backtop


Print 29 comment(s) - last by .. on Aug 22 at 11:38 AM

Second palce digital music seller has only 8% of the market

Music publishers like to complain that digital music is killing their profits. Most consumers don't care how much money the record labels make as long as they can get their music in the format that they prefer.

While much of the focus in the music world is on digital music, it may be surprising to learn that right now the CD is still the dominant format that music is sold on in America. NPD Group has released its figures for the music industry sales volume. According the company the sales of music on CD made up 65% of all music sold in the first half of 2009. By comparison, paid digital downloads accounted for 35% of music sales. In 2007, digital music downloads only accounted for about 20% of music sales and in 2008 digital sales made up 30% of the market.

"Many people are surprised that the CD is still the dominant music delivery format, given the attention to digital music and the shrinking retail footprint for physical products," said Russ Crupnick, vice president of entertainment industry analysis "But with digital music sales growing at 15 to 20 percent, and CDs falling by an equal proportion, digital music sales will nearly equal CD sales by the end of 2010."

The clear leader in music sales overall counting digital and CD sales is Apple iTunes. ITunes sold 25% of all music in the U.S., an increase from 21% of the sales in 2008. Walmart holds second place for the most music sold with 14% of the music sold. Best Buy was third overall music sales. In pure digital music sales, iTunes again leads the pack with a massive 69% of the digital music market. AmazonMP3 is second with 8% of the market.

"The growth of legal digital music downloads, and Apple's success in holding that market, has increased iTunes's overall strength in the retail music category," said Russ Crupnick, entertainment industry analyst for The NPD Group. "But the importance of the big box retailers shouldn't be dismissed, as long as the majority of music consumers continue to buy CDs."

Apple announced in July that it would be offering new bundles of digital music with other content in a project called cocktail. Cocktail is a way for Apple to help record labels make more money from digital sales and entice buyers to purchase complete albums.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

... whaaat???
By therealnickdanger on 8/19/2009 11:43:36 AM , Rating: 3
How does Amazon's service have only 8%? I'm sorry, but Amazon has better prices, better quality, no DRM, and what seems like a collection that at least rivals iTunes... Well, I guess all I can do is continue to support Amazon!




RE: ... whaaat???
By Don321 on 8/19/2009 11:49:25 AM , Rating: 3
I thought all iTunes music was now DRM free and 256Kbps AAC? Everything I've bought recently has been. What are Amazon using that makes theirs better quality than 256Kbps AAC?


RE: ... whaaat???
By omnicronx on 8/19/2009 12:42:16 PM , Rating: 3
No DRM, but surely not all music is 256Kbps.. I don't use it, but isnt it just itunes plus or possibly all new content? As far as I know Amazons entire catalog is 256kbps AAC.


RE: ... whaaat???
By rmlarsen on 8/19/2009 1:09:42 PM , Rating: 4
All new content ("iTunes plus") is 256 kb/s AAC without DRM. Many (most?) older titles have been converted to iTunes plus as well.

While I buy from both Amazon and iTunes I must say that I much prefer AAC to MP3 at the same bitrate. Even at 256 kb/s MP3 has some weird phasing-sounding artifact in the high treble. Try converting a track (start with a high quality lossless file, otherwise it is pointless) with e.g. cymbals to both formats and compare to the original. You'll easily hear what I am talking about.

As I said in my post below, it is time for the industry to start selling lossless tracks: Broadband connections speed and hard drive sizes are being scaled up to handle video, so lossless audio is tiny by comparison these days.


RE: ... whaaat???
By psychobriggsy on 8/19/2009 1:52:22 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I cared about music file size when 3.5" hard drives were 100GB - 200GB in size and $200, and my uncompressed music library would take a few of them.

Not when they're 1TB in size and under $100, and 500GB 2.5" portable hard drives are cheap.

Give me lossless CD quality audio, or lossless or mildly compressed DVD-Audio quality audio. I might prefer the latter - 96kHz 24-bit at minimum would be nice, might be able to get some dynamic range out of a Metallica album that way.


RE: ... whaaat???
By MadMan007 on 8/20/2009 2:30:27 AM , Rating: 2
<q>As I said in my post below, it is time for the industry to start selling lossless tracks: Broadband connections speed and hard drive sizes are being scaled up to handle video, so lossless audio is tiny by comparison these days.</q>

This. I am not in to paying for known inferior products, sadly most people are and so are happily buying mp3s, but I'll get in to buying downloaded music once lossless is widely available. Until then I'll stick with my archaic disks.


RE: ... whaaat???
By steven975 on 8/19/2009 11:51:19 AM , Rating: 4
Yea, I love Amazon's MP3 service. It's quick and easy and doesn't require the installation of bloatware (sorry, but iTunes qualifies in my opinion). Yea, they have a downloader, but it's small.

The files are also 256Kbps MP3s, and they play in everything.


RE: ... whaaat???
By MonkeyPaw on 8/19/2009 1:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it's sad to compare iTunes download size (75mb) to that of WMP (25mb) or Winamp (10mb), especially when you consider iTunes has frequent updates that require redownloading everything everytime. I don't care if hdd space is cheap and high-bandwidth connections are common--Apple's approach is pretty wasteful and inefficient relative to others. iTunes just gets to suck because everyone has iPods.


RE: ... whaaat???
By Golgatha on 8/19/2009 2:12:14 PM , Rating: 3
This. Also, don't even get me started with the drive-by, default downloads of Quicktime and Safari during an iTunes (key word here, iTunes) update. I don't know how many times I've uninstalled Safari due to my wife clicking the update button. I told her to just tell me when that comes up and I'll handle the upgrades. Either way I have to do something to the computer, so I'd just rather not have the digital trash that is surely left over when I uninstall Safari each time.


RE: ... whaaat???
By Hiawa23 on 8/19/2009 2:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
Amazon works for me, & I used to by all my cds at Best Buy, but not anymore. Most MP3s are available at 12:00-1:00am on the day they come out, prices are amazing, & no wasting gas driving to the store. IK am surprised Amazon has such a small % given what they offer.


RE: ... whaaat???
By MrBlastman on 8/19/2009 11:53:35 AM , Rating: 5
Amazon doesn't have an army of brainwashed Zombie followers, that's why. ;) That kool-aid they give out at the Apple store is powerful stuff.

But, you are right, if you are going to buy online, Amazon has awesome prices, better quality, no DRM and makes far more sense than the i-store. Best thing is, you don't have to install the destructive i-Tunes software.

Unfortunately, I don't partake in either. If I have to buy music, it is used from a used music store or directly from the artist. Only way to go really unless you want to give the RIAA more money to sue people with.


RE: ... whaaat???
By RamarC on 8/19/2009 7:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
and considering amazon hooks up with used CD vendors, it's very affordable to get imports, stuff from lesser-known artists, and out-of-print/discontinued albums.


RE: ... whaaat???
By Ard on 8/19/2009 12:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I find that somewhat hard to believe as well. I love Amazon's service and use it exclusively unless there's something that I absolutely can only find on iTunes (an extreme rarity at best). I guess the masses are still being suckered into believing that they can only put music bought from iTunes on their iPods.


RE: ... whaaat???
By omnicronx on 8/19/2009 12:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
Amazon does not have an industry leading media player that to the average user is locked into using iTunes anyways, at least for syncing.


RE: ... whaaat???
By MrBlastman on 8/19/2009 1:01:37 PM , Rating: 3
I can't tell from your post if you know (I'm assuming you do by using "average user"), but you don't have to use iTunes to load music onto an ipod. There are several alternatives you can use; I've used Floola myself to load things onto an ipod and it was a far better experience than using iTunes.

I refuse to ever load i-Tunes on my PC again after it nuked my DVD-Burner's ability to work properly (until I reinstalled Windoze) with an i-Tunes update.

Yes, I am sad to admit that we have an ipod, but it is only as a result of my Wife buying her MacBook on a tax free holiday which also happened to be a major sale at the Apple store which included giving us a nearly free ipod. I hate her Macbook. :-|


RE: ... whaaat???
By zerocool84 on 8/19/2009 4:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you didn't read his post correctly. He said the average user and the average user doesn't know that they can use other services to get their music. They have an iPod and are going to use iTunes to get their music.


RE: ... whaaat???
By MScrip on 8/19/2009 4:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
But, the iPod wouldn't have been a big hit if you bought an iPod from Apple and then had to go to a 3rd party website to download some software. Right now, the minimum you have to do is open the box, install iTunes, and your new iPod will work as soon as you bring it home.

The bonus is that you *can* use additional software... if you're so inclined.

But the fact that Apple provided a solution in the box helped the iPod reach the masses.


RE: ... whaaat???
By MrBlastman on 8/20/2009 10:49:37 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that solutions (i-Tunes) can break your computer's functionality, like it did mine. They don't mention that in the fine print. I like to consider myself very computer savvy and even I couldn't fix it without the last resort of reinstalling Windoze on the same partition in a new directory. I won't use it again after that.


RE: ... whaaat???
By Golgatha on 8/19/2009 2:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I am slowly teaching my wife to load her own MP3s onto her iPod, as I have been doing for years now. Any digital music purchases (save the American Idol BS my wife can't get enough of) we make are now through Amazon. Better prices, no DRM, a format that will work nearly universally, and guaranteed 256 kbps quality encoding have sold me on Amazon.com's offerings.


RE: ... whaaat???
By ImEmmittSmith on 8/19/2009 2:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
I buy all my music via Amazon. Their $1 or $2 ablum deals each day are great. I have expanded my library of classical and rock music without the high costs normally associated with buying from iTunes at full price. I like Amazons delivery service and reviews of most of their music albums. The reason I see iTunes having a huge stronghold on digital music, is that most teenagers, like my daughter, just prefer the convenience of just clicking on a song and buying when they are in the mood. No shopping around for better price, no real interest in DRM/non-DRM or what bit rate the music is recorded at. They just want their music NOW! :o)


RE: ... whaaat???
By Azzr34l on 8/19/2009 4:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, iTunes is so neatly integrated into the iPod/iPhone, it makes one click purchases and library updates very easy. I buy everything from Amazon, my wife and eldest daughter with iPhones generally buy from iTunes because of the convenience factor, which cannot be disregarded. If Amazon were smart, they'd develop an AmazonMP3 iPhone app that integrates seamlessly like iTunes does, heck they could even offer up their rentals as well.

Another nice thing about Amazon is when I buy CDs, I always get $3-$5 credits towards future MP3 downloads from them. iTunes incompatibility with XP Pro x64 also doesn't help iTunes case for me either...


RE: ... whaaat???
By rmlarsen on 8/19/2009 9:24:03 PM , Rating: 3
While I like Amazon too, when it comes to quality I disagree with you, as do pretty much all systematic tests of audio codecs:

At the same bit rate AAC consistently outperforms MP3. AAC was developed as a successor to MP3, and to some extent by the same people, so it is hardly surprising. (iTunes plus = 256 kb/s AAC, Amazon = 256 kb/s MP3.)

Now, we can argue whether this is relevant, since both sound more than "good enough" through a pair of earbuds connected to a portable AAC/MP3 player, so the mass audience won't care. And they both sound pale and uninteresting compared to a 24bit / 96 kHz uncompressed master on a decent stereo. When playing compressed audio I personally prefer AAC over MP3 because of the high frequency artifacts in MP3 (try listening to something like cymbals).


CD are lossless
By rmlarsen on 8/19/2009 12:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
For recordings where I really care about the sound quality, I still buy music CDs (or high resolution SACD/DVD-A/DTS etc. for the few titles where it is available) and rip them to a lossless format. I wish downloadable content was sold in a lossless format. I admit that 256 kb/s AAC or MP3 content sounds pretty good, but when I sit down to really enjoy a good listen I front of the stereo I want every last bit of detail, ambience and sound stage.




RE: CD are lossless
By smilingcrow on 8/19/2009 1:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that even home users are recording at 24 bit and possibly 96 KHz and higher and you realise that even CDs are losing out compared to the original master recording. Just because it’s not a lossy format doesn’t mean you aren’t losing out.


RE: CD are lossless
By MrX8503 on 8/19/2009 2:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
I actually would be perfectly fine and happy with 16-bit 48khz. In our digital sound production class, this was as high as we ever went and it sounded pretty dang good to me.


RE: CD are lossless
By MrX8503 on 8/19/2009 2:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I'm not sure why digital downloads are still being compressed.

I guess thats why some people still buy CD's. I think Amazon should offer the user to be able to download CD quality tracks.


RE: CD are lossless
By rmlarsen on 8/19/2009 9:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. If we are truly stuck with the mediocre 16 bit / 44 kHz CD format, let's at least make it available in downloadable format. I would love for a higher resolution format to become the norm, but I think that is too late.

The SACD vs. DVD-A war was irrelevant since the mass market was not going to move to a different physical format when the CD was "good enough".

However, when moving content online there was a window of opportunity to introduce a format that could scale up to handle high-resolution content, and Apple actually chose it for their iPods. It's called AAC! Now, I am pretty sure current iPods cannot play back high resolution content, so it is probably a moot point, but the audio codec they chose could actually support it.

One can always hope and dream that the some day 24 bit / 96kHz (perhaps lightly compressed) goodness will be the norm.

(Yeah, I'm know of the high res codecs supported by bluray, but first of all it is another physical medium, and second of all, I would rather not look at most musicians when they perform ;-) )


By on 8/22/2009 11:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.bbcloth.com
http://www.bbcloth.com

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32
lv, coach, chane bag $35
COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30
christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13
edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24
AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

quote:
http://www.bbcloth.com
http://www.bbcloth.com




"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki