and as a consumer I will do what I can do to state my point. Even with DRM I will purchase music from iTunes as they deserve my business and I encourage others to do the same.

As for backdoor deals with other ecommerce companies that will sell unrestricted content where the exact same content has artificially imposed restrictions, I say no.

so, the labels wanna play hardball. Let's do it.

Apple should start signing away their artists. Also, Apple should get into a price war with Amazon now. Then they should target one lable for caving and force them to offer music without Drm.

Mar 26, 08 - 02:49 pm Comment from: ericdano

What? No way. I thought the Zune Store was #2 cause Zune Tang said so? Or was it Microsoft? Either way.....I mean, the Zune is the #2 player. So, their store should be #2.

More DRM-free music is sold on iTunes than there is music sold on Amazon. Hopefully the labels will realize eventually that, no matter how hard they try to fudge the numbers, it's actually more profitable for them to offer their music on iTunes (if they have to make it an either-or in the first place).

Mar 26, 08 - 02:59 pm Comment from: Macromancer

Sounds like they are using the same calculations that Amazon is to declare the Kindle to be wildly popular, thus it's sold out.

Mar 26, 08 - 03:00 pm Comment from: Buster

I agree with ericdano

The Zune = #2 in more ways than 1

Know what I mean?

Mar 26, 08 - 03:00 pm Comment from: Macromancer

"'The labels think Apple has too much influence,' says Phil Leigh, an analyst at Inside Digital Media.""

Translation, the labels want someone to compete with Apple because you know competition is good to keep prices down... right? Right? After all, 99 cents for a song is just outrageous.

Mar 26, 08 - 03:04 pm Comment from: Ampar

Just FUD in another form.

Well, no matter what they'll say, I'm still going to buy my music at the itunes store, it's easier. Plus, I know where my money is spend. Better at Apple than at Amazon. Apple develops more;-) But that's just my P.O.V.

Apple has already done the pre-loaded iPods: the U2 entire catalog on the special edition U2 iPod. So nothing new here.

If they're talking about iPods sold with a premium fee to allow access to all of iTunes w/o other fees, don't hold your breath.

Mar 26, 08 - 03:21 pm Comment from: Cubert

"I've got a Chevy MOPAR cam. I've got a Chevy MOPAR cam. I've got a Chevy......MOPAR cam. I'll be your Johnny on the spot!"

Mar 26, 08 - 03:35 pm Comment from: HMCIV

#2 in Digital Music sales is kinda non-sequitur if you're about to become #2 in TOTAL music sales.

There is nothing "wrong" about it, in fact. The labels are a much better source than anybody else because they are the ones collecting royalties and sales information from all their distributors. So the Chrysler analogy is not correct. A better analogy would be if Chrysler named so-and-so their top dealer.

There is no doubt that the labels wanted to build Amazon up to rival iTunes store. It is not because Apple refuses to raise their price, since Amazon gets to sell good quality DRM-free songs for less. It must be to reward Amazon for their CD and DVD sales.

I haven't bought anything from Amazon yet, although I have checked them out on several occasions. I continue to buy from iTunes. I prefer their iTunes+ and AAC format.

I think eventually the labels will extend the same terms to Apple as they have to Amazon. And if they don't, they run the risk of losing a lot of iTunes customers. Digital music sales are very high margin so it's to their benefit to sell as many as they can.

I switched a few months ago from buying online at iTMS to Amazon. The interface sucks, but you know, who cares. I get DRM-free MP3s at 256k *and* it's cheaper. The library isn't as large, but they seem to have a lot of what I'm looking for. The rest I still buy physical because I really can't stand iTMS' restrictions.

"The USAToday article says "Apple, which claims an 80% share of digital music sales".

The word 'claim' is a well chosen word. Why? because it can mean one thing, while inferring another.

If Apple 'claims' 80%, the word 'claim' can mean they have 'ownership of' 80% or it could mean they 'say' they have 80%.

In this case, the fact is that Apple has ownership of 80% of sales. However, the inference is "those boastful,arrogant people at Apple keep shouting that they have 80% of sales"

Yes, the article was severely lacking in hard numbers, but I like the guy from Amazon. He sounds like Steve Jobs:

"Amazon's Baltaxe says the best defense against piracy is a good offense. "Songs sold without DRM, at high quality, with album art, that's the best way to get people to buy music instead of stealing it. DRM is a way to punish people who are buying," he says. "Offering a great product at a great price is a way to combat piracy."

Mar 26, 08 - 04:20 pm Comment from: KingMel

At least the article credits Apple with working with EMI to kick off the DRM-free revolution. The reasons that iTunes hasn't gone completely DRM-free are...the four major labels. Go figure.

I am personally not purchasing any new music from the labels. I buy used CD's, which does not (directly) contribute to their revenue streams, and am content to live a music life that lags by a few years (except for radio, of course).

Mar 26, 08 - 04:21 pm Comment from: deepdish

I have two screen names. one is megame and the other is deepdish. why two, well, one is registered and the other is not.

Silverhawk, I had to google "Jefferson Graham" to figure out who you were talking about.

Nope, not that guy. I am me. I am megame.

Mar 26, 08 - 04:23 pm Comment from: Tommy Boy

MDN, you are skeptical, but the other also rans in digital downloads were so far behind iTunes that I expected Amazon to be #2 in digital downloads on Day 1. Note that is in downloads not in music as a whole where Amazon was already surpassed by iTunes.

C'mon do you really think WMA-hobbled stores like Napster or Zune Marketplace or Rhapsody are actually ahead of Amazon? Or that the majors would promote a site like eMusic whom they don't support? Puh-leez.

This selective information article reminded me of an old joke I had heard regarding Soviet Propaganda during the Cold War.

(Google is your friend):

"Khrushchev's American visit [in 1959] was the topic of a wide Soviet propaganda campaign, and a popular joke soon took root in the USSR that testified to the fact that Soviet citizens were starting to get fed up with the shrill and constant exhortations to catch up with and overtake America.

According to the joke, US President Dwight Eisenhower suggests to Nikita Khrushchev that they see who will catch and overtake whom in a 100-meter race. The fit Eisenhower covers the distance easily, while paunchy Nikita barely manages to puff to the finish line a few minutes later. The Soviet newspaper Pravda reports on the event:

"US President Eisenhower and our dear Nikita Sergeevich participated in an athletic contest; Nikita Sergeevich captured second place, while the US president finished second to last."


Thus, the USA Today parallel for this two horse race is:

"Amazon music store is in Second Place, while the Apple iTunes is second to last."


-hh

--
PS: It is quite ironic that the "MDN Magic Word" for authorizing this post was 'soviet'. No kidding!

Mar 26, 08 - 04:42 pm Comment from: Demon

The Music Labels don't want iTunes or even Amazon for that matter to seriously become the #1 or even #5 music retailer. The Music Labels want total control over the music you listen to. They want to run the Digital Store as a subscription only service with maximum DRM and very limited use rights.
If the music labels can get Amazon to beat iTunes and force Apple to close the iTunes Music store they'll then just pull the plug on Amazon. They can't pull the plug on iTunes because iTunes is what is keeping them afloat right now. They want to force the subscription only service and phase out CDs and DRM Free Music. DRM Free is the only reason Amazon is competing at all with iTunes. If the labels would let iTunes sell DRM Free then Amazon would have little to no chance at all. The Music Labels dream of an all subscription only music service world owned and operated by them, would go out the window.
The DOJ needs to investigate the music industry for price fixing, under selling to Amazon and collusion to force iTunes out of the retail business of music.
The labels put artists into contract slavery with their legal contracts. They want the music buying public forced into that same contract slavery model. If the labels are allowed to operate their own retail online music service, they will pull every dirty trick and force every other online music retailer out of business.
The World did away with slavery long ago. Why as the governments (and people of conscience) of the world allowed the Music labels to continue their contract slavery into this modern enlighten age? The music labels wants to enslave us all into playing them for everything even if it cost them nothing. They cover their actions under the skirts of the RIAA and other trade groups that they control and fund, these trade groups all thought we're doing this to protect the artists rights. But, under the terms the artist has with the labels they have no rights and earn little to no money in royalties for the work they produced.

Mar 26, 08 - 04:45 pm Comment from: Jubei

Wait a minute here. Are you all saying that 4 major labels are allowing Amazon to sell DRM free music, but not Apple? Is that legal?

Mar 26, 08 - 05:25 pm Comment from: Lilochris

I love Apple and their product. I have the new nano & a 1st Gen. Shuffle. Back then I used to get all my songs from iTunes because I didn't know any better but all the songs are protected. iTunes Plus library is puny compared to Amazons.

Now, I get all my songs from amazon, one because all is DRM free, because of the higher quality songs, and because many of the songs are 10 cents cheaper than iTunes. I then import them to iTunes.

If iTunes were to have all their songs DRM free, then I will stick with iTunes but unfortunately not. It probably won't happen because it won't look good for apple. The Plus songs are larger files and a 4 Gig Nano that once held 1000 songs with DRM will probably hold 675 songs with the Plus or Amazon songs.

Mar 26, 08 - 05:27 pm Comment from: Demon

@ Jubei

All the major music labels but EMI have refused to allow DRM Free Music on Apple iTunes. And the same labels are selling DRM Free tracks on Amazon and for less money in many cases. Is it legal? The big music labels have always been allowed to write their own rules in many cases.

Let's say you went to Ford and got a job in a plant mounting wheels with tires on new cars on the assembly line and Ford said ok, for each car we sell at full list price were going to pay you $1000.00. And the contract said that, too, but also said that of the $1000.00, Ford was going to deduct $500.00 to pay the person that put the tire on the wheel, and $100.00 for the person that put the air in the tire, and they also deducted the cost of the tires, wheels, lug nuts, tool rental, training, value stems, uniforms, cleaning, deductions for cars that did not sell for full retail sticker, incentive charge backs and charged you for the air that when in the tire.

So, in the end, for each mount tire you earned -$100.00 and Ford said you couldn't quit before the end of your contract without paying them the money you owed for the 1,600,000 wheels you mounted in the first year of your contract plus the cost of your training.

How long would the government and the people for that matter allow Ford to say in business. Not long. But, this is the way the Music Labels do business everyday.

The music labels want a patsie (i.e., Amazon) to take over as their lead distributor, one that would allow them to f*ck over consumers. They showed their true colors before when SJ blocked them, so now they're trying to take down iTunes. Any consumer who cares about his or her own interests will continue to buy digital downloads from iTunes (unless you prefer CDs). We need iTunes and SJ to keep the music cartel in line.
GO APPLE!!

Mar 26, 08 - 05:55 pm Comment from: Connor MacBook

@bizlaw
The U2 iPod wasn't preloaded, it came with a discount voucher for the Complete U2.

Yes, the big music labels are fighting for their lives now, but take heart, for they are losing! Don't forget that when reading their shill-pieces in the media. Sure, they aren't dead yet and might still get impose their mediocrity on us all. But look at the situation now compared to, say, 10 years ago.

Wow, this is inaccurate reporting indeed! Check out what David Pakman, eMusic CEO has to say on the matter at http://www.17dots.com/ eMusic is number 2 NOT Amazon!

Mar 26, 08 - 06:31 pm Comment from: toby

I guess my question is...Who's number 3?



And by how much? How much is iTunes market share? How much is Amazon's?

Well said Jake & someonewhoshouldbeworking

Even if I wanted to use Amazon I couldn't, because I reside in Canada where, to my knowledge they don't offer digital downloads. I won't buy the DRM'd crap, and I do not want to spend $15-20 for a CD... so where does that leave me? I am more than willing to pay for an album online but I want 256kbps+ (320 ideally for most, flac for a few) and I want no DRM. But the labels don't want this to happen.... and they wonder why they are loosing money.

Maybe one day they will think about what their consumer actually wants rather than their rapidly decaying business model.

Amazon is probably waaaay behind iTunes. I wonder how many people download songs illegally compared to iTunes though.

Waaaah Waaaaah Sombody is catching up with iTunes Waaaah Waaaaah

Excuse me, I was mistaken.

Fanboy Frigtard = #2 in more ways than 1 (can flush)

Know what I mean?

Mar 26, 08 - 09:27 pm Comment from: Jubei

@Demon

Thats just unbelievable. I can't believe they are doing that and getting away with it. If this keeps up, then iTunes will quickly lose ground as far as music sales go. Just crazy.

Mar 26, 08 - 09:39 pm Comment from: scut

Me thinks MDN doth protest too much as usual (your Apple pom pons are getting frayed MDN).

After reading the full article my take is that the USA Today story is only trying to convey the music labels are backing Amazon's effort to gain more market share. Big whip!

In my mind this greatly benefits Apple as most consumers of music hate the labels. I've purchased a few things from Amazon, but most of what I'm interested in is already on iTunes or isn't on either iTunes or Amazon.

In the end, I doubt Apple cares much other than Steve probably feels he understands the market better than the labels and wants to ensure its growth. But as long as Amazon is building a store that supports the iPod...that's all Apple needs. Remember folks, Apple makes its money on the hardware, not the store.

Having bragging rights as a large store is nice, owning the hardware market is shweeeeeeeet.

The MDN story is right on, except that if you check the USA Today story, the website shows that it was updated about 1:30 PM EST. Seems like the "edit" must have been ADDING the phrase "say the four major labels." So the original story must have not included this phrase. To my mind, it looks like USA Today had to go back and clarify their story on the web AFTER it was already syndicated - since obviously they had no real numbers to say that Amazon is number 2. That's the reason the phrase is not in the syndicated story. Looks like a huge Amazon puff piece to me, and carelessly written at that.

Mar 26, 08 - 10:52 pm Comment from: TheConfuzed1

The labels are manipulating sales by not allowing Apple to sell the same DRM-free tracks that they are available elsewhere.

I don't blame Yahoo for this abuse, but the labels themselves. If the shoe were on the other foot, and iTunes were the only source to get these files without DRM, people would be crying foul!

Why is it not okay to use these tactics if you're the mainstream vendor (abusing a monopoly), but it is okay if you're the underdog?

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, right? (What the hell's a 'gander,' anyway?"

I buy from iTunes when I can get iTunes Plus songs. I am tired of buying the inferior 128 kbps drm-laden files. The iTunes Plus section has been really slow to expand, thanks to you know who. So sometimes I buy Amazon. At least it is drm-free 256, even if it is the inferior mp3 file.

MW: wanted: more iTunes Plus selection. Hey you mother-effing blood sucking record labels, I would buy much more music if you just made it available as 256 drm-free on the iTunes Plus store. You guys are seriously stupid!