3 ms·

Warning: Pure speculation ahead. I think it might be because in Japan at least, there's a very different approach to music consumption. In the west we basicall

by Veratyr 10y ago

Warning: Pure speculation ahead. I think it might be because in Japan at least, there's a very different approach to music consumption. In the west we basically moved from CDs to iTunes to Spotify but in Japan, online streaming and digital purchase never really took off. CDs are still, even today, the biggest music medium in Japan, accounting for 85% of all music sales in 2014 [1]. I think the Japanese tendency to own physical media, the lack of a good way to stream physical media you own and the insane prices of storage for mobile phones may have led to Japan sticking to MP3 players rather than moving to their phones like we have. So after they stuck to MP3 players and competing in that market became important, I think to differentiate their product, Sony started pushing higher quality audio. I'm not sure how true this is but it feels to me like Sony is the Apple of Japan in that Japanese will typically eat up whatever Sony sells them. Sony sells higher quality audio, Japanese buy higher quality audio. People want higher quality audio, labels start to publish it. It could also be that since CD purchase is so entrenched, online stores needed something to make their product more desirable than a physical disk and the way they found to do that was higher quality audio (note that I'm referring to the "Hi-Res" audio, which is typically 96kHz + 24-bit). [1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2014/09/21/85-percent-of-music-sales-in-japan-are-cds/#3dcdd1f229a2 http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2014/09/21/85-perce...

shmerl 10y ago
Not sure why in the the mind of some people streaming started being equal to loss of backup, or in other words to renting. Renting indeed doesn't need to provide the lossless original. Why not view streaming as convenience, and still be interested in backing up what you pay for? That's functionality of original CD (but in digital form) + streaming benefits, instead of replacing original CD with not really equivalent to it streaming. In this context I agree, that increase in DRM, causes decrease in availability of lossless audio. But why wouldn't same users want DRM-free as well (in which case, lossless is a logical addition)? Stores like Bandcamp cater to these users.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  In the interest of the "minimum viable product", perhaps. Why provide features most people don't care about, or don't know they could care about.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    I'd ask the opposite - why not provide such features if it's trivial (i.e. producing a DRM-free digital copy costs practically nothing). Artificially crippling the product to make "minimally viable" is dumb.
- Veratyr 10y ago
  > Why not view streaming as convenience, and still be interested in backing up what you pay for? To put this into context in Japan, there is, even now, not even one streaming music service that can satisfy most people's musical needs. It's not just that Japanese people aren't willing to stream their media, it's that it's not possible. Compare the Oricon charts [1] to the catalog of LINE [2] and you'll notice very popular labels missing in their entirety. It's very different to the west where you can get most western artists minus a few (single digits?) popular artists on your choice of service. > Not sure why in the the mind of some people streaming started being equal to loss of backup, or in other words to renting. I'm not entirely sure where this is coming from but that's exactly what it is. When you own the music you listen to, you know it'll always be available. When you stream the music you listen to, there's a chance it'll be removed from the service at some point in the future. > Why not view streaming as convenience, and still be interested in backing up what you pay for? For me and most of Japan, the issue is that streaming is a very very minor convenience. Since most of the music we'd like to listen to is missing from streaming catalogs, the convenience is nullified. If, theoretically, a streaming service existed that actually had all the music I was interested in, this might change. > In this context I agree, that increase in DRM, causes decrease in availability of lossless audio. But why wouldn't same users want DRM-free as well (in which case, lossless is a logical addition)? Stores like Bandcamp cater to these users. I suspect that perhaps it's because streaming services have devalued music to the point where owning music appears to be expensive. An average CD costs ~1.5x 1 month of streaming, where you can listen to countless albums. [1]: http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/ http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/ [2]: http://music.line.me http://music.line.me
  - thirdsun 10y ago
    > minus a few (single digits?) popular artists Not even close. Of course it depends on what kind of music you're listening to, but as someone who still maintains nad grows a collection of bought lossless, digital music I'd guess that about 20% to 30% of my library isn't available via streaming. I understand that my collection may be way more obscure and niche than most, but my point is that there is a lot of music you're missing if you only use streaming. Furthermore, whatever is available now might not be tomorrow - licensing deals end and music disappears on Spotify and Co.
thirdsun 10y ago
Furthermore it is my understanding that Japan has a very active community of music enthusiasts, audiophiles, crate diggers, etc. Of course this only applies to a minority but it seems many japanese value music as more than background noise, which may also explain the audiophile clubs and bars in Japan - an interesting read: https://www.residentadvisor.net/features/2724 https://www.residentadvisor.net/features/2724

by Veratyr 10y ago

shmerl 10y ago

Not sure why in the the mind of some people streaming started being equal to loss of backup, or in other words to renting. Renting indeed doesn't need to provide the lossless original. Why not view streaming as convenience, and still be interested in backing up what you pay for? That's functionality of original CD (but in digital form) + streaming benefits, instead of replacing original CD with not really equivalent to it streaming. In this context I agree, that increase in DRM, causes decrease in availability of lossless audio. But why wouldn't same users want DRM-free as well (in which case, lossless is a logical addition)? Stores like Bandcamp cater to these users.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
In the interest of the "minimum viable product", perhaps. Why provide features most people don't care about, or don't know they could care about.
- shmerl 10y ago
  I'd ask the opposite - why not provide such features if it's trivial (i.e. producing a DRM-free digital copy costs practically nothing). Artificially crippling the product to make "minimally viable" is dumb.
Veratyr 10y ago
> Why not view streaming as convenience, and still be interested in backing up what you pay for? To put this into context in Japan, there is, even now, not even one streaming music service that can satisfy most people's musical needs. It's not just that Japanese people aren't willing to stream their media, it's that it's not possible. Compare the Oricon charts [1] to the catalog of LINE [2] and you'll notice very popular labels missing in their entirety. It's very different to the west where you can get most western artists minus a few (single digits?) popular artists on your choice of service. > Not sure why in the the mind of some people streaming started being equal to loss of backup, or in other words to renting. I'm not entirely sure where this is coming from but that's exactly what it is. When you own the music you listen to, you know it'll always be available. When you stream the music you listen to, there's a chance it'll be removed from the service at some point in the future. > Why not view streaming as convenience, and still be interested in backing up what you pay for? For me and most of Japan, the issue is that streaming is a very very minor convenience. Since most of the music we'd like to listen to is missing from streaming catalogs, the convenience is nullified. If, theoretically, a streaming service existed that actually had all the music I was interested in, this might change. > In this context I agree, that increase in DRM, causes decrease in availability of lossless audio. But why wouldn't same users want DRM-free as well (in which case, lossless is a logical addition)? Stores like Bandcamp cater to these users. I suspect that perhaps it's because streaming services have devalued music to the point where owning music appears to be expensive. An average CD costs ~1.5x 1 month of streaming, where you can listen to countless albums. [1]: http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/ http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/ [2]: http://music.line.me http://music.line.me
- thirdsun 10y ago
  > minus a few (single digits?) popular artists Not even close. Of course it depends on what kind of music you're listening to, but as someone who still maintains nad grows a collection of bought lossless, digital music I'd guess that about 20% to 30% of my library isn't available via streaming. I understand that my collection may be way more obscure and niche than most, but my point is that there is a lot of music you're missing if you only use streaming. Furthermore, whatever is available now might not be tomorrow - licensing deals end and music disappears on Spotify and Co.

thirdsun 10y ago

Furthermore it is my understanding that Japan has a very active community of music enthusiasts, audiophiles, crate diggers, etc. Of course this only applies to a minority but it seems many japanese value music as more than background noise, which may also explain the audiophile clubs and bars in Japan - an interesting read: https://www.residentadvisor.net/features/2724 https://www.residentadvisor.net/features/2724