je ne sais quoi writes "The New York Times recently posted an article describing what really happened between Apple and the Record labels that culminated with the January 6th Macworld Keynote by Apple Senior VP Phil Schiller." Essentially they discuss a bit of a swap: Apple allowed variable pricing for songs and the industry allowed DRM free music. And apparently the iTunes homepage is a huge hit making device. Big shock.
Can we get a special section for iMusic news? Apple did what the music industry should have done and failed to do. Perhaps Apple should start the iMusic label and start signing artists, sort of an effort to put the music industry into perspective with it's current situation. It would be an eye opener for the RIAA.
maybe it was the fact that apple changed their stance on different pricing models that really made the difference, and thus the record labels were correct......
just because apple did something, doesnt mean it was a golden decision and everyone else is wrong.
maybe it was the fact that apple changed their stance on different pricing models that really made the difference, and thus the record labels were correct......
just because apple did something, doesnt mean it was a golden decision and everyone else is wrong.
That's not what the GP meant. He wasn't talking about variable pricing, but the original digital distribution of music, which at the time, the record labels were awful fearful of. Back then, "mp3" was a dirty term at record labels, and other
Apple opening it's own record label would put it at serious odds with the the other labels that it sells. A better solution would be for Jobs to start his own record label completely independent of Apple. The single song electronic sales business model has already been forced onto the music industry, so the only purpose of a new record label would be to explore the other flaws in the system, like constructed pop stars.
Even if you weren't serious, it's not a bad idea conceptually. I would love to see a new label come out that has the power to make the old big names sweat.
Apple can't open it's own record label. From Wikipedia:
"In 1978, Apple Corps, the Beatles-founded holding company and owner of their record label, Apple Records, filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. This amount had been estimated to be US$50â"US$200 million, but was later revealed to be US$80,000.[1] As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business,
Apple can't open it's own record label. From Wikipedia:
"In 1978, Apple Corps, the Beatles-founded holding company and owner of their record label, Apple Records, filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. This amount had been estimated to be US$50â"US$200 million, but was later revealed to be US$80,000.[1] As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer [wikipedia.org]
They got into hot water with Apple Records when iTunes got big. An actual recording label would blatantly go against the agreement.
This agreement is no longer in effect. Apple Corp has signed over all Trademark for Apple to Apple Computer, Inc (now Apple Inc) in 2007. In return, Apple Corp has a perpetual license to use the Apple name for their label. However Apple Inc. can now do whatever they want with regards to the music business.
That is something I never understood. Normally, two different companies can hold a trademark on a common word if they are in different industries, which is why we can have a Linux OS and Linux Soap. So how could Apple Records have any standing to sue Apple Computers? Of course, they didn't "win" the suit, as it was settled out of court, but still...
You mean the pillaging of artists currently practiced by the labels? iTunes has profoundly revolutionized the music world, and is mostly fair to consumers.
What about a label that revolutionizes management and actually works unobtrusively for the artists??
NewBand: "Why should we sign with you and get 3 cents on the dollar before "expenses" when iMusic gives us 62 cents per buck *after* legit expenses?"
"Why not "Old, successfulBand"? They don't need the one thing the label can give them: publicity?"
I've worked with "Old, successfulBand" before and one hit doesn't mean anything. Or 20. It is all about the next hit.
I knew one guy that had multiplatinum albums dating to the 70s until the early 90s...decided to go it himself. For 15 years, he sold practically nothing. Yeah, the profits were actually decent considering all of this, but he couldn't sell out huge concert halls any more. For an artist, this
Correction: Jobs is the largest single stockholder in Disney. He owns approximately 7% of Disney. "Primary Share holder" was more correct for Bill Gates who used to own more than 51% of MSFT. Currently Gates is also largest single stockholder with 8%.
Perhaps Apple should start the iMusic label and start signing artists
Because it's completely unneeded. The labels actually had a function last century, as it cost a shipload of money to record and press a record. These days you can build a studio, record your album, and get a thousand CDs professionally duplicated, with cover and printing, for not much more than the band's instruments are worth.
The industry isn't going after P2P because you're going to hear one of their artists, they're afraid you'll hear an independant artist (probably 10 times as many "unsigned" bands than label chattel) and buy their CD instead of an RIAA label CD.
And it looks there is some sort of approval process at Apple to get your songs online, and lots of various companies that will help with this step, for a fee of course. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/564768.html [google.com]
The only missing part is the free-for-all publishing system of YouTube, which is probably a good thing.
I'm really having a hard time gleaning any actual content from this article. Other than the first paragraph, where Apple is allowing Sony to jack up prices so long as there's no DRM... it really doesn't say much.
There's sensationalist crap about how the companies are "uneasy" with this truce and each one wants the other gone... I'm not really sure why.
The one interesting idea brought to the table was the idea of a "subscription fee" for music... pay a monthly fee and listen to _whatever_ you want. I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, I kinda like it as a compromise between DRM and piracy, but on the other hand, it doesn't seem like that would _stop_ piracy at all.
It wouldn't stop piracy^H^H^H^H^H^H copyright infringement, but it would encourage end users to listen to more music as well as encourage them to purchase music and create a reliable 'up front' revenue stream that is not based on having to produce strings of top ten artists singing the same old crap all the time. As business models go, it's good for the distributor, bad for the end users. It's like that extended warranty stuff. The worst possible model for the RIAA et al was the $0.99/song model; which happ
... The one interesting idea brought to the table was the idea of a "subscription fee" for music... pay a monthly fee and listen to _whatever_ you want. I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, I kinda like it as a compromise between DRM and piracy, but on the other hand, it doesn't seem like that would _stop_ piracy at all.
The subscription thing has been done. There are one or two mainstream services that offer that. Some people love it, others hate it.
Personally I'm not a fan, while listening to anything I want on-demand is cool I hate subscriptions, particularly for something like this.
I'm not that into music. On average I buy maybe 1-2 songs a month from iTunes, more if I get a gift card or want a whole album. That's $24-$36 USD per year with the latest variable prices, and I get to keep my music.
record companies gave up their demand for copyright protection (called digital rights management)
No, they gave up DRM, and copy protection is sort of related to that. They did not give up anything even remotely related to copyright protection, unless I somehow missed the part where Apple talked RIAA into releasing works into the public domain.
Sure sure... but did your browser display the ads properly? Oh wait, you thought reporters are supposed to write the truth! It's an honest mistake, the job title kind of tricks one into it. We should change that by the way, I think come-see-the-ads-on-my-site-guy would be a more suitable title.
"In interviews, several high-level music executives, who spoke on the condition that they not be named to avoid angering Apple, said they operated in fear of Appleâ(TM)s removing a labelâ(TM)s products from the iTunes store over a disagreement, even though that has never happened. The labels do not have much leverage in negotiating with Apple."
IMO, it's about time someone gave these bastards a taste of their own medicine.
IMO, we need someone to challenge Apple, too. Magnatune is pretty cool, but not quite competing with iTunes (Amarok + Magnatune, admittedly, is pretty neat though).
Something that I thought was interesting from the article that didn't make it into the summary was this quote:
Even if Mr. Jobs does not get personally involved in future negotiations, music executives still fear dealing with Apple. One chit the company holds is the power of the iTunes home page, where it promotes music. They also say that the entire Apple staff, including Eddie Cue, the vice president in charge of iTunes who handles the relationships with the record labels, do their best to follow Mr. Jobs'
Really, the ip0wning that the record guys are now receiving is their own fault(and I, for one, am experiencing everybody's favorite German emotion [wikipedia.org]). They wanted DRM to protect their precious content. DRM is, by nature, inimical to interoperability. Thus, the record labels, by forcing people who wanted to buy music online to choose lock-in to one DRM camp or another, created a situation where the winning DRM "ecosystem" would be extremely valuable, and powerful, and all the others would be near worthless. Shockingly enough, playsforsureexceptonzune wasn't the winner.
If the online music business were a bunch of generic outfits selling MP3s(or generic AAC) then the relationship between the labels and the retailers would be a lot more like the brick and mortar one. By pushing DRM, the labels created something they can't really seem to handle. Had they just stopped clinging to the nonsense dream of magic interoperable DRM, they might well have been able to avoid this. Idiots.
They should just stop clinging to the notion of selling something tangible. Music is an intangible product and always has been -- it was by pure accident of technology that, at one time, it could be made into a tangible product.
Why is iTunes so successful if music is intangible? Because Apple doesn't see iTunes content as a bunch of SKU numbers. Instead, they see iTunes as providing a service -- the service of providing content to iPods and the iPhone.
As the influence of iTunes grows, I think Apple will
Actually, I see the opposite being true. Previously it was just you against the record labels. The record labels always won. They could charge $15 for a CD that cost them $1 to print and $5 to create, market, and manage. Then Apple came along. Apple is not in the music business, they're in the *iPod* business which relies on the music business. So they bundle a cheap music store with their iPods and it becomes the #1 way everyone in the US gets all their music. Now you have Apple negotiating on your behalf for lower prices, and it's Apple vs. the record labels-- a much more even match. So prices come down.
If Apple's dominance in music distribution is ever broken, expect prices to double or triple as you'll have no one with any power negotiating on your behalf anymore.
Now you have Apple negotiating on your behalf for lower prices... If Apple's dominance in music distribution is ever broken, expect prices to double or triple as you'll have no one with any power negotiating on your behalf anymore.
As I read the article, it seems it was the labels that wanted "variable" pricing, and Apple that wanted to stick with $1/track.
I don;t think you are right about lower prices. All the other a la carte services have generally undercut Apple's pricing, usually $0.8 or so per track,
I was just thinking this - a lot of the article focused on how the music industry doesn't like Apple's dominance in the market. Then the article implies that they feel that removal of DRM *strengthens* this dominance.
As you say, idiots... DRM is the major impediment to other music vendors succeeding, and probably the #1 contributor to the failure of many competitors to iTunes. Like it or not, Apple dominates the portable audio player industry, so if what you sell doesn't play on an iPod, you're toast. There is NOTHING preventing people from selling music that plays on the iPod, UNLESS you want DRM - then you're stuck with Apple.
No DRM, no Apple control. Music vendors can potentially compete with Apple if they don't have DRM, and similarly audio player vendors can compete with Apple if the music isn't DRMed. (Although very few non-Apple players support AAC, even unencrypted AAC, there's no barrier to that changing.)
Creative Zen Portable Microsoft Zune SanDisk Sansa Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP) with firmware 2.0 or greater Sony Walkman SonyEricsson Walkman Phones-W series, e.g. W890i Nintendo DSi To be released in America mid-2009 Slacker G2 Personal Radio P
This is part of what an iphone "killer" has to overcome (I'm looking at you Palm).
But with iTunes songs being DRM free now, Palm doesn't have to build their own iTunes - they just have to be able to feed songs into their own device from the users iTunes library, and support AAC (an open audio format).
They could even list all songs and ones that are still locked down could take you to the Apple iTunes Plus page to unlock (which you can happily do on a song by song basis now).
I'm feeling terribly left out of all of this. I've got tons of albums, most of which are electronic copies of stuff I've bought, in many cases more than once. I bought my SO an iPod Touch for Christmas, and was gutted to learn that it doesn't work with Linux, which is all I run at home. Amarok will sync my older iPod just fine, but Apple apparently encrypts all the contents of the iPod Touch library as some kind of DRM thing. So, anybody wanna buy a $350 iPod Touch?
From what I understand, what Apple tried to do is secure the rights to distribute via cell phone data networks. Currently you can get your music onto the iPhone/iPod using your computer. What they got permission to do was allow iPhone users to get music onto their phone without having to connect to a computer. Having a deal here doesn't open them up to monopoly or anti-trust rulings as long as they didn't prevent other cell phone makers from doing the same thing.
My Verizon phone has long had the ability to get music from the network that but the music was tied to my phone and expensive. Now that iTunes is DRM free, nothing prevents me from playing those songs or Amazon's DRM free MP3s on my Verizon phone . . . except that Verizon has crippled my phone not to do so.
The gripe that they effectively created MTV, they gripe that the revived Apple.
If I was a large shareholder, I'd fire the lot of these guys. Because either one of the two is true:
1) They're lying as an excuse for their failures 2) They have all this business opportunities that create entire new industries, but they can't get it done themselves, effectively giving up 10's of Billions of dollars.
I wouldn't want those guys working for me, that's for sure.
The gripe that they effectively created MTV, they gripe that the revived Apple.
Except that would be revisionist history interpreted to make the industry more forward thinking than they were. I don't know the full history of MTV but the history of the iTunes store is well documented. Apple went to the record company with a plan. Apple wanted to sell more iPods; They realized that if they made it easy for their customers to get music online, they could use that as a selling feature. They were thrown out.
But once upon a time, music videos popped up on networks, on late-night shows on WTBS superstation (at least I think so) they appeared here and there. People liked them, they seemed cutting edge (we laugh now), and they were a change of pace from waiting for something interesting on network TV. Simultaneously, "cable TV" was becoming more than HBO. ESPN started, showing "Australian Rules Football", and it all seemed weird and cool (like the Internet when it was new).
DRM creates a natural grouping of power, and we are all lucky that Apple chose to use the power of distribution that eventually accumulated to them due to the use of Apple DRM, to try and break DRM.
The article makes an excellent point at the end:
"Mr. Card of Forrester, however, has a different take. "If it weren't for Apple, God knows how bad the music industry would be," he said."
Even though the music industry had to be dragged kicking and streaming, Apple saved them - the 1.5 billion in revenue Apple generated for the music industry last year would probably mostly have been simply gone, replaced by downloading for the most part rather than album sales.
Now if only they could do the same for video... I don't think Apple has the same leverage there though, as is evidenced by wacky policies around TV and movies in the iTunes store (like season passes for some TV shows costing more than buying each episode individually). I'm not even sure they have the same drive to try and get rid of the DRM they did with music. I don't know if that industry can be saved as easily.
I'm not even sure they have the same drive to try and get rid of the DRM they did with music. I don't know if that industry can be saved as easily.
There is a significant difference between the use cases and hence usability of DRM in the two industries. With music, almost everyone wants to keep it forever and listen to it many times over many years. Getting people to agree to rent music would require huge discount prices, likely just minimal advertising with free songs.
With video, most people only want to watch it once, or maybe once and then a second time years later (with some exceptions). DRM that prevents it from playing on different devices over time or making it hard to move, does not create as significant of a usability problem or bother most users. It is less of an issue for companies like Apple so they have less incentive to fight it.
It takes a lot of time to develop an application as usable and stable as iTunes. So unless the labels formed a coalition to develop a strong competitor in top secret conditions, they would constantly be in fear of being removed from the iTunes store in the meanwhile. Not to mention that any competitor coming to the market right now would have to compete with a serious branding problem. Everyone knows iTunes and subconsciously accept it as the only option. Any new outlet would need to be able to offer something compelling that iTunes doesn't or better yet, can't.
The experience (convenience) is what Apple sells most. I'm not saying that they need to manage mp3 devices, but they will need a model that offers something starkly compelling that Apple doesn't. Amazon offered DRM free music when Apple didn't, but it was more expensive and somewhat clunky. Now the prices are comparable, but Amazon is still clunky. So why use Amazon when iTunes is more convenient? A 10 cent price difference on Amazon will not lure people away from convenience. At this point, any serio
Sell wavs or mp3s (and flacs and vorbis for the nerds) through an old fashioned traditional shopping-cart store, and you have an instant market that doesn't cost you anything in R&D. Any random webmonkey can have something for you with a single day's labor.
Amazon already did this, and they are nowhere near being a serious competitor to the iTunes music store despite being the #2 source for purchasing electronic music. Several others have pointed this out, but I'll reiterate it here. iTunes doesn't just sell music. Their business is selling a convenient service. You buy music, it's automatically downloaded to your playlist, and you can add it to your iPod (the market dominating mp3 player) all in one program with a fairly intuitive user interface.
According to TFA the music industry are now depended on Apples iTunes Store due to the major revenue. How come none of the labels have launched a similair service (it's not really the most original idea of all times)? I doubt they're lacking funds. If the itch is too annoying, why are they entangling themselves into more dependency? I it's not like it gets easier to detach from iTunes Store with time. I don't know, but to me it seems that everybody that touches Apple becomes stuck to it in some way or the other. Sure it's great for business, if your name is Apple. For everyone else: please bend over and cough.
That's because the music industry demanded DRM. And guess what, they did try to open their own music store. But, like all music stores, they failed for one simple reason - there was no way people would buy music if they couldn't load it on their device. And the device that most people had? iPods. Whose DRM was proprietary to Apple. Which meant they could take a piece out of the non-iPods out there (along with the millions other stores), but that's it.
The last gasp at trying to break into the iPod (and to get Apple to bend over to the music labels, rather than the labels bending over to Apple) was Amazon. Alas, while Amazon is popular (and #2), it still didn't hold a candle to iTunes' popularity. And Jobs knows that since the music industry was already wavering on DRM, now would be the time to also make iTunes DRM-free (Amazon is DRM-free, so iTunes should be able to demand same).
This is an industry where a very limited customer base was considered a Good Thing(tm). Yes, Jobs went to the music labels, and promoted the limited marketshare of Mac users as a benefit in the experiment of selling music online.
iMusic industry news (Score:5, Interesting)
Can we get a special section for iMusic news? Apple did what the music industry should have done and failed to do. Perhaps Apple should start the iMusic label and start signing artists, sort of an effort to put the music industry into perspective with it's current situation. It would be an eye opener for the RIAA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
maybe it was the fact that apple changed their stance on different pricing models that really made the difference, and thus the record labels were correct......
just because apple did something, doesnt mean it was a golden decision and everyone else is wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
maybe it was the fact that apple changed their stance on different pricing models that really made the difference, and thus the record labels were correct......
just because apple did something, doesnt mean it was a golden decision and everyone else is wrong.
That's not what the GP meant. He wasn't talking about variable pricing, but the original digital distribution of music, which at the time, the record labels were awful fearful of. Back then, "mp3" was a dirty term at record labels, and other
Re:DRM free? Apple is late to the party. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Labels used looser terms with Amazon in an effort to rob Apple of some marketing muscle and negotiating "leverage" and it failed, on both counts.
Parent
Re:iMusic industry news (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
holy shit... you thought I was serious? I guess I better use the [sarcastic yet annoyingly droll humor] tags
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple can't open it's own record label. From Wikipedia: "In 1978, Apple Corps, the Beatles-founded holding company and owner of their record label, Apple Records, filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. This amount had been estimated to be US$50â"US$200 million, but was later revealed to be US$80,000.[1] As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business,
Re:iMusic industry news (Score:5, Informative)
Apple can't open it's own record label. From Wikipedia: "In 1978, Apple Corps, the Beatles-founded holding company and owner of their record label, Apple Records, filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. This amount had been estimated to be US$50â"US$200 million, but was later revealed to be US$80,000.[1] As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer [wikipedia.org] They got into hot water with Apple Records when iTunes got big. An actual recording label would blatantly go against the agreement.
This agreement is no longer in effect. Apple Corp has signed over all Trademark for Apple to Apple Computer, Inc (now Apple Inc) in 2007. In return, Apple Corp has a perpetual license to use the Apple name for their label. However Apple Inc. can now do whatever they want with regards to the music business.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That is something I never understood. Normally, two different companies can hold a trademark on a common word if they are in different industries, which is why we can have a Linux OS and Linux Soap. So how could Apple Records have any standing to sue Apple Computers? Of course, they didn't "win" the suit, as it was settled out of court, but still...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apple Corps
Baltimorps!
Re: Exploit other flaws in system (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the pillaging of artists currently practiced by the labels? iTunes has profoundly revolutionized the music world, and is mostly fair to consumers.
What about a label that revolutionizes management and actually works unobtrusively for the artists??
NewBand: "Why should we sign with you and get 3 cents on the dollar before "expenses" when iMusic gives us 62 cents per buck *after* legit expenses?"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why not "Old, successfulBand"? They don't need the one thing the label can give them: publicity?"
I've worked with "Old, successfulBand" before and one hit doesn't mean anything. Or 20. It is all about the next hit.
I knew one guy that had multiplatinum albums dating to the 70s until the early 90s...decided to go it himself. For 15 years, he sold practically nothing. Yeah, the profits were actually decent considering all of this, but he couldn't sell out huge concert halls any more. For an artist, this
Re:iMusic industry news (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:iMusic industry news (Score:5, Funny)
There, fixed that for you.
Parent
Re:iMusic industry news (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps Apple should start the iMusic label and start signing artists
Because it's completely unneeded. The labels actually had a function last century, as it cost a shipload of money to record and press a record. These days you can build a studio, record your album, and get a thousand CDs professionally duplicated, with cover and printing, for not much more than the band's instruments are worth.
The industry isn't going after P2P because you're going to hear one of their artists, they're afraid you'll hear an independant artist (probably 10 times as many "unsigned" bands than label chattel) and buy their CD instead of an RIAA label CD.
Parent
Re:Apply won't start (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:iMusic industry news (Score:4, Informative)
They already sell the software to make the tracks: http://www.apple.com/logicexpress/#recording [apple.com]
And it looks there is some sort of approval process at Apple to get your songs online, and lots of various companies that will help with this step, for a fee of course. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/564768.html [google.com]
The only missing part is the free-for-all publishing system of YouTube, which is probably a good thing.
Parent
Sorry, I don't speak Vague (Score:3, Insightful)
There's sensationalist crap about how the companies are "uneasy" with this truce and each one wants the other gone... I'm not really sure why.
The one interesting idea brought to the table was the idea of a "subscription fee" for music... pay a monthly fee and listen to _whatever_ you want. I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, I kinda like it as a compromise between DRM and piracy, but on the other hand, it doesn't seem like that would _stop_ piracy at all.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It wouldn't stop piracy^H^H^H^H^H^H copyright infringement, but it would encourage end users to listen to more music as well as encourage them to purchase music and create a reliable 'up front' revenue stream that is not based on having to produce strings of top ten artists singing the same old crap all the time. As business models go, it's good for the distributor, bad for the end users. It's like that extended warranty stuff. The worst possible model for the RIAA et al was the $0.99/song model; which happ
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...
The one interesting idea brought to the table was the idea of a "subscription fee" for music... pay a monthly fee and listen to _whatever_ you want. I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, I kinda like it as a compromise between DRM and piracy, but on the other hand, it doesn't seem like that would _stop_ piracy at all.
The subscription thing has been done. There are one or two mainstream services that offer that. Some people love it, others hate it.
Personally I'm not a fan, while listening to anything I want on-demand is cool I hate subscriptions, particularly for something like this.
I'm not that into music. On average I buy maybe 1-2 songs a month from iTunes, more if I get a gift card or want a whole album. That's $24-$36 USD per year with the latest variable prices, and I get to keep my music.
If I was REALLY into
Re:Sorry, I don't speak Vague (Score:5, Informative)
Appleinsider also covered the same subject, so I'll you decide if it is any better:
Heated Christmas call from Jobs secured iTunes changes [appleinsider.com]
Parent
misleading wording (Score:5, Informative)
No, they gave up DRM, and copy protection is sort of related to that. They did not give up anything even remotely related to copyright protection, unless I somehow missed the part where Apple talked RIAA into releasing works into the public domain.
That's just plain wrong. Bad reporter!
Re:misleading wording (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's just plain wrong. Bad reporter!
Sure sure... but did your browser display the ads properly? Oh wait, you thought reporters are supposed to write the truth! It's an honest mistake, the job title kind of tricks one into it. We should change that by the way, I think come-see-the-ads-on-my-site-guy would be a more suitable title.
Re:misleading wording (Score:4, Insightful)
SRM - Dumb Restrictions of Media
Ironic typos are the best!
Parent
A taste of their own medicine? (Score:2)
IMO, it's about time someone gave these bastards a taste of their own medicine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No Pity/Sucks to be them. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the online music business were a bunch of generic outfits selling MP3s(or generic AAC) then the relationship between the labels and the retailers would be a lot more like the brick and mortar one. By pushing DRM, the labels created something they can't really seem to handle. Had they just stopped clinging to the nonsense dream of magic interoperable DRM, they might well have been able to avoid this. Idiots.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They should just stop clinging to the notion of selling something tangible. Music is an intangible product and always has been -- it was by pure accident of technology that, at one time, it could be made into a tangible product.
Why is iTunes so successful if music is intangible? Because Apple doesn't see iTunes content as a bunch of SKU numbers. Instead, they see iTunes as providing a service -- the service of providing content to iPods and the iPhone.
As the influence of iTunes grows, I think Apple will
Re:Middlemen layering (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I see the opposite being true. Previously it was just you against the record labels. The record labels always won. They could charge $15 for a CD that cost them $1 to print and $5 to create, market, and manage. Then Apple came along. Apple is not in the music business, they're in the *iPod* business which relies on the music business. So they bundle a cheap music store with their iPods and it becomes the #1 way everyone in the US gets all their music. Now you have Apple negotiating on your behalf for lower prices, and it's Apple vs. the record labels-- a much more even match. So prices come down.
If Apple's dominance in music distribution is ever broken, expect prices to double or triple as you'll have no one with any power negotiating on your behalf anymore.
Parent
Apple Margins (Score:3, Informative)
Now you have Apple negotiating on your behalf for lower prices ... If Apple's dominance in music distribution is ever broken, expect prices to double or triple as you'll have no one with any power negotiating on your behalf anymore.
As I read the article, it seems it was the labels that wanted "variable" pricing, and Apple that wanted to stick with $1/track.
I don;t think you are right about lower prices. All the other a la carte services have generally undercut Apple's pricing, usually $0.8 or so per track,
Re:No Pity/Sucks to be them. (Score:5, Insightful)
I was just thinking this - a lot of the article focused on how the music industry doesn't like Apple's dominance in the market. Then the article implies that they feel that removal of DRM *strengthens* this dominance.
As you say, idiots... DRM is the major impediment to other music vendors succeeding, and probably the #1 contributor to the failure of many competitors to iTunes. Like it or not, Apple dominates the portable audio player industry, so if what you sell doesn't play on an iPod, you're toast. There is NOTHING preventing people from selling music that plays on the iPod, UNLESS you want DRM - then you're stuck with Apple.
No DRM, no Apple control. Music vendors can potentially compete with Apple if they don't have DRM, and similarly audio player vendors can compete with Apple if the music isn't DRMed. (Although very few non-Apple players support AAC, even unencrypted AAC, there's no barrier to that changing.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, I buy CDs.. But the easy UI isn't also an 'impediment'?
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding [wikipedia.org]
in the "Other Portable Players" section:
Creative Zen Portable
Microsoft Zune
SanDisk Sansa
Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP) with firmware 2.0 or greater
Sony Walkman
SonyEricsson Walkman Phones-W series, e.g. W890i
Nintendo DSi To be released in America mid-2009
Slacker G2 Personal Radio P
Open Season. (Score:4, Insightful)
"And apparently the iTunes homepage is a huge hit making device. "
This is part of what an iphone "killer" has to overcome (I'm looking at you Palm).
Re: (Score:2)
Palm doesn't have to overcome it at all (Score:3, Informative)
This is part of what an iphone "killer" has to overcome (I'm looking at you Palm).
But with iTunes songs being DRM free now, Palm doesn't have to build their own iTunes - they just have to be able to feed songs into their own device from the users iTunes library, and support AAC (an open audio format).
They could even list all songs and ones that are still locked down could take you to the Apple iTunes Plus page to unlock (which you can happily do on a song by song basis now).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Palm doesn't have to overcome it at all (Score:4, Interesting)
From what I understand, what Apple tried to do is secure the rights to distribute via cell phone data networks. Currently you can get your music onto the iPhone/iPod using your computer. What they got permission to do was allow iPhone users to get music onto their phone without having to connect to a computer. Having a deal here doesn't open them up to monopoly or anti-trust rulings as long as they didn't prevent other cell phone makers from doing the same thing.
My Verizon phone has long had the ability to get music from the network that but the music was tied to my phone and expensive. Now that iTunes is DRM free, nothing prevents me from playing those songs or Amazon's DRM free MP3s on my Verizon phone . . . except that Verizon has crippled my phone not to do so.
Parent
The music industry is funny (Score:5, Insightful)
The gripe that they effectively created MTV, they gripe that the revived Apple.
If I was a large shareholder, I'd fire the lot of these guys. Because either one of the two is true:
1) They're lying as an excuse for their failures
2) They have all this business opportunities that create entire new industries, but they can't get it done themselves, effectively giving up 10's of Billions of dollars.
I wouldn't want those guys working for me, that's for sure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that would be revisionist history interpreted to make the industry more forward thinking than they were. I don't know the full history of MTV but the history of the iTunes store is well documented. Apple went to the record company with a plan. Apple wanted to sell more iPods; They realized that if they made it easy for their customers to get music online, they could use that as a selling feature. They were thrown out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have the real history.
But once upon a time, music videos popped up on networks, on late-night shows on WTBS superstation (at least I think so) they appeared here and there. People liked them, they seemed cutting edge (we laugh now), and they were a change of pace from waiting for something interesting on network TV. Simultaneously, "cable TV" was becoming more than HBO. ESPN started, showing "Australian Rules Football", and it all seemed weird and cool (like the Internet when it was new).
Well, li
Further proof that Apple killed (music) DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM creates a natural grouping of power, and we are all lucky that Apple chose to use the power of distribution that eventually accumulated to them due to the use of Apple DRM, to try and break DRM.
The article makes an excellent point at the end:
"Mr. Card of Forrester, however, has a different take. "If it weren't for Apple, God knows how bad the music industry would be," he said."
Even though the music industry had to be dragged kicking and streaming, Apple saved them - the 1.5 billion in revenue Apple generated for the music industry last year would probably mostly have been simply gone, replaced by downloading for the most part rather than album sales.
Now if only they could do the same for video... I don't think Apple has the same leverage there though, as is evidenced by wacky policies around TV and movies in the iTunes store (like season passes for some TV shows costing more than buying each episode individually). I'm not even sure they have the same drive to try and get rid of the DRM they did with music. I don't know if that industry can be saved as easily.
Re:Further proof that Apple killed (music) DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not even sure they have the same drive to try and get rid of the DRM they did with music. I don't know if that industry can be saved as easily.
There is a significant difference between the use cases and hence usability of DRM in the two industries. With music, almost everyone wants to keep it forever and listen to it many times over many years. Getting people to agree to rent music would require huge discount prices, likely just minimal advertising with free songs.
With video, most people only want to watch it once, or maybe once and then a second time years later (with some exceptions). DRM that prevents it from playing on different devices over time or making it hard to move, does not create as significant of a usability problem or bother most users. It is less of an issue for companies like Apple so they have less incentive to fight it.
Parent
Re:Dependency and Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dependency and Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Sell wavs or mp3s (and flacs and vorbis for the nerds) through an old fashioned traditional shopping-cart store, and you have an instant market that doesn't cost you anything in R&D. Any random webmonkey can have something for you with a single day's labor.
Amazon already did this, and they are nowhere near being a serious competitor to the iTunes music store despite being the #2 source for purchasing electronic music. Several others have pointed this out, but I'll reiterate it here. iTunes doesn't just sell music. Their business is selling a convenient service. You buy music, it's automatically downloaded to your playlist, and you can add it to your iPod (the market dominating mp3 player) all in one program with a fairly intuitive user interface.
Parent
Re:Dependency and Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because the music industry demanded DRM. And guess what, they did try to open their own music store. But, like all music stores, they failed for one simple reason - there was no way people would buy music if they couldn't load it on their device. And the device that most people had? iPods. Whose DRM was proprietary to Apple. Which meant they could take a piece out of the non-iPods out there (along with the millions other stores), but that's it.
The last gasp at trying to break into the iPod (and to get Apple to bend over to the music labels, rather than the labels bending over to Apple) was Amazon. Alas, while Amazon is popular (and #2), it still didn't hold a candle to iTunes' popularity. And Jobs knows that since the music industry was already wavering on DRM, now would be the time to also make iTunes DRM-free (Amazon is DRM-free, so iTunes should be able to demand same).
This is an industry where a very limited customer base was considered a Good Thing(tm). Yes, Jobs went to the music labels, and promoted the limited marketshare of Mac users as a benefit in the experiment of selling music online.
Parent
Re:Dependency and Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
How come none of the labels have launched a similair service (it's not really the most original idea of all times)?
You mean like the Sony Music Store?
What, you never heard of it? Perhaps that's because Sony's been systematically alienating their customers since the Walkman/Discman era?
Parent