Apple officially says it's the #1 music retailer in the US

Based on today's earlier leak of some weekly NPD marketshare data, we had our doubts that Apple had actually overtaken Wal-Mart as the number one music retailer in the US, but it looks like that January surge of iTunes gift cards and new iPod owners pushed it over the top for good -- and now we've got the PR to prove it. Apple's giving out the same "4 billion songs to 50 million customers" numbers as it has for a while now, but it says iTunes was the biggest game in town in January and February. Of course, there's a lot of 2008 left to go, so Wally might make a comeback -- it was the overall champ last year -- but Apple's achievement is still a major milestone for digitally distributed content, and we hope to see a lot more iTunes-like services on that list soon.

[Jlivengo @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:34PM]

Apple, is there anything you can't do????

[w @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:04PM]

make me buy their fascist products.

[Will3 @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:27PM]

Give the artists a fairer percentage of the .99 cents rip-off?

[Shane Lloyd @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:34PM]

@ w

Do you even know what fascism is? Because I have a feeling that if you did, you wouldn't throw it around so freely while describing a hardware/software manufacturer.

[bondsbw @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:35PM]

Alright Apple, the consumers did their part to make you #1. Be responsible and use your new status to get the labels to remove DRM from all songs on iTunes.

[Duscrom @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:38PM]

Why would apple remove DRM? They could have done it a long time ago. Amazon did it.

If they released their DRM they wouldn't be number 1.

[Jordan @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:42PM]

How would releasing their DRM make them no longer number one? As far as I'm concerned the only reason I don't buy from Apple is because they have a DRM.

[phanbouy @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:49PM]

agree with Jordan. i'll bet they'd get a 10%+ sales boost if they killed DRM. from there word of mouth would push it even further.

[Zak @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:49PM]

Duscrom - it's not up to Apple, nor is it up to Amazon. It's up to the record labels, who own the content. It's their content, they determine whether it's sold with or without DRM. If you don't like DRM, talk to the record labels, not Apple.

[XiozTzu @ Apr 3rd 2008 11:58PM]

They can't remove the DRM because Apple's contracts dictate how they sell music. Amazon had the benefit of iTunes going partially DRM free, so when they went to negotiations they demanded everything be DRM free. The labels were happy to oblige because they secretly hate iTunes. When Apple goes in for another round of contracts everything should become DRM free; if not at that point we can bitch at Apple.

[Bender Bending Rodriguez @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:53PM]

@ Duscrom,

Amazon didn't remove the DRM. The labels allowed Amazon to do it to bring down Apple's monopoly. Apple was calling for DRM-free music long before iTunes Store was a major player. Warner's CEO even called Jobs a fool for suggesting such a thing, just to give DRM-free tracks to Amazon months later.

[bondsbw @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:53PM]

Maybe not. The labels are afraid to give Apple any more market, since they could then use their advancing power to commoditize the music industry even more than it is already.

[zevdawg @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:56PM]

I won't buy my tracks online because of DRM... though I haven't used iTunes (Puretracks.ca) - spent about $500 on tracks. DRM usage rights backed up; computer crashes and I download the MP3's again. Backup refuses to work, instead I am greeted with an "acquiring license" window... End result: hosed.

[marcin @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:35PM]

yeh they cant stop with their ridiculous PR.

have you seen their latest mac ads, their a joke. nothing but vista bashing yet again.

[phanbouy @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:41PM]

baby jeebus weeps for you

[Jesse Dula @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:37PM]

"and we hope to see a lot more iTunes-like services on that list soon."

So long as it's not crappily encoded, low bit-rate garbage.

[looseinthedeuce @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:57PM]

mmmm, low bit-rate garbage...

If a normal audio CD is, say, ~500MB at $14, then buying 4MB of song data from Apple should be.... 11.2 cents!!

Why are people paying 99 cents?? Apple, stop taking artists' bits!!

[phanbouy @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:00PM]

hmmm.. let's see.. 1980's compression technology vs. 2008 tech. luddite-ism FTW!

[Jesse Dula @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:15PM]

I didn't particularly mean iTunes. I meant that it's cool digital music is selling well. But I won't it to be decently encoded, in varying codecs, and DRM free. Whether that be iTunes, Amazon, eMusic, yada yada yada..

So no, Jobites. I wasn't bashing Apple. In fact I credit them for pioneering the digital download store for the mainstream the way they have.

[looseinthedeuce @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:14PM]

Let's look again... "1980s compression technology" is actually UNcompressed PCM. If Apple wants to go to a lossless compression, hey, I won't argue at all. The best you get from lossless is about half the size of uncompressed PCM, which means you should pay 22.4 cents for an mp3 (still not 99 cents).

The mp3 KILLS the sound quality of the treble. I won't argue that most people aren't listening on crappy speakers; I know they are. But if Apple wants to be involved in the music industry, it should offer AT LEAST the quality that was available with "1980s compression technology".

Record companies have hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars invested in equipment which is used to make original recordings. What's the point if no one ever plays-back that sound?

[phanbouy @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:21PM]

Well, I'm no expert on PCM specs, but I was always under the impression that CDs themselves are highly compressed audio. Several musician friends of mine have lamented the "flat" sounds of compressed digital audio in general vs. analog for a while.

Anyway, color me skeptical that you or (almost) anyone else could pass a blind listening test between 256k AAC and a CD.

[aMac @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:33PM]

@phanbouy

They could be referring to how compressed the tonal range is on today's CDs. ie. the range of difference between the quietist part of a song vs the loudest.

Music isn't my field either but from what I hear, most songs are mastered now with much less range, so they sound louder and 'better'.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

[phanbouy @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:40PM]

I empathize with everyone who likes having an original "master" disc of an album or movie, but I've found for a long time, even before every grandma's toast-R-oven played MP3's, that most of that pretty album artwork and jewel cases were just taking up lots of space and collecting lots of dust. I hate DRM as much as the next bloke, but aside from that whole issue (beyond the scope of my post), 256k AAC is more than enough for me. Hell, with the hardware I have 128k AAC sounds plenty fine to my ears.

In fact, even if it's something I really like, I still rip and reencode it just so I won't scratch the thing to death. Pretty soon I'll have reencoded all my 5GB DVDs down to 700MB h264's that look just as good and boot up from my HTPC easily.

[CraigJ @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:49PM]

Agreed, except for classical music, which I still buy on CD and rip lossless...

[phanbouy @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:03PM]

yeah with all the low fi indie stuff i've had on rotation lately, i'll bet it sounds 'better' at lower bitrates!

still... there's something kinda spiffy to, say, vinyl, for having an analog source, master, and album. course that master's prolly digital these days 99.99% of the time. d'oh!

[aardvark sandwich @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:47PM]

Apple: You made the ALAC format and prevented the open FLAC format from running in your music software so........howzabout offering ALAC music in the store?

Just a thought.

Jerks.

[Zak @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:06PM]

Because of bandwidth issues, I'm guessing. Same reason Amazon only offers 256mbps MP3s.

[The Dude @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:49PM]

April Fool's Day was 2 days ago.

But srsly, u guyz, "Hey, can you autograph my digital download?"
I lament the decline of CDs. Not so much because I care about the means that other use to get their music, but because it could mean that it pushes my preference for CDs to the brink of abandonment for distribution.

[whatishalo? @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:02PM]

That brings up a new biz idea! Digital Signatures for downloaded content. Been going dig sigs for 9 years and we've still been barely able to find a 'real' use for them. Here we go! We issue digital sigs to celebrities and have them digitally sign the tracks. Then users can ebay them...brillian (except for the ability to copy them bit-for-bit and redistribute :) )

[Jordan @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:05PM]

If I have a burned cd of a band that I love, and a real cd of a band i like. I'll listen to the one I like over the one I love. Why? I don't know.

[phanbouy @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:08PM]

they could still sign posters and flyers =D

but i guess that $10 CD at shows thing would be in danger. still, it's hard for upcoming/unsigned bands to make money off those. maybe digital distribution one way or the other could help them too (i mean, besides the usual myspace thing)

[Jordan @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:14PM]

I agree, digital makes it cheaper and easier to distribute content for small bands. However, in general I think they would make more money selling CDs at shows. Why? Because half the fanbase won't have a credit card they can use. So at shows CDs will sell to everyone. While online distribution only those with credit cards will be able to purchase content.

[bob e @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:51PM]

meh

[Billy @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:02PM]

Love Apple or hate Apple, you can't deny this is an impressive achievement. I've never bought a single song from the store because I refuse to purchase anything with DRM - but obviously I'm in the minority here.

[phanbouy @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:04PM]

i've purchased plenty of $0.00 downloads linked from their facebook group =)

[Justin @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:33PM]

Not everything on iTunes is shackled by DRM.

[Hax Or @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:06PM]

Pwned by Apple!

Y'All Want a Single?

[David Vogt @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:06PM]

Man, I thought I accidentally landed on page 3 of Engadget. Then I realized this is the same Apple story with a new "twist." One thing that hasn't changed is that it's completely irrelevant, as long as consumers have several good options for obtaining music online. I don't give a damn if Apple is #1.

[phanbouy @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:09PM]

apparently you do.

[Carly Lipnick @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:08PM]

Love Apple!!

[eric @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:21PM]

The rate of compression and pricing of iTunes files means I won't be contributing to their #1 status for a long time. Long, long, long time.

[Zak @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:28PM]

I hope that means you're not buying anything from Amazon either, because their compression is worse, and "variable pricing" doesn't mean "always cheaper". You won't pay $2 per song on iTunes, but you will for some songs on Amazon.

I also hope you're not stealing music, because that just hurts the artists.

[Sam @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:21PM]

Most iTunes gift cards are sold at Wal-Mart...

[Djunior80 @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:25PM]

My God!!! How biased is this reporting?...and how blind is everyone here for giving credit to apple just by reading this small post? This information of them being #1 is solely based on one week's data!!!! I have nothing against apple, but you need to base being # 1 on more data than that!!!

[ToxicDose @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:25PM]

I thought PirateBay was the largest distributor of mp3's.

[DrPizza @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:26PM]

I take it you guys are going to update the previous post to acknowledge that you were in fact totally full of shit, right?

[jd @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:27PM]

#1 or not, you have to admit that they are a-holes when it comes to customer satisfaction.

[phanbouy @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:31PM]

vs. who? they get the highest rankings in Consumer Report's cust. service polls every year. personally, i hate dealing with tech support anywhere regardless of how 'friendly' they are, but we can't all be geeks.

[steve @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:30PM]

I wonder how much you have to sell to get in the top 5 on that chart? I'm thinking that the Rock band music store has the potential to sell 20 million tracks a month by end of this year (meaning $40M/ month sales). I suspect that will make a splash in the music industry

[zargon @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:30PM]

Obviously people don't care about quality, but then again Walmart was in first before... so the switch really changes nothing in the long run.