Apple Wooing Smaller Labels 337
kalel666 writes "Apple has a big event planned for Thursday in Cupertino with hundreds of representatives from smaller indie music labels."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Apple Wooing Smaller Labels
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman
Death to Big Labels (Score:5, Interesting)
That makes me wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
What else, other than a percentage of sales, can Apple offer to a music company, and whether this alone will make the more RIAAistic ones join this or any other online music distribution system
just wondering...
making money from music (Score:5, Interesting)
say if they found out an iPod owner chokes up an average of 300 dollars over the life of the iPod - then they can price the iPod at maybe a 150-200 discount from where they are right now - which means MANY more people would be buying iPods, and buying more music, and probably a few extra Mac sales on the way.
One heck of a job Jobs is doing.
Much more attractive that indielabel inclusion... (Score:5, Interesting)
The synergetic effects would be impressive for both companies, as Apple would have their products available on the biggest online retailer on earth and would benefit from amazons itunes link up. Amazon would get exposure to the big - spending Apple users.
Clever..
Finally! Now to see... (Score:5, Interesting)
Think Different, Think Nirvana (Score:4, Interesting)
making money from music, but not that way (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you know that if you signed a contract for cell service two years ago you're probably paying out the wazoo! I'd much rather get 1 or 2 songs free with an iPod and see a monthly 2 for 1 special or 3 Indie songs for a dollar. The way that Apple will be able to expand this service and make even more money will be the Windows implementation and even better, a deal with Amazon. After all, one click is already implemented!
Three million sold? (Score:4, Interesting)
Mac fans tend to go rabid with new stuff, then slack off on the demand, at least with new hardware introductions. I wonder how much they are selling per day now...
Trust (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:making money from music (Score:2, Interesting)
is it possibly conscievable that, if EVERY mac owner (on average) is going to spend some bux on the music store, that Apple can actually subsidize the price of the hardware, and create a circle of more-and-more sales?
It seems the game console model would be pretty clever in the case of the iPod, the only fear being future models locking in proprietary formats (AAC only?) Extrememly unlikely, but perhaps neccessary with subsidized hardware.
Brings up a good question, though. Does anyone know what the current margin is on an iPod?
Searching for a needle in a .... (Score:3, Interesting)
People need to hear it before they like it and likewise buy it. So unless apple offers some kind of deal where you can listen to it for free once or something how can people tell if these bands are good or not?
You sure wont hear them on the radio.
Word of mouth, a small caption on a website and a guitar, you're on your way to a rock and roll career.
I honestly dont think this will change 80% of the users downloading things they have heard on the radio or seen on TV. But I am glad they are opening the doors for ALL musicians to have equal rights, atleast somewhere in the music industry.
[cx]
One step closer to the artists (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Death to Big Labels (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually the *money* is the important thing, if old style radio promotion and in-store promotion produces the money for the artists then great.
But if those labels don't know how to market to the Internet crowd, or they make money but don't pass it on to the artists, then the artists is better looking elsewhere.
The Dinosaurs were big and dominated the earth and THEY DIED OUT.
iTunes best sellers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Licensing is the obstacle (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple'd love to. The record companies are worried about licensing agreements for anything but US distribution.
(Just how frightened is the RIAA of its customers? They're literally afraid to sell you something. Jeepers.)
Re:Death to Big Labels (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Two obstacles: subscriptions and licenses (Score:3, Interesting)
Also - I'm not sure about this, but in poking aronud the FAQs it looked like you could still purchase tracks to burn to CD -without- signing up for the $10/month service. I believe they give you a 30-sec preview. So on the service most comperable to Apple's (although you don't immediately get a lossy-compressed file) Listen/Real's service comes out more cost effective.
Yeah, but Britney's on the store right now... (Score:3, Interesting)
Add to that "Don't show Britney songs to people in the EU" stuff in the database and the front end, fronting European licenses for completely different music... I can see it, and I'm sympathetic, but you might not want to hold your breath.
(Not that the world doesn't need Britney-filtering routines to be written, you understand. It's a noble cause, and if anyone's going to accomplish it, it'll be Generalissimo Jobs.)
This can't be good for EMusic (Score:4, Interesting)
Indie labels stand to make a lot more money off of Apple than they do EMusic -- and I imagine they'll flock to it. While I support this in principle, Apple's DRM, lack of try-before-you-buy, and (lets face it) expense really rubs me the wrong way.
Re:Giving you a magnet... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Death to Big Labels (Score:2, Interesting)
This will be really interesting.
Re:Trust (Score:5, Interesting)
Not so hard to understand, really. Humans, believe it or not, are inherently trusting. We tend not to doubt unless there's been repeated infractions against us.
In contrast to, say... Microsoft (heh)... all Apple has to do to retain goodwill is not be utter bastards all the time. MS actually sets the bar pretty low in this regard.
On a personal note you've touched on the reason I always give people who ask Why Mac?.... because, much of the time, I get the distinct impression that Apple is one of the few compaies that tries. Even debacles like the Cube, I give 'em points for trying new things.
Re:apple=crapple (Score:2, Interesting)
I can just imagine Steve Ballmer trying to negotiate content deals with hundreds, eventually thousands of world-wide record labels, each with a monopoly of their own, each able to sidestep his technology, and each with a lot of experience in bruising negotiations over IP rights. Now *those* are meetings I'd like to see.
And yes, I *am* feeding the troll. This particular one is just so funny. B-)
Lulu.com (Score:4, Interesting)
So, Apple is going to get indie labels. Good for them. Matador and SubPop are relatively large anyway, and they don't do much to help the artist financially.
emusic is fine and well, presuming you can bet they have enough music you'll like to justify a subscription. Most folks can't.
Lulu.com [lulu.com] started by Bob Young formerly of RedHat [redhat.com] actually empowers the artist. The artist gets to decide what distribution format to sell in, set their own price, and set their own royalty. The artist also gets to decide if they want to use the Founder's Copyright [creativecommons.org] or any other license instead of traditional copyright.
It's putting the artist back in control of their work, something Apple hasn't considered. Apple just does the same thing as Sam Goody's or Tower, only over the internet. Big deal. The only nice thing they've got with it is the iTunes integration.
How much did you say?? (Score:3, Interesting)
bootlegs / live exclusives (Score:4, Interesting)
they should make a project to relicense (or whatever the term would be) these materials if they were illegal in the first place with the artist and apple as a publisher.
most people i know that want music off the web (eg, p2p) want stuff they cannot get else (rare)
Re:Death to Big Labels (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html [arancidamoeba.com]
if you're short on time, just skip to the math at the bottom.
Re:Think Different, Think Nirvana (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's your 65 cents for the song. Now you owe us for marketing, bandwidth, processing charges, storage fees, AAC processing...
Re:Think Different, Think Nirvana (Score:3, Interesting)
If they come up with a form of pay-to-publish (as simple as their pay-to-buy system is), instead of some garage band who actually may not suck paying $1000 for CD's, Apple may be able to provide anyone with a meager amount of money the chance to sell their wares on iTMS.
Different levels of funding may get you more presence on iTMS just as more money on eBay gets you better presence on eBay.
Apple, if they can do this, can inflict serious damage on the do-nothing copyright hoarders (the big 5) as well as promote a wide variety of music.
And hell, if some band wants to be sponsored by Sunkist to get them better product placement on iTMS - more $$$ to Apple = better product placement on iTMS, all the better for them!
Imagine - any company or individual could be a sponsor for any band that they wanted, and it could actually make a difference! While this "selling out" sounds cheecky at first - imagine a band that didn't suck, who got their first "CD" out and became popular could, actually drop their sponsor, and go on and OWN all THEIR creations in the future.... instead of Sony, Vevindi, etc.
the big 5 may have slit their own throats... unless they change and start working for a living.
Re:Apple Radio? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the settlement was that Apple Computers could never put music into their computers. They were allowed beeps and not much else. Apple Computers bought out the settlement when they decided that their computers needed MIDI capabilities. Essentially, since the first Macs, Apple has not been bound to that agreement. That's why they were able to make QuickTime, iTunes, the iPod, buy Emagic (makers of Logic software), and start the iTunes Music Store.
Since Apple is only distributing music, they aren't quite to the level of directly competing with Apple Records, but they could get there easily.
Re:psychological price point (Score:3, Interesting)
Part of the advantage of iTMS is that you don't have to go anywhere to use it. If you use iTunes at all (well, iTunes 4, but let's assume), it's right there. If you buy new tracks every day, it's in the same place as it would be had you never used it.
People do often drive out of the way to save 2 or 3 cents on gas. Granted, many of them are rediculously stupid, but it's important to note that that's 2 or 3 cents per gallon.
I can see your analogy holding for people who will consume 'gallons' of music -- those who are going to expect to buy (say) a hundred tracks or more over every three months are likely to go looking for a better deal. I would even argue that those who will 'consume' very large amounts of music are the least likely to be willing to pay for it to begin with.
Most people, however, aren't going to buy a hundred or more -- they may buy one, or five, or ten in that same period. They may buy one in January, fifty in February, three in March, and never buy any more. iTunes caters to this as much as it does someone who always buys exactly five songs every month. The convenience factor carries a huge amount of weight for people who intend only to buy one or two songs -- it's simply not worth the time to go looking for another service just to save twenty cents or so. Even P2P is a tough sell in these cases.
I also think that Apple is expecting some people to begin with one or two songs, but gradually begin using it much more. Hooking these people from the start is typically Apple. Why shop around when what you've got works?
Also They don't own the network, either - they rent it from Akamai usually. So bandwidth does cost them.
Apple owns a big chunk of Akamai, and IIRC, were there with them from the start. They're old friends, the kind that give each other really good deals on things like bandwidth. So, yes, it does cost them, but not as much as it would cost anyone else. I recall Steve Jobs mentioning in an interview that Apple's relationship with Akamai was one of the key elements to iTMS that it's competitors couldn't touch.
Re:it's not so simple (Score:3, Interesting)
The big problem for Apple is that they are not a record label themselves--so the screwing of artists is something over which they can exercise very little control. The labels control the sale of the music, ultimately. As a consequence, Apple cannot give the artists any sort of 'fair' deal. As well, since the labels set the prices, there is a built in floor on Apple's costs, no matter how much less they would like to charge for tracks.
So then--does Jobs want to start his own label? (Then what do you call it? Apple [my-generation.org.uk] is already the name of a record label...)