The Macalope was indisposed yesterday so he was unable to post about Gene Munster and comScore’s retort saying that iTunes sales are doing just fine, thank you very much.
…who’s got egg on their face?
Well, Andrew Orlowski, for starters, as Forrester called the Register out in particular, referring to it as “A UK outfit called The Register”. That’s shorthand for “I’ve never heard of these clowns before and now they’re wearing our research like a party hat and dancing around like Roberto Benigni.”
Orlowski’s defense of over-hyping the Forrester numbers? He put “collapse” in quotes.
He then concludes:
It’s a pity today that beseiged by parties who have vested interests, and their own agendas, Forrester wants to downplay the implications of its valuable work – and instead it finds itself doing crisis management on behalf of Apple.
Yes. It’s also a pity that beseiged by the people who actually did the research, someone who jumped to conclusions about it continues to pimp his pet theory.
Orlowski even unironically chides Wall Street “gamblers” for misreading his story. He has yet to respond to Munster and comScore’s report of booming iTunes sales.
Looking for more egg, Nick Carr’s probably kind of wishing he hadn’t jumped on this one so quickly.
The Macalope found his response to a commenter who provided a link to Forrester’s addendum rather amusing.
Forrester has not retracted its study, so I assume it stands by its numbers and analysis, which I believe I reported accurately in this post.
I have to say that I’m really not sure how to interpret the Forrester statement you linked to.
Well, Nick, allow the Macalope to rephrase what Forrester is saying more succintly:
Stop trying to hump our numbers like a horny lap dog.
None of this is to say Forrester’s analysis isn’t problematic. You can read the blog summary and see if you don’t find what the Macalope did — that all the really good analysis is in the comments.
Looking back over the numbers, the Macalope notes that they represent a small sample size and don’t reflect all the ways you could buy stuff from iTunes. It also focuses on the supposed decline in sales over the first six months of 2006.
You know, this sounds awfully familiar. What was that other thing that had falling sales from January to June and some silly pundits were rushing to declare its demise?
Oh, that’s right. It was the iPod.
What a coincidence.
(That’s sarcasm in case you can’t tell.)
Now, the Macalope is giving Orlowski and Carr a hard time, but it’s important to note that ultimately their point that online sales of DRM-ed music is not a panacea for the music industry may be correct. It’s just that now it seems that their highly touted example is actually an exception.
…who cares about iTunes sales?
ADDENDUM 12/19: Here’s a good post providing some data to back up the Macalope’s oblique assertion about the connection between iPod sales and iTunes downloads.