"In a world dominated by Apple and the iPhone..."?

Android surpassed Apple in smart phones months ago:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/smb/mobile/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=229000356

Seriously? Really? Do you really think that we should go back to an old-school business model with the recording/video industry? The future is mp3's and digital music. The production companies NEED to understand that portability and copy-ability has priority over crisp-clear audio quality.

My job isn't to insure that they make as much money as possible in their copyright-protection methods. My job IS TO get the most bang-for-buck as a consumer for my hard-earned dollars. Period. As long as Britney Spears and Justin Bieber make $20mill each month, we'll keep trying to keep every hard-earned dollar in our pockets.

If they want to do it right... and find a happy middle... they need to ask Aimee Mann, Godsmack, and The Decemberists how they do it. They put out a great product (which we buy) without the corporate greed of charging us the $20 that you propose for HD Audio. They're good at it. Maybe have them be the shining beacon of light for the old-school production companies.

Wake up, my man... it's a new world out there. And telling Gen-Y to buy $20 music ain't in it.

If the industry wants to stop illegal sharing they should drop the price of on line music. Down loadable albums cost the same as buying the original CD. The cost of a CD includes manufacture, distribution, packaging, retailing and other associated costs. CD's sound better than MP3's. So what we have is an inferior product that is cheaper to distribute and store, has no packaging, sounds worse yet costs as much as a CD. If they would drop the price to say 50 cents per song they would sell more resulting in less theft and probably make as much or more money. Am I wrong here? I'm not condoning stealing but I can see why cashed strapped kids do it. Me I'm old fashioned and old. I still buy CD's. The only time I buy online are Amazon's specials that go for $5-$6 per album download.

Wow!! Someone else is out there that I can identify with.

I have spent years building my HT piece by piece, searching out the best deals I could on the components I researched and chose. I concentrated on my sound system. I in fact, have gone through 3 generations of HT Amps and speakers before I bothered to finally break down and buy a flat-screen (plasma) display (I was happy with my Sony 34" HD wide-screen tube TV, and still use several of them around the house).

One of my favorite things to do, usually when the house is empty, is to pull out several BDs, crank up the HT, and play the ending credits. There is some great music there... A couple of my favorite credits music: Matrix Revolutions (great beat with tribal influences), Kung Fu Panda (after the Kung Fu Fighting part)..

I've said many times, that I wish they would come out with HD Music BDs (I have many Concerts BDs, but I don't really want to sit and watch, I just want to listen)... The sound is so phenomenal... It's the closest thing to feeling high, even though I don't do that anymore (sigh..)

I for one and going to write the author suggested letters.

Who knows, maybe someone will listen, like I do...

I'm also of the old school of buying my own CDs, LPs, and yes even SACDs and DVD-As, but I can also see that times are changing. I applaud Napster and its successors for two developments that the industry steadfastly refuses to meet the downloaders/copiers half-way on:

1. It allowed people to break up an album into seperate songs.

I am of the opinion that this was largely a reaction to the less-than-acceptable content that accompanied a few hit tracks on most pop albums. It also laid bare the price gouging that the industry has subjected consumers to for decades by bundling more music than the typical consumer cared to own - in the computer world this is called bloatware.

2. It provided a medium (MP3 + the Web) for compressing and transfering files that has revolutionized the industry.

It opened doors to new ways content could be shared, enjoyed, and produced. The easily shared format also standardized content so that it was no longer tied to a finite medium like the LP or CD, that required consumers to purchase again what they already owned. Most importantly, it allowed new talent to distribute their own original content without having to sign with a music conglomerate.

Frankly, I am appaled at the discrepancy between CEO salaries and the take-home-pay of those who do the hard work of writing the music, producing it, mixing it, etc. In a world where consumers have less and less to spend, it is particularly galling to see such excess. Likewise, I am appaled to see how a few artists flaunt expensive cars, jewelry, and eye-candied video-edited idealized human beings, while millions of smaller artists (some would say more talented ones) can hardly afford to continue their art without the support of a "real" job. The fact is, the Internet and the MP3 format compete directly with the segregated world of excess at the top and that is the primary reason they are doing everything they can to squash it.

So I have a challenge to the industry to propose, which also directly addresses the point of this article: why not allow low-quality content to be distributed for free? Ironically, Napster could easily have done so by filtering out music content that would be, say, above 128Kb. As was rightly pointed out above, why should low-quality content cost as much as high-quality on disk? This angers the Gen-Yers more than anything else. They know full well it doesn't sound as good, so since they can't get it for less, they see little wrong with copying it. Likewise a movie formatted for a phone, PSP, or tablet simply won't look good on a 50" TV, so why should it cost so much? I propose that it should be free, and let's dispense with the draconian RIAA/MPAA regime.

I will continue to buy content on disk because I am priviledged enough to be able to. But the reason I know what I like is because I have the opportuny to listen to most of my content, in its entirety, at lower quality before I buy (through the Zune subscription service). I gave up on iTunes because I could only hear short samples, which were not enough to make me want to buy the product, especially from lesser known artists that I had never heard before. Yes, it is still a service I have to pay for, but it should be the model for the industry. Until these types of lower-quality services become more accessible and (I hope) less expensive, people will continue to copy. And if the lower cost buys one less Bentley for the CEOs and top artists, I do think I'll be able to live with that small sacrifice.

Glen...feel free to stay in your poor quality music induced coma, but I for one am not going to sign on to lower quality digital only formats.

Making the tradeoff of high quality sound for a portable, piratable format is not something I am interested in.

Your job is not to ensure the record companies make as much money as possible. That's the record company’s job. And the job of the musician is to put out the best quality music that they can, and find the best possible way for the end user to enjoy that music in the purest form. In most cases this is a live show. The runner up to that would be, you guessed it, your despised "crisp-clear audio quality" in whatever forms that should take.

It is not your "job" to make the music or profit from the music. But I can tell you that your job is NOT to make the music as piratable as possible and as a result take away as many jobs from musicians and record label employees as possible.

As far as record companies following the example of the musicians that go direct to the end listener, that's great for the bands and musicians that can do it. However I am a realist, and know that part of what the music industry provides as a service, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not, is finding artists you don't know and making them accessible to you. I know that there are a ton of artists out there that I simply wouldn't know of if it wasn't for record labels doing their job and promoting them.

And if you don't like an artist they promote...don't buy it! Don't like Britney and Bieber? No one is saying you have to support them.

Social media is wonderful, and it has helped a lot of artists get started, and even sustains a lot of their careers. But to think that music as a whole would be better off without record companies is just ignorant. And to implement your proposed "ask the independent artists how they do it" policy, that's exactly what would have to happen, the record companies and the services they provide would have to disappear. The biggest reason musicians can do it cheaper is there is no middle man.

I for one will not be settling for worse quality media for the sake of saving a few bucks. I work hard for my money as well, and don't want to receive half of the original quality of what the musician intended for that money. I'd rather pay a few extra bucks and get it in full form, unadulterated, and gasp...protected?!

Generation Y is becoming more and more willing to pay for it's entertainment. Everyone threw up their arms against Bluray when it first came out saying that it was rediculous to pay that much for movies and guess what...people are buying them. To get HD on your TV it's an extra charge on top of your cable bill, and guess what almost everyone pays it because they want the clearer picture.

Why should it be any different with our music? We pay top dollar for rapidly growing micro brewery beers, take out a huge loans for the sleekest new cars, and line-up to sign two year contracts so we can have the latest and greatest cell phones.

Don't tell me that our generation wouldn't pay for a better form of music. They simply need to have it as an option, and be made aware of how much better it really is.

We are living in an age where many people think that if it's digital, it's free. Free digital music, movies and photos taken by professional photographers, like myself. I'm not sure what the answer is but the illegal sharing of digital content hurts the artist.

I'm hearing a lot of whining over my first post... which is great. At least you're paying attention.

Sharing your art "hurts" the artist? Let's not be overdramatic, when was the last hospital report we saw with "mp3" or "jpg" on the symptoms chart? It doesn't hurt the artist, it minimizes your profits. So, let's be a tad realistic here.

If you don't want your digital content shared, don't make it shareable... or don't get into the business in the first place. Find a better way to make money. Period. You knew this going into the profession. But, please don't blame technology because you chose a profession that doesn't land you a boatload of money. You chose it.

As someone who still works in a record store (I know, crazy, right?) I can tell you plain and simple... no one cares about quality anymore. They think they do but since no one really uses their ears anymore, just their eyes, digital music, in low quality works just fine for the majority.

HD TV's sell and so do Blu-Ray's (now, kinda) because people can clearly see the difference between an old tube TV and DVD vs HD TV's and Blu-Ray. You can't dispute that. They see it and they want it. But since no one seems to sit and listen to music anymore, I mean yeah, just SIT and LISTEN, then they'll never HEAR the difference in audio quality.

I've had friends over to my house, we've heard albums in 5.1, and they agree that they sound amazing. But they don't go invest in that... they think it's a novelty. I put on LP's, I put on SACD's and DVD-A's... again, sounds great, but they don't think it's any better than what their iPod and favourite headphones can deliver. It's a shame. Truth is, they just don't care.

Most of these "kids" didn't have home theaters when they grew up. Didn't have turntables or even know what SACD and DVD-A were/are (hell, most people STILL don't know and never will). Most, as noted in the article, don't know a time BEFORE the internet. People come into my store saying they HEARD something on YouTube. That means that a crappy video service is now a go-to site for audio... huh? There's not accounting for taste and quality, and it's a lost battle. They've already won.

By the time my job is irrelevant, this battle will still be waged. Cheaper digital content for lower quality would be a good start, but if that happens, then physical media has to drop too, or it won't sell at all. And that's fine if you want to usher in the death of physical media, but then you'll usher in the death of quality. 'Cause once everything drops in price, that becomes the norm. And you'll never be able to charge more again unless you create a noticeable increase in quality... which digitally will never fly, 'cause they'll never hear it. Consumers today see digital audio/video as being the same as physical audio/video, and they don't understand the price discrepancy (this is most annoying in consumers who are in their 30's or older... they should know why, and better).

I could just keep complaining in circles 'cause this issue affects my job and my own personal interests, but I'm losing steam for arguing this again and again. Pretty soon the whole concept of a home theater will be available only to people who have massive amounts of disposable income... and even then, with this generation, they won't even know what they're doing with it. Most don't even know how to hook an iPod up to their car stereo. No joke. 'Cause to do it wirelessly costs about $50 on average... why so much?! There's no wires even! But a $7 wire also does it... wire, huh? Where do you stick that in the car? Born in the age of technology with no idea how to use it to it's full capabilities... or sometimes, what even does at all. Oh, but thanks to name branding, they'll more than consider those $400+ Beats by Dre studio headphones for their iPod. 'Cause, y'know, they sound amazing.

Jeremy... you get it. God bless you, my man. This ain't the 90's any more, and it makes me proud to see that another audiophile gets it. It's all marketing over quality. Understanding that part alone is step one. Where we go from here, i've no clue. but, thinking that digital sharing is "evil" is old-school thinking.

I have 28GB of music in my iTunes right now that I do not own... well, maybe about 1GB is downloads from coupons via LP purchases or maybe 1 or 2 iTunes exclusives (Holiday music and pre-releases). I have plans to make all of that part of my purchased catalogue someday, but in physical form. Right now, I consider it preview material. And every month or so, I scan through and eliminate music from my iTunes that I just don't care about anymore. Didn't cost me or the artist or the label anything. I'll take low quality for preview purposes only. And after a while, if I cannot justify the cost of owning it physically (some stuff just costs too much to have shipped from Europe/UK/US, etc) then I give up and delete it too... 'cause why keep something that isn't mine? I guess I just get it is all. It's not mine, I don't get to keep it.

"Kids these days", as the article states, don't get the concept that the music they have is not theirs... most likely anyway. They did not purchase it, they do not own it, therefore they should not continue to give it away to friends/others. But, then I fall into that category since I steal everything I can get my hands on that is new and interesting to me. Hypocrite? Most likely, BUT I repay the artist/label when my money allows me to. "The kids" don't. And that's not their fault.

Their parents were ignorant about the internet when it launched... most people in their late 30's (yup) and 40's/50's honestly don't really know the half of it. But the kids were raised with it... hell, on it. No one told them it was wrong to steal that music, and all the warnings of piracy and punishment have led nowhere, so there's really no reason to be afraid to commit the crime of copyright theft. I'm not afraid of it either.

So, the only option is to move forward. The kids are set in their ways, and the major labels are too. Someone has to bend, and it won't be the public. So someone has to get creative on the business end of things. Maybe get Dr Dre to support HD music in streaming or disc format. If Dre says the music quality matters, then it will. If I say it matters, I'm just a snob or too picky. Right now though, Dre's just telling you that your music will sound better in his headphones. That has no effect on the quality of the music though. And he won't ever support quality anyway, 'cause artists like Dre, and pretty much anyone artist of his stature, only want you to display their "brand". That's why it's headphones vs high bit-rate music. That's why it's clothes over high bit-rate music. You can't brand the quality of the digital music you're enjoying. But your brand can be associated with quality, falsely even, through smart marketing. Wow... whole other conversation going on in my head now...

As a young, 19 year old college student, I completely understand what you're talking about Jerry. I'd be hard pressed to show you a friend of mine that actually pays for his or her music, let alone goes to stores to buy SACD's or CD's. Again, most of my friends stream or download movies illegally or through netflix. However, that is not to say that all hope is lost. I personally own a vast collection of Blu-ray movies, numbering in the dozens, as well as a couple SACDs and a very large number of CDs. I have a 46-in 1080p plasma televison, a 2-channel music systems with NAD electronics and floorstanding Boston Acoustics speakers, a home theatre system with a Marantz receiver and all wiring for both systems is Transparent audio. I, like many from previous generations, am willing to pay for good quality products and do not insist products must be free. By showing my higher quality setup to friends, all have walked away impressed, and I have even managed to convert one or two. There is still hope for this generation.