Comments on: iTunes outsells traditional music stores

Apple's download business now among top 10 music retailers, research company says, beating out both Tower and Borders.

[shaycam]

Itunes is Just Cheaper..

I have been waiting for this research. The fact of the matter is, Itunes is cheaper. Though I myself like the actualy CD case and all the fixin's, I am fully aware that I can buy the same album for only $9.99 on Itunes. Now music lovers can stay home and buy cheaper music. It's about economics. Why not make my dollar go farther and acheive the same results (i.e. listening to the music I want to!)? That's just good business.

Completely Agree

I have personally spent over £500 on iTunes music in the past year, its because it is far easier for me to get the music i want on iTunes in an instant and in a way i can do waht i like with immediately. It's cheaper than buying a cd and if i only like a couple of tracks off an album i cna choose just to get those rather than purchase an entire album full of songs i don't want!

[Maui Cat]

Everyday I buy a song;

Not a day goes by that I don't hear a song on the radio or TV and then go to iTunes to find and download it. You can't get that at a record store.
Long live iTunes.

[stmon99]

cheaper but lesser quality

I like the option of buying just one song I want rather than the whole CD. But I do wish Apple would increase the bit rate rather than have it stuck at 128kbps.

[Earl Benser]

128 kbps is quite sufficient....

... for most listeners. Few have the ears. the equipment, and the
environment to require more. And many of those just think that
they can here a difference.

And if you listen in a car, 128 kbps is gross overkill.

[mike.gw]

Hope the Music Catalogs are watching

This is it. This is how music will be purchased going forward. Understand that I purchased a Mac Mini and iPod Nano, for the sole purpose of archiving my existing catalog of CDs, and purchasing new music via iTunes.

There are several things I will NOT do:

- I will not pay more than 99 cents for a single 128 bit iTunes song.
- I will not purchase any music CD with any sort of copy protection scheme on it.
- I will not make significant purchases of CD media any more. AAC files on iPods are far more convenient for large music libraries.
- I will not pay more than 99 cents to purchase a hot new song from a hot artist.

If the music companies want to make more money, here's a clue:

- I might be willing to pay an extra 25 cents for lyrics along with my iTunes song purchase.
- I think paying $1.99 for music videos is reasonable, as long as I get the lyrics and song file included.
- I might pay more money for higher bit rate songs than the 128bit songs currently sold on iTunes. Less compression = truer sound = justified premium.

If I see that the music companies are only offering higher bit rate songs in order to charge me more, I won't buy the song. Eliminating my choices and forcing me to do business your way, is not my idea of making me a satisfied consumer.

[mortis9]

foolish notion

were online music sale sites to highlight the ability to pay more for a higher quality download, they would only be highlighting one thing in the mind of the consumer: THE EXISTING QUALITY IS INSUFFICIENT. There are many reasons why they use the low bit rate of 128. It is easier to distribute, it is the de facto bit rate, and IT IS INFERIOR to CD quality sound, which I'm sure makes the record companies quite happy.

[lingsun]

Still only 4% of the market--almost meaningless

It's still only 4% of the market--almost meaningless. CDs in stores aren't going away anytime soon.