May 05, 2003

Still More on iTunes Music Store

Adam Engst has been one of the keenest-eyed and most thoughtful observers of the internet since the days when it was little more than a gleam in DARPA's eye. Here he gives his view--an amazingly optimistic and positive view--of Apple's new iTunes Music Store:

Adam Engst, TidBITS: We've now had a week to play with the new iTunes Music Store, to analyze how well it is implemented, and to think about the effect it could have on Apple, the recording industry, artists, the peer-to-peer file sharing networks, and even physical music stores.... Let's be real. The reason the iTunes Music Store exists at all is because Apple is using AAC files that include digital rights management (DRM) technology. Without including some sort of DRM, Apple would have stood an igloo's chance in Florida of working out a deal to license songs from the major record labels. AAC isn't about digital rights management; it really is aimed at doing a better job - both in terms of compression and quality - than the MP3 format. But Apple's implementation of AAC also provides hooks for digital rights management that prevents casual copying....

This DRM information enables Apple to implement four restrictions on how you can use songs you download, and although they're fairly reasonable, they're still restrictions. First, you can authorize only three Macs at a time to play a song.... Second, although Apple lets you burn songs to audio CD as many times as you want, you can do so only 10 times before iTunes forces you to change the playlist you're using to burn.... Third, when you use iTunes 4's Rendezvous sharing capabilities to share purchased music, the Macs with which you're sharing must be authorized to play your purchased tracks.... Fourth and finally, the use of AAC and digital rights management limits you to playing purchased music in iTunes 4 on a Mac and any iPod...

Is Apple blundering by limiting the potential market for the iTunes Music Store so much? In the short term, no. It's likely that the only way Apple was able to negotiate the licensing deals with the record labels was because the potential user base was relatively small, thus limiting the damage should Apple's restrictions prove easily broken....

But the question remains: how easy will it be for someone to convert one of Apple's protected AAC files into an MP3 file with no DRM or even identifying information? Not hard at all, in fact, because you can burn an audio CD from iTunes 4 of your purchased music, and then you can rip those files back to MP3, even retaining track names and other metadata. The process comes with some loss of quality that audiophiles will undoubtedly dislike but that won't bother most people (I can't hear it at all)....

But will people pay $1 per track when they can download the same songs for free from the peer-to-peer file sharing networks? I think so - Apple has a winner here, for the same reason the iPod is the leading portable music player despite its high price. Put bluntly, Apple cares deeply about user experience....

The real question, of course, is how the iTunes Music Store will compete with the peer-to-peer file sharing networks like Kazaa and Gnutella. I suspect Apple did a detailed competitive analysis with these services when designing the iTunes Music Store, and it shows. The user experience of these services is inconsistent and, quite frankly, horrid....

This ignores a major difference between the iTunes Music Store and the file sharing services - the extent to which any given person feels as though downloading from the file sharing services is a legal or ethical problem. It's clear that millions of file sharing users aren't terribly concerned. But are they sufficiently concerned to switch to the iTunes Music Store and pay a buck per song? That's Apple's bet, and I think it's a good one....

Early indications would seem to support this opinion, given today's press release announcing that Apple sold over one million songs in the first week of operation.... What I find most intriguing is that Apple was able to rack up these sales figures with only Mac users, and only Mac OS X users at that....

Posted by DeLong at May 5, 2003 09:48 PM | TrackBack

Comments

The problem, obviously, is that buying a CD's worth of songs from iTunes will cost you more than purchasing the same CD in a record store or online. Apple can get away with $1 a song because Apple users are notorious for being willing to spend hard-earned money on things like "user experience" (as though routine crashing and lack of applications was somehow "useful").

Somewhere I saw a writeup stating that the manufacturing cost of a commercial CD in bulk is about $1, and 18 cents of that is for the CD itself. And the cost for recording has come way down with the advent of cheap digital tools. This fact isn't lost on the legions of CD users who thought they were getting a better, cheaper medium for their music when CDs first arrived on the scene. Now the average CD costs about 1.5x the cost of the equivalent tape cassette (in some places 2x), and this cost only goes up with iTunes, with the catch that you get 1) a verifiable loss in quality over CDs and 2) more restrictions on how you can use the music you've purchased.

This is far from a recipe for success, and Apple can get away with it, as I've said, only because they have a user base who has always been more concerned about image than about value. But how will iTunes or a similar concept play to the masses (especially those outside the US, where piracy was commonplace even before Napster)? It won't.

The record companies have done nothing to creatively deal with the issue that's facing them - their product has lost its value, and they have to find a way to stuff some value back into it. But you can't drum up support for your product while at the same time removing value. (Try the New Improved Cheerios, Now Even Shittier!)

Instead of trying to come up with creative ways to attract buyers, through their menacing tone they've criminalized their old customer base, and now they're trying to woo them back with iTunes? (Try the New Improved Cheerios, Now Even Shittier! You damn thieves!)

The music industry has lost, and iTunes is far from its salvation. Don't expect that this mediocre "success" in the Apple microcosm will translate into the real world.

Posted by: Chris Nelson on May 6, 2003 04:06 AM

The good thing about Napster and Kazaa is you download things you don't want. What is my kid listening to? Download Nelly. Remember that Spirit song we used to have? Download Darlin If.
Voila, music on a whim.

A dollar a song seems like a lot of money for music on a whim. Now we are getting a you-pick-it music CD. We put the package together, burn the CD, etc. The record company saves the packaging, manufacturing, distribution costs and still makes enough for lavish parties with dangerous drugs. Boy, sure hope it works out for them.

Posted by: LowLife on May 6, 2003 04:08 AM

Apple sells 1m songs in 1st week

iTunes response lifts online music hopes

By Chris Gaither, Globe Staff, 5/6/2003

pple Computer Inc. said yesterday that it sold more than 1 million songs through its new digital music service in the first week, boosting hopes that the influential computer maker has found a viable method of persuading consumers to pay for music on the Internet.

Apple introduced its iTunes Music Store with much fanfare on April 28. In contrast to subscription services, which charge monthly fees to listen to music, Apple modeled Music Store after Amazon.com. Users can listen to a 30-second preview of any of the 200,000 songs in its catalog; then, after setting up an account, they can purchase the songs with one click of the mouse. Singles cost 99 cents apiece, and full albums cost $8 to $13.

''Looks like Apple has got a success on its hands,'' said Josh Bernoff, principal analyst with Forrester Research, based in Cambridge, who cited the per-song marketing approach as an improvement over the subscription model.

To the surprise of analysts and Apple, the company said yesterday that more than half of the 1 million songs were purchased not as individual singles, but as part of an album.

Apple's stronger than expected online music sales in the first week helped boost the company's share price 11.35 percent to $16.09 a share yesterday, up $1.64 in Nasdaq trading.

The music industry has thrown its weight behind Music Store in hopes that its simple interface could influence some of Apple's fiercely loyal users to abandon free file-sharing programs like Kazaa and Morpheus. The five largest music publishers -- BMG, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal, and Warner -- licensed songs to Apple. Apple plans to add 3,200 new songs today.

''Hitting 1 million songs in less than a week was totally unexpected,'' Roger Ames, chairman and CEO of Warner Music Group, said in a statement distributed by Apple. ''Apple has shown music fans, artists, and the music industry as a whole that there really is a successful and easy way of legally distributing music over the Internet.'' Doug Morris, CEO of Universal Music Group, one of the ''big five'' record labels that licensed songs to Apple, released a statement indicating that he had hoped Apple would sell 1 million songs in the first month, not the first week.

For its part, Apple is counting on the music service as another source of cash. Music Store only works on Apple's computers, roughly 4 percent of the PC market, though a Windows-version is expected by the end of the year. In the meantime, Apple executives said they hope Music Store encourages more people to buy Apple hardware.

Early results suggest that their plan may be working. Apple said yesterday that it had taken orders for 110,000 new-model iPods, which went on sale last week for $299 to $499, depending on the number of songs they hold.

To be fair, Apple's sales will probably slow in coming weeks as its users' music collections grow, Bernoff said, adding that Apple will be judged on keeping up its sales in three to six months. Regardless, he said, ''They're going to be a significant factor even if things cool down.''


Chris Gaither can be reached at gaither@globe.com.

This story ran on page C1 of the Boston Globe on 5/6/2003.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/126/business/Apple_sells_1m_songs_in_1st_week+.shtml

Posted by: Asher on May 6, 2003 05:07 AM

Convenience + instant gratification. The Apple formula is a sure winner.

Posted by: bakho on May 6, 2003 09:43 AM

Chris Nelson writes:
>The problem, obviously, is that buying a CD's worth of
>songs from iTunes will cost you more than purchasing the
>same CD in a record store or online.

I guess you haven't seen the thing or read the news reports carefully. Many (but admittedly not all) of the songs can be bought on a per-album basis, with the typical price being $9.99. That is cheaper than new if all you were going to do was rip them to iTunes anyway. It may or may not be cheaper than used, depending on how you value your time rummaging through the used bins at music stores. (Some people really have a blast doing this, of course.) The thing that surprises me is that they've done so well with what I would have to regard as such a *weak* initial selection. Again, the real win of this over a lot of other systems is the possibility that people could get ahold of tracks that are difficult to find elsewhere, or to handle cases where they only want one song off an album. The selection will improve with time, of course, but I was basically stunned to find out that they already had sold 1 million tracks. And I think Wall Street is, too; the stock is up over $3 per share in the last 5 days.

And, in the mean time, Apple just announced a new $799 eMac that is faster, cheaper, and better than the previous generation, and, gosh, just happens to run iTunes4 out of
the box...

Posted by: Jonathan King on May 6, 2003 11:00 AM

Apple is just implementing for the first time in a decent way what all people with a slight grasp of the subject and without a paid major label affiliation have said since early 2000, when Napster became an issue - increasing user utility will pay off.

File Sharing is some sort of price negotiation, as is the major label's scaring unwitting politicians and judges with the notion of "the end of property". A dollar a tune is a price "justified" as long as the physical world and the internet marketing model are co-existing, so that will change in the medium run.

What Apple's service does show, however, is that paid digital downloading need not be a fringe market if DRM is weak, prices are reasonable, and service is good. Some wise music industry pundit said once, that all services will get the pricing wrong - for five years. That was in 2000. If he was right, we've got two years to go...

Posted by: Tobias on May 6, 2003 11:25 AM

IMHO, BBSpot has the best coverage of the new service:

http://bbspot.com/News/2003/05/itunes.html

:0)

Posted by: Hannibal on May 6, 2003 11:42 AM

Lowlife, my little brother had an assignment whereby he had to play the CD of his favorite song and then read aloud the lyrics in front of his 7th grade English class (God knows why they'd assign something like this). So, at his request, my wife and I burned a copy of the song "Hot In Here," by Nelly. I couldn't believe it, when I actually heard the lyrics two weeks later in that Chris Rock movie . . .

Posted by: Bobby on May 6, 2003 12:28 PM

What I'm at a loss to understand is why, if there is now no maufacturing cost associated with music's distribution (no physical media at all, no liner notes, etc.), that any company can justify the cost of $1 a song. Especially when the quality of the recording is verifiably lower than CD quality, and the usefulness of the product once received is less than that of the equivalent music on a CD.

It seems that the "value" of Apple's service is only being compared to file-trading services like Napster and Kazaa. But file trading services didn't spring up on their own -- they provided a service and value beyond the CD. It seems disingenuous to now decide to judge iTunes solely in respect to other file trading services (even there, there is a marginal decrease in utility), when in the end what matters is how it stacks up relative to traditional CD sales. In fact, I don't think that iTunes merits being compared and contrasted to other file-trading services, simply because it is setting itself up as something entirely different: a future path for legitimate music distribution. And with this, comparing iTunes to the current CD standard, the iTunes user is clearly getting screwed.

But Apple users are already used to that. In fact, I think they take pride in it. iTunes will probably do very well.

Hannibal is right. That story at BBSpot sums it up pretty well.

Posted by: Chris Nelson on May 6, 2003 12:28 PM

Chris Nelson writes:
>What I'm at a loss to understand is why, if there is now no
>maufacturing cost associated with music's distribution (no
>physical media at all, no liner notes, etc.), that any company can
>justify the cost of $1 a song.

I would have thought that the justification for the price was that people were willing to pay it? I mean, if nobody were willing to pay it, then the only justification for the price would not be economical, but I guess maybe rhetorical or something. So I can barely imagine somebody setting up a music service that nobody wanted to use for the price being charged, and then using that in an argument that people won't pay money for music over the net.

Honestly, I am mystified by the argument being made here. Apple shouldn't charge $10 an album because *even if they get it* they could not possibly be providing a service worth that?

Chris Nelson continues:
>Especially when the quality of the recording is verifiably lower
>than CD quality, and the usefulness of the product once received
>is less than that of the equivalent music on a CD.

OK, so I haven't gotten a chance to get out the *good* earphones and do the blind testing you suggest that you have done, but let's suppose that you're right, and that AAC quality is less than CD. There are two replies.

1) So what? It's also cheaper than a *new* CD if you buy music by the album, and people might be willing to make that trade-off.
It is demonstrably true that the quality of typography you see on
a computer screen is lower than that of the printed page, and this does bother some people, but others feel this is a reasonable compromise given the nice features that on-line documents have.
Which brings us to (2):

2) So what? The music you buy with the iTMS is pretty obviously connected with the idea that you will be sharing it among a number of digital devices in a way that I would argue probably expands on the rights you normally receive with a CD. That might be worth something to you as well.

Now a used CD might well turn out to be cheaper than anything you can get (today) with the iTMS, but again:

So what? If I wanted to search through a pile of CDs at the local used place or order on-line (and wait for delivery), then I can still do that, but if I want the added *service* of having it, oh, say right now? then I can.

Moreover, the way the iTMS is implemented, it makes it very, very easy for people to preview a lot of different music, and I suspect people will be far more willing to toss a dollar out to get a new song than they ever would be to try it from the used bin or in a retail outlet.

Posted by: Jonathan King on May 6, 2003 01:13 PM

Chris Nelson writes:

> The problem, obviously, is that buying a CD's
> worth of songs from iTunes will cost you more
> than purchasing the same CD in a record store
> or online. Apple can get away with $1 a song
> because Apple users are notorious for being
> willing to spend hard-earned money on things
> like "user experience" (as though routine
> crashing and lack of applications was somehow
> "useful").

Far be it for me to tell you how to live your life, but you might want to consider educating yourself on things before you start trashing them. If you'd bothered to read the article, you'd see that buying an entire album from the iTunes store costs $9.99, not $1 times the number of songs on the album.

Secondly, on the general Mac-bashing, it is clear that you know nothing about modern-day Macs. OS X is at least as stable as Linux (as it should be, being Unix and all), and I don't know any Mac user who's crying about a lack of applications. (I'll grant you video games.)

And, while everybody has their own preferences, and lots of people do like doing things the hard way--for the challenge or prestige or whatever-- others find that improved "user experience" is indeed worth paying for. That's why a Mercedes CLK costs more than a Honda Civic, and why people go watch movies at The Bridge (http://www.thebridgecinema.com) instead of at the local mall.

> this cost only goes up with iTunes, with the
> catch that you get 1) a verifiable loss in
> quality over CDs

The tracks at the iTunes store are converted to AAC directly from the master recordings, and AAC is a much less-lossy format than MP3. Not being an audiophile, I can't say that the files are 100% CD quality, but it's not like Apple's selling shitty low-quality MP3s. It sounds as good as a CD to me, is all I can say.

As for the larger issue of whether this will be profitable in the long run, I don't know. I don't know a thing about the economics of the music industry. I can, however, say with confidence that
it's pretty silly for a guy to pass judgement on it as a hopeless endeavor based on his (ill-informed) personal computing preferences. The final judgement will not come from a bunch of people yammering on a web log, but from the almighty Market. At this early date, at least, the judgement seems to be in Apple's favor.

Tangentially, I really don't see why people think that $1 for a song is so bloody expensive. I spent as much on the (small) bag of potato chips I ate while writing this, and I can assure you I'll get way more enjoyment out of a 5-minute song that I can listen to again and again. So explain how I'm getting screwed here?

Posted by: Joe Peters on May 6, 2003 01:21 PM

Chris Nelson writes:

> The problem, obviously, is that buying a CD's
> worth of songs from iTunes will cost you more
> than purchasing the same CD in a record store
> or online. Apple can get away with $1 a song
> because Apple users are notorious for being
> willing to spend hard-earned money on things
> like "user experience" (as though routine
> crashing and lack of applications was somehow
> "useful").

Far be it for me to tell you how to live your life, but you might want to consider educating yourself on things before you start trashing them. If you'd bothered to read the article, you'd see that buying an entire album from the iTunes store costs $9.99, not $1 times the number of songs on the album.

Secondly, on the general Mac-bashing, it is clear that you know nothing about modern-day Macs. OS X is at least as stable as Linux (as it should be, being Unix and all), and I don't know any Mac user who's crying about a lack of applications. (I'll grant you video games.)

And, while everybody has their own preferences, and lots of people do like doing things the hard way--for the challenge or prestige or whatever-- others find that improved "user experience" is indeed worth paying for. That's why a Mercedes CLK costs more than a Honda Civic, and why people go watch movies at The Bridge (http://www.thebridgecinema.com) instead of at the local mall.

> this cost only goes up with iTunes, with the
> catch that you get 1) a verifiable loss in
> quality over CDs

The tracks at the iTunes store are converted to AAC directly from the master recordings, and AAC is a much less-lossy format than MP3. Not being an audiophile, I can't say that the files are 100% CD quality, but it's not like Apple's selling shitty low-quality MP3s. It sounds as good as a CD to me, is all I can say.

As for the larger issue of whether this will be profitable in the long run, I don't know. I don't know a thing about the economics of the music industry. I can, however, say with confidence that
it's pretty silly for a guy to pass judgement on it as a hopeless endeavor based on his (ill-informed) personal computing preferences. The final judgement will not come from a bunch of people yammering on a web log, but from the almighty Market. At this early date, at least, the judgement seems to be in Apple's favor.

Tangentially, I really don't see why people think that $1 for a song is so bloody expensive. I spent as much on the (small) bag of potato chips I ate while writing this, and I can assure you I'll get way more enjoyment out of a 5-minute song that I can listen to again and again. So explain how I'm getting screwed here?

Posted by: Joe Peters on May 6, 2003 01:26 PM

Found on Slashdot:

iTunes Man
To the tune of "Piano Man" by Billy Joel
Filk by Scott Taylor

It's nine o' clock at the iTunes store,
A phenomenal crowd's logging on,
There's an old man on AOL
Finding music from ages bygone.

He says, "Steve can you play me a memory?"
"I'm not really sure how it goes"
"But I typed in a track and got album names back!"
"And I'm not even wearing my clothes!"

Oh la da da diddy da da, la da diddy da da da.
Sell us a song, you're the iTunes man,
Sell us a song tonight.
Well, we're all in the mood for a melody,
And you've got the pricing just right.

Now Claude at Vivendi's a friend of mine
And his business is selling CDs.
And knows the solution for store distribution,
But he's worried about MP3s.
He says "Steve I believe this is killing us"
"All these pirates don't pay us a dime."
"Well I'm sure that you could be a billionaire"
"If you could sell music online."

Oh la da da diddy da da, la da diddy da da da.
Sell us a song, you're the iTunes man,
Sell us a song tonight.
Well, we're all in the mood for a melody,
And you've got the pricing just right.

Now Paul is an iPod enthusiast
Who listens to Jazz with his wife
And he's chatting with Maxine, who's still in the rap scene
And probably will be for life.
And the waitress is downloading Dixie Chicks
As the dial-up man slowly gets Stones
Yes they're sharing the bandwidth from Akamai
But it's better than P2P clones.

Sell us a song, you're the iTunes man,
Sell us a song tonight.
Well, we're all in the mood for a melody,
And you've got the pricing just right.

Its a pretty good crowd for just Macintosh
And the PC guys give me a smile
Cause they know that iTunes will be Windows-bound soon
If they just can hold out for a while.

And the AAC sounds like originals
And rights management isn't a pain,
And they sit at the screens of their iTunes machines
And say "Man, this is worse than cocaine!"

Sell us a song, you're the iTunes man,
Sell us a song tonight.
Well, we're all in the mood for a melody,
And you've got the pricing just right.

Posted by: jimbo on May 6, 2003 01:39 PM

Market segmentation

Present market:

People who have more money and will pay premium.

People who don't have a lot of money and will continue to download for free.

Future market:

Someone who finds a way to use internet to deal with artist directly and bypass recording industry completely, hence more money will pass to artist. Less power of RIAA and major artist to dominate market and force out competition. I predict $3-$5 CD new price, Madonnas income to decrease to real value to market, and not value that RIAA+Madonna forces customers to pay and limit choice. Not that it will be a profit making venture to operator, but possibly other arrangement to pay fee to net organizer for maintenance, or some type of non profit devoted to that particular music. Unknown musician, or select groups who don't have enough market share for RIAA to want to deal with, will have opportunity to develop market for themselves.

Posted by: nkirsch on May 6, 2003 02:16 PM

Sure, people pay extra money for "full service" product or "user experience". And that's exactly the point I'm making. Apple people are those people. We can quibble about the question of whether their Apple purchases are really worth the money spent (maybe now, in the new millennium, Apple has actually grown beyond its miserable past; I was an Apple user myself back in the day, and each day was a nightmare filled with random crashes and absurd OS behavior. And they were exorbitantly priced then, too, remember?), but the point is that in general Apple users are the type of people who would jump on the iTunes bandwagon wholeheartedly, and would shell out $1 a song. We can't extrapolate from 1 week of iTunes sales solely to Apple users that somehow the whole venture is valid. Sustainable, of course. Apple will make money hand over fist. But valid enough to stanch the spread of music piracy? Especially when the slight added utility that iTunes brings is counterbalanced by restricted reusability and lower quality? I seriously doubt it.

Nothing I've heard obviates the fact that the recording industry has failed to provide a compelling reason to start paying for their music again, now that computer users around the world have essentially stripped their product of any value. I'm sure there are Apple users and non-Apple users who will flock to iTunes. But there are many others (most, I believe), who will weigh the cost and benefits of this new marketing venture and return to their p2p networks.

Remember, file sharers gave up liner notes and tangibility for convenience and cost. Now the recording industry wants to add back cost to the equation (minus a tangible product like a CD with liner notes), add a touch more convenience than CDs (song previewing), strip out some other conveniences that file-sharing provides (infinite reusability, for example) and pretend that everything comes out even? I guess I don't understand how this scenario possibly ends up as a win for users.

Posted by: Chris Nelson on May 6, 2003 02:27 PM

Chris Nelson writes: "The problem, obviously, is that buying a CD's worth of songs from iTunes will cost you more than purchasing the same CD in a record store or online. "


Assuming that's true - and it's not universally true, in terms of price, iTunes Store isn't necessarily the best way of selling CDs.

But: I think you'd have to agree that, in terms of price, CDs aren't a very good approach to selling songs.

if you want 3 songs, it may cost you $45, if they're on separate CDs.

Posted by: Jon H on May 6, 2003 04:34 PM

Chris Nelson writes:

"return to their p2p networks"

What, do you think people actually *like* wasting time searching for a *decent* rip of a song, that is also on a server that is actually responsive?

(And, in the meantime, often subjecting themselves to spyware that makes their machine slow and/or unreliable.)

I think p2p networks will mostly remain popular with
people who get a kick out of feeling like they're
getting away with something, or who get something
out of the extra effort and challenge involved in getting
a decent file downloaded. They may well prefer not
to use something that makes it easy.

College users will probably also prefer P2P, because they probably have access to local peers on fat pipes, and don't have to worry that the song they want is only available from a machine in Holland on a 56k line. And they're cheap.

The final group are the hoarders, the people who are into
collecting every file they can, even though they may never
care to listen.

But the average person? Nah.

Posted by: Jon H on May 6, 2003 04:45 PM

We are in the middle of a seismic shift in the way people listen to music.

The CD, like other formats before it, is on the way out - and is being replaced for most users by MP3 (and now AAC?) files.

The thing people keep getting stuck on is that the quality of MP3's is lower than the format (CD's) that it is replacing.
The response is that people just don't care - MP3 quality is sufficient, and that is all that matters.

Meanwhile the convienience of 1000 songs loaded in a portable device far outweighs the now clunky idea of carrying CD's everywhere. Add to that the cute things a program such as iTunes can do with data such as the number of times you (and other people) play each song. (My CD's sit unused, waiting for me to finish uploading them into iTunes.)

Sure there is a section of customers that will always demand the higher quality of CD's (or better), and these people probably spend a lot more on their HiFi gear. But when you examine the market for HiFi equipment, the bulk of sales are of equipment whereby the perceived difference between MP3 files and CD's is too trivial to notice, or care.

Apple seem to be the first major player with enough muscle to deal with the music majors to grasp this - mac users collectively breathe a sigh of relief...

Posted by: Lance Wiggs on May 6, 2003 04:45 PM

2 million songs in two weeks..... thats 1.98 million dollars made for Apple, Artist & the Music Companies. Hey Chris.... How much did the P2P networks make for the music industy? This is at least one alternative that the music industry has taken (with Apples guidance) to recoop some of the money they deserve.

Apple didn't invent downloading music for pay... but they are currently leading the way for the future.

One thing about Apple... if they don't lead the way in a product/service.... they get out. I don't see them going anywhere soon, especially not if they buy Universal Music.

Chris.... Think Different.

Posted by: Brian Deese on May 28, 2003 07:41 PM

2 million songs in two weeks..... thats 1.98 million dollars made for Apple, Artist & the Music Companies. Hey Chris.... How much did the P2P networks make for the music industy? This is at least one alternative that the music industry has taken (with Apples guidance) to recoop some of the money they deserve.

Apple didn't invent downloading music for pay... but they are currently leading the way for the future.

One thing about Apple... if they don't lead the way in a product/service.... they get out. I don't see them going anywhere soon, especially not if they buy Universal Music.

Chris.... Think Different.

Posted by: Brian Deese on May 28, 2003 07:42 PM

2 million songs in two weeks..... thats 1.98 million dollars made for Apple, Artist & the Music Companies. Hey Chris.... How much did the P2P networks make for the music industy? This is at least one alternative that the music industry has taken (with Apples guidance) to recoop some of the money they deserve.

Apple didn't invent downloading music for pay... but they are currently leading the way for the future.

One thing about Apple... if they don't lead the way in a product/service.... they get out. I don't see them going anywhere soon, especially not if they buy Universal Music.

Chris.... Think Different.

Posted by: Brian Deese on May 28, 2003 07:42 PM

2 million songs in two weeks..... thats 1.98 million dollars made for Apple, Artist & the Music Companies. Hey Chris.... How much did the P2P networks make for the music industy? This is at least one alternative that the music industry has taken (with Apples guidance) to recoop some of the money they deserve.

Apple didn't invent downloading music for pay... but they are currently leading the way for the future.

One thing about Apple... if they don't lead the way in a product/service.... they get out. I don't see them going anywhere soon, especially not if they buy Universal Music.

Chris.... Think Different.

Posted by: Brian Deese on May 28, 2003 07:43 PM
Post a comment