Username: Password: lost p/w?
home | help | search | register
Apple claims its first victim
Posted by AdvancedJon Newton in on July 8, 2003 at 12:45 PM



While Apple's iMusic Store's success has reinvigorated a desperate digital music sector, it's also claimed its first victim with the shuttering of Rioport by Ecast.

Music Dish editor Eric de Fontenay quotes Ecast CEO Robbie Vann-Adibé as saying, "The level of financial commitment required to market an online music store to consumers, as recent events have demonstrated, was simply too high to make financial sense for Ecast."

In other words, Rioport's ˘99 song model for major online retailers such as BestBuy.com, SamGoody.com was simply no match for Apple's own ˘99 offer available exclusively to Mac OSX users and RHAPSODY's price-cutting strategy, says de Fontenay, going on:

"All in all though, you'd expect most people in the music industry to jump on the bandwagon, thankful that at least someone is able to sell versus give their music away online. Well not quite as Metallica leads a hodge-podge of artists boycotting the Apple store in the name of 'creative control'. Seems the band doesn't like our money right when we're ready to take out or wallets unless we buy the full album versus Apple's per song model.

"Now I understand an artist desire to retain creative control over their works, including how it is packaged/sold. Could you imagine all you'd miss if you downloaded only your favorite or the more popular tracks from Pink Floyd's 'The Wall' (unless like me, they're all your favorites)? And Metallica has every right to decide what online retailers will carry their latest album and/or songs. But this entirely misses the point, especially in the case of Metallica.

"Remember that Metallica was the banner bearer for the anti- Napster movement, exhorting fans to stop stealing from their favorite artists. That's fine, unless you turn around and deprive paying fans of legitimate music because you don't like the way they're buying it. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

"The fact is that Apple gives customers a choice between purchasing individual tracks or the full album. And a surprising 46% of purchased songs over the first five weeks have been as part of an album. They're not interfering with Metallica's creative control as much as trying to build a viable, legitimate market for music in the face of p2pmania that lets you get the music you want, how you want it, for free. Metallica's decision is doubly selfish since it also deprives other artists and labels working to build that market with Apple of fans that might otherwise discover a new artists, and in turn, spread the wealth around.

"Metallica needs to remember a basic rule about the music business: it's a business. If you want people to buy your goods, as with any other business, you have to either (i) give them what they want, or (ii) convince them that they want what you want to give them. So far, Metallica has failed on both counts."


User Comments

Metallbscold
Date: July 8, 2003 @ 1:38 PM
Metallica has failed on more topics than that! :( (Frown)
LbSCOLD
AdvancedExpose
Date: July 8, 2003 @ 2:22 PM
OMG, you pay as much for the fucking album online just you get it in a crapp 128k AAC, they should be happy.

NO ONE WANTS YOUR DAMN MUSIC ANYWAY!!
Advancedsmelv1n
Date: July 8, 2003 @ 3:31 PM
albums cost 9.99 in the apple store expose, where can i find albums for 9.99? other than reject bands in the discount bins
IntermediateSpica
Date: July 8, 2003 @ 7:35 PM
the first time I ever heard of Metallica was when it sued Napster.
I hope one of them heavy metal fuckheads reads this and thinks about it.
AdvancedExpose
Date: July 8, 2003 @ 7:36 PM
$10 is still a rip off for 128k AAC. $3-$4, and maybe I'll talk.
Alternativezique
Date: July 8, 2003 @ 9:58 PM
Lars...maybe its time to backoff!
Electronicsinai
Date: July 8, 2003 @ 10:07 PM
i would have read this story but i was too busy downloading mudvayne, and hedpe, and few other bands much better than metallica's new wannabe slop
AdvancedKarmatic
Date: July 9, 2003 @ 12:58 AM
What's with Metallica and their always wanting to be untouchable ways. Seriously, if I made as many millions as they do, I would lighten up.
Electronicmonsquaz
Date: July 9, 2003 @ 1:11 AM
HAH ! The joke's on you ! I bought two Fela Kuti albums on the iTunes music store for UNDER $10 EACH !
Advancedthumbtack
Date: July 9, 2003 @ 9:21 AM
From what I understand the whole to Appple for the tracks works out to around 50 to 70 cents or so.
DMemberFeisar
Date: July 9, 2003 @ 10:46 AM
I was a fan of Metallica's way back in the 80's. I have to say that they have not been significant in the least in almost 15 years since their music began to really suck. I think they're just trying to generate publicity or trying to be "anti-establishment". Oh well, I guess someone had to be the asshole in all of this, Lars.
Electronicneofatzke
Date: July 9, 2003 @ 12:10 PM
used to be a (young) fan of metallica. they weren't very interesting after the black album, but since the whole anti-p2p story they just suck. the black album was their last great shot. since then they should call themselves "suckalcoholica"...
BananaTameasDust
Date: July 9, 2003 @ 4:35 PM
would be interesting if they offered a 128 mp3 at 99 cents a 192 mp3 at say $1.25 and a 320 mp3 at oh $2. give the people more choice. may not sound like much but if you have say 100,000 downloads of one track that starts making moolah.
AdvancedExpose
Date: July 9, 2003 @ 4:39 PM
How about VBR at $0.50? What's the need to use CBR?

128k AAC, is alright, but not great. 128k MP3, they should be paying me to listen to it. :D (Big Grin)
You must be logged in to post replies to news articles.
Log in or register with the form at the top of the page.

 

 

 

search

news tree



 

 
© DMusic LLC - Employment | TOS | Subscribe