Followers

Friday, August 29, 2008

Album-loving artists blame iTunes for changed music tastes

By Jacqui Cheng

Online music sales continue to skyrocket at the expense of CDs. iTunes continues to be the leader of the pack, too, not only in online sales, but music sales overall. But a small rebellion is brewing against iTunes as artists become disgruntled with the hit they're taking on overall album sales thanks to the now-wildly-popular method of cherry-picking favorite tracks for download.

As we reported on Infinite Loop back in June, Kid Rock is one of the artists who have begun to speak out against what they consider to be an unfair distribution system in iTunes. Rock said at the time that iTunes was representative of the "old system," where distributors and record labels take money instead of giving it to artists. iTunes, for instance, pushes the a la carte music track system instead of allowing artists to sell music in album-only format. But selling millions of singles isn't necessarily as lucrative as selling far fewer full albums, and for some artists (we don't necessarily include Kid Rock in this category), there's the artistic vision realized only in the full-album experience.

Rock eventually decided that he was boycotting iTunes and not placing his new album on the popular online service. "In so many ways it's turned our business back into a singles business," Kid Rock's manager Ken Levitan told the Wall Street Journal today, referring to iTunes as "part of the death knell of the music business."

Since June, Rock has sold 1.7 million copies of his Rock 'n' Roll Jesus album, and sales have grown steadily in 19 of the last 22 weeks. Levitan says that, if the album was sold the iTunes way, most of those sales would have merely shown up as 99¢ downloads of the hit single from the album, All Summer Long. If the rest of the album was actually good enough to attract fans, then perhaps this wouldn't be so much of a concern; artists worry that many fans will never even sample enough other material from an album to find out if it's good or not.

Rock's success sans iTunes apparently prompted Atlantic Records, owned by Warner Music Group, to pull an album by R&B artist Estelle from iTunes, too (Estelle's album remains on Amazon's MP3 store, but is sold "album-only").

AC/DC has never put its music on iTunes either, the WSJ points out, and still managed to enjoy some success with 2.7 million CD sales last year.

And, of course, Jay-Z made headlines late last year for boycotting iTunes when his new album (at the time) American Gangster went on sale. "As movies are not sold scene by scene, this collection will not be sold as individual singles," he said at the time. The one thing we'll likely never know, though, is how much more successful these artists would be with the help of iTunes, if at all.

Music lovers: please change your buying habits

These artists' complaints aren't so much iTunes' fault as they are the "fault" of the evolving music market. There's an endless supply of other music stores that also sell music on a track-by-track basis, because customers just plain love being able to cherry-pick their favorite songs. Digital downloads just make that easier, but the practice itself has been around for decades.

Album sales have been plunging for some time now—they dropped a full 20 percent just last Christmas—and CD sales in general have been tanking for even longer. Some artists believe that actually cutting out iTunes and its per-track sales is the best way to increase revenue. It's a dangerous game, though; if consumers want only a single track that they could have for a buck but it's not available, will they purchase the whole album or simply grab the single from P2P networks?

Original here

Does Apple Really Want To Be An Internet Censor?

by Steven Hodson

I am sure that the folks in Cupertino thought the whole idea of the App Store for the iPhone would be a great idea, and in fact it has proven to be a great money maker. At the same time though it has also turned out to be one of their biggest headaches that just doesn’t seem to want to go away. While some developers have been making money hand over fist others have been dealing with long approval wait periods or just having their applications pulled. Often those being pulled are being left in limbo as to why and what needs to be done to get back on the marketplace.

The most recent incident of an application being pulled though is raising the specter of Apple censorship; or at least applying their own moral judgment of whether an application can be listed. Such is the case of Infurious Comics and their Comic Reader that was meant for easier distribution and reading of Web comics on the iPhone. They got in hot water with Apple because the application comes with a free issue of Infurious’ Web comic Murderdrome an admittedly dark and bloody comic.

The big problem I have with this whole thing is that I am torn on how to re-act to this kerfuffle because on one hand Apple is totally within their legal right to have pulled the application. As the company states right in the iPhone SDK:

Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users.

Apple is going to have a really hard time with this because of the ambiguity of the statement. Who is going to decide what is obscene or offensive? Does Apple in its role as a hardware and software provider have the right to dictate what a third party creates for sale with their software to be played back through their hardware which they have sold. I am sure that one could say that as the provider of the store by which these applications are sold they have the right to set the conditions of any sale.

That said though, the only reason that the Comic Reader application was pulled was because of the free comic that came with it. so in all reality, Infurious Comics could put the application back for sale but without the comic and it should be acceptable. However, this is where we come to the second part of the problem – the distribution of the comics produced by Infurious of which I imagine Murderdrome would be one of many. From what I have gathered, once the Comic Reader is installed, the user would be able to buy more comics from the iTunes store but this would then raise the possibility of the comic being banned from there as well.

During all this Apple is also having to deal with people who are not happy about the idea that the company has built in a kill switch into the iPhone software that would allow them to remotely remove software on the iPhone for whatever reason they deem fit. Now you tie in this possibility of becoming a censor of material available via iTunes and Apple could be facing some serious backlash from its customers. Especially considering as pointed out by Philip Elmer-DeWitt in his post Apple 2.0 on Fortune that iTunes already carries movies that would technically hit this censorship wall the same way that Infurious has:

By Wednesday morning, the post had drawn dozens of responses — all sharply critical of Apple — and PJ Holden’s cause had been picked up by half-dozen sympathetic bloggers (see Techmeme).

Murderdrome’s most energetic defense was posted by blogger Mike Cane, who rattled off (with live links) several equally violent works of fiction published without fuss or warning on the iTunes store, including South Park, Reservoir Dogs and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

I can understand why Infurious ran afoul of Apple this way and why in some ways Apple is totally within its right to do what they have done, considering the language of their SDK, but are they really ready for the reaction? On top of that, if they do stand by this action without finding a workable solution to the problem are they setting themselves up to become an Internet censorship board? All I know is that this isn’t a position that I would want to find myself in.

Original here

Hack Turns iPhone into Macro Camera

By Charlie Sorrel


Photo credit: eastrain/Flickr

Forget about buying cheap, tacky plastic add-ons to mod the iPhone's camera. Flickr-er Daniel Forsythe instead used his knowledge of cellphone camera lenses to make this quick-and-dirty manual focus hack for the iPhone.

It's simple. All you have to do is crack open the glue surrounding the lens. The lenses used on both the 3G and the original iPhone can be turned to focus them -- usually the focus is set to infinity at the factory (the small sensor size takes care of depth-of-field) but you can change it to a close-focussing macro lens. As Daniel points out, this makes the camera much more useful for shots of barcodes or other note-taking.


iphone-focus-mod-4.gif

Some iPhone disassembly is required, and Daniel has full instructions on his site. The whole thing is reversible, though, so if you're happy about voiding your waranty, things shouldn't go too badly wrong.

Original here