Behind the Scenes In Apple Vs. the Record Labels 146
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.
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:iMusic industry news (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sorry, I don't speak Vague (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 happens to be the best model for the end user.
There are few other services or products that suffer from using the 'up front' revenue stream model. Look at how your ISP, insurer, cable company, music clubs, just about everybody tries to use this model. Grocery stores attempt to get you to purchase only at their store using the discount cards, and soon they will also be using the 'up front' revenue model in some business plans. Wait till they offer you an averaged food bill where you pay a set fee every month like you do with electric service etc. It's all about getting your money on a regular recurring basis, or get you to pay for something that you might never actually use.
Re:Dependency and Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The music industry is funny (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. But Apple made key predictions about the efforts (and failures) of the industry in online music. Finally, the industry relented.
Now that Apple is a juggernaut because of its own efforts, the industry wants to take more credit than they deserve. Not only is Apple the #1 retailer, Apple now has an influence over the popularity of individual artists. Before Wal-mart and other retailers just sold music. The industry controlled popularity with radio stations, hype, marketing, etc. Now all Apple has to do to make an artist popular is make them the free single of the week.
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.
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.