| Subject: Article: CDs vs Downloads |
Author:
Betty
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:38:14 07/04/04 Sun
In reply to:
Betty
's message, "I pay for my CDs, but I download too." on 14:31:51 07/04/04 Sun
Low-fi iTunes downloads
Called From a High-Tech System, Low-Fi Music, its focus is on compressed music files that are lossy by virtue of the fact they've been compressed and, hence, information which transforms into listening quality is missing.
So it follows that people who use iTunes for their iPods aren't getting value for money, says Randall Stross, the author:
"Customers are led to believe that they are getting a CD in all respects except the trouble of going to the mall. The iTunes store does not warn about the permanence of its method of compression; once freeze-dried, there is no way to reconstitute the music into CD quality for playing through a good stereo."
In other words, Stross is saying iTunes-cum-iPod users are are paying way too much for far too little. Literally.
He's right. But Apple isn't be the only villain in the piece. The same applies to the other corporate music sales sites.
iTunes is a loss leader for iPod and iPod is in turn a kind of non-loss leader for Apple products in general. The amazing marketing and PR skills (Apple gets more mentions .......) of Steve Jobs and/or the people behind him ensure the mainstream media keep on pumping Apple as though it's all there is.
Big Music does the same for the corporate music sites, all offering identical mass-produced 'product' manufactured and supplied directly or indirectly by by the Big Five record labels in their many and various forms, and all sold for more or less the same prices.
This ensures there's no competition.
Apple? What's that?
However, the vast majority of people who download compressed music tracks don't really care. They don't, after all, get their goodies from plastic music sites such as iTunes. Nor do they use Apple hardware or software.
What's more, whether they're among the scant few (relatively speaking) who cough up a buck per download from the corporate online music 'stores', or whether they're among the millions and millions who share music via the p2p networks, they're not looking for immaculate quality when they download.
Most people want shrink-wrapped tracks so they can hear music while they're skateboarding or listening in their car, or on boat or plane or train. Or whatever. They don't want to be carrying stacks of CDs or DVDs around and in this kind of context, Music Lite is fine.
And although the music industry flatly refuses to admit it, when downloaders and file sharers find something they like, they go out and buy a CD holding the 'full' version.
Dumb. Very dumb.
Forking out a dollar for a Big Music track is, however, dumb. Very dumb. And bit rates have nothing to do with it.
A dollar (or the UK, French, German, Spanish or whatever equivalents which are usually more than that ) is grossly excessive whether it's for the World's Most Perfect recording, or a Kellogg mp3 that's full of snap, crackle and pop.
And the music industry knows it.
It could be turning the tide, combatting its 'pirate' troubles and creating a happy user base with p2p as its distribution and marketing vehicle, selling 'product' at reasonable prices.
Data transfer and storage rates are increasing at mind-boggling rates and soon, there'll be no reason why truly high fidelity downloads can't be achieved. Purists could then grab perfect recordings for 30 or 40 cents a go, say, while mp3 versions could go for 10 or 15 cents, perhaps. And there are other models such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation's.
But then the labels (not to speak of the movie studios) would be forced to compete head-on and up-front with the thousands of independent companies around the world. And that'll never happen.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 