You know I hate to pull hairs here (as I seem to have fewer and fewer up top these days) but it drives me nuts when writers do this.
Caroline McCarthy in her blog, "The Social," for CNET made this comparison between the recent report of MySpace Music hitting a billion streams versus iTunes, then took it back:
"The iTunes Music Store, the biggest name in digital music, hit the five-billion-songs mark in June after over five years in business. But it's not really comparable to MySpace Music, because iTunes is a software download rather than Web-based, and charges 99 cents per song. MySpace Music streaming is free."
If it's not really comparable then WHY bring it up in the first place. McDonald's have served billions too, but of course their hamburgers.
This is not to say the two are not competitors, but we are talking about song purchases versus streams and she even goes further to say:
"That's also a rough estimate, considering you do not have to be a MySpace member to stream songs--any visitor to, say, the Jonas Brothers' MySpace page could simply hit the "play" button.
You do have to have an account with iTunes to even grab a free song.
A comment from "theAtomicBob," someone trying to get a name for their music on MySpace, added this:
"I've put up songs for my band/label on myspace the last 3 years and haven't seen a dime from any of it. As an artist there is this thing called "autoplay" the artist can use so the artist gets a "play" or credit for the song when anyone who opens the page. That can make all the hype misleading... thats my interpretation. If I get 5 million "autoplays" maybe one day this will be cool. "
What we should take away from this is that MySpace and Amazon now have the potential to take away some cash if you play the law of averages that at least a percentage will buy. Smart for MySpace and better for Amazon as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago.
0 comments:
Post a Comment