Apple just introduced a new iTunes feature called "Complete My Album". Basically, if you've purchased a song from a given album (in the past 6 months) you can purchase the rest of the album at a discounted price (the price is reduced by 99 cents per song that you've purchased).
For the first 3 months, they are removing the "past 6 months" limitation so you can complete any album you've ever purchased.
So at least there is some attempt, on Apple's part, to preserve the concept of the album.
So they 'allow' you to buy the rest of the song on the album but don't charge you again for the ones you've already bought? They're all heart.
Wait a minute, is that how it works? That's not a discount at all!! I thought is was like a buy a song get a song free when you buy the album type thing.
I really can't believe this, unless the price of buying a whole album is less than buying each song individually (is it? - I don't use itunes).
Apple just introduced a new iTunes feature called "Complete My Album". Basically, if you've purchased a song from a given album (in the past 6 months) you can purchase the rest of the album at a discounted price (the price is reduced by 99 cents per song that you've purchased).
For the first 3 months, they are removing the "past 6 months" limitation so you can complete any album you've ever purchased.
So at least there is some attempt, on Apple's part, to preserve the concept of the album.
So they 'allow' you to buy the rest of the song on the album but don't charge you again for the ones you've already bought? They're all heart.
Wait a minute, is that how it works? That's not a discount at all!! I thought is was like a buy a song get a song free when you buy the album type thing.
I really can't believe this, unless the price of buying a whole album is less than buying each song individually (is it? - I don't use itunes).
Yeah ... it isn't an amazing deal or anything. But, previously, if you purchased one song and wanted the rest of the album, you would have had to pay full price for the album. And just purchasing the rest of the songs one by one would most likely cost even more (if an album has more than 10 songs).
So it isn't a great deal ... more like fixing something that was previously screwed up. However, with the inevitable promotion that will go along with this "deal", the concept of the album will get a little boost in the eyes of all of those people that actually get their music by purchasing it on iTunes.
Apple just introduced a new iTunes feature called "Complete My Album". Basically, if you've purchased a song from a given album (in the past 6 months) you can purchase the rest of the album at a discounted price (the price is reduced by 99 cents per song that you've purchased).
For the first 3 months, they are removing the "past 6 months" limitation so you can complete any album you've ever purchased.
So at least there is some attempt, on Apple's part, to preserve the concept of the album.
Great this is what started this thread. Check the link above. And this is NOT going to work. Its not a deal its a half assed attempt by the labels to preserve the album format that has made them so much money in the last 30 years. What the fuck is the point of buying the rest of the tracks off of a major album when in 90% of the cases its just filler after the singles. idiots.
I agree completely with what DrBC said. The era of the major label raking in crazy amounts of money is grinding to a halt but unfortunately they STILL haven't figured out that their business model needs to change and this Apple deal prvoes again that they still are waaaay behind the times.
Great this is what started this thread. Check the link above. And this is NOT going to work. Its not a deal its a half assed attempt by the labels to preserve the album format that has made them so much money in the last 30 years. What the fuck is the point of buying the rest of the tracks off of a major album when in 90% of the cases its just filler after the singles. idiots.
I agree completely with what DrBC said. The era of the major label raking in crazy amounts of money is grinding to a halt but unfortunately they STILL haven't figured out that their business model needs to change and this Apple deal prvoes again that they still are waaaay behind the times.
I really think you are all viewing the "complete my album" feature a little askew. It's not a discount and it's not an endorsement of albums. The adherence to album format does not come from Apple. They were the ones who started selling single tracks online. The "complete my album" feature just means people don't have to buy the same thing twice. It's more of a bug fix than a glowing endorsement of singles leading to album sales.
Great this is what started this thread. Check the link above. And this is NOT going to work. Its not a deal its a half assed attempt by the labels to preserve the album format that has made them so much money in the last 30 years. What the fuck is the point of buying the rest of the tracks off of a major album when in 90% of the cases its just filler after the singles. idiots.
I agree completely with what DrBC said. The era of the major label raking in crazy amounts of money is grinding to a halt but unfortunately they STILL haven't figured out that their business model needs to change and this Apple deal prvoes again that they still are waaaay behind the times.
I really think you are all viewing the "complete my album" feature a little askew. It's not a discount and it's not an endorsement of albums. The adherence to album format does not come from Apple. They were the ones who started selling single tracks online. The "complete my album" feature just means people don't have to buy the same thing twice. It's more of a bug fix than a glowing endorsement of singles leading to album sales.
Great this is what started this thread. Check the link above. And this is NOT going to work. Its not a deal its a half assed attempt by the labels to preserve the album format that has made them so much money in the last 30 years. What the fuck is the point of buying the rest of the tracks off of a major album when in 90% of the cases its just filler after the singles. idiots.
I agree completely with what DrBC said. The era of the major label raking in crazy amounts of money is grinding to a halt but unfortunately they STILL haven't figured out that their business model needs to change and this Apple deal prvoes again that they still are waaaay behind the times.
I really think you are all viewing the "complete my album" feature a little askew. It's not a discount and it's not an endorsement of albums. The adherence to album format does not come from Apple. They were the ones who started selling single tracks online. The "complete my album" feature just means people don't have to buy the same thing twice. It's more of a bug fix than a glowing endorsement of singles leading to album sales.
I actually don't even think this has anything to do with Apple. I think its more Apple appeasing the labels who are all bent out of shape because online buyers only tend to buy singles rather than full albums. Add to that all of the recent uproar the labels have had with Apple selling 99 cent tracks and Jobs saying they need to offer the content without DRM. This has nothing to do with a bug fix, because Apple knows as well as anyone familiar with online commerce peoples digital buying habits are completely different than when they buy a physical product and especially with the younger generation that for the most part either doesn't really care about most "albums" and or will download from peer to peer/friends instead of paying.
I really think you are all viewing the "complete my album" feature a little askew. It's not a discount and it's not an endorsement of albums. The adherence to album format does not come from Apple. They were the ones who started selling single tracks online. The "complete my album" feature just means people don't have to buy the same thing twice. It's more of a bug fix than a glowing endorsement of singles leading to album sales.
Could it not, in fact, be both?
Yes, but it was a feature that should have been there from the start. The whole functional point of digital music is that you pay for the song (DRM and RIAA aside) and paying twice for the same track defeats that goal. To use this as some evidence that labels are album-oriented is a little silly - I mean, I agree, but there's so much ELSE out there to support that!
I actually don't even think this has anything to do with Apple. I think its more Apple appeasing the labels who are all bent out of shape because online buyers only tend to buy singles rather than full albums. Add to that all of the recent uproar the labels have had with Apple selling 99 cent tracks and Jobs saying they need to offer the content without DRM. This has nothing to do with a bug fix, because Apple knows as well as anyone familiar with online commerce peoples digital buying habits are completely different than when they buy a physical product and especially with the younger generation that for the most part either doesn't really care about most "albums" and or will download from peer to peer/friends instead of paying.
It of course has something to do with Apple because they make thee product pairing for mp3s (iTunes + iPod) and have tried to match their vision with 1. how people listen to music and 2. the industry's clout.
No doubt the industry is pissed about the price points, but they are making their fat % per song. Incidentally I worked in a company that was trying to do a similar thing to iTunes in 2000, pre-iTunes, and we also set an ideal price point at $.99. I agree the price is right.
I admire Jobs for saying "no DRM" but we will see what he really does. iTunes has been selling single tracks for $.99 since its inception and has always been trying to get away from DRM, so I'm not seeing the "recent uproar" you mention.
Let me ask you this. How does the "complete your album" feature "appease" the record labels? The labels want people to pay for the same song twice. That's the logic behind the idea of the "single" and "album" - you buy one, then you buy the other. Paying more than once for the same content is also why the industry is adamant about DRM. Pay for a song once for your cellphone, again for your iPod, and yet again for a CD, again for (fill in the blank). But for gods sake don't let people do what they want with it! The RIAA and others have been running counter to developments in format since the days of tape decks.
If anything, this decision by Apple is running antithetical to the industry's general logic. Which is why I feel many of the reactions on this thread are a little twisted and why I say it's more along the lines of a bug fix. It's something that I believe Apple wanted to do from the start, but it was probably blocked by the labels setting a single-album price structure, paying more than once to maximize profit.
I also think you're playing pretty loose with the idea that peoples online buying habits are "completely different" than real-life buying habits. This isn't really true. There are ways they are similar and ways they are different, but it's not a complete breakdown. Since we're in Apple-land, one example might be the success of the Apple stores. People will pay for high-quality content and and visit real-life stores if they are given the appropriate incentive. The music industry just doesn't know what to do with kids these days
Okay didn't mean for this reply to get this long.... sorry.... I'm gonna go grab a sandwich now.
I actually don't even think this has anything to do with Apple. I think its more Apple appeasing the labels who are all bent out of shape because online buyers only tend to buy singles rather than full albums. Add to that all of the recent uproar the labels have had with Apple selling 99 cent tracks and Jobs saying they need to offer the content without DRM. This has nothing to do with a bug fix, because Apple knows as well as anyone familiar with online commerce peoples digital buying habits are completely different than when they buy a physical product and especially with the younger generation that for the most part either doesn't really care about most "albums" and or will download from peer to peer/friends instead of paying.
It of course has something to do with Apple because they make thee product pairing for mp3s (iTunes + iPod) and have tried to match their vision with 1. how people listen to music and 2. the industry's clout.
No doubt the industry is pissed about the price points, but they are making their fat % per song. Incidentally I worked in a company that was trying to do a similar thing to iTunes in 2000, pre-iTunes, and we also set an ideal price point at $.99. I agree the price is right.
I admire Jobs for saying "no DRM" but we will see what he really does. iTunes has been selling single tracks for $.99 since its inception and has always been trying to get away from DRM, so I'm not seeing the "recent uproar" you mention.
Let me ask you this. How does the "complete your album" feature "appease" the record labels? The labels want people to pay for the same song twice. That's the logic behind the idea of the "single" and "album" - you buy one, then you buy the other. Paying more than once for the same content is also why the industry is adamant about DRM. Pay for a song once for your cellphone, again for your iPod, and yet again for a CD, again for (fill in the blank). But for gods sake don't let people do what they want with it! The RIAA and others have been running counter to developments in format since the days of tape decks.
If anything, this decision by Apple is running antithetical to the industry's general logic. Which is why I feel many of the reactions on this thread are a little twisted and why I say it's more along the lines of a bug fix. It's something that I believe Apple wanted to do from the start, but it was probably blocked by the labels setting a single-album price structure, paying more than once to maximize profit.
I also think you're playing pretty loose with the idea that peoples online buying habits are "completely different" than real-life buying habits. This isn't really true. There are ways they are similar and ways they are different, but it's not a complete breakdown. Since we're in Apple-land, one example might be the success of the Apple stores. People will pay for high-quality content and and visit real-life stores if they are given the appropriate incentive. The music industry just doesn't know what to do with kids these days
Okay didn't mean for this reply to get this long.... sorry.... I'm gonna go grab a sandwich now.
Actually as of the last 10-20 years people do not really buy singles and albums. They don't market cd singles like they used to market tape singles. The industry has had an assumption that people should buy the full album. You like the song on the radio or video? Buy the cd. That worked until the popularity of the internet and the advancements in the technology allowed the transfer of higher rates of data. what the sharing and buying of singles has done is really eliminate the album. Ask any kid that has an ipod, how many songs they bought, vs. how many albums they bought. if they bought anything at all its a track or a ringtone. And that's my point about the Apple release. They have always sold albums, however it was never pushed because most people like the ability to pick and choose.
Case in point: if you like the luda track and previewed the rest of the album and didn't like it, are you going to buy the whole album? Hell no, you're going to buy that track and keep moving. Yes some albums you may buy the whole thing but those are because of the content being appealing start to finish and that can be a rarity these days (at least on a major).
So you have few things working here. The majors fell into this model of releasing a couple or three singles per record that are/were standout while the rest of the album is pretty much filler (I am talking about alot of the major releasses). So if the product overall is mediocre but to get the good portion (a single or two) of said product you have to buy a $15 cd then the labels wins. However if you give people the ability to just take what they want and leave the rest and only pay $.99 or that one track or at most $3.00 for the three tracks, the labels lose horribly. Even if they get $.75 out of each track (which they aren't), if a million people download those tracks its only $750K. But, if you assume that at least 500K of those people most likely would have bought the CD before the ability to download individual tracks at the wholesale level thats $5-8 profit which is what 2.5-4 million dollars? And thats only 50% of the people that downloaded the track that you can assume bought it. what if more or all of those people? Its a large chunk of change.
Furthermore if you have albums that are $15/cd with 20-24 tracks on them then it is less than a dollar a track to buy the cd. however with this push from apple/labels for the album format digitally, if it actually worked they would make out like bandits at 99 cents per track (at least $20/album roughly). So go figure what would you do with those kind of numbers in play? Of coure they are going to do whatever they can to maintain the sale of albums and this is all this is. Just a weak (and very late) attempt at saving the album format when unfortunately the reality of the situation is that poor content coupled with user ability to buy individual tracks has killed the album for the labels, they just haven't come to terms with it.
In the end they need to switch their business plan to all singles and a few albums. If you can make enough hit singles then you get an album. The days of great first and second singles with filler in between are dying fast.
And in regards to Jobs, i am referring to about a month ago when he blogged about wanting to get rid of DRM and the music industry posting press releases and getting all up in arms about it. Yes, Jobs has alway been against DRM, but he was not as vocal about it as he was right after this last MacWorld.
The album can be viable but only if there is enough quality ontent by an artist to warrent it. C'mon Mims? A full CD? He made a hot track, thats it, Who would honestly go out to buy that CD?
this isn't really going to fix any problem with album sales but i don't see why you guys are attacking this. if anything, it helps out indie labels because people might hear about a track, download it, and then decide to buy the rest of the album. just doesn't seem liks a very likely situation with majors compared to indie labels
In the end they need to switch their business plan to all singles and a few albums. If you can make enough hit singles then you get an album. The days of great first and second singles with filler in between are dying fast.
Which in many ways is a return to the business model of many '60s labels, and we all saw how that turned out.
I think it will end up be a market force that pressures artists to make solid, quality music consistently because filler no longer has a place in the market, and eventually, we'll see a return of the album as a collection of quality music.
Then we'll start to see albums of singles couched in filler.
Actually as of the last 10-20 years people do not really buy singles and albums. They don't market cd singles like they used to market tape singles. The industry has had an assumption that people should buy the full album. You like the song on the radio or video? Buy the cd. That worked until the popularity of the internet and the advancements in the technology allowed the transfer of higher rates of data. what the sharing and buying of singles has done is really eliminate the album. Ask any kid that has an ipod, how many songs they bought, vs. how many albums they bought. if they bought anything at all its a track or a ringtone. And that's my point about the Apple release. They have always sold albums, however it was never pushed because most people like the ability to pick and choose.
Case in point: if you like the luda track and previewed the rest of the album and didn't like it, are you going to buy the whole album? Hell no, you're going to buy that track and keep moving. Yes some albums you may buy the whole thing but those are because of the content being appealing start to finish and that can be a rarity these days (at least on a major).
So you have few things working here. The majors fell into this model of releasing a couple or three singles per record that are/were standout while the rest of the album is pretty much filler (I am talking about alot of the major releasses). So if the product overall is mediocre but to get the good portion (a single or two) of said product you have to buy a $15 cd then the labels wins. However if you give people the ability to just take what they want and leave the rest and only pay $.99 or that one track or at most $3.00 for the three tracks, the labels lose horribly. Even if they get $.75 out of each track (which they aren't), if a million people download those tracks its only $750K. But, if you assume that at least 500K of those people most likely would have bought the CD before the ability to download individual tracks at the wholesale level thats $5-8 profit which is what 2.5-4 million dollars? And thats only 50% of the people that downloaded the track that you can assume bought it. what if more or all of those people? Its a large chunk of change.
Furthermore if you have albums that are $15/cd with 20-24 tracks on them then it is less than a dollar a track to buy the cd. however with this push from apple/labels for the album format digitally, if it actually worked they would make out like bandits at 99 cents per track (at least $20/album roughly). So go figure what would you do with those kind of numbers in play? Of coure they are going to do whatever they can to maintain the sale of albums and this is all this is. Just a weak (and very late) attempt at saving the album format when unfortunately the reality of the situation is that poor content coupled with user ability to buy individual tracks has killed the album for the labels, they just haven't come to terms with it.
In the end they need to switch their business plan to all singles and a few albums. If you can make enough hit singles then you get an album. The days of great first and second singles with filler in between are dying fast.
On the whole I agree with many of the facts, but not the way you're connecting the dots to get to the situation at hand.
I think one thing you're getting at is that the industry is preserving the album by any means possible, including twisting Apple's arm.
Discounting the album based on the purchase of a single song (how this convo started) works out better for consumers, not worse. Consumers aren't being prevented from purchasing singles, they aren't forced to buy albums, and the industry isn't saying people need to pay a dollar per song for the whole album. (not sure where you got that from - did you read the article?)
Because Apple's discount works out better for consumers, I don't buy that Apple's move was a push by the music industry. I'm not seeing where people are losing and the record industry is winning, except if it goes back to the "downfall of the album" argument which I'm not buying; do you really think more people prefer singles now than in the 1980s, the heyday of the smash single?
As much as you might not agree, technology didn't create an attraction to the hit single and "eliminate the album." People said the exact same thing about tapes and then compact discs. I agree with Great_Blue_Hills... if anything, digital music may pressure majors to create more quality albums, not that the smash hits will need to get bigger or that an "album" in 2007 will mean a string of unrelated but popular songs.
Jobs, although an egomaniac, is not an idiot. He is trying to push anti-DRM efforts because consumers are ready for it and Apple is a big enough gorilla to compete with the majors. It remains to be seen whether the music industry will adapt to DRM just as it remains to be seen if they can sell digital music successfully without the big $ payouts they are accustomed to.
But see Jobs' reason for not wanting DRM is he knows that since the iPod owns a lionshare fo the MP3 marketplace he would increae his sales of hardware. Thats what they make their money on, not on iTunes. iTunes just facilitates the purchase of the iPod.
Your right about the albums not being per track, but the reasson why they released this is only to appease the labels. Apple/Jobs knows the majors are not happy with the revenue generated by track per track selling. If they did'nt show that they were trying to support the Major's effort to keep the album alive, why wouldn't the Major's pull their licenses?
Just sayin this and with the history of the labels not understanding online surfing and buying habits this just looks suspect as hell.
Comments
Wait a minute, is that how it works? That's not a discount at all!! I thought is was like a buy a song get a song free when you buy the album type thing.
I really can't believe this, unless the price of buying a whole album is less than buying each song individually (is it? - I don't use itunes).
Yeah ... it isn't an amazing deal or anything. But, previously, if you purchased one song and wanted the rest of the album, you would have had to pay full price for the album. And just purchasing the rest of the songs one by one would most likely cost even more (if an album has more than 10 songs).
So it isn't a great deal ... more like fixing something that was previously screwed up. However, with the inevitable promotion that will go along with this "deal", the concept of the album will get a little boost in the eyes of all of those people that actually get their music by purchasing it on iTunes.
Great this is what started this thread. Check the link above. And this is NOT going to work. Its not a deal its a half assed attempt by the labels to preserve the album format that has made them so much money in the last 30 years. What the fuck is the point of buying the rest of the tracks off of a major album when in 90% of the cases its just filler after the singles. idiots.
I agree completely with what DrBC said. The era of the major label raking in crazy amounts of money is grinding to a halt but unfortunately they STILL haven't figured out that their business model needs to change and this Apple deal prvoes again that they still are waaaay behind the times.
I really think you are all viewing the "complete my album" feature a little askew. It's not a discount and it's not an endorsement of albums. The adherence to album format does not come from Apple. They were the ones who started selling single tracks online. The "complete my album" feature just means people don't have to buy the same thing twice. It's more of a bug fix than a glowing endorsement of singles leading to album sales.
Could it not, in fact, be both?
I actually don't even think this has anything to do with Apple. I think its more Apple appeasing the labels who are all bent out of shape because online buyers only tend to buy singles rather than full albums. Add to that all of the recent uproar the labels have had with Apple selling 99 cent tracks and Jobs saying they need to offer the content without DRM. This has nothing to do with a bug fix, because Apple knows as well as anyone familiar with online commerce peoples digital buying habits are completely different than when they buy a physical product and especially with the younger generation that for the most part either doesn't really care about most "albums" and or will download from peer to peer/friends instead of paying.
Yes, but it was a feature that should have been there from the start. The whole functional point of digital music is that you pay for the song (DRM and RIAA aside) and paying twice for the same track defeats that goal. To use this as some evidence that labels are album-oriented is a little silly - I mean, I agree, but there's so much ELSE out there to support that!
It of course has something to do with Apple because they make thee product pairing for mp3s (iTunes + iPod) and have tried to match their vision with 1. how people listen to music and 2. the industry's clout.
No doubt the industry is pissed about the price points, but they are making their fat % per song. Incidentally I worked in a company that was trying to do a similar thing to iTunes in 2000, pre-iTunes, and we also set an ideal price point at $.99. I agree the price is right.
I admire Jobs for saying "no DRM" but we will see what he really does. iTunes has been selling single tracks for $.99 since its inception and has always been trying to get away from DRM, so I'm not seeing the "recent uproar" you mention.
Let me ask you this. How does the "complete your album" feature "appease" the record labels? The labels want people to pay for the same song twice. That's the logic behind the idea of the "single" and "album" - you buy one, then you buy the other. Paying more than once for the same content is also why the industry is adamant about DRM. Pay for a song once for your cellphone, again for your iPod, and yet again for a CD, again for (fill in the blank). But for gods sake don't let people do what they want with it!
If anything, this decision by Apple is running antithetical to the industry's general logic. Which is why I feel many of the reactions on this thread are a little twisted and why I say it's more along the lines of a bug fix. It's something that I believe Apple wanted to do from the start, but it was probably blocked by the labels setting a single-album price structure, paying more than once to maximize profit.
I also think you're playing pretty loose with the idea that peoples online buying habits are "completely different" than real-life buying habits. This isn't really true. There are ways they are similar and ways they are different, but it's not a complete breakdown. Since we're in Apple-land, one example might be the success of the Apple stores. People will pay for high-quality content and and visit real-life stores if they are given the appropriate incentive. The music industry just doesn't know what to do with kids these days
Okay didn't mean for this reply to get this long.... sorry.... I'm gonna go grab a sandwich now.
Actually as of the last 10-20 years people do not really buy singles and albums. They don't market cd singles like they used to market tape singles. The industry has had an assumption that people should buy the full album. You like the song on the radio or video? Buy the cd. That worked until the popularity of the internet and the advancements in the technology allowed the transfer of higher rates of data. what the sharing and buying of singles has done is really eliminate the album. Ask any kid that has an ipod, how many songs they bought, vs. how many albums they bought. if they bought anything at all its a track or a ringtone. And that's my point about the Apple release. They have always sold albums, however it was never pushed because most people like the ability to pick and choose.
Case in point: if you like the luda track and previewed the rest of the album and didn't like it, are you going to buy the whole album? Hell no, you're going to buy that track and keep moving. Yes some albums you may buy the whole thing but those are because of the content being appealing start to finish and that can be a rarity these days (at least on a major).
So you have few things working here. The majors fell into this model of releasing a couple or three singles per record that are/were standout while the rest of the album is pretty much filler (I am talking about alot of the major releasses). So if the product overall is mediocre but to get the good portion (a single or two) of said product you have to buy a $15 cd then the labels wins. However if you give people the ability to just take what they want and leave the rest and only pay $.99 or that one track or at most $3.00 for the three tracks, the labels lose horribly. Even if they get $.75 out of each track (which they aren't), if a million people download those tracks its only $750K. But, if you assume that at least 500K of those people most likely would have bought the CD before the ability to download individual tracks at the wholesale level thats $5-8 profit which is what 2.5-4 million dollars? And thats only 50% of the people that downloaded the track that you can assume bought it. what if more or all of those people? Its a large chunk of change.
Furthermore if you have albums that are $15/cd with 20-24 tracks on them then it is less than a dollar a track to buy the cd. however with this push from apple/labels for the album format digitally, if it actually worked they would make out like bandits at 99 cents per track (at least $20/album roughly). So go figure what would you do with those kind of numbers in play? Of coure they are going to do whatever they can to maintain the sale of albums and this is all this is. Just a weak (and very late) attempt at saving the album format when unfortunately the reality of the situation is that poor content coupled with user ability to buy individual tracks has killed the album for the labels, they just haven't come to terms with it.
In the end they need to switch their business plan to all singles and a few albums. If you can make enough hit singles then you get an album. The days of great first and second singles with filler in between are dying fast.
And in regards to Jobs, i am referring to about a month ago when he blogged about wanting to get rid of DRM and the music industry posting press releases and getting all up in arms about it. Yes, Jobs has alway been against DRM, but he was not as vocal about it as he was right after this last MacWorld.
The album can be viable but only if there is enough quality ontent by an artist to warrent it. C'mon Mims? A full CD? He made a hot track, thats it, Who would honestly go out to buy that CD?
Which in many ways is a return to the business model of many '60s labels, and we all saw how that turned out.
I think it will end up be a market force that pressures artists to make solid, quality music consistently because filler no longer has a place in the market, and eventually, we'll see a return of the album as a collection of quality music.
Then we'll start to see albums of singles couched in filler.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
On the whole I agree with many of the facts, but not the way you're connecting the dots to get to the situation at hand.
I think one thing you're getting at is that the industry is preserving the album by any means possible, including twisting Apple's arm.
Discounting the album based on the purchase of a single song (how this convo started) works out better for consumers, not worse. Consumers aren't being prevented from purchasing singles, they aren't forced to buy albums, and the industry isn't saying people need to pay a dollar per song for the whole album. (not sure where you got that from - did you read the article?)
Because Apple's discount works out better for consumers, I don't buy that Apple's move was a push by the music industry. I'm not seeing where people are losing and the record industry is winning, except if it goes back to the "downfall of the album" argument which I'm not buying; do you really think more people prefer singles now than in the 1980s, the heyday of the smash single?
As much as you might not agree, technology didn't create an attraction to the hit single and "eliminate the album." People said the exact same thing about tapes and then compact discs. I agree with Great_Blue_Hills... if anything, digital music may pressure majors to create more quality albums, not that the smash hits will need to get bigger or that an "album" in 2007 will mean a string of unrelated but popular songs.
Jobs, although an egomaniac, is not an idiot. He is trying to push anti-DRM efforts because consumers are ready for it and Apple is a big enough gorilla to compete with the majors. It remains to be seen whether the music industry will adapt to DRM just as it remains to be seen if they can sell digital music successfully without the big $ payouts they are accustomed to.
Your right about the albums not being per track, but the reasson why they released this is only to appease the labels. Apple/Jobs knows the majors are not happy with the revenue generated by track per track selling. If they did'nt show that they were trying to support the Major's effort to keep the album alive, why wouldn't the Major's pull their licenses?
Just sayin this and with the history of the labels not understanding online surfing and buying habits this just looks suspect as hell.