iTunes to finally get some competition... but is it too little too late?
Let's face it, when it came to the real ramifications of digital music, Apple was about ten years ahead of everybody else, writes Dominic Dawes. Now it looks like the record companies have woken up to the possibility of making at least some money from digital downloads. But is it too little, too late for the music industry?
For months, there have been rumours of the major labels converting to a subscription model of music sales: by this method, the consumer would pay a set monthly fee in return for unlimited use of the company's music.
The flaw in this plan is obvious: nobody's music taste is confined to the output from just one major label. So how do we get access to all the music we want, without paying upwards of three separate monthly subscriptions?
Of course, the answer would be for the various companies – Universal, Sony BMG and Warners specifically – to cooperate. Unfortunately, the music business is subject to the same short-sighted tomfooleries as the consumer electronics industry (high definition format war, anyone?). Or to put it another way, say 'cooperate' to these guys and they'll look at you as if you've just handed them a stoat.
Perhaps it was always going to take some other big player to bang their little heads together, and it looks like social networking site MySpace is about to do just that. Rumours are rife that there'll be an announcement in the next week, launching the 'MySpace music store', where people will be able to legitimately access music from the complete range of big music companies.
None of the main players are talking publicly about this right now, but it seems the prospect of the 15 million unique visitors to the MySpace Music sub-site alone might be enough to get the majors singing from the same beer-stained lyric sheet. An insider says, 'Everybody's operating with a sense of urgency to try to close it out'.
It seems the new service will include a number of ways of accessing music, including pay-per-download song sales, ad-sponsored video streaming and more.
One thing is clear: the music companies are desperate to compete with iTunes. As things stand, Apple is the second-largest music retailer in the US, with 4 billion songs sold since its launch five years ago. The question is, why have the record companies been on the back foot for so long? And did it really need MySpace to come along and tell them to play nicely or they'll all be going to bed without any dinner?
It seems to me that if the music industry had accepted digital music as a fact and worked hard on innovating and developing new approaches to doing business, they wouldn't be in the rather sorry state they now are. Even now, the music biz – other than a few artists like Radiohead, etc – seems almost devoid of original and imaginative thinking.
Maybe the MySpace plan is one answer. But maybe, just maybe, the music industry still needs to pull its finger out and start embracing the digital age – and creatively finding ways to make money from it.
If they can't do that, what will happen? In the end they'll simply be replaced by people who can.
Technorati Tags: Apple, digital music, Downloads, iTunes, MySpace, Social networking, Sony BMG, Universal, Warners
- Dominic Dawes's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
It's not too late for them. Itunes is a plum target for someone to come along and completely oblitarate it's sales. I mean really, you have a very resource heavy client based distribution channel of expensive low quality non-mp3 format songs. Hardly a corporate fortress IMO. Someone could of (and should of) broking the wall of Apple's sub-standard service by now. The reason no-one has, and also the one thing Apple is good at is due to fragmented thinking and execution. Think how many different online sellers of MP3's there are:
<p>
Microsoft/Amazon/Woolies/Napstar/Play etc etc ... all different format and pricing and interfaces. Apple provides a consistent one stop shop. It's a slick interface (even if not a slick client) and glossy too. Style over substance will win out everytime with the kids. They don't care that they are getting low bit rates for 79p, even if Woolies will sell you a higher quality WMA version of the same song for 69p!<p>
<p>
I want to see Apple's smile wiped away. They are no friend of music lovers in my opinion. But I'm not sure Myspace has the interface to take them on an beat them. I like Myspace, but it always seems very home-brew to my eyes. I don't think Steve Jobs will be loosing too much sleep over this do you>?
I can but agree with much of the criticism above. I mean, what we really need is HMV, but online, and with high quality downloads.
I thought apple did provide higher quality songs from some labels now.
The key to apples proposition is the end to end service (which from my experience is a good one), but also that you can purchase your music from any music store in the shape of a CD and load it into iTunes, then onto your iPod (which is a pretty decent portable personal music player).
Competition is good for all markets. Full stop, I agree with you there.
Just out of interest Dazmb, you complain that apple doesn't sell MP3's, favouring AAC, then laud Woolworths for providing better quality music in the fomr of WMA files. Surely WMA is not MP3 either?
Dr Mcr - forgive my butting in. if it were wma lossless (i dont know either way), itd be better than mp3. in theory anyway.
You're correct Dr Mcr in as much as WMA's are not lossless. But the bit rate Woolies give you is far higher than Itunes standard which I believe is not much more than 128kbs. Woolies is 200+ Kbs in WMA which in itself is better quality than equivalent MP3 at same kbs. Apple's pricing is such that in most cases I can buy the CD cheaper and have it sent to me free by an online shop. And that's just the standard Itunes d/load, not the 99p high quality ones. And if I get prompted to download a new version of Itunes one more time I might throw something. Even Windows Media Player has fewer upgrades.....
I hope they opt for a decent compression technology, mp3 present good file sizes but thats about it. I think it would be safe to say that most people of this site appreciate the need for sound quality. They need to release the music in a lossless format such as FLAC.
I think what needs to be done by record companies is to start treating us consumers with a bit of respect , after all without us they would not have an industry. As for apple very clever marketing and having a good product that took the market by storm, then linking in its downloads so they can only be played on there Ipod, genius. My solution which goes back to my first point of respect get rid of DRM once you have bought a track is not up to you how you choose to use it and what you choose to play it on?.
If consumers are really bothered about bit rates and what format you get then again give us the choice its not rocket science!!!.
I have noticed recently that both on-line and in the high street CD prices have fallen to around the same price as downloads from Itunes (about £7.99 for an album) so you could buy the CD then rip it to your computer in whatever format or bit rate you want, it comes down to convenience, put up with low bit rates or heaven forbid go out and buy the CD remember shopping whatever happened to that!
I agree that the labels need to treat consumers with more respect. They also need to have more ideas, if you ask me...
It seems to me that the sound quality issue is becoming bigger and bigger, and not just on this website. What I don't understand is why these companies are not being hugely innovative on their websites and finding new ways to attract customers. As the above comments have noted, there's plenty of room for improvement on Apple's service, however slick it might in some ways. One glaring opportunity is to sell a range of formats and bitrates at different prices, and let the customer decide.
tony and dominic
You have both hit the nail on the head in that the music companies are calling the shots over what is and is not available, not Apple, and that they do not properly address the wants of the market, they control what they are prepared to let you have. Apple are in favour of higher bit-rate downloads and getting rid of DRM for music, but the contnet owners are only partly listening.
I think itunes highest encoding rate is currently 320kbps, but not being an audiophile, I would not know if this rate is anywhere near good enough.
We have to remember that audiophiles only comprise a very small percentage of the market that consumes musical content, and I believe apple has pretty good products to address the needs of the mass market (easy integration between iPod/appleTV and itunes software, easy download and purchase of music online - for which there is a lot of content available, easy import of music purchased from other sources - mp3,cd etc).
Lets not remember though, this original article is about the music labels getting together to offer the same product through a different channel other than itunes, in both a pay-per-download and maybe an "all you can eat" for a set monthly subscription model. I would be surprised if the latter was any better quality than most mp3's sold today.
Dazmb,
I have no knowledge on how good encoding technology is, comparing mp3, AAC and WMA, so I will nod to your knowledge there. Do you encode in mp3 or AAC format when you use iTunes, and what bit rate do you select?
I agree that apple's pricing in the UK ought to be lower, and that buying a CD can be cheaper, but of course you can't just buy a single track when purchasing a CD, its all or nothing. Apple are partly responsible here for there one price fits all model, but the record companies get a big share of this revenue. They are mostly responsible for the high price we pay for music in this country.
I personally am an album buyer, buying very little from iTunes, so I get the added benefit of having the music encoded in iTunes, and on the ipod, coupled with a CD I can play on a music system or in the car, at whatever quality I am prepared to spend on equipment to provide.
The answer to your question about formats is that it's mostly a question of bitrate rather than the format itself. Some subjective tests have suggested that AAC files – the format preferred by Apple – are slightly better than MP3s at the same bitrate, but if this is true the difference is marginal.
What clearly makes a difference is the bitrate. WMA Lossless and Apple Lossless are much bigger files. They are around half the size of an original CD file, and sound more or less th same in terms of quality. As a guide, I have one song on my laptop in various forms. Here's a selection so you can see the variety of file sizes:
AAC 128 kbps – 3.6MB
MP3 192 kbps – 5.3MB
Apple Lossless – 24MB
More data, better quality. Takes up more space on your hard drive. You decide. Simple as that.
Dom,
Thanks for that, I had no idea that the lossless files would be so good, but I guess the clue is in the title!
Maybe it is the size of file that prohibits Apple being able to offer this for download through the itunes store. I suspect it is more likely to be the record companies though.
Does anyone here encode music as lossless (either Apple, Lossless or FLAC) and pump this into decent audio equipment for playback?
Yep. I do. On the downside, that's why my laptop's hard drive is stuffed to the gills and I need to get either an external drive or a new laptop...
A million years ago, when I was a lad, I also used to buy music one track at a time. In those days they came on flat "records" which revolved at 45 rpm on a "record player". Admittedly there was a second song on the underneath of the disc, otherwise known as the "B side", but it was almost always complete rubbish and could be ignored. So personally I think that paying 79p to Tesco's for a fast, clean download service for WMA DRM files for my Pioneer Blu-Ray/media player, or to Apple for iTunes tracks for my wife's iPod, is no problem. Perhaps someone can convert the cost of those 45's to a modern equivalent - I bet it will be a lot less than 79p? And as for record companies showing customers respect - how about customers showing record companies respect by not stealing their products through illegal download/file share sites? In my book stealing music via the Internet "because CDs are so expensive" is just as much theft as shoplifting CDs from your local music shore - the principle is the same, we're just quibbling over the delivery method.
I agree – very strongly – that stealing is stealing. Where I think the record companies made a massive mistake, however, was in sticking their heads in the sand when faced with what was obviously an enormous sea change in the creation, transmission, marketing, purchasing and reception of music.
It's true that we should respect the producers of music, and be mindful that they need to make a living just like the rest of us. That's the moral aspect, right there. But the world is changing, and the music companies need to keep pace with the digital world or risk being left behind.
Very true Dominic - I guess that the average music company exec is working in the equivalent of a oil super-tanker - it's been plowing the same route for years, steady as she goes and all that, even if the crew and the cargo change from time to time....
So looking to the horizon and pointing out the ice-berg of digital download music getting ever closer (show me a metaphor and I'll mix it!) probably doesn't make them too popular at corporate meetings and tends to damage their career prospects.
But a big thank-you to What Hi-Fi staff and all the forum listers - I've learned a hell of a lot about digital music in a short time here and long may you prosper.
Without straying from the topic too much, one thing that has been forced upon the artists is the ability to go out on the road and perform - that's where the money is now. The big (established) acts have known this for years. I mean yikes, even Depeche Mode's last tour grossed + $100m. So let's not shed too many tears for the poor things just yet. Still, mp3 stealing is stealing pure and simple. But the smart record companies can and have offset that by re-drafting artists contracts to include portions of tour receipts in lieu of large advances. Look at a certain Mr Robbie Williams' last Emi deal. A + £60m deal, but with Emi taking a cut of the huge tour receipts he gets. The CD's are almost a loss leader. The music biz equivalent of a supermarket's own brand sliced loaf...
As has been mentioned above, with CDs thankfully becoming more realistically priced, I am happiest buying the CD or vinyl issue and then ripping said hard copy in my chosen bitrate, Apple Lossless. Seems the best scenario until lossless downloads are more widely available, as the difference between 320kbps and lossless on a good system are tangible to me. <p>
Download sites are getting better, though. Boomkat for example - a favourite of mine - offers downloads in 320kbps MP3 format or FLAC (lossless codec).