Here's is a prediction:
CDs will be the last physical media used for selling music, or at least the last one that will gain any sort of widespread adoptation.
Discuss!
What kind of media do you suggest? Virtual media? Metaphysical media?
WAHa says yes.
Dr. Hannu Kari, grand god of the norse viking ip network says no.
I'm personally undecided, because you cannot phase out "physical" media before everyone of the current main market share generation has died. Looking at average lifespans, that might just last long enough to let another type of media rise to popularity.
On the other hand, people might be reluctant to give up on cds for the next 1'000 years (I hear vinyl is rather strong still in some areas) because of the slew of new machinery that would need to be bought, and people would whine so much about perceived "quality loss" in the new media format that it could never gain a real foothold.
> perceived "quality loss"
Huh? CD audio is digital, any successive media may well keep the same data format. Hardware support would be a big issue, but I don't think audio quality will change much unless there's a need for smaller compressed files like mp3.
the quotation marks shine seductively.
Ah, but I didn't say physical media would die out entirely, I merely claimed that there would be no new format to replace CDs.
>>6
I think I understood that.
My points of argumentation were, that on the one hand, there might be enough time to introduce a new physical media distribution format before (if ever!) everything goes "digital". Why? Because many people are not yet willing to shift to "digital" distribution yet. But maybe a new physical format, with the promise of "high quality audio" or "bonus content" might attract customers.
I furtherly suggested that on the other hand, people would resist a new media format because it would require of all associated hardware, and a decisive quantity of people would see it as a downstep in quality. This would make it implausible for a new physical format to establish itself on the market, before the (again, merely possible) mainstream shift to digital distribution.
But what's crucial for a new format to catch on is the early adopters, and they've already earlily adopted MP3s and M4Ps and iPods and what have you. They're not going to be interested in another physical format.
>>8
Sorry, but I disagree. The early adopters matter very little. The music industry continues to make profit mainly via cd sales, bought by the old-fashioned folk. Not from the early adopters buying mp3s. Why? Those with the money and will to pay the horrendous prices aren't the young hipster-type early adopters, but the middle-aged conservative customers. At least the ifpi thinks so (and I personally am inclined to agree with them on that matter). And so I think it matters what those customers think and do, not the early adopters.
It depends on what might become handy with the consumers at a large scale. Maybe there will be some unheard-of interfaces in the future which'd favour a certain kind of device on which data could be stored.
Thought this might be relevant, ripped straight from boingboing:
__Salon: Grokster means the freedom to rip your vinyl and own your data
If the entertainment studios had their way, every time a format changed, you'd have to buy all your records all over again. In their ideal world, we would hold restricted licenses to our content, not ownership. Digital rights management would cripple our all-powerful computers, creating backups would be impossible, and the basic human impulse to share the wealth of information that helps define who we are would be beset with obstacles. This is not paranoia. At every step of the way, intellectual-property-right holders have resisted technological innovations that give ordinary people more scope to enjoy and consume music, television, movies or any other content.
That's why MGM vs. Grokster is so important. The deeper we get into the digital age, the more we will be defined not by our relationships with physical objects but with the data that we have accumulated in our journeys through life. If we lose the right to own that data and do what we want with it, if the power of the computer, and the Net, is taken from us, we're at risk of losing a lot more than a few files -- we stand at risk of losing the evidence that tells us who we are.__
But that pretty much supports what I said: The labels DO make money from the old CDs, which means that any new format would need to build up enough momentum to replace that. And that's where you need the early adopters to actually buy the first players and discs, and build up a market large enough to sell to. What the labels WANT is the conservative consumers, but they're not going to switch until there is already a prepared market for them.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I think it's likely that there will be a replacement for the CD, for a few reasons.
> The more things change, the more they stay the same.
*gasp*Thermodynamics have nothing on this man!
People are already fed up with CD prices being far too high - charging even more for songs isn't going to fly, especially not with online distribution being much cheaper than CDs are already. And if you're going to end up having to rip your discs to MP3s anyway to listen to them on your iPod, why would you want a new format anyway? CDs work just just as well. Extra copy protection would only make it less appealing, if you can't copy the songs to your iPod. Nobody's going to be buying a new kind of portable player for a new physical medium at this point, especially if that player will only play a single disc at a time as opposed to 30 Gb of compressed music.
>>17
then why does the ipod shuffle sell? It has less space and less functionality than contemporary HD-based players out there - still people buy it like mad.
If the new media was some kind of immortal flash-card (small, easy handling, insensitive to scratches, low battery use due to lack of moving parts, ...), it would probably sell pretty well if marketed cleverly enough. Lots of regular music buyers don't give a shit about copy protection, atleast not enough to keep them from buying.
>>17
Some people are fed up with prices being too high. Economics.
Besides, there are already several different media vying for CD's crown. I doubt these media will be as widespread as CD was, gadgets like iPod being one reason, but they'll be there.
Remember, not everyone is like us. Until everyone can successfully use a computer and use the internet (which is no mean feat), physical media will remain. People who can use the internet also can use physical media. The reverse isn't necessarily true.
But this theoretical card would have no advantages over currently existing flash cards, and especially not over harddrive based players. Being limited to listening to only a single (or a couple) of albums at a time is a thing of the past thanks to the harddrive players, and nobody will want to go back at this point.
I am not talking about people like myself - I don't even own an MP3 player. But I still think it's the tech-savvy people who are needed for a new format to take off - if they don't take it up first, nobody will follow. The average consumer isn't interested in a new format no matter what it is, so you need the people who like new stuff to take it up first and turn it into an existing format so the others can follow.
>>20
I remain unconvinced.
>But this theoretical card would have no advantages over currently existing flash cards, and especially not over harddrive based players.
again, certwain well-selling gadgets also do not have any advantage over currently existing flash card players, and especially not over harddrive based players. What matters, is the marketing. If you make that theoretical card "rugged" and dirt-cheap and market it to "the fit and sportive" and claim it enhances audio quality "via a newly developed music quality storage algorithm", there'd probably be a foothold to be taken for this new format.
>Being limited to listening to only a single (or a couple) of albums at a time is a thing of the past thanks to the harddrive players, and nobody will want to go back at this point.
That's plain wrong, I'm afraid. It's an inherently flawed argument, because the storage on a HD-player is still finite, and looking at current available HD sizes, very much so.
Secondly, by your logics, CD sales would have to crumble in virtual free fall - but while there's a negative development, it's nowhere near as drastic as your statement implies. Were people truly to kiss the concept of "only a single (or couple) of albums at a time" goodbye, physical media as a whole would have to fall. Which I don't quite see happening.
> That's plain wrong, I'm afraid. It's an inherently flawed argument, because the storage on a HD-player is still finite, and looking at current available HD sizes, very much so.
30 GB still stores more music than you're likely to listen to in several months. Compared to a single album, it's as good as infinite. Of course it's not enough, but once you've gotten used to this, you're not going to go back to single albums.
> Secondly, by your logics, CD sales would have to crumble in virtual free fall - but while there's a negative development, it's nowhere near as drastic as your statement implies. Were people truly to kiss the concept of "only a single (or couple) of albums at a time" goodbye, physical media as a whole would have to fall. Which I don't quite see happening.
No, once again, ordinary people are still satisfied with CDs, and will be for some time. So they're buying CDs, but why would they buy a new format? They already have their CD player which works great, and their library of CDs. They're not interested in something new, unless there's a really big reason to switch, and that means an established market with lots of titles. But that market is not going to get established because the early adopters don't care.
Basically, ordinary customers won't switch because CDs are good enough and well established. Early adopters and technology enthusiasts won't switch because there's no advantages to be had. Different motivations for the two, but in the end neither is interested.
Assumption: over the next 20 years cd sales will die out in the western hemisphere and be replaced by the ipods descendants or whatever, however vinyl will still be produced for djs,au diophiles and hipsters.
dig
Digital audio will gain favour with DJs too as better software and hardware for playing it is produced.
Audiophiles and hipsters are incurable, though.
I don't see the appeal of hardware-induced quality loss (vinyl) over software-induced quality loss (compression). At least in the latter case, quality loss is specifically designed not to be perceptible.
I agree with >>20 about hard drive based music players. All my MP3/Ogg/MPCs together don't even approach 20 GB. Storage is effectively infinite. Additionally, I arrange my playlists in order of mood, not artist; I don't want to bother with swapping CDs or <insert contemporary physical medium> every other song.
DJs don't use vinyl for the sound quality, they use it for the convenience of the format in their work. The others who use vinyl, they're just crazy.
I disagree. There are some out there who do use Vinyl for the quality. A Vinyl recording that is in immaculate condition can produce some beautiful sound. However, yes, DJ's tend to use it so they can spin it up on a turntable.. However CD based decks are slowly doing it, but they can be hellishly expensive.