Apple launches 99c a song music service By Tony Smith Posted: 28/04/2003 at 18:39 GMT Apple launched its online music service today, providing almost unlimited usage rights, CD quality audio and reliable downloads for just 99 cents a song. But you're out of luck if you live outside the US - the only territory in which the service is available. It's Mac-only too. It will come to Windows by the end of the year, the company promised, but it could make no such pledge to international Mac users. The service centres on a new version of iTunes, Apple's free jukebox software, and provides over 200,000 tracks at launch. According to Apple CEO Steve Jobs, that number will continue to grow "every day". At its launch last month, BT's Dotmusic on Demand kicked off with 155,000 songs, so Apple probably has the lead on volume. It certainly has the lead in content, offering exclusive songs from the likes of U2, Eminem, Bob Dylan and others. The service also provides full album art and a selection of videos, all of which can be streamed for free. Tracks come from all the major record labels, and all songs can be burned to CD, even from labels that have in the past permitted downloading and streaming, but not burning. Each of those songs is encoded not in MP3, but in AAC, as expected. The reason, said Jobs, was because it sounds better. Add to that a higher level of compression for a given level of quality and anti-piracy technology, and you get the full picture. Apple's songs are encoded at 128Kbps, which Jobs claimed "rivals CD quality". In fact, he said, it's better than CD quality, since Apple has in many cases used original masters to create is song library, rather than ripping a stack of CDs. Each song is available as a 30-second preview at full quality. Unlike rival services, there's no subscription fee - punters can download one song or as many as they like. Those tracks can be downloaded to any number of iPods - but not, you'll note, other MP3 players - and three Macs. Jobs said that Mac owners who buy new machines can "de-authorise their old computer and re-authorise the new one" so there is some degree of matching user/Mac to what's downloaded. Any song can be burned to CD, any number of times, but to prevent mass-burning, any given playlist can only be burned ten times without. That, reckons Apple, won't affect ordinary, honest users, only those who auto-burn stacks of CDs for chums or commerce. The idea, said Jobs, is to give users the same deal as they've always had through buying LPs, cassettes and CDs for a one-off fee. That includes using music in other contexts - Apple's service includes a licence allowing you to incorporate downloaded songs as soundtracks to Mac-produced home videos and DVDs, for example. Quality encoding, album art, exclusive material, reliable downloads, fast and accurate searching through iTunes, unlimited CD burning and unlimited transfer to iPods are what Apple reckons will persuade users to ditch the likes of Kazaa in favour of the Apple service. Crucially, though it's betting punters will be willing to pay 99c rather than go through the hoops they sometimes have to crawl to get songs for free. We reckon many will. Apple seems to have figured out that music isn't necessarily about albums but singles, and has priced the service accordingly. Actually, it's good for albums too, since a ten-track full-price album will cost you less than it costs on CD. The last new album we bought in the US cost, if we remember correctly $10.99; from Apple it would cost $9.90. Or you can buy the whole album for $9.99. It's not clear whether that's a CD purchase or a download. That said, we'll have to see just how quickly new album releases appear on Apple's servers and how many of their songs are included straight away. It will also have to work on its back-catalogue: the Beatles and the Rolling Stones are both noticeable by their absence. Bruce Springsteen's hugely popular The Rising is missing too. It failed our Jethro Tull test too. Not all the artwork for available albums is there yet, either. Apple may have cracked on the online business model, but like all the other services, it's up against the problem of not being able to provide punters with the songs they want. Mac users who can't get most of this stuff from other, Windows-only services may not mind so much, but other punters will need the reassurance of a very much larger catalogue when the service becomes available to Windows PC owners later this year. ®
Thank you! When will the music industry face the facts. They're not losing money because of music downloading, they're losing money because today's mainstream music SUCKS.
hmmmm.... free or 99 cents? free or 99 cents? tough decision. i'll get back to you later with an answer.
I would pay 99 cents for songs I like...I've done it a couple of times in the past with bands that have released their first single online...
In a disappointing turn of events, Apple today announced an online muzak business. After months of speculation about Apple announcing an exciting new online music business that would allow users to download and listen to popular music through iTunes or their iPods, Apple did announce such a service, but for elevator and shopping mall muzak. "We looked at the business of online music delivery," Apple CEO Steve Jobs said, "and we found that everyone was hung up on the licensing rights to popular songs. So, we thought 'What if the songs we sold were not popular at all?'!" Working with several of the major muzak recording companies, Apple will provide streaming and downloadable muzak content over the Internet. Jobs effused enthusiasm about the new service. "Never before has a company collected so many mellow tunes that will stick with you for days on end. You'll have to pry them out of your head with a screwdriver! "Now we can truly say 'Apple rocks!' Or, to be more accurate, 'Apple mellow rocks.'" Jobs proceeded to download and play several selections to the groaning crowd, including Elevator II, Adagio for Strip Malls, and Retirement Home Classic Rock Medley. "This is like my worst nightmare," said a wide-eyed David Pogue of the New York Times. "At one point during this announcement I asked myself 'Is there a god that could let this happen?' I was forced to reply... 'No.' "On the plus side, it's quite possible I'm still asleep and I'm having a nightmare. Or, possibly, I've gone insane. So, there are still a couple of other preferable ways to explain this." Nonplussed by the horrified reaction of the gathered media, Jobs proceeded to play Please Hold - Your Call Is Important To Us. "Isn't this great?!" Jobs asked, snapping his fingers to the muzak.
Update: Billboard: iTunes Music Store sells 275K songs in first 18 hours. May 1 - 10:48 EDT€€ The Billboard Daily Bulletin reports that Apple's new iTunes Music Store, which launched on Monday, sold an estimated 275,000 tracks in its first 18 hours. € @ .99 per song or 9.99 per album looks like this thing could make the labels, artists, not to mention Apple some pretty heavy scratch.
HOLY SMOKES!!!!! Apple Music Store sells four songs every second - report Apple's online Music Store sold around 275,000 tracks during its first 18 hours of operation, Billboard magazine's online news service has claimed. That works out at over four tracks sold every second. Now, Apple is charging punters 99 cents per track. It would be interesting to know how much of that goes to artists (performers and composers), how much to the labels and how much is left to Apple. We'll probably never know exactly. However, according to thisCNN article, the retailer's take on a typical $16.98/£11.61 CD works out at $6.23/£4.26 - 36.7 per cent of the retail price. That means (very roughly) Apple's getting around 36 cents a track. Of course, there are costs associated with CD shipments that aren't an issue with online sales - such as distribution and packaging costs, to name but two. Apple may be benefiting from the absence of these costs, or the labels may be. More likely it will differ from label to label, but our unscientific, just-for-fun figure gives you a rough idea. On that basis, Apple added $99,000 to its Q3 revenue tally during the first 18 hours the Music Store was open to the public. If it can keep that up throughout the quarter, it will make a significant, multi-million dollar contribution to the company's bottom line (though its own costs of sale have yet to be deducted). It's not a patch on hardware revenues, but every little bit helps in these tough times. Billboard bases the claim for the number of Music Store tracks sold on comment from sources within major music labels. It also alleges that at least two labels have signed up for Apple's upcoming Windows version of Music Store. We'd have thought Apple would have built such a licence into its agreement with the labels from the word go, but maybe that's not the case. ® SUCKERS!
I read all about this in the WSJ yesterday, and am very doubtful that this will work. Really, the only hopes Apple has of profiting off this service in the long run is if the courts declare Kazaa and other file-sharing services to be illegal. No rational consumer prefers having less money over more, therefore in the long run no one will use this service. The benefits that Apple cites to the service is 1) better music quality 2) guilt-free conscious 3) additional artist-provided content 4) no skips/other problems with the download. For Apple to invest as much time, energy, and dollars into a project whose foundation is predicated on these minor points is a complete and utter misuse of capital.
Au contraire. If you want something out of the mainstream, without a cult following, there is no guarantee it will be on a file-sharing network. Pick six random songs (*). On the one hand, they are guaranteed to be available in high quality, downloaded from professional-grade servers in 15 minutes or less for $6, or the same six songs for "free" in lesser quality, possibly corrupted, possibly a different song (with no way to check), limited by the vagaries of *some other individual's* network, and definitely taking 60+ minutes to find, start, and finish the download. I know which one I'd choose, and many people consider me a pretty rational consumer... This is without bringing the ethical side into it. Like it or not, there is a cost to professional recording, and IMHO artists deserve some recompense for their intellectual property. (*) The caveat being that if the song isn't yet available, then obviously you can't purchase it. However, at least you *know* that fact in a matter of seconds.
I know it took me several weeks to get Undercover of the Night by the Rolling Stones downloaded on Morpheus. While I could often search and find the song, it would never download. I would've been willing to pay 99 cents for the song to get a copy. There is sometimes a hassle with downloading from the free download services.
