it's all about money, isn't it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7645537.stm
what i don't get (well i do get it, but ya know) is that CD sales may be down by 20%, but when you sell an album at a discount on iTunes it's because you don't get printed liner notes, an actual CD, or the ability to share the music with anyone. so the record companies, as i see it, are probably seeing a loss due to the fact that their salaries are too large. the artists want more money from digital sales, okay, so maybe reduce your six figure paycheque, no? no, they'd rather bill the people for that.
it's not Apple's fault that record companies didn't prepare for the business of digital file sharing- they had years to see this coming and act on their own behalf. metallica sued napster in 2000 and after that came Kazaa and limewire and a bunch of other ways to download music. Apple saw the potential in that market, and while others tried to initiate a service where you could pay for downloads, they were the ones with the money and marketing capability to provide the full package (device + service). by providing everything to the consumer, they could control exactly how everything was used, stored, shared, etc.
thus, Apple took the idea and ran with it and charges the record labels for their own failure to be proactive. ha.
then again, the consumer is also somewhat at fault when you consider the question: who would actually want to buy music on iTunes? you can't burn it, you can't share it, and you don't have the joy of opening the package and reading the notes.
i dunno, just thinking...
what i don't get (well i do get it, but ya know) is that CD sales may be down by 20%, but when you sell an album at a discount on iTunes it's because you don't get printed liner notes, an actual CD, or the ability to share the music with anyone. so the record companies, as i see it, are probably seeing a loss due to the fact that their salaries are too large. the artists want more money from digital sales, okay, so maybe reduce your six figure paycheque, no? no, they'd rather bill the people for that.
it's not Apple's fault that record companies didn't prepare for the business of digital file sharing- they had years to see this coming and act on their own behalf. metallica sued napster in 2000 and after that came Kazaa and limewire and a bunch of other ways to download music. Apple saw the potential in that market, and while others tried to initiate a service where you could pay for downloads, they were the ones with the money and marketing capability to provide the full package (device + service). by providing everything to the consumer, they could control exactly how everything was used, stored, shared, etc.
thus, Apple took the idea and ran with it and charges the record labels for their own failure to be proactive. ha.
then again, the consumer is also somewhat at fault when you consider the question: who would actually want to buy music on iTunes? you can't burn it, you can't share it, and you don't have the joy of opening the package and reading the notes.
i dunno, just thinking...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home