I took my daughter to see Enchanted when it first came out. Yes, I love "kid" movies and I'm a connoisseur. Ok, it's cute, nothing more, nothing less. Disney got good press for some of the original songs which isn't anything new. The Easter Bunny brought the DVD to my house last Sunday and now my daughter likes the music even more, especially the Carrie Underwood song "Ever Ever After". She asked me if we could download the songs tonight on iTunes. Sure. She only wanted four of them. What's $4 to make princess happy? We went downstairs and something I'm starting to see more and more made me mad as Hell....the song she really wanted more than the others was marked "Album Only" meaning you have to buy the entire album to get that particular song......or Do I? You know, I try to do things right. I use iTunes because I don't mind paying $1 a song, I really don't. It's the best engine and best software and I own an iPod so why not use it? I hear the freebies are frequently of poor quality and that some labels even distribute bad files to stop playing halfway into the song and whatnot to discourage freebie sites. I tried to use Kazaa once a long time ago and I had to also run other applications just to get it so I stopped right there. I'm not 20. I have a job. I can pay the buck. Did I buy the entire CD to get the song precious wanted? Nope. Do I currently own the song? Not telling, but I will say that some interesting offshore music blogs exist. For people who are willing to play it straight, the labels and companies that support the labels need to STOP DICKING AROUND with trying to force people to buy the entire CD. Doesn't that go against your very own business model? Sure, the CD is one-third shit songs that were playing in the background and you wouldn't even notice them - that's what makes buying singles key. Dorks. Is it more the label or more Steve Jobs? From the article I just read tonight in Wired magazine, I'm going with Jobs.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Whose Poison Apple, Steve Jobs?
I took my daughter to see Enchanted when it first came out. Yes, I love "kid" movies and I'm a connoisseur. Ok, it's cute, nothing more, nothing less. Disney got good press for some of the original songs which isn't anything new. The Easter Bunny brought the DVD to my house last Sunday and now my daughter likes the music even more, especially the Carrie Underwood song "Ever Ever After". She asked me if we could download the songs tonight on iTunes. Sure. She only wanted four of them. What's $4 to make princess happy? We went downstairs and something I'm starting to see more and more made me mad as Hell....the song she really wanted more than the others was marked "Album Only" meaning you have to buy the entire album to get that particular song......or Do I? You know, I try to do things right. I use iTunes because I don't mind paying $1 a song, I really don't. It's the best engine and best software and I own an iPod so why not use it? I hear the freebies are frequently of poor quality and that some labels even distribute bad files to stop playing halfway into the song and whatnot to discourage freebie sites. I tried to use Kazaa once a long time ago and I had to also run other applications just to get it so I stopped right there. I'm not 20. I have a job. I can pay the buck. Did I buy the entire CD to get the song precious wanted? Nope. Do I currently own the song? Not telling, but I will say that some interesting offshore music blogs exist. For people who are willing to play it straight, the labels and companies that support the labels need to STOP DICKING AROUND with trying to force people to buy the entire CD. Doesn't that go against your very own business model? Sure, the CD is one-third shit songs that were playing in the background and you wouldn't even notice them - that's what makes buying singles key. Dorks. Is it more the label or more Steve Jobs? From the article I just read tonight in Wired magazine, I'm going with Jobs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I used to say there is nothing in this country as F'd up as medical billing (ever try to reconcile your hospital bill against Medicare, and two insurance coverages?) but I have to admit the music industry could give them a run for their money.
I experienced the same situation just 2 weeks ago. When realizing I had the entire Canned Heat collection except one song, The Fried Hockey Boogie, I thought I'd go to iTunes and buy just the one song I was missing. No dice. Got to buy the album. The bad news is that I already own all the songs on the "iTunes album" EXCEPT Fried Hockey Boogie. So why would I want to buy them again?
If anybody knows a good quality off-shore site where I can get it. Let the dog know.
Poison Apple indeed.
Oh yeah, and one more thing. Over the years I've already bought many of the same Canned Heat songs on vinyl, 8-track, and CD formats. Unfortunately Fried Hockey Boogie was only on my 8-track. So not only are all my 8-tracks clogging up some landfill, it would be the one format I can't rip into iTunes anyway. So I figure I'm entitled to get Fried Hockey Boogie for free. Not like I haven't been supporting the artist for 30-some years or anything.
I hate this too. Other than CDs for my daughter, I couldn't tell you the last time that I bought a full-blown CD for us. It's less than 3 or 4 each year. Music just hasn't been something that we generally spend money on...until the iPod came along.
Love the business model for iTunes...I, too, am willing to pay $1 a song for what I want to own. The "what I want to own" is still pretty small (less than $50 or $75 a year), but my daughter is starting to spend her allowance there. She loves being able to just spend a few dollars to get what she wants and now that she has an iPod too, I suspect her spending will grow.
I've heard that Apple is looking at a higher-priced iPod pkg that would get you unlimited downloads. I think that's great. I'm not sure I'd be willing to pay for it, but maybe...if the price is right. If I could get that service for $200, I might consider it. If I could pay $100/year, maybe. But given that I'm surviving now with much less than that, I doubt it will be priced to be advantageous for me.
I thought I would love the business model. I hate the business model. You pay $1 for a song you ought to be able to copy it as many times as you want onto your own devices. This seven copy max is bullshit.
The only thing to like about the business model is that if you're an Apple shareholder it helps generate revenue. But if you're a consumer the rules suck the royal moose cock.
It's like saying I'll sell you a house for you and your spouse to live in for an agreed upon amount. Then you start having kids and they live in your house too. Finally your about to have your 3rd child and I come to you and say. Once you have that kid you can't live in the house I sold you anymore. It came with a two child maximum. I don't care what you do with it but you can't live there no more.
I realize there are ways to get around the copy limits but they're a pain in the ass. Especially after you paid for ownership.
Wayne Hizuinga (sp?) first came up with the model back in the 80s. I read about it long ago when Blockbuster was part of Viacom. He never really implemented it in a retail environment. Apple took the concept and applied it to the internet. Then added their rules and screwed their customers because they could. The iPod is indeed a "killer app."
sis, your supposed price is way off. i read an article about that model a while back and it's a proven fact that the average iPod owner only has 20 songs on their iPod which they purchased. So, if they are already ripping and getting them from other sites, they will continue to do so if the price is $100-$200 extra. The article went on to say that Jobs will not go for $20 and that they are probably going to settle somewhere around $50 higher. I would do that in a heartbeat as I love the iTunes app and they have most of what I want. The 3 of us combined have spent $317 on iTunes, so how many deadbeats am I making up for? I have around 6000 songs though as most of mine are ripped or old classics copied from The Dog who puts my collection to shame.
Post a Comment