Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Music

Why AnywhereCD Failed 184

An anonymous reader writes "In an obituary for AnywhereCD, which closes in one week, founder (and MP3.com founder) Michael Robertson chronicles how at least one record label wanted him to embed credit card numbers of buyers into songs. A fascinating story about how at least some of the labels still don't get it and why AnywhereCD is about to be buried."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why AnywhereCD Failed

Comments Filter:
  • Re:FTA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @01:29PM (#20745809) Homepage
    "I believe that if you give people real value (music or anything else) they are happy to pay."

    I believe that if the RIAA members were in the business of giving people anything of real value, there would not exist an RIAA.
  • by ErikTheRed ( 162431 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @01:30PM (#20745841) Homepage
    unless it comes wrapped in a mountain of DRM. Let's face it - the entire recording industry's existence is based on its ability to gouge artists on one ends and consumers on the other. They could get away with this because they controlled who had access to their expensive studios and who could get heard on the radio (Payola lives to this day), what was carried in stores, and more importantly what was promoted in stores. The value of each and every one of these points of control is diminishing by the minute. The labels are all fucked, they know it and they're grasping at whatever straws they can and dragging their feet wherever possible. It's all just delaying the inevitable - people will buy reasonably priced music (look at the success of iTunes), but they won't get fucked if they no longer have to. Siooma, motherfuckers.
  • by mlwmohawk ( 801821 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @01:34PM (#20745905)
    Sorry, no one is addressing the real problems:

    The music sucks. Maybe one good song on an album.
    Little girls who can't sing dancing on stage with no cloths
    Utter and complete pathological need to control the content
    contempt for their customers
    Failure to recognize that people like music on CDs, MP3 playes, and their computers and don't want to pay three times.
  • by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @01:42PM (#20746019)
    And they are going to wonder why sales drop further as they pick one form of DRM that many players can't handle.

    So they'll sell DRM WMA files and lose all the iPod users, or they'll sell AC4 and lose all the "Windows" compatible players.

    AND

    They'll piss off people who don't want to go to fifty different sights trying to hunt down the music they want.

    And then they'll blame piracy for slow sales.
  • by Indecision Bob ( 52021 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @01:43PM (#20746033)
    Personally, I find it just as much hassle to burn a cd of everything I buy as it is to rip a cd of everything I buy... And you don't get no artwork...
  • by moderatorrater ( 1095745 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @01:44PM (#20746045)
    The labels control the radio and most if not all of the traditional channels that people get their music from. If the labels control who knows about the artists, then only the artists that sign with labels will get known. The only artists that have been able to be successful without being whores of the executives are those people who used to be whores but got popular enough that they were able to break away. I don't see any reason this will change in the near future.
  • by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @01:48PM (#20746103)
    And this is where the music industry as it stands fails to see the logical end to their model: If it is more profitable for them to pull out of an aggregating portal site and run their own, then what's to prevent artists from doing the same? Why should artists remain with them in this scenario? Artists could, gasp, make their own deals with iTunes or the like. Odds are that artists will wind up with agents that manage that for them in return for a fee.

    At the moment the Labels still have control over traditional media. So While you could theoretically make a living via web distribution it still requires people be aware of who you are. Word of mouth can do it but traditional media has the power of hype. Word of mouth is a natural hype. Traditional media brokers in an artificial hype.

    I think it's inevitable that the internet replaces traditional media but it means the death of the super star. We'll go back to more regional artists with few cross region cross overs if there is a lack of a artificial national hype machine like the labels.

    I think that may be a good thing. You don't' need millions to produce good music and may mean that instead of a lottery mentality in artists you'd have more of a real natural industry. Instead of 90% going to the super stars and 10% divided over the desperate numbers of struggling artists you might have a profession where you could actually live off playing music without having to be a superstar or have a second job.
  • by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @01:52PM (#20746173)
    The only way the labels can make a profit off of digital downloads is to offer a subscription to their entire library, with on-demand access to any album, available at home and on the road, without any restrictions. That way, you eliminate the need for illegal downloads and file sharing. People will gladly pay for that. I would. And this, of course, does not apply to people who still want to buy CD's for the sake of an official tangible package from the artist. The day this happens, we all win.

    iTunes showed that most people weren't in it so much for the "free" music as for the "convenient" music. So while there are many who will never pay for music or pay more then a subscription fee, Apple showed there is a significant number that doesn't mind paying $0.99 for a song.
  • PCI anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alcourt ( 198386 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @01:53PM (#20746179)
    Somehow I suspect the credit card companies wouldn't like that idea. It would use the PAN in an area where it is not required and storing it (presumably) unencrypted.
  • by jj00 ( 599158 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @01:57PM (#20746223)
    I believe the real reason is that no one has really heard of the service and the site seems pretty amateurish.
  • by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @02:18PM (#20746465)
    Aren't most record companies part of bigger media companies? There doesn't seem to be anyone above them saying, "you are aren't adapting to the changing market dynamics, start adapting."

    Has there been any change in management or management philosophy that I am not aware of?


    Not yet. My generation is the first of the "less TV" generation. We watch less then our older counter parts did and tend towards other sedentary activities like video games. Once we get into power we may start changing things. IF the major media giants don't adapt they may become irrelevant. Viewer ship in the prized 18-34 male demo is slipping. So perhaps when todays 18-34 year olds become studio heads we may see some change.
  • by noewun ( 591275 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @02:23PM (#20746529) Journal

    So, I figure I'd throw a few bucks into the company's till try to find some music I like. I did find some oldish Oakenfold I never got around to buying, so I got it, followed the instructions in the email they sent me and figured I download the mp3s while I ran some errands. The only problem is I can't.

    Well, that's not the only problem. Problem #1 is that I have to download some third party app to download the mp3s, which doesn't make sense: I have downloaded thousands of things off of websites, and none of them has needed a third party app. What does this third party app do? Does it install spyware on my system? Does it report back to the record companies? Where's the info telling me what it does? But I did it anyway, cause I want my music. Only now, it won't download anything: it's stuck in "adding album to queue", where it's been for fifteen minutes. I looked in the email, and it mentioned another way to download the tracks, which is to click on the Playlist in my online music locker. Only problem is that the music I just bought isn't there, so I can't download it. Boy, I hope I get the CD in the mail, or I just wasted $20 on nothing. Or, in other words, I just got ripped off

    So, Mr. Robertson, your idea failed for one simple reason: it sucks. Apple's iTunes Music Store runs circles around CDAnywhere in ease of use and execution. So does eMusic.com. You failed to produce a competitive product, plain and simple, and all the conspiracy theories in the world won't explain it away.

  • doing some advertising? I never even heard of this outfit before today. And I probably would have bought
    some stuff from them, depending on the price. Heck, while I'm at it, I'm taking advantage of the "closeout sale"
    to pick up some stuff I didn't have (a couple of Kix and Skid Row CDs) for cheap.
  • by AHumbleOpinion ( 546848 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @03:00PM (#20746999) Homepage
    Why should artists remain with them in this scenario?

    Artists need a label if they desire a certain level of commercial success. It takes a lot of money to promote an artist and bring them to the attention of the mass national or world market. Artists can not afford to do this on the money they making playing in small venues, among their core audience. If they manage to feed themselves they are doing above average, if they can support a family they are so rare they are nearly an anomoly.

    The label system persists because there will always be some artists who want large scale success. Of course these successful artists gripe when they think about the small percentage they receive themselves but the truth is they are getting a small percentage of a much larger pie. If you are only getting 5 cents on the dollar, but you are generating several hundred times (or more) the revenue then they are far ahead.. To be faiir to the labels they need a disproportionately large cut from one artist to pay for the dozens of other artists they had *speculatively* financed they did not attain large scale commercial success. Please understand that I am not saying the current label/artist split is correct, I have no way to calculate what the split should be. I am merely arguing that the label system is quite logical and it is economically justifiable for the labels to receive a large percentage due to the speculative nature of their investments.

    Artists have almost always needed patrons throughout history. Centuries ago it was the church, royalty, or the wealthy. Today the record label fulfills that role.

    I would not be surprised to see this develop to their logical conclusion where there are distribution sites that offer a range of services to artists to distribute their work but do not "own" the distribution or copyrights to those works. This can only help artists in the long run, although the conversion to that environment will mostly likely have some short-term hiccups as marketing etc is worked out.

    The marketing required is far beyond hiccup level. What is the source of money used to *speculatively* promote an artist beyond the level I decribed above?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @03:07PM (#20747089)
    - One poster complained you can't download the MP3 file without installing an application. That's inaccurate. You can download all the tracks individually directly from the locker - no application install required. Just click on the triangle in the flash UI and select "download".

    I would have to install a Flash player. No joke. Fair or not, I don't see the logic in needing Flash to download a player. That may not be an AnywhereCD-caused problem. But any pothole on the road to paying for music detours me to gnutella

  • by nwf ( 25607 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @03:40PM (#20747519)
    Indeed, it looks just like a domain squatter site. When I first went there I though it was already gone and replaced by an advertisement site.

    Tip for potential businesses: don't make a site whose business model relies on tech savvy people look like a site tech savvy people are trained to ignore.
  • How sad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FreeBSD evangelist ( 873412 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2007 @07:08PM (#20749957)
    This Slashdotting of the Going Out of Business posting is the first I've ever heard of AnywhereCD. Which is unfortunate, because I'd be a customer.

    I have about 400 CDs, and buy one or two a month from Amazon. If I could get the same CDs, at approximately the same price but someone else would do the ripping for me, I'd be there.

    Where did they advertise?
  • by GWBasic ( 900357 ) <{moc.uaednorwerdna} {ta} {todhsals}> on Wednesday September 26, 2007 @02:28AM (#20752521) Homepage

    So if you're not interested in getting the CD, then go to iTunes or something.

    Actualy, AnywhereCD's sale prices are lower then Amazon's MP3 downloads. What I'm trying to express is that music prices are waaaay toooooo high.

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Working...