Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[BillieCassin]

Apple...Videogames...Apple...DLC...Virus software.

Did I just stumble onto CNET forums or am I still at Blu-ray.com?

[Bobby Henderson]

Been away for a few days but had to respond to a couple things.

Originally Posted by J.Cornelius

Look at a physical medium that is less bulky, the Compact Disk. Today sales are approx. half of what they were 6 or 7 years ago.

The decline of Compact Disc sales is not a worthwhile argument for claiming the general public is souring on physical media.

CD sales are half what they were a decade ago because the music industry as a whole is suffering. A mere handful of multi-national media corporations have a strangle-hold in controlling what musical trends and styles get distributed to the general public. They have not been allowing popular music to change naturally. Up until 1990 major house-cleanings in style would occur at least every 3-5 years. That's great for music lovers. It's volatile, unpredictable and just plain risky to investors and business people. The companies controlling popular music production, distribution and airplay have been trying to spit out the same old thing for more than a decade. Not much has changed in popular music over the last 20 years. This is the fundamental reason why sales are in the toilet. The music is hardly interesting anymore.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I'm sorry, but you guys have to take "overpriced" off the table when you complain about Apple. It's a problem that really just can't exist. If the products were overpriced, Apple wouldn't keep having their most profitable quarter ever, every quarter, because no one would be buying.

Fashion is a big part of why Apple can charge whatever it wants for its devices and still have people line up to buy. Fashion-conscious women represent a major part of Apple's business and that is very clear in Apple's marketing, particularly with iPods, iPhones and MacBooks. Profitable quarterly reports only backs up the fact Apple uses fashion to sell its stuff. When something is fashionable a lot of people will pay high prices to have it. Just look at clothing and shoes.

Apple is working very hard to keep its products fashionable. The company does more than any other computer manufacturer to stick its products into movies, TV shows and music videos. So much Apple product placement is happening that if someone tried to gauge what types of computers people used based on what types of computers are seen in movies and TV shows that person would think 90% of Americans used Macs.

If Apple were really charging a price closer to the market average for computing hardware the company's profit margins would be far more slim just like so many other computing companies. Fashion bails them out on that. Without the fashion factor Apple probably would have to do like so many PC companies: load the machines with crapware to subsidize an attractive low price. Avoidance of crapware is one of the few compelling sales points in favor of buying a Mac. You can get crapware-free PCs by either building your own or paying a premium for something like a Dell Precision Workstation.

Mac vs. PC OS talk is pretty meaningless. Applications are the real deal. That's what really determines whether a platform is successful or not. I like Adobe quite a bit. Their apps like Photoshop and Illustrator have all the same tools and functions regardless of whether they're running on a Mac or PC.

[kpkelley]

Jeff,

After this site's review of Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, a few questions have been raised.

Did WB source the transfer from a 65mm print or a 35mm print?

Is this the same transfer that was supposed to have been released in 2007 on Blu-ray and HD-DVD?

TIA

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

The decline of Compact Disc sales is not a worthwhile argument for claiming the general public is souring on physical media.

CD sales are half what they were a decade ago because the music industry as a whole is suffering. A mere handful of multi-national media corporations have a strangle-hold in controlling what musical trends and styles get distributed to the general public. They have not been allowing popular music to change naturally. Up until 1990 major house-cleanings in style would occur at least every 3-5 years. That's great for music lovers. It's volatile, unpredictable and just plain risky to investors and business people. The companies controlling popular music production, distribution and airplay have been trying to spit out the same old thing for more than a decade. Not much has changed in popular music over the last 20 years. This is the fundamental reason why sales are in the toilet. The music is hardly interesting anymore.

Totally agree. I remember thinking exactly the same thing during a New Year's Eve fireworks event in Dec 2009. The organizers decided to accompany their fireworks display with the greatest popular hits of the past decade (2000-2009). Well, after 10 minutes, I was bored to tears. Every song, and I mean every one, sounded tediously the same, except for one - a Foreigner cover. I knew then that I haven't missed anything in popular music for the past 10 years. My music tastes seemed to have died in the 90's, and now I know why.

[Bobby Henderson]

I try pretty hard not to have a "new music sucks" attitude. It's just that so many of the bands being allowed major label contracts and music releases have such derivative material. The studios are either signing derivative, predictable bands or forcing the bands to create predictable, derivative music. I really feel sorry for teens and 20-somethings these days. The music of their coming-of-age years has little identity to it. The music of the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's all had very clear identities. Even some of the 1990's music had an identity. Since then it's been a big question mark.

In trying to control a creative type of product as if one were selling widgets, the music industry has ended up in a long term decline. They have been trying to control the type of product being sold in order to protect profit margins and keep things dependable. But by avoiding risk and taking chances on revolutionary new ideas the music industry has done even greater, more broad-based harm to itself.

There is a lot of music industry executives who really know their stuff and would probably agree with what I'm saying. You really have to keep content fresh. Unfortunately, the boss of a recording label is not his own boss anymore. He's getting orders from up on high dictated from people who don't know squat about the music business or anything creative at all. Bean counters who spend all day looking through reports and spread sheets are the ones calling the shots.

[J.Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Been away for a few days but had to respond to a couple things.



The decline of Compact Disc sales is not a worthwhile argument for claiming the general public is souring on physical media.

CD sales are half what they were a decade ago because the music industry as a whole is suffering. A mere handful of multi-national media corporations have a strangle-hold in controlling what musical trends and styles get distributed to the general public. They have not been allowing popular music to change naturally. Up until 1990 major house-cleanings in style would occur at least every 3-5 years. That's great for music lovers. It's volatile, unpredictable and just plain risky to investors and business people. The companies controlling popular music production, distribution and airplay have been trying to spit out the same old thing for more than a decade. Not much has changed in popular music over the last 20 years. This is the fundamental reason why sales are in the toilet. The music is hardly interesting anymore.

So 5 Billion music downloads from ITunes and illegal downloads have had no affect on the decline in CD sales? I see a direct correlation in the decline in CD sales being attributable to the general public's change in how they obtain music, i.e. an aversion to physical media.

[Joe Cain]

Originally Posted by J.Cornelius

So 5 Billion music downloads from ITunes and illegal downloads have had no affect on the decline in CD sales? I see a direct correlation in the decline in CD sales being attributable to the general public's change in how they obtain music, i.e. an aversion to physical media.

Just an opinion...but once upon a time nobody seemed all that unhappy with physical media. If the early days for downloads hadn't been built on piracy/copyright infringement/free stuff, would bought-and-paid-for downloading be nearly so prevalent today?

[Bobby Henderson]

Sure, music downloads have had some effect on CD sales. But it is not the sole cause of why CD sales have plummeted. The music industry on the whole, regardless of how the music is being purchased, is not doing nearly as well as it did in previous decades. The main reason why CDs aren't selling so well is there's not very many worth buying.

I still buy most of the music for my collection on CD. But my purchases have dropped off seriously over the last 10 years. Not only is content stale on the broad average, but the standards of practices in how music for CD or download is mastered has been a serious turn-off as well.

If you have access to a sound editing application try this experiment: import audio from a classic CD created 20 years ago and then import audio from a new release. The old music has the waveform pretty much all in view, nothing clipped. The new music is clipped all to hell. The peaks and valleys are badly clipped in the effort to make the music louder, but a great deal of audio detail is lost in the process. This effectively ruins the purpose of buying a CD for higher fidelity than a badly compressed music download.

5 billion iTunes sales (if that figure is accurate) is still hardly a replacement for physical album sales. Instead of paying $12-$20 for a physical CD, most people are just buying 1 or 2 tracks al a carte at 99¢ a pop. Apple, Amazon or whoever will take their cut of that sale leaving the record label with a lot less than it would have earned with a CD purchase.

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by J.Cornelius

So 5 Billion music downloads from ITunes and illegal downloads have had no affect on the decline in CD sales? I see a direct correlation in the decline in CD sales being attributable to the general public's change in how they obtain music, i.e. an aversion to physical media.

The RIAA started it all by keeping CD prices exorbitantly high over most of the life of CD's. This fact, and the more widely available internet, started piracy. The young people of today got used to their music being delivered (illegally) to them in a digital format, so naturally they would be quite at home buying legal music downloads. As a (very delayed) response, CD's started coming down in price, but the chickens fled the coop so to speak. Where once the RIAA could have enticed people to buy full CD's worth of music by lowering the prices, now it's too late. Instead of getting $5.99-$7.99 for a CD, the RIAA has to be satisfied with a $0.99 purchase. They reap what they sow.

In my opinion, the pirates and the high cost of CD's drove the digital download paradigm, not the aversion to physical media. That was purveyed by the RIAA itself.

[J.Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

The main reason why CDs aren't selling so well is there's not very many worth buying.

This is where we will have to agree to disagree on ^. I will definitely try the experiment, I have read a few articles speaking directly on point on how new music is being clipped. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Bobby Henderson]

I agree CD prices have been ridiculous. I often like to point out an example involving The Eurythmics. I bought a copy of their greatest hits CD back in the early 1990s for around $17 or $18. I paid under $15 for The Eurythmics greatest hits DVD, which featured more songs (music videos no less) and the audio in PCM CD quality stereo.

The sales model with pre-recorded music is a bit different than movies. Some albums just keep selling well for years on end and can even command the same price as a new music release. This is certainly true for certain titles from AC/DC, Led Zepellin, Eagles, etc.

Overall, the music product must have value in order to attract purchases. The music has to be great as a fundamental rule. And then the product needs some bonus content. Some of that has been on a long slide since the 1970s. 12" Vinyl LPs often had posters, stickers, lyrics on the disc jacket, etc. -not to mention better cover art. Cassette tapes and compact discs couldn't duplicate that. You'll certainly get none of that swag with a 99¢ download.

Ultimately, if the music is good enough it will sell well. Right now that isn't happening often at all. The chart topping acts of today just aren't as big as those of previous decades. "Dinosaur" acts like U2 and AC/DC are raking in huge amounts of money on their tours. Lots of teens and people in their 20's are into music from 1970s and 1980s bands like AC/DC. That's not how it's supposed to be. When I was growing up my parents had their music and I had my own music. That's not really the case these days. And when the music acts are young, they're often playing music that sounds like their parents' music. That should be a big clue to the record industry folks.

Originally Posted by J.Cornelius

This is where we will have to agree to disagree on.

Are you claiming the music industry is selling more records and profitable as it has ever been?

[SpaceDog]

The dilution of popular music quality goes hand in hand with the rise in digital download. Plenty of people are content to spend 99¢ on the popular track, but won't spend $12.99 on an album that has 11 other songs as filler. The state of music and radio today is absymal. When NPR runs a pledge drive I switch over to pop radio, I hear what's popular that month, and within 3 days I'm sick of every single song. Pop top 40 has become pop "the 11 songs we're paid to make you hear every day".

The one saving grace for music right now is how accessible self publishing is. Some of my favorite artists are publishing their own music without help from the record companies. More of the CDs I buy today than not do not have a major label association.

[J.Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Joe Cain

Just an opinion...but once upon a time nobody seemed all that unhappy with physical media. If the early days for downloads hadn't been built on piracy/copyright infringement/free stuff, would bought-and-paid-for downloading be nearly so prevalent today?

That is an excellent question and one that certainly can be debated. There was a very good article where author claims "If music executives sold bottled water they'd be calling for a ban on tapwater downloads." If the music industry executives spent more time in the beginning developing payment schemes for downloads instead of suing some 13 year old perhaps the illegal downloading could have be mitigated sooner.

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by J.Cornelius

That is an excellent question and one that certainly can be debated. There was a very good article where author claims "If music executives sold bottled water they'd be calling for a ban on tapwater downloads." If the music industry executives spent more time in the beginning developing payment schemes for downloads instead of suing some 13 year old perhaps the illegal downloading could have be mitigated sooner.

Amen. The RIAA shot themselves in the foot....many times over.

[Bobby Henderson]

Radio is another big part of the problem with the music industry. Disc jockeys often have strict play lists due to payola between record labels and companies who control lots of radio stations. Payola is illegal, but not if you use a third party calling himself a consultant or some other nonsense.

The poor quality in radio broadcasting gave rise to satellite services like Sirius/XM. And now that those two are merged other Internet-based radio services like Slacker and Pandora have become more popular. I think some of those services are doing more to discourage purchases rather than encourage people to buy music. Why bother if the quality difference in audio between the radio version and iTunes version is barely noticeable?

Self-publishing could be a key to cleaning up the music business and getting it on a more honest and fresh footing. Technology has improved so much that one can produce and edit high quality music without having to spend countless thousands of dollars on equipment. Distribution and promotion can still be tricky. Professional skill and experience are required to do those jobs right. However, a band that grows popular enough may be able to afford hiring the right people for those duties without having to involve a record label food chain.

[J.Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Are you claiming the music industry is selling more records and profitable as it has ever been?

No not by a long shot. I am saying that the way in which consumers obtain music is the main reason for the decline in CD sales (physical media). Obviously there are other factors as well, some which have you mentioned. But I do not believe in the following:

"The main reason why CDs aren't selling so well is there's not very many worth buying."

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Radio is another big part of the problem with the music industry. Disc jockeys often have strict play lists due to payola between record labels and companies who control lots of radio stations. Payola is illegal, but not if you use a third party calling himself a consultant or some other nonsense.

+1

That's why I only listen to radio stations like WXPN (U of Penn public radio), which play an eclectic selection of music (World Cafe, etc.) that you'd never hear on the Top 40 stations. I can't count how many new (to me) artists I've heard on WXPN, and promptly added their CD's to my collection.

[J.Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Why bother if the quality difference in audio between the radio version and iTunes version is barely noticeable?

Could not agree more, spot on.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by J.Cornelius

No not by a long shot. I am saying that the way in which consumers obtain music is the main reason for the decline in CD sales (physical media). Obviously there are other factors as well, some which have you mentioned. But I do not believe in the following:

"The main reason why CDs aren't selling so well is there's not very many worth buying."

I think the argument is much more nuanced than that. The music industry has been in the business of building and promoting acts that they deem safe. As a result you get acts that look good but don't have much to offer. What they do have to offer is generally the one or two radio friendly tracks. Being burned buying CDs from the acts that have 2 good tracks and 9 garbage tracks, naturally people gravitated towards downloading just the tracks they want and leave the rest where they belong.

[Doctorossi]

Jeff or Bill,
Sorry if I missed it somewhere, but can you confirm if the DVD and "digital copy" (and packaging design, of course) is the only difference between the Toy Story 3 sets? Am I going to miss any extras if I go with the slimmer package?

Is the 3D copy that was rumored to be in the combo set being held for later or maybe a CE promotional exclusive?