iTunes Music Store attracts criticism | iLounge News


iTunes Music Store attracts criticism

“The backlash has started. Having enjoyed a free ride from the media and from users since its inception last year, Apple’s iTunes Music Store is beginning to attract serious criticism.

There have been mutterings of opposition before, concerned with both the price of downloads and the quality, but the ongoing success of the store has largely silenced those. However when a website as widely read as The Register describes the latest iTunes TV advertisement as ‘shameful’, Apple should start to listen.”

Related Stories



aw, come on this is not news.  the ad is lame but now they rip it for encouraging soda drinking?  please.  as far as iTMS being revolutionary, it was as it was the first of its kind, and oh btw, the revolution has only just begun.

IMO, we will start seeing more and more labels going the way of warp records and selling music online, that is what the “revolution” is coming to.

Posted by malcanta in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 1:26 PM (CST)


I think we have bigger morality issues at hand. For example the half-time show is a little more concerning to me than a commercial pushing cola.

The link between iTms and the established Record Label’s short-changing artists is a valid point but there are many irons in the fire that put the labels at risk.  Estbalished artists such as Pearl Jam producing their next record without any label and offering it through iTunes.  Many Indie artists distributing directly through iTunes and the recent initiative by artists such as Peter Gabriel and Brain Eno looking for ways to use the new medium apart from labels.

Posted by rkuite in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 2:01 PM (CST)


while i think the itunes music store is fairly good, but crappy for me, i find that this article is really over playing the situation.

besides, who can honestly say that the Register is a good un-biased place for news? anyone?

Posted by Fiddytree in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 2:01 PM (CST)


I have my problems with iTMS, but one of them isn’t that the content is protected.  Unsurprisingly, The Register’s main complaint with Apple’s venture is that it prevents you from sharing copyrighted material with 400 million of your closest friends.

Posted by Jason in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 2:09 PM (CST)


Pepsi bought the commercial time.  Pepsi produced the commercial.  It’s a Pepsi commercial.

Apple provides the store.

Posted by Schiano in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 2:10 PM (CST)


So iTunes is drawing criticism… because a few people don’t like Pepsi’s ad? And they blame Apple for what the RIAA does?

What do people think Apple should have done? Demanded no DRM? And just how do they think THAT was going to happen, seeing as how nobody before Apple ever convinced the RIAA to sell singles online in the first place?

If you want faster change in the music industry, blaming iTunes for the style of a Pepsi ad is a pretty misguided approach :)

Posted by Nagromme in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 3:02 PM (CST)


Why should Apple worry?  The Register is nothing but a sorry rag anyway.  They’re just a half step above trash such as C/NET, so Apple shouldn’t be concerned with anything they say.

Posted by Dave in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 3:06 PM (CST)


The author from Macuser didnt pay attetion to the details..the commercial didnt cost Apple 2m it cost pepsi 2m…apple didnt pay anything for it since it wasnt their commercial.

Posted by cariza910 in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 3:07 PM (CST)


Or as The Register puts it, ‘This shameful advertisement - which apparently cost the Apple Computer company as much as $2mn…has a very moral payload. The broadcast encourages children to buy as much teeth-rotting Pepsi soda as they can in the hope of finding a token.’

It’s a commercial. an ADVERTISEMENT. All Ads try to encourage you buy their product. In the same way that Coke in Australia is offering a free ticket to a concert if you send in 20 Labels, Pepsi is offering a free song on iTunes if you win. Jesus Henry Christ! Of course it encourages children [why only children] to drink lots of Pepsi. IT IS AN AD FOR PEPSI. How do these people get jobs. Are their bosses monkeys? Monkeys with Brain Damage?

Posted by Harrison in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 3:22 PM (CST)


Absolute tosh such a sorry article looks like the PC journos have nothing better to write about. trying to blame Apple for the sorry state of the music industry is very very lame indeed.  Apple is not a record label it doesn’t sign acts, the main problem with the music industry is the contracts the artists sign however no one puts a gun to their heads to sign them, (except Suge of Deathrow Records).

Posted by Glad1959 in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 3:24 PM (CST)


This is obviously a bashing of Apple by some propaganda influenced Windows conspirator to take away the success and the dominance of ITMS and also Apples Ipod. Im appaulled that this article was even written, because i dont know how something so lame and stupide (the article) could ever be printed. What kind of dumb argument is this? They don’t like the Pepsi ad and kids drinking soda. Go to your kids’ school and complain about soda machines causing a fat america, but don’t come harping on OUR company Apple, with our superior ITMS!!!! Rot in hell jealous windows conspirators and all you who know WMA will die a slow death and AAC will rule hhahah.

Posted by anthony in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 3:31 PM (CST)


Why would the ad cost Apple 2 million when it was a Pepsi commercial?

The rest of the *editorial* is almost a laugh at making Apple look hypocritical. I say almost only because it wasn’t funny.

Posted by Agent Orange in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 4:21 PM (CST)


I fail to see why Apple should take notice of The Register when it produces fiction and almost slandering material like this article.  Have you even read the article?  Had the Register even paid attention to the commercial?  As noted a few times, this is a Pepsi commercial and not an Apple commercial.  There is so much wrong with their article, I am going to stop now, before I get irate.

Posted by Styx in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 4:49 PM (CST)


DRM less music download store couldn’t work you say? from warp. higher bitrates too.

Half-time show shock? Janet’s left tit falls out by accident and all these children who drank powdered baby milk are sullied forever while the rest of the world just laughs.

Register pro-Windows? No it’s just anti-DRM which you would know if you read other stories on that site.

Pepsi helps make America one of the most obese countries in the world? At least you have good dental care. In any case even if Pepsi ran the advert Steve Jobs signed up to join this partnership linking the Apple brand with the cola. The iTMS brand is now associated with Pepsi.

Posted by Chris Matchett in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 4:52 PM (CST)


    This is the one of the worst spinjobs I’ve ever read. When you’re a business competing with scores of competitors trying to be like you, you don’t have time or resources to sit around and consider rotting teeth, or how big a public relations mistake it is for the commercial to depict sued teenagers. Neither of these arguments bear any integrity anyway.
    Soda ads are soda ads- don’t think this is an opportunity to attack them because it’s conveniently attached to Apple.
    The convicted teens are products of bad public relations from RIAA. How would them encouraging LEGAL downloads of “DRM-infected” music be terrible? Speaking of DRM, APPLE ALLOWS YOU TO BREAK IT WITH ITS OWN SOFTWARE. Burn, rip. iTunes turns a blind eye.
    So whoever this sorry author is better go back to the drawing board. By the way, as far as the iTunes store being another medium of peddling music and abusing the poor people who have to (oh no) pay for the music- what’s the rationale behind illegal downloading? Stumped there, aren’t you? But I guess free downloading is more moral than, say, drinking soda. Or paying record companies for music. Let’s not forget that we can download tracks from a CD and not pay for the whole thing. But I guess the heavy $.99 pricetag is too much for some people. But then again, this person must not make much writing for “The Register”.

Posted by Sam in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 5:01 PM (CST)


I agree with most everyone here, but I do think it’s ridiculous for anyone to talk about morality and continue to complain about how we have a HUGE MORAL PROBLEM because Janet Jackson’s tit popped out. WHO CARES? It’s like calling someone an “innocent victim.” There’s no such thing. We’re all here on earth, and NONE OF US are totally innocent, so there’s no such thing as an INNOCENT VICTIM. However, DO NOT CONFUSE this with me saying that everyone deserves whatever bad things happen to them. There is a difference between being a victim and this outmoted concept that was s*^% to begin with anyway that people are “innocent victims.” About morals? People should teach them to their kids, and not bore us with them on here or lecturing people in general. One swallow does not a summer make. In other words, yes we’ve got a lot of stuff that’s morally bad right now with life (and on TV), but if it takes a breast to pop out on the halftime show to get you to see that (let alone COMPLAIN about it) you’re way behind the times.

Posted by Ron G. in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 5:50 PM (CST)


I don’t care about some ugly breast (sans nipple). WHat annoyed me about the superbowl was the sheer quantity of adverts for drugs to give men erections. Since when did our TVs become conduits for boner drug pushers?

Posted by erections in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 6:29 PM (CST)


I really feel abit sorry for the POOR artists whose millions dont increase from iTunes. If they are not making serious bank from music they are probably not that good. Every time you turn on TV there is a show like cribs showing us how hard they have it. Now I am going to login to Limewire and partake in some free stuff.

Posted by CE in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 7:48 PM (CST)


u guys are all sad.  paying for songs on iTunes…. shame on u…   

live in ur ‘moral’ world.  pretend ur doing the right thing by paying an inflated $.99 a song….  ill live in my real world and continue to download songs for free because thats what the Pepsi Commercial said…    i hate steve jobs with a passion

Posted by gabe in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 8:31 PM (CST)


The quality of music on Kazaa sucks. 128kbps MP3 doesn’t cut it with me. Searching at 192 yeilds very few results, if ever. That’s another reason why I use iTunes. Enjoy the real world.

Posted by Sam in Irvine, CA on February 4, 2004 at 8:45 PM (CST)

Subscribe to iLounge Weekly

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2018 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy