April 26, 2004 4:00 AM PDT

iTunes ushers in a year of change

John Gillilan has hundreds of Pepsi caps lined up in rows in his University of Southern California freshman dorm room, each one representing a song downloaded from Apple's iTunes Music Store.

News.context

What's new:
Apple Computer's iTunes Music store was launched one year ago, and Apple is now the leading distributor of online music by far.

Bottom line:
Apple's launch has spawned numerous imitators and changed the way the recording industry views electronic distribution. Rather than being distrustful, as they were during Napster's heyday, the record labels now consider legal downloads a way to fight piracy and to tap a large and rapidly growing market.

More stories on this topic

A Macintosh user and avid music fan, he started buying music from the store when it launched a year ago. This year Gillilan realized he could apply much of his $2,500 college dorm food allowance to purchasing bottles of Pepsi and taking advantage of Pepsi's iTunes song-giveaway promotion, he said.

The 18-year-old Gillilan might be a little more single-minded than most iTunes fans, but as a music major and recording engineer he sees the success of online digital distribution--today best evidenced by iTunes' sales--as a harbinger of his own future.

"Obviously the record industry has been reluctant, but it's crazy how much has actually happened (this year)," he said. "My career at this point realistically is going to depend on how successful this business model is."

Gillilan isn't alone in looking at iTunes as an industry bellwether. Launched a year ago Wednesday with a blaze of publicity, the service effectively kick-started a languishing digital music business.

Over the next year, Sony, Microsoft and Virgin all are aiming at the market. Yahoo is expected to throw its hat into the ring, and AOL may open its own store, instead of pointing its subscribers to iTunes as it currently does.

Even the major record labels are excited--a dramatic reversal for an industry that had previously seen Internet downloads as a threat to their business, rather than an opportunity for growth.

For the two years leading up to Apple's launch, attention had been focused on Napster, Kazaa and other file-swapping services that were allowing billions of songs a month to be downloaded for free. The major record labels, stung by falling revenue, focused much of their attention on filing lawsuits, drawing charges that their main interest was to smother development of the digital music business.

"iTunes has been incredibly valuable," said Larry Kenswil, president of Universal Music's eLabs division. "It has changed the debate, changed the buzz, changed people talking about record companies putting up a wall" against digital music.

But as the so far unchallenged market leader, Apple has established several other market realities against which various rivals chafe. The company's iTunes service is so tightly integrated with its hardware business that songs bought through the store can only be easily played on Apple's iPod, not other MP3 players. The close integration also means Apple can afford what it openly concedes are miniscule profit margins on the store itself, seeing it as a way to drive iPod sales.

Although Apple has taken a largely proprietary approach to iTunes, it made one major concession by making its software compatible with Microsoft's Windows operating system, effectively untying the iPod from the Mac in hopes of tapping into the much larger market for Windows PC users. The company has also struck a deal under which Hewlett-Packard will sell PCs with iTunes preloaded and also sell HP-branded iPods.

Click here to Play

The most public overtures when it comes to opening the iPod have come from RealNetworks Chief Executive Officer Rob Glaser, who--not long after comparing Apple's closed technology doors to a Soviet grocery store--found his own private appeal to Apple CEO Steve Jobs rejected.

Jobs says he sees little reason to open up to rivals, given Apple's commanding lead.

"To be honest, it's just not worth it," Jobs said at last week's Apple shareholder meeting. "It doesn't make any business sense."

However, record company executives are quietly advocating industry cooperation, contending digital balkanization will be bad for business over the long haul.

"Interoperability is critical," said EMI Music Senior Vice President Ted Cohen. "We need to get to that point, and people need to work together to do it."

Just getting started
Despite Apple's success, the digital music business is only beginning to get off the ground, and it's hard to predict what might happen next. The iTunes launch was seen by many in the record industry as an experiment with loosening previous restrictions on digital files. Now that the first stages of the experiment have proven successful, labels may be amenable to further experimentation.

Some of that variability will come in prices. Apple's 99 cent price for single songs and $9.99 price tag for albums has been widely copied. But already that's beginning to change, with some record executives saying they're eager to test tiered price models.

A little of this is already evident on iTunes. Singles have remained steady at 99 cents, but a few albums have begun creeping upward. Aerosmith's newest was priced at $11.99 last week, while rock-guitar virtuoso Joe Satriani's new release was $14.99, for example.

Apple declined to comment for this story, but other services said they had already seen labels raise prices on some individual songs as well as albums. None has passed on those per-song price increases yet, citing a continued need to present consumers with the simplest offer possible, however.

Label and Web company executives said the price increases reflect an experimentation with tiered pricing that mimics the way retail album prices fluctuate according to title, and over time. Under this model, pre-release singles or very popular artists might cost $1.50 or more per song, average tracks might stay at 99 cents, and back catalog and other promotional songs or albums could drop even lower, for example.

"It is a good thing to have that experimentation, both up and down," said Sean Ryan, RealNetworks vice president for music services. "Just because everyone went out at 99 cents doesn't mean that's always the right price."

Labels are sensitive to charges that they want to charge more online than for CD sales, however.

"We've built in a lot of flexibility," said EMI Group spokeswoman Jeanne Meyer. "There are tiered prices (for wholesale digital tracks), but they're all lower than in the physical world."

With that experimentation in pricing may come some fluctuation in usage rules. Currently iTunes customers can use their purchased music on up to three computers and burn the same songs in the same order up to 10 times. However, those rules may be tweaked as the record companies renegotiate their contracts with Apple.

Other companies, if not Apple itself, are likely to begin experimenting more with subscription services as well. Jobs has dismissed these as virtually irrelevant, saying that people want to "own, not rent" their music.

For the most part, these have remained niche products, although RealNetworks has said it now has a total of more than 495,000 subscribers to either its unlimited Rhapsody product or a cheaper online radio service. But for companies that do not have an iPod-like hardware device to depend on for profits, this monthly stream of revenue looks far more appealing, and will likely drive more experimentation next year.

Microsoft is also hoping to make such services more attractive through technology, code-named Janus, that would allow subscription music to be transferred to portable devices--a key drawback to the current crop of subscription services.

Though Apple has been the undisputed leader in the market--and has done better than some would have thought a year ago--online downloads still represent a small part of how people get their music. File-swapping services continue to be popular, and CD sales have started to show some signs of life. Apple itself had predicted it would distribute 100 million songs by the time the one-year anniversary rolled around, a goal the company seems likely to miss.

To date, rivals like Napster and Musicmatch have fallen far short of Apple's sales. According to the NPD Group, Walmart.com's cut-rate pricing has come closest, drawing about half the number of customers seen by iTunes in March.

Analysts say that although many of the new entrants to the market could pose strong competition, Apple will continue to benefit from the fact it has sold so many iPods--devices that work only with Apple's service. Last quarter Apple sold 800,000 of the portable music players, with rivals such as Dell and Samsung selling only a fraction of that total.

"Apple set the bar incredibly high," said Mike McGuire, an analyst with GartnerG2, a division of the Gartner research group.

But some rivals said they expect Apple's dominance will be temporary.

"Apple is probably still riding the wave of their initial launch," said Jason Reindorp, a group manager in Microsoft's Windows digital media unit. "They have spent an inordinate amount of money to generate awareness around their closed ecosystem. (But) as people get more sophisticated in this area they are going to be getting more frustrated with a closed ecosystem. I think the market will kind of self-correct as things get more mainstream."

13 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Although Apple has taken a largely proprietary approach
Deservedly so at this time.
Having created the ONLY proper working model for paid
downloads, Apple deserves to benefit from iPod sales too.

iTunes music store will always be in the top three no matter how
many services show up.

If anything, EVERY other company will owe something to Apple
for even giving them the concept of this model, and Steve Jobs
for being the ultimate voice that the music labels listened to and
realized it can be done right.

As usual (love or dislike Apple) they led, showed and taught the
others how to make things happen in this industry.
Posted by (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
RE:Although Apple has taken a largely proprietary approach
"If anything, EVERY other company will owe something to Apple
for even giving them the concept of this model"

Apple didn't invent the model. They did however manage to get the record companies to allow them loosen the restrictions and charge a flat rate (which is changing. Some albums on iTunes cost more to download than to buy the CD).


"and Steve Jobs
for being the ultimate voice that the music labels listened to and
realized it can be done right."

Steve might stop being so popular with record labels considering that Apple's Fairplay DRM has been cracked.
Posted by unknown unknown (1951 comments )
Link Flag
top three
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.analogstereo.com/tonearm_linn_akito.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.analogstereo.com/tonearm_linn_akito.htm</a>
Posted by Ipod Apple (152 comments )
Link Flag
The Dark Side of the Force
iTunes has its dark side that no-one talks about- If you pay for and download music, burn it to CD IMMEDIATELY, if not sooner. If it's lost FOR ANY REASON, even reasons not under your control, you've got to go back and pay for it again. Period.

Not only that, but any claim of customer support is laughable AND, Apple actively censors the user forums to wipe out any complaints.
Posted by peartree (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Hardly a "dark side"...
"iTunes has its dark side that no-one talks about- If you pay for
and download music, burn it to CD IMMEDIATELY, if not sooner.
If it's lost FOR ANY REASON, even reasons not under your
control, you've got to go back and pay for it again. Period."

No different from buying anything else, really. Walk in to Best
Buy and buy a CD. If you lose it, break it, etc., Best Buy won't
just give you another CD for free. You'll have to buy another if
you want another.

And the great thing about iTunes is that you've got unlimited CD
burning capability built right in. So it's easy to make back ups of
your music. Backing up your files is always a good idea.

"Not only that, but any claim of customer support is laughable
AND, Apple actively censors the user forums to wipe out any
complaints."

And, not like it's too hard to find on Apple's site but here it is
anyway, the link for support is:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/" target="_newWindow">http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/</a>

You'll find free video tutorials that show you the features of
iTunes and the Music Store, as well as answers to any questions
you may have.

Also, the three months of Applecare phone support that comes
standard with all Apple hardware is available for customers who
need support. Applecare was rated the highest in customer
service and satisfaction across the industry for the second year
in a row in the current issue of Consumer Reports.

So, if you're looking for customer support, it's readily available.
And, yes, if you buy something and lose it, a store will not give
you another one for free. Not a new concept.
Posted by (1 comment )
Link Flag
How will other vendors survive?
Given that Apple is making its money off of ipod sales, not
music downloads, how do the other song vendors expect to
survive?
Posted by usario clave (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
why are the russian sites ignored?
www.allofmp3.com is legal and much better than iTunes, Napster or any of the domestic competition.

Why are they consistently ignored?

for those of you who question the legality of buying music from allofmp3.com I challenge you to find a single instance of RIAA successfully procecuting a case against someone for buying music from them :)
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Reply
The fact that the RIAA hasn't filed a lawsuit doesn't necessarly mean they're legal.
Posted by unknown unknown (1951 comments )
Link Flag
Credibility relies on getting facts right
At the bottom of the article, links to stock quotes for relevant
companies are provided. There's a link to Helmerich &#38; Payne Inc,
an obscure Oklahoma oil and gas Co. Surely anyone doing
reporting in IT knows that HP is Hewlett Packard (stock symbol
HPQ). Not knowing the name of one of the major industry firms
does not give me a lot of confidence in the author's level of
subject knowledge.
Posted by (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
major industry firms
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.analogstereo.com/tonearm_kuzma.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.analogstereo.com/tonearm_kuzma.htm</a>
Posted by Ipod Apple (152 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.