backtop


Print 27 comment(s) - last by MisterChristop.. on Apr 8 at 10:29 PM

The iPod and iTunes giant gets a bit confused about its current market position

Since last February, Apple has constantly proclaimed itself the number 2 music retailer, second only to retail giant Wal-Mart.  Apple had long trailed Best Buy for the third spot, and the February announcement that it had passed Best Buy took on a celebratory note.  Such a position was certainly respectable stated observers, and thanks no doubt, to Apple's rejuvenated iPod sales from its refreshed line.

However, something strange happened when a memo from the NPD group music survey was intercepted by Ars Technica.  The memo read that Apple was really number 1, having passed Wal-Mart and Best Buy.  So which was it?  Apple, well known for its sardonic "Mac and PC guy" ads, certainly did not seem the type of company to purposefully miss a chance to toot its own horn, so to speak.

Well it appears some confusion overtook Apple, as it released a statement saying that it was actually number 1 in January and February, contradicting its own previous report.  Stated Apple last week:

Apple® today announced that the iTunes® Store (www.itunes.com) surpassed Wal-Mart to become the number one music retailer in the US, based on the latest data from the NPD Group*(see footnote).

*(footnote) Based on data from market research firm the NPD Group’s MusicWatch survey that captures consumer reported past week unit purchases and counts one CD representing 12 tracks, excluding wireless transactions. The iTunes Store became the largest music retailer in the US based on the amount of music sold during January and February 2008.

Many observers believe that Apple's new lead was thanks in part to heavy holiday sales of iTunes gift cards. 

Apple's announcement is likely an attempt to drum up some excitement to overshadow the recent deal between MySpace and three of the major music labels to release an iTunes competitor.

Why do the announcement and the confusion preceding it matter?  Chiefly, the confusion certainly induces a bit of havoc upon investors and analysts who tend to rely heavily on such announcements to make their decisions on stocks.  Secondly, it indicates that Apple missed a major advertising opportunity to promote its new found dominance, thanks to some snafu.

Despite the humorous nature of the situation, online music is no laughing matter for Apple.  Apple has worked hard to hold onto its 70 percent stake in the MP3 market. And with the number of teens -- the primary music buyers -- not buying a CD rising from 38 percent to 48 percent between 2006 and 2007, all indications are that if you want to succeed in the music business, you are going to have to succeed online.

This is the second embarrassing logistical oversight from Apple in the last month.  At the end of the last month it was revealed that Apple's iTunes software had unintentionally encouraged massive violation of Apple's Safari browser's EULA, possibly millions of times, by encouraging non-Mac hardware users to download the browser.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: More online music?
By Quiescent on 4/8/2008 11:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
See! Poor quality music can promote pirating! You can get higher quality MP3s by NOT buying it.

And I totally agree. I have an Audigy 2 ZS soundcard with MDR-V700 headphones, and I can certainly tell the difference from a 64kbps MP3 and a 192kbps MP3.

And to be honest, I have a Creative Zen Vision:M and have noticed the sound quality to be quite great for being an MP3 player, however, since I've got my Eee, my Zen is collecting dust.


RE: More online music?
By omnicronx on 4/8/2008 11:51:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I totally agree. I have an Audigy 2 ZS soundcard with MDR-V700 headphones, and I can certainly tell the difference from a 64kbps MP3 and a 192kbps MP3.
You download 64kbps mp3s? 128CBR+ has been the standard for the ripping scene for over 15 years.

I do agree with you though, 128kpbs mp3s will just not suffice .I used to be involved in the scene, and 192cbr has been the standard since at least 99, and 192vbr+ has been since 01-02. This was done for a reason, 192vbr is probably the best mix between sound quality and file size. Anything over 256vbr and the ceiling of the way mp3s are encoded is hit.

Apple has no reason that they're mp3s are not all at least 192vbr, and its the main reason I have never touched itunes, even though I like supporting my favorite artists. I would rather buy the CD and rip the tracks myself.


RE: More online music?
By drebo on 4/8/2008 12:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
Pssshh.

It's not music if it isn't raw PCM.


RE: More online music?
By omnicronx on 4/8/2008 1:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not music if it isn't raw PCM.
Ya sure, if you are a dog ;) Most compression techniques today make use of the fact we can not hear certain frequencies present on a raw PCM track. On average most humans can only hear between the ranges of 20 Hz and 20 kHz. In fact most people do not even have the audio equipment to achieve these frequencies (computer speakers and low end consumer audio components come to mind). VBR (variable bit rate) encoding schemes take advantage of this even more, as it is able to change the bit rate when not all of the frequency spectrum is in use (for example when there is no sound).

Although the trained ear can hear the difference between a VBR 256 mp3 and a 44khz PCM track(CD), its nothing like the difference between CD and an SACD track. If you want perfection 192khz 2 channel sound is the best you can possibly get ;)


RE: More online music?
By MisterChristopher on 4/8/2008 10:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
You guys are both idiots. Any form of digital representation of an analog audio stream is just that. A digital representation. It will never accurately represent the infinite variations in pressure that an analog sound field carries. Both tape and records do a better job than any of the digital methods including DSD, but even they are not even close to perfect.

DSD by the way is not a 192Khz 2 channel signal. DSD uses 1 bit at a sample rate of 2.88 Mhz or multiples. The one bit is used to represent a positive or negative voltage change relative to your previous voltage level. Check out link for more info.

http://www.dsdproaudio.com/html/dsd_sacd_explained...

DSD is definatly the closest digital representation of an analog sound stream, but it still is just a representation.

To those who state that we cannot percieve the impact in an average listening experience.... you obviously have no concept of how inaudible frequencies in the form of harmonics affect what you actually can hear. Also, most percieved locational cues are due to frequencies that you cannot actually "hear".

Both locational cues and harmonics are extremely important to any music listening experience, and both of these things make a huge difference to the quality of your listening experience even on cheap speakers (even ibud).

To those of you that might say they average listener doesn't care; Go away. Most average listeners do not care only because they have never been exposed to someone who has the knowledge and tact to show them why it matters. Instead of making excuses for them, educate them by showing them the difference.

PCM sucks.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Related Articles
Apple's Safari Security Woes
March 31, 2008, 12:22 PM
Apple Announces New iPods
September 5, 2007, 2:38 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki