What industry conditions lead to the revolution In audio distribution? Which stakeholders stand to benefit most (or least) from this revolution? The MPH technology gave Its users several advantages such as the chance to transfer music to the new digitally recorded format, while also providing a way to download and play music digitally on personal computers. For example, software programs gave listeners the ability to convert CDC to the new digital format, whereas broad base MPH licensees allowed easy access to encoders and decoders for customers.
In addition, Anapest provided a way to share freely MPH files on the internet, while added features in tunes, such as those that only allowed upload to a maximum of five computers, prevented their users from mass distribution of the recorded materials. Other applications prevented Amps from being played on non-pod MPH players or prevented customers from emailing them (Kenosha, 2013). Music became cheaper to access because the MPH format began offering It at reasonable prices online. Apple’s Pod ultimately allowed for the success of Tunes.
Podiatrist became tool that Individual artists could use to make their bedposts available for their listeners to download without harming their copyrights (Kenosha, 2013). Several things contributed to the audio distribution revolution In regards to the competitors in the recorded music business. These included information technologies allowing high-speed, low cost distribution, storage and advertising options that allowed artists to by-pass expensive record labels (Schilling, 2010). Customers were the stakeholders that benefited most from the digital music revolution, because they loud get much more music for cheaper prices.
In addition, independent musicians benefited greatly, because they were able to put their music out to the public even if they did not have a formal recording contract. Third, sellers of digital media such as Apple reaped great rewards, because they had a new source of revenue as customers rapidly purchased such devices (Schilling, 2010). Those stakeholders who probably benefited less Included major record labels. They did not hold contracts for more and more music sales and/or were sold without royalty payments to these companies.
The easy access this technology gave consumers to independent artists created high competition for the artists already signed to record contracts. This resulted in artists losing royalties due to music pirating (Schilling, 2010). In summary, the transformation of music, songs and albums, into the new digital recorded, MPH, format led to an industry revolution in audio distribution. The end users, customers who bought and listened to the music, ultimately were the greater winners in this revolution (Devote, 2010). Why did the music stores created by the record labels fail to attract many subscribers?
What, if anything, should the record labels have done differently? Failure to offer music from anyone except their own labels drove customers away, because music enthusiasts often Like a range of music. Failure of consumers to know which labels belonged to which record company also kept consumers from using these stores. The record companies could have avoided both of these problems by having joint ventures with other labels where consumers could stores included using proprietary file formats, greatly limited digital rights management schemes, and limited selections as compared to those offered by
Anapest. Failure to use the MPH format by the large label companies for their songs evolved into major issues for these big label music stores (Devote, 2010). Other problems also existed, as various new services did not really understand the value of the digital music market. In addition, the big players in the old record company market were overstressed in recapturing their old advantage in the music industry instead of impressing the new digital age. The internet, by virtue of its nature, had the capacity to offer vast opportunities for exploring new music.
These new digital revise were constructing their services based on market shares. The old record labels, in their actions, influenced the startups in the digital music industry, forcing them to offer music around what the major labels were already offering (Callas, 2012). On the other hand, successful services such as tunes and Spottily recognized early on the potential force of the digital market. They also understood the need in this new market to provide access to a remarkable depth and breadth of music, embodied particularly by leading Indies bands (Callas, 2012).
What will determine owe long the success of the pod and tunes endures? Should Apple allow its pods to play non-tunes songs? Should Apple allow tunes songs to play on non-pod MPH players? The pod popularity has steadily declined as other gadgets that play music have been introduced to the market such the cell phone, the Mac, the pad and the phone. Apple, however, seems to think they can still make some money and have not withdrawn the pod from the market even though it cannot connect to the internet or access services such as tunes (Ziegler, 2012).
In addition, both the pod and the tunes store are easily copied. Since Apple does not own the music it sells, it must rely on other suppliers, making their success heavily dependent upon successful branding and the network externalities associated with the pod-tunes installed base. Given the large installed base of Pods, the restricted compatibility between tunes and pods allows the creation of a DOD barrier for competitors. If the system were “opened up” so that tunes could play on any device and pods could play any song, both the device and the tunes service would be subject to much greater pricing pressure.
Therefore, it makes sense or Apple to resist opening them up, however students would be quick to point out that if a major competitor, or a set of competitors builds an assault on Apple’s dominant position in this market, Apple may be forced to “open up” in order to be competitive (Melissa A, 2010). There are factors that will determine the longevity of success of the pod and tunes. First, one thinks of Apple’s “cool” factor that many younger generations consumers enjoy.
Second, their well planned marketing strategies have also allowed success with a strong relationship with music labels. Third, other factors of long enjoyed success will be described by its use of digital formats, competitive prices for song and album downloads, and strong licensing agreements with music labels that enable the ability to offer one-stop digital music shopping for consumers. Apple does allow its pod to play non-tunes songs. If one “burns” music to blank audio CDC, however, tunes will not allow users to burn non-tunes songs. Apple should allow this is a mute point.
Apple’s pod line already owns 73% of the MPH player’s market share. They achieved this by only allowing tunes music to be played on pods Vito, 2010). The pod will play . MPH and . MPH, as MPH files are tunes songs that a person originally downloaded, and . MPH files are either converted files that one converted Into tunes or files that one did not get through tunes. The pod supports a variety of audio formats: AC, Protected AC (from tunes Store), HE-AC, MPH, Audible, Apple Lossless, BIFF (as found on CDC), and WAVE (Answers, AAA).
An pod can play music from any source so long as it is in a format that the pod recognizes. Many retailers who provide an MPH download service, such as Amazon, eave an option in their software to automatically add purchases to the tunes software to aid adding the music to an pod (Answers, Bibb). Why would musicians sign away their copyright privileges to their songs through “Creative Commons”? The exposure of being widely distributed may be more valuable to independent artists than revenues if they protected their music (Schilling, 2010).
Creative Commons is “a nonprofit corporation dedicated to making it easier for people to share and build up the work of others. Creative Commons allows people, musicians ND authors, to create their own license and provides up to six free licenses to designate how authors want to share their work (US, 2013). First, Creative Commons developed licensing schemes that will allow copyright holders, including musicians, to license their works for the public to share at varying levels of openness.
Since Creative Commons allows musicians to make it known that their music is available for downloading and distribution without the risk of infringement suits, musicians would sign away their copyright privileges to their songs because of the varying degrees of openness that consumers would be able to share their music. This gave freedom for potential customers to get the music they wanted without the risk of lawsuits (Devote, 2010). How is podiatrist likely to impact the profitability of recorded music, radio broadcasting, or other types of audio transmissions?
Whereas podiatrist may increase the ease and attractiveness of listening to music and other broadcasts that are not protected by copyright, it also provides an additional medium for piracy of content that is owned by others. In the short run, then, podiatrist could diminish the profitability of recorded media. On the other hand, in the long run sophisticated poetasters may come about that would dominate the market. In addition, providers of digital content may develop sophisticated digital rights management technology that would prevent pirating.