Apple holds on to U.S. retail music lead

The iTunes Store is still the top destination for U.S. music shoppers, according to new data.

(Credit: Apple)

Apple is still the No. 1 music retailer in the United States, but Amazon.com's online store is coming on strong.

More U.S. music buyers are getting their music fix through iTunes than from any other source, according to data released on Tuesday by NPD Group. Earlier this year, Apple took over the top spot from Wal-Mart Stores, and it maintained that lead during the six months from January to June, NPD said.

Wal-Mart is still in second place, followed by Best Buy. Taking fourth place from Target was Amazon, whose own music store has been growing in popularity since it launched last September, perhaps in part due to its DRM-free stance.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Friends don`t let friends use iSpoons.
Amazon will eventually take over. Amazon higher bitrate , lower cost , and NO DRM !
With Amazon , its a win-win-win !

[Galaxy5]

Can we get thumbs up/thumbs down or rating tools for posts so trolls like this guy will be moderated down quickly?

[joetesta70]

iTUNES = Music Service for Sheep. Baaaaaaaaah

Why would anyone buy individual songs when there's Rhapsody, Napster, Zune, etc offering millions of songs for the cost of 1 CD a month? The hardware is the only reason (iPods are still a better device) but that makes the music SUPER expensive - a real s*ckers bet. Plus the iTunes software is dated and SLOWS down any computer tremendously.

Baaaaaaaah! Baaaaaaah!

[Galaxy5]

Why? Because I like to buy my music and keep it with me. I want to know that certain song is going to be on my iPod in three months when I feel like listening to it.

The other services are like on-demand radio through the Internet. That's not what I want; nor, does it seem that most other music subscribers are interested.

[iertry]

You clearly haven't thought this through. Why would I pay $15 a month subscription for all the music I want if, when I decide to stop paying I lose all my music. If I paid for a year then stopper I would have nothing to show for the $180 I had paid! With iTunes you get to keep your music for good. Also services like Zune are risky. If you decide you don't mind being locked in and you will pay the $15 forever you still risk MS stopping the Zune project, closing the store and ending all subscriptions. Therefore once again you would lose all your music.

[DrtyDogg]

@ierty
Actually the Zune service is less risky than iTunes as they sell more DRM free music than iTunes. You assumption that it is only a subscription service is false. The great thing about the Zune/Napster/Rhapsody model is choice.
If you like the subscription model, get it. If you prefer to buy your musice, buy it.

[Penguinisto]

@ DD - prove the assertion, please. the MSFT announcement from last year only says "over a million songs" - which probably means all of EMI's stuff (which iTunes Music Store also sells). Napster claims to have the most DRM-free tracks of all (6 million), but only if you buy 'em one at a time, like anywhere else (their subscription model of course includes DRM).

Also, the Subscription model... err, what choice? You're not allowed to play the stuff anywhere else but on the computer you downloaded it to. Ten seconds and iTunes later, I can take any song in it and send it to CD, to any portable music device (not just an iPod), or to any computer I want... and it'll be DRM-free.

[DrtyDogg]

@Penguinisto
Go to www.zune.net and download the software, have a look around the store and you'll see that most music is available for purchase in mp3 @320kbs.
The choice is the subscription model, with any of the listed stores you can, download and burn to cd or put on any portable device or move it to any computer. Or if you choose you can subscribe to an all you can eat package which you can only play on 3 computers and 3 portable devices, but not burn. In other words don't like subscription, don't use it the store still works for purchased music.

[gerrrg]

Considering the reduction in quality of sound, even at 320 kpbs, the price-per-song for most of those retailers is ridiculously high. I'd pay $0.99/song if it were FLAC, but no way for an MP3.

[Galaxy5]

I'd love to see you do a blind A/B comparison and make that claim with a straight face. At 320kbps, even the loudest cymbals and strings hold together quite nicely.

[Galaxy5]

I'd add that the vast - VAST majority of music consumers are listening to stereos in their cars - a very poor environment for discriminating sound. Even at home with decent headphones, 95% of people won't hear a difference between 128 and 256kbps - which is the current iTunes bit rate.

Even in an isolated listening room with higher-end speakers and a clean amp, I'd wager that fewer than 10% of people could tell the difference between 256 kbps AAC and 44.1 khz CD-Audio tracks. When you consider the economies of scale that come from saving even 10% in storage and bandwidth, it makes no business sense to sell music in formats like FLAC or in bitrates significantly higher than 256 kbps before a significant segment of the market demands it.

[calpundit]

Just a reminder, for context, that Amazon's "DRM-free stance" is a product of preferential treatment by the labels, not any great marketing genius, vision or principle on Amazon's part.

All of the major labels (except for EMI) have offered DRM-free music to virtually every online store EXCEPT iTunes. But for that restriction, I'm confident that iTunes would also take a "DRM-free stance".

[DrtyDogg]

I didn't know they hadn't offered it to iTunes, last I heard they just wanted flexible pricing which it seems the other services have given them.

[Penguinisto]

@DD yes and no - the music stores wanted flexible pricing (read: the right to jack up prices at whim and will), but they also didn't much like being subservient to the world's largest digital music store.

[DrtyDogg]

@Penguin
It was the record companies that wanted flexible pricing, Apple wouldn't budge. So they probably went elsewhere with it. Nobody is releasing what they are paying to the record company per song though.
Also flexible pricing doesn't necessarily mean charge the consumer more.

[Prince2k3]

As long as ipod and iphone are out. Apple will be on top I don't think regular consumers are concerned with DRM and even know what DRM is. You can say all you want about iTunes it is still used because majority of the people carry ipods and iphones so... sheep as it may be Apple is carrying the shepards stick.

[beatmoses]

Buy CDs and load them in yourself. No limits and the best quality. You can even get used CDs for much much less than any download.

[Mystigo]

Where are the actual numbers? All I see is a rankings list. Did I miss something?

[Zoobie]

I'm so tired of reporters thinking that Amazon is a bunch of geniuses by taking a "DRM-free stance." Apple worked with the record companies to create the DRM because record execs were afraid of file sharing. Then, when iTunes became so big, they did an about-face and worked with Amazon to create a viable competitor--all in hopes that the records, not Apple, remained in charge of the industry. Apple would offer everything DRM-free, too, except the labels are giving Amazon an exclusivity arrangement for now to help them grow. However, once Amazon is a viable challenge (which is happening very rapidly), expect iTunes to get the same arrangement because the labels won't want Amazon to replace Apple as the bully calling all the shots

This proves that competition is a good thing.

[mesonto]

Completely agree with "gerrrg" no DRM and in FLAC for $0.99, otherwise buy the damn CD on sale it is cheaper, who knows you may even start listening to songs as the collection was meant to be heard from the artist!

But people for some reason still seem to be buying these crappy bitrate/lossy music, and lowering North America's acceptence of what music should sound like. To all those people stop that... demand more from your music etailer or 'lease' songs from Rhapsody (or the likes instead). Apple is ripping you off, doesn't matter if they have tried to make a difference or not, in the end they still sell you bad quality music. It is not about Apple it is about the music they sell.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Don`t get fooled by Mr Whipple There are better choices , that cost less. And the way Amazon is taking off , its no wonder.

[pjhenry1216]

As it stands, Amazon is really setting itself up as suitable competition against iTunes. Its true the record labels are helping, but that's fine. In the end, its just benefiting the customers. Amazon is often cheaper, better quality, and DRM-Free. Yea, its not due to marketing, but contracts that they can do this, but who cares to the customer. I recently switched to Amazon for my music needs. It's interface is a bit less streamlined than iTunes, but in the end, it doesn't make that much difference. If amazon could even come close to the ease of use of the iTunes store and the marketing magic that Apple has, Apple had better watch out.

[strongbad71]

People keep saying 'Buy the CD'. Now, I do buy the whole CD for many of my favorite artists. But there are plenty of songs that I'd rather just buy as a single, especially for my kids. So I am not going to buy the whole CD, it is NOT cheaper in that case. I recently started using Amazon instead of iTunes for DRM free.

[FS1982!]

Did I just see someone say that your a sheep for using iTunes over a pay-per-month service?!? Hahaha. That is absurd and basically shows how people like to throw money away! At least iTunes you decide how much you spend each month. I make well above the average household but $15 for unlimited music, PLEASE! Comparatively Netflix is a much more cost effective service $9/month and basically unlimited movies. So Napster, Rhapsody, pay/month heck no for me anyways. Suppose it does depend on how much you put into music per month. A good alternative for music is Pandora and if you have an iPhone and the necessary car setup that's a great option. I rarely purchase more than $5 worth of music a month. I think there is something to be said about no DRM. People will eventually switch over to that hopefully sooner rather than later.

[stirTHEpot]

It depends on what you like to do. If you are IPOD crazy, then ITUNES is the one for you.
I like the Netflix concept. The Hulu program is not bad as well. If you like unlimited music without the Itunes hassle then Rhapsody is the max, providing you have a good sound card, like the audigy EX or a Hammersmith. In essence, if you have a good connection, its just like having a good VCR or DVR. As long as you pay for what you get, how much is 9 to 15 dollars a mont. Whether you buy 5 or 200 hundred dollars a month for music, 15 dollars a month, you probably spend more on bottled water or in the vending machines.

[stirTHEpot]

It depends on what you like to do. If you are IPOD crazy, then ITUNES is the one for you.
I like the Netflix concept. The Hulu program is not bad as well. If you like unlimited music without the Itunes hassle then Rhapsody is the max, providing you have a good sound card, like the audigy EX or a Hammersmith. In essence, if you have a good connection, its just like having a good VCR or DVR. As long as you pay for what you get, how much is 9 to 15 dollars a mont. Whether you buy 5 or 200 hundred dollars a month for music, 15 dollars a month, you probably spend more on bottled water or in the vending machines.

[stirTHEpot]

It depends on what you like to do. If you are IPOD crazy, then ITUNES is the one for you.
I like the Netflix concept. The Hulu program is not bad as well. If you like unlimited music without the Itunes hassle then Rhapsody is the max, providing you have a good sound card, like the audigy EX or a Hammersmith. In essence, if you have a good connection, its just like having a good VCR or DVR. As long as you pay for what you get, how much is 9 to 15 dollars a mont. Whether you buy 5 or 200 hundred dollars a month for music, 15 dollars a month, you probably spend more on bottled water or in the vending machines.