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This discussion has been archived.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.
"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"
Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, I've got pretty much every song I want on emusic at this point, so the pricetag is starting to weigh pretty heavy on me. Being able to download those tracks from Apple at comparable to higher quality, for $.99 or maybe a little less by album, is a viable and exciting alternative. Plus you get the cool album art, and just maybe they'll have the correct track names for Jiker's "An Eh for an Eh, a Toque for a Toque."
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Informative)
I U M A [iuma.org]
Nuff said....
Death to Big Labels (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Death to Big Labels (Score:2)
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.
Re:Death to Big Labels (Score:5, Funny)
That analogy doesn't fit very well. Dinosaurs were cold-blooded carnivores*... oh wait.
* (Yes, I know some dinosaurs were also wussy Vegans.)
Re:Death to Big Labels (Score:5, Funny)
Q. What's the difference between the RIAA and "Jurassic Park" ?
A. One is a desert island filled with extinct man-eating reptiles. The other is a movie.
Think Different, Think Nirvana (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Think Different, Think Nirvana (Score:5, Informative)
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:4, Insightful)
The more services they roll out (and they will be rolling out more) that have different usage patterns, the less bandwidth will cost for each one as the peaks will not usually be additive and you'll have to overbuy less for each service than if they were run by different companies.
Two obstacles: subscriptions and licenses (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe so. RealNetworks announced their (listen.com-hybrid) service last week [smartmoney.com], at 79 cents a track. Also -- oops -- $10 a month subscription. It's amazing how the competition doesn't seem to recognize that subscription fees are the obstacle. Apple's buck-a-song is just so easy to get your head around. We want to pay for songs, not to belong to some Columbia records club with monthly dues. The iTunes interface is fine, but it's the per-song-only thing that sells it over the alternatives.
The other big bar to get over for other services is the licensing agreements. It sure looks like Steve Jobs used his name to get through obstacles that held everyone else up. It's kind of a race, too -- if someone else can get those same deals before the Windows version of iTunes comes out, maybe they can stake out the market share to avoid Apple's winning the new, bigger market of 'doze users. We'll see.
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-
Re:Two obstacles: subscriptions and licenses (Score:5, Informative)
Not even close (Score:5, Insightful)
That means that if you want to keep a song, you have to burn it to CD, then rip it, then manually enter the track information - all to just keep the song in your library, and all at whatever bitrate Real supports (not sure if they are good or bad in this area).
With the Apple service, I can buy a song and I really own the electronic copy of the song to start with - complete with ID3 style information and cover art.
To summarize, with Real you are paying for a single physical copy that is difficult to manage electronically. With Apple you are paying for a digital copy with all of the benefits implied by owning a digital copy, including being able to make many different mix CD's and keeping information about the song with the song.
People constantly discount the workflow, if you will, of music ownership - that's why Apple's store is so popular. It finally achieves some of the promise of digital music distribution that has been so obvious for so long.
As somebody who is now in Real's 14-day trial (Score:4, Informative)
The software is typical Real bloat, and it is unconfigurable to an annoyting degree. It not unattractive, and it is fairly easy to use. It can definitely be improved, but it's tolerable.
What I have started to fall in love with are Real's streaming channels. Here are the categories of channels:
Rock/Pop
Alternative/Punk
Rap/Hip-Ho
Soul/R&B
Country
Jazz
Electronica/Dance
Wor
Classical
Oldies
Vocal
New Age
Sacred/Gospel
Blues
Folk
Easy Listening
Soundtracks/Musicals
Children/Holiday
Each category has somewhere between 1 (Children/Holiday) and 19 (Rock/Pop) channels. I have been listening to the Indie Rock and the Ambient channels a lot at work, and I've been surprised and delighted with Real's quality of song selection. Not only do they play songs by some of my favorite artists in these genres, but they have introduced me to some really wonderful new artists. I've already bought two CDs of artists I discovered on this service. Also, a small box displays interesting tidbits of information about each song/artist as the song is being played.
I don't care if I can't copy the songs to my mp3 player of burn a cd. That's not why I want an MP3 service really. If am going to buy music, I am just going to buy a cd. I have a good backup that truly can sound better than any mp3 version (on the right equipment), and I can do anything I want with the mp3s I rip from it. If I am paying for music, I don't want restrictions.
With the Real service, I am not really paying for music. I am paying for a very high quality, on-demand, highly configurable Internet radio station.
For $10/month (only $5 for first three months), I get unlimited streaming access to over 325,000 songs. I can't listen to those songs without a computer and broadband connection. That kind of sucks, but it's only $10/month.
Also, you can burn certain songs to CD for $.79, as has been pointed out elsewhere, but I haven't really explored this much, as I have had no desire.
Anyhow, I highly recommend this service to people who feel similar to me. I really just want a badass Internet radio station, and Real's Rhapsody service is the best attempt I have seen so far.
Slim Margins (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, let's say that it costs Apple $.20 + 3% of the transaction for each purchase (I'm sure someone can correct me with more exact figures.) So, if I download sixty individual songs, Apple has paid $13.80 in credit card fees on $59.40 in revenue. They now have $45.60 to put towards licensing, other expenses, etc for those sixty downloads.
Now let's see if I paid $50 upfront and got to download sixty songs. Apple only pays $1.70 in credit card charges, and has $48.30 to put towards the other expenses for those sixty downloads. In addition to saving $2.70, Apple also just generated some goodwill on my end because I appreciate getting ten extra songs on the deal.
Multiply that relatively significant savings by the huge volume that iTunes generates (even more when it's released for Windows [and hopefully Linux]), and Apple could definitely help pad that margin a little.
- Neil Wehneman
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
psychological price point (Score:5, Insightful)
On the average, most consumers won't differentiate between $0.89 and $0.99, any more than they'd shop at a different store to pay $11.89 instead of $11.99. Even $0.75 isn't such an improvement over $0.99 psychologically speaking -- a competitor would have to go as low as $0.50, or close to it, to take customers from Apple on price alone.
Besides, we're selling bits here, not products. "Razor-thin margins" don't actually exist with virtual merchandise. Apple's had a nationwide network for distributing media quickly for some time now -- specifically, for QuickTime movie trailers -- and *that* was for zero profits. All they can do with this store is make money.
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 no
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
Re:Death to Big Labels (Score:2)
It is not music which is the commodity which is really being bought by the customers.It is the so called "experience". This calls for marketing (advertising), videos (why must music have a video to go along with it), coolness factor (mainly influenced by advertising, friends) etc.Most of these cost money. All Apple could do is to provide a distribution channel, cutting the cost in getting to the market.
Also if Indie's start selling well, the music labels would probably pull support f
Re:Death to Big Labels (Score:5, Informative)
Even worse, most of the promotional and support services you talk about are actaully paid for by the band, again out of their future royalties. Many groups actually end up *owing* the label money after their first album and tour, which only further binds them to the label's "artistic direction" for them.
The only thing you get from a major label by signing with them is a temporary invitation to ride their distribution network to promote your work. Artists pay their own way, and lose all rights to their work in the process. Of course, that's often better than the alternative, since independent groups and labels have effectively no leverage with radio stations and major venue owners, esp. given the current trend of media consolidation
You just have to look at the likely outcome from this week's news about the new FCC relaxation of ownership rules for a chilling view of where we're going. I don't think that Apple is going to turn things around overnight, but any arrangement which gives the indies more opportunity to reach a paying audience is fine by me.
Re:Death to Big Labels (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Death to Big Labels (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple Radio? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh yeah... [schomakers.com]
Maybe they can make their new motto "From one old hippie to another."
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 Lo
Re:Death to Big Labels (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Death to Big Labels (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, Apple has a flat-rate price of $10 per album for most albums, no matter how many songs they have. I've gotten a few albums with 16 or 18 songs for $10.
Second, buying a CD on Amazon or Half.com is not the same as buying on the iTunes Music Store (iTMS). You get your song instantly on iTMS, you have to wait for the other stores. Apple's music comes pre-encoded from original masters, the CD you get from the other stores might be scratched and scuffed up. With iTMS you can still convert the AAC file to another format by either burning the song to a CD and then re-encoding or by using Audio Hijack Pro [rogueamoeba.com] to grab the song from iTunes.
Third, you might also only want a song or two from an album. With iTMS you would only spend $1-$2 for that, with the other stores you would still spend $5-6. iTMS also does not have shipping costs, whereas the other stores you need to pay to have the items shipped to you on top of whatever you paid for them.
Overall, I'd say it is closer than most people think. Sure Amazon or Half.com might be a bit cheaper than iTMS, but you trade off ease-of-use and instant gratification for a dollar or two of savings. It's up to the individual to determine if it's worth it or not, but I definitely feel that iTMS is a service that is worth it.
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.
Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times have you bought a CD just because of one track that was worth having? You no longer need to do this. This is exactly what I've been looking for. The ability to do this has been around for several years but it takes a good company like Apple to stick thier nose on the line and do it.
This is how it should be.
Re:Yes! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
If one out of every three downloaders grabs the whole album at $11, while the other 2 just get the single track, you're making $14. If you only make the single, you make $3. Albums are still the driving force...and those music lovers who get the whole pie are going to direct their friends to the great tracks they may have missed.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with this sentiment, but the next step I would like to see from Apple is the ability to access their service from outside of the USA and most importantly any platform, this includes both Linux and MS-Windows. Either that or let's just hope that no one signs any exclusive contracts, since I still want the option of buying my music from another distributor.
The last point brings up another point. Part of the larger problem appears to be film and record companies trying to keep their distributors happy (region encoding on DVDs is really for this reason). This appears to be the real bottleneck in getting the audio and visual media to the client. If the distributor doesn't want to take the risk, on selling music of smaller bands, then you are left having to finding out doing the foot work yourself. Online music reduces the distribution costs and the risks, so hopefully we should be seeing more smaller artists and international music, available outside of their intended market - yay!
One other thing is hopefully Apple won't increase the price of the songs as a particular one becomes popular. For example the CD for T.a.t.u. when it first came out in Canada was $11, now that they have become popular the price has shot up to $20!?
Re:Yes! (Score:2)
I've noticed weird things like that happening in conventional music delivery systems, too (a few years ago, when 1999 rolled around, I saw Prince's album 1999 being promoted at Camelot Music with an endcap in the store and sold for $17.99, despite having been
Re:Yes! (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:That makes me wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally! (Score:2)
I'd hope the indy labels insist on a bigger percentage of the 99 cents then the big 5 labels get.
This sounds like an excellent way to support small and local bands, something mp3.com had the potential to do, but failed completely.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
The same percentage may give them better margins than they are used to receiving with conventional sales. Also, Apple needs to make some money at this, or it loses its viability, even if it is also a form of advertising.
Re:Finally! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Funny)
Good, but could go further? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only problem I can see is that this doesn't go far enough. Independent labels are a good thing, but it seems they are only targeting the larger ones. When they get to the stage where the smallest labels and individual artists can coexist in the service with the majors, I'd be tempted to give it a go. I can't see the RIAA being too happy about coexisting with what is effectively the competition, though.
Re:Good, but could go further? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing worthwhile happens overnight.
Reminds me of a story (Score:3, Funny)
She prayed to God to have her son brought back. Suddenly, the tide changes, and her son comes sweeping back in. The woman looks up at the heavens and says "He had a hat!"
I am sure there is a message there somewhere...
Re:Good, but could go further? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't see the RIAA being too happy about coexisting with what is effectively the competition, though.
Virtually 100% of these "indie" labels are RIAA members.
Cospiracy!! (Score:2, Funny)
It's from the RIAA, they will all go there, and...and..KABOOM!!!
It's all a ploy from them, im sure!
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.
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 cu
Re:making money from music (Score:3, Informative)
$300 is the iPod itself, leave alone music (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what you pay up front for the little deck of cards itself, right? For the 10 gig version?
As gets said a million times whenever someone hints at Mac OS X getting ported to other machines, Apple's a hardware manufacturer. They think of the iLife suite of programs as a "loss leader" that encourages people to buy their hardware. In a lot of ways the new iTunes store is a way to encourage iPod sales -- and whether they would see it the other way around is a big question mark.
Maybe you're right, though. The iTunes for Windows thing does seem to break that model -- they'll be selling software (on the cheap?) to get people hooked on their content service, is the idea. Maybe music is really as completely different a direction and business model as you're saying...
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!
It's not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Indie companies are still going to get ripped off they just get ripped of by an electronic distributor instead of an offline one.
Bands will still get very little cash for their effort.
Every band (or at least every indie label) should have their own website and take micropayments from customers direct. If you only had to pay a few pence for the rights to listen to a track you could share with your friends and if they like it they can go a pay for it as well.
One of the big reasons for piracy is the cost of tracks and how the cash is distributed. Micropayments with the vast majority going to the artists would eleviate these problems.
If any bands are willing to give this a try, get in touch I can help you get up and running for minimal cost
it's not so simple (Score:5, Informative)
From a merchant perspective, micropayments SUCKS ASS because the cost of processing such a payment is more expensive than the amount being paid. You end up with the same problem you describe, except now you are forking all the dough to the payment companies.
besides, even if we grant what you imply, that Apple is merely the lesser of two evils - I must remind you that up until now, almost all major distribution channels for music wants to screw you both ways - pump the artists dry AND limit the consumer's rights to their stuff. Apple, if not given any other credit, must be commended on their effort to make sure you can do (for the most part) whatever you want with the music you bought.
not only that, having a central place where your stuff is catalogued and easily purchased is a good thing. It's much less likely somebody will stumble upon your little corner of a website - but much more likely if you show up when they browse through the genre that they like on a major catalogued site. Don't underestimate the necessity of advertising channels, and the distribution / payment channels as outlined in paragraph 2.
I think right now there are two battles - one between the consumers and the labels / distribution / retail channels, and one between the bands and the same. Apple mostly allowed the first battle to be won in favor of consumers - the bands are another battle altogether - and i am sorry to say, unless there are some serious reason why the consumers would care to get involved, the vast majority of them probably wouldn't.
Re:it's not so simple (Score:3, Interesting)
The big problem for Apple is that they are not a record label themselves--s
Re:It's not enough (Score:2)
With Indie labels only it could probably less as you would have a smaller audience. But, if you get Indie music on a large site, you expose a larger audience to your music.
Plus, I hope that we will start seeing varying prices on the Apple Music Store.
Re:It's not enough (Score:2)
Bands will still get very little cash for their effort.
Do you have any facts to back that up, or are you just trying to sell your own micropayment system?
From the article:
Poneman said the decision to join the iTunes store would come down to the compensation package that Apple is offering, which he has not yet seen.
And:
But, he cautioned, were Sub Pop to join iTunes, the
Let me put on my hip waders (Score:5, Insightful)
No, one big reason for piracy is people don't like to pay for stuff. Cash distribution is a small reason for piracy.
I consider myself an average consumer. I probably average about 3 CDs a month. With the apple store, I can go to one spot and get a lot of good music with few restrictions and reasonable prices. And now, there will even be indie music.
However, I should give this up in favor of a plan that would involve me visting 20-30 web sites a month and entering my credit card information on web sites with God knows what security holes.
I am sympathetic to the plight of the indie artist, but an average consumer is not going to put in the kind of work you are suggesting. And with the apple store, they at least have a chance to make money on volume
Re:Let me put on my hip waders (Score:3, Informative)
The artist has to invest in a huge amount of CD manufacturing to send off to CDBaby in the hopes that they'll sell.
At LuluMUSIC [lulu.com] the artist uploads their work for free, sets the royalty and price they want to recieve, and are done. No upfront costs to them, and they have control over pricing and licensing. Want to use the Founder's Copyright [creativecommons.org] instead of the traditional current copyright? Go right ahead.
Re:It's not enough (Score:3)
Ripped off? How do you figure? I don't see an Apple goon squad forcing any indie artists or labels to use the iTune Music Store. Last I checked, this was entirely voluntary.
Bands will still get very little cash for their effort.
The VERY FACT that Apple is reaching out to indie labels is tremendous news for the artists. The internet has the potential to level the playing fiel
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..
Reuqest thread (Score:2)
Finally! Now to see... (Score:5, Interesting)
iTMS a killer app? (Score:5, Insightful)
The concept of small payments for songs will change the way people buy music. P2P apps have conditioned users to search for one song at a time for several years now, and paying a reasonable fee for a song isn't such an alien thought anymore at all. When Apple releases their x86-compatible client, together with a global release, the labels will have to face the music.
Online distribution will make distribution a non-issue, putting the indie labels on equal footing with the major players. The only advantage for signing on a major label will be the marketing machinery, and if iTMS would incorporate a net radio, even that would be a questionable advantage. Think about it: hearing indie songs on the net and actually being able to buy the single on the spot with one click will bring independents to the forefront.
Apple needs to run to stay ahead (Score:5, Insightful)
So Apple needs to get ahead and stay ahead. To do that, ease-of-use isn't enough (or Apple would have the 95% user share, not Microsoft) -- they need to have the biggest, most comprehensive, most searchable library of online music anywhere. Consumers won't get iTunes if Microsoft's store is already installed, but they will get it if iTunes offers three times more songs.
I think that once Apple gets a large number of indie labels in the store, the rest will eventually come on their own. That, plus a $100 iPod of any size, will be all they'll need to stay ahead of the competition for some time to come.
Re:Apple needs to run to stay ahead (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe not (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The ability to get the same DRM terms as Apple (own the song, burn to CD, etc).
2. Have a way to listen to it away from the computer (burn to CD, iPod like device, etc).
3. Same $1/track price.
4. Large selection.
Leaving out any of these items will doom the company to failure.
Just don't forget... (Score:2)
So, if the Apple store really takes off (like, really making a dent in total sales in all outlets combined), you'll need them more than they you, and I'm sure it'll cost the artists.
Then again, an "expensive" shelf place (aka Apple takes most of the profit) right next to the big bands is probably better than no shelf space, or some obscu
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...
Re:Three million sold? (Score:5, Funny)
They reached 2 mil in 16 days.
They reached 3 mil in 4 weeks.
At this rate they will be selling only 1 song a week by the end of the year. And this means...
(everybody say it with me)
Beleagured Apple is going out of business!!!
Re:Three million sold? (Score:3, Insightful)
Trust (Score:4, 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:Trust (Score:3, Insightful)
However, be wary. I like pretty much everybody else on slashdot is cheering for Apple for actually managing to do something incredibly right in an age where everything else seems so incredibly wrong.
But it is imporant to realize that Apple is still a company, and a publicly held one at that. While it's nice to think that Apple and Ste
YES! (Score:2)
As the Sub Pop guy mentioned in the article, they don't know about compensation yet, so basically it's all up in the air still.
I wonder how many people are working within the "iTMS-Department" - dealing and negotiating with all the smaller record labels, possibly including different deals on a per-band-basis, is certainly no small task.
Anyway, great to see such aggressive moves towards extending their cat
What about obscure mainstream? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope this doesn't mean bad news for eMusic (Score:3, Insightful)
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]
Giving you a magnet... (Score:2)
Imagine you browse the iTMS, and you look at famous bands X, Y and Z... Then you can get a frame/tab/whatever saying 'people who liked them, also liked ABC Band, a new Indie group from Hicksville...' which is what Amazon already do. They have a HUGE database of people's tastes!
THAT would be good... And with a 30sec preview, you'd be willing to risk $0.99 on it.
Or maybe the 'smaller' bands get less cash from Apple, so they sell at $0.7
Re:Giving you a magnet... (Score:4, Interesting)
One step closer to the artists (Score:4, Interesting)
When apple's done (Score:3, Funny)
It IS a race (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times have we seen Microsoft scramble to put up just ANY product that mimicks Apple or any other company, no matter how shoddy it was, and then use their deep pockets and name to further advance it. Windows 3.1 was hideous but they had to put SOMETHING out there against Apple and then keep revising it until it got better and people thought it was actually a good, innovative product. Same with the WinCE-powered handhelds. Palm was doing fine (ok, it was a portable OS going against Palm's organizing OS, but stick with me here) and then MS introduced WinCE which wasn't that hot either but after a few revisions it's turning out to be ok. Microsoft simply doesn't want to be left out and they're racing ahead with AOL/Time Warner now to ensure that doesn't happen.
Including indie labels is a brilliant move on Apple's part. Just think of the demographic of most Mac buyers anyway. Slightly creative, free-thinking, willing to pay a bit more for quality. It's the Mac owner that knows who is on these indie labels already.
And let's not forget Jobs and his pull in the entertainment industry. People there WANT to do business with him, from the artist level all the way up to managment. I just hope enough strategic alliances can be made so that a solid foundation can be built and not be torn away by a shoddy imitation with lots of money.
iTunes best sellers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:iTunes best sellers? (Score:5, Informative)
Blockquoth the poster:
Yes, both the top ten tracks and the top ten albums are listed on the iTMS "front page" (the page you go to when you select the iTMS in iTunes). As of this writing, they are:
Of course, North American Mac users make for a serious skewed sample group, but, well... you can draw your own conclusions.
Allow everyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
How much did you say?? (Score:3, Interesting)
iTunes on Windows and the future of Apple... (Score:3, Insightful)
The other thing Apple needs to do, and this is crucial, is to make iTunes on Windows NOT SUCK. Who here has QuickTime on Windows? Who hates it? Who would like it a heck of a lot better if it weren't so slow and buggy? Yep. Most of us. If iTunes for Windows isn't substantially better than QuickTime, and for that matter even Windows Media Player, Apple doesn't stand a chance in the long run.
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.
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)
Sharpshooters everywhere... (Score:5, Insightful)
This fits the classic pattern of Apple prophesy: "Sure, the Apple product is great, but we know that sooner or later Microsoft (or someone else) will come out with something that's 75% as good. So why bother with the Apple version? Besides, how could Apple possibly make money on this. Poor Apple, they're doomed!"
Every time Apple has tried something new, the prevailing sentiment has been, "that's wonderful, but it'll never keep Apple alive." Somehow they've managed to stay alive for quite a long time, and they've got a pretty loyal customer base. Maybe Apple management isn't so stupid after all.
Utilize the People (Score:3, Insightful)
1. When It comes down to it, a 30 second clip just isn't enough to sell me on a song. In the old model, one hit song could be the catalyst for selling a number of other good songs on the album (although it is often the case that one hit song sells a number of crappy ones). If this model becomes more popular, then each song will need to be marketed individually. That requires a lot of effort. Apple could help by providing radio stations based on it's catalog.
2. I think it could really take advantage of other people providing some level of predistribution. I could certainly see myself going through web sites that provided editorial content that reflected my own personal tastes. If people could get a small bit of the cut for pointing me to good music, they would be more inclined to put some effort into it. (This is similar to what amazon does now, but I don't think that books lend themselves as well to this sort of activity).
3. I don't think they should necessarily follow the Amazon system of rating things - which has devolved into pretty much a one or five star rating system that is mostly useless. I do like reading people's comments, though. Still, finding a central source for advice that I trust vs weeding out the person I trust from a list of unknowns is less than effective.
4. It is still unclear to me how I get to keep this music going forward. I don't plan on buying another computer for another year, but what about then? How do I move it? I still use my linux box alot and can imagine there is a point where I will use it exclusively in the future. I still paid for the music, I want to take it with me.
sean
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.)
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
Yeah but... (again) (Score:3, Insightful)
Some bands may choose to cater to that core audience and "stay small" - but I doubt many would turn down the chance at a major tour if one of their "indie releases" suddenly turned into a
Re:apple=crapple (Score:5, Insightful)
You confuse Apple with Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably a good split would be really small bands on EMusic, and then large to small bands on the Apple store.
Apple is not Microsoft, they do not crush people just for the hell of it or demand utter domination in a market space.