Insomnia ([info]insomnia) wrote,
@ 2003-04-29 01:26:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Share this!  Next Entry
Apple blows it bigtime.
They have been talking about a new music service that would make it effortless for those with iPods to download mp3s from the labels... however, they fundamentally screwed up by pricing the service much higher than expected, and offering fewer mp3s than expected.

The details? 99 cents a piece with a choice of 200,000 songs. This is particularly disappointing considering the fact that there was talk about Apple offering prices as low as 10 cents a song.

Really, it is time for record companies to stop thinking about mp3 pricing as something that should be competitive with album pricing. Here you have a product where you aren't really giving anyone anything physical -- in many ways, people use mp3s more like a customized radio station than actual, physical objects that they own.

So, why should someone pay $24 to download the mp3's for this album when I can buy the album used for a third of that price? Of course, I could share the CD with a friend, but if I did that with an mp3 that I purchased, I would be a criminal.

Apple is coming out with a 30 GB iPod. Using songs off of this service, you can fill up that mp3 player entirely from Apple's new service for the price of this and this combined -- assuming that you could find 7500 mp3s on their service that you actually wanted.

I thought for just awhile that Steve Jobs kind of understood mp3s or online music, but he appears to be just as clueless as everyone else. Steve is great at making things easier for people, but that's not enough. Making it easier for the record labels to pick our pockets isn't going to necessarily make people line up to have their pockets picked. Sell us mp3's for a buck each?! <satire>Oh, yes please! Give us that!</satire>

And as for the idea of Apple buying a music label, it's no wonder the stockholders are terrified. Can anyone say AOL / Time-Warner? Oil and water? A cheese grater to your private parts and table salt?

Of course, if you create an mp3 "radio player" device which downloads customized radio, lets me select the music I like, recommends new songs or bands based on my previous interests, but doesn't give me access to the mp3s themselves, then you could bring me essentially the same functionality for a fraction of the price... and possibly even free if you do it with commercials.

I'll dismiss this harebrained idea -- it's too close to satire -- instead, I'll stick to Steve Jobs' original idea until someone gets realistic.

Rip. Mix. Burn, baby!


(11 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]laughingwoman
2003-04-29 05:25 am UTC (link)
since you're tangentially on the subject--are there any decent file-share programs compatible with mac osx? if so, please, please please provide the link!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]insomnia
2003-04-29 09:15 am UTC (link)
There are no official Kazaa clients for the Mac, because the company that does Kazaa doesn't want a Mac client as yet. However, there is an unofficial "shadow client" called Neo worth looking into.

Since Neo doesn't have permission to actually use Kazaa's system, it does the next best thing... it scans IP addresses to identify Kazaa users. Unfortunately, this might mean that your first day of using the software will be having this thing run on your computer scanning the Internet, but when the end result is that you will have access to the biggest file sharing network out there, that's not bad.

There is also Limewire, a client for Gnutella that looks pretty good...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]fings
2003-04-29 07:33 am UTC (link)
The only online music service that I see that prices things right is Emusic.com. They don't have all the latest & greatest, but it's still a pretty good deal, especially if you like jazz. $9.99 a month for "unlimited"[1] downloads, in standard mp3 format. (Currently only 128kbit, but it's rumored they will be switching to a higher bit rate soon).

I have had a subscription for over a year, and find it worth while. It has paid for itself in the money I would have spent on Frank Black, Pavement, and Camper Van Beethoven CDs; plus it let me discover Firewater, and get into Louis Armstrong, among others.

[1] There seems to be a 2000 track/month limit that they suspect you are sharing your account with someone else, and may warn or suspend your account. While I don't like unpublished clauses like that, $10/2000= 1/2 cent per mp3, so it's still a good deal.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]insomnia
2003-04-29 09:25 am UTC (link)
Yeah... eMusic's pricing policies are much more friendly than this new service being trumpeted by Apple.

I noticed that they had a special pricing deal recently that allows people to download 100 free mp3s (instead of the standard 50), which is a deal all the way around.

Who knows?! The future could be an internet where there are so many legitimate ways of getting free mp3s that the real challenge is just going from place to place and harvesting them all... ;->

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]prelley
2003-04-29 09:23 am UTC (link)
Dear Friend,

Chances are this probably won't be published in the NYT, but I think my friend's letter to them merits a wider audience ...





April 29, 2003

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
FAX: 212-556-3622

The Commander in Chief

To the Editor:

The Constitution designates the President as the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy...and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States...” (Article II, Section 2).

Why then does the Times refer to President Bush as “the Commander in chief” when he addressed an audience of civilians at “America’s leading Arab center” (NYT,
April 29, 2003, p. A19)? Are we now subjects in a kingdom?

In democracies, citizens are autonomous electors of the government. They do not have a commander in chief.

Sincerely,


William P. Mitchell,
Professor of Anthropology and Interim Dean

(Reply to this)


[info]anthologie
2003-04-29 09:46 am UTC (link)
Your post brings up an interesting point. Should all downloads cost the same? Should I be able to pay 10 cents per download of "Echoes," which takes up a full record side on Pink Floyd's "Meddle," if I also pay 10 cents for SOD's "The Ballad of Jimi Hendrix," which is less than 30 seconds long? Should they be priced by length? Should they be priced by how many songs are on a particular album, so that all albums cost the same? (We don't want to encourage artists to release below-caliber material just so they can sell more songs, but we DO want to encourage artists to release rarer material because they don't have the physical limitations of what can fit on a CD)...

What do you think?

(Reply to this)


[info]welshmaidn
2003-04-29 12:06 pm UTC (link)
Totally off topic, but if I do show up tonight, I might ask you for one of your famous backrubs if you don't mind. Sorely needed these days.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]insomnia
2003-04-29 12:49 pm UTC (link)
No problem. Backrubs are good things!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]precogpunk
2003-04-29 12:29 pm UTC (link)
It might not be worth it to pay for $1/per song, but what about CD singles that set you back about $2/per song? They just started the service and I agree, the selection is limited. Personally, I like the idea of apple music store better then emusic but I havent used emusic much. I think that as time goes on we might see the 99cent price tag drop as more people sign on. They have the backing of labels. They are ripping from a higher-than-cd quality source. They have a DRM which isnt too restrictive yet is acceptable by the music companies. Why are people being so hard on apple? The more LEGAL sources we have for mp3s the better. No, its not perfect but you have to start somewhere.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]insomnia
2003-04-29 01:49 pm UTC (link)
I think the reason a lot of people are snickering is that it is unrealistic. Prices may drop later, yes, but the price is a lot higher than what you would pay with other services that do the same thing. With eMusic, you could literally download $99 worth of tracks for free compared to what Apple is offering. People generally prefer paying a flat rate for things, so there's a very real psychological advantage for eMusic too that Apple should have been aware of.

When Jobs offers up something, you expect it to be revolutionary, so when he offers something like this, it makes you wonder... doesn't Apple have any clout to negotiate a better deal than this? It's far worse than the deal that eMusic has, and yet Apple has a more captive audience and the potential to reach millions of users on Macs alone. Apple and the recording industry had the chance to create something great together, but no matter how nice Apple's implementation is, a 99 cent MP3 from Apple is no different than an MP3 you get from eMusic for a fraction of the price. Selling MP3s at a premium doesn't equate to a good thing to me. Far better for Apple to have not released the product until the labels dropped their prices than to go forward with a product that serves to reenforce the gouging of consumers.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

satire
[info]partyrunes
2003-04-29 10:59 pm UTC (link)
Oh, yes please</font> ~ That’s Great !

(Reply to this)


(11 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Log in with OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…