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: (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.
Re:iMusic industry news (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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:2)
It is about protecting your brand identity. If you Saw Linux OS and Linux Soap. If you know one or the other you will associate the two together. So you may see Linux Soap as some sort of a more socially responsible Soap Even if it is made from the harshest chemicals and slave labor. And Vice Versa if you know Linux Soap you may see Linux OS as an evil corporate identity.
Re: (Score:2)
Just being in separate industries doesn't cut it (Score:2, Informative)
The issue of whether something is or isn't infringement depends on whether it would be confusing, and cause consumers to assume that one product is produced by another company -- essentially free-riding on the other's reputation.
My understanding is that the Apple Records vs. Apple Computer suit never got to the point of determining whether that was the case. If the suit had gone forward, a judge would have needed to rule on it one way or the other. But before that happened they arrived at some sort of dea
Re: (Score:2)
...uh...did you read the blurb?
Re: (Score:2)
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?"
Re: (Score:2)
Why not "Old, successfulBand"? They don't need the one thing the label can give them: publicity?
Re: (Score:2)
True, and some successful bands have done just that. But the equation is different for an established and popular band. They've got some leverage to negotiate with the record labels. The labels aren't taking as big of a risk backing a guy who's already had three platinum albums as they are with a guy nobody has heard of. The plus hopefully the ability and wisdom to hire a decent lawyer to protect them, and said famous band should walk away with a much better deal than your average no-name group could ever h
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Apple record abused the intent of trademark, and Apple computer found it cheaper to settle.
This of course changed years later with the iPod, something that couldn't ahve been predicted when the Apple trademark abuse^H^H^H^H^H issue came up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:iMusic industry news (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, it's worked for him before. He could then buy the major labels for a negative price, just like Pixar bought Disney and NeXt bought Apple.
Re:iMusic industry news (Score:5, Funny)
There, fixed that for you.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed but the RIAA usually sues the teenage girls and grandmothers who get the IP after it is released from the music pirate that was using it to download over 12 MP3 files that are pirated versions and then reset their DSL modem to get a new IP.
It seems the RIAA doesn't care if someone downloads less than 12 songs in a row, but if they download 12 or move they get the Internet subpoena.
BitTorrent web sites are used for pirated music as well as free and open sourced music files [goingware.com] from independent artists wit
Re: (Score:2)
I think Billy Idol [chaoscontrol.com] proved that music can be made on a personal computer just as well in a music studio when he made the Cyberpunk album on a Macintosh system in 1993.
With modern Macintosh systems I am sure they can do a better job. Maybe Apple can make an iStudio software package to interface with home studio equipment and have artists make their own music, which they can pay a fee and get published on iTunes and become their own producers.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Go to This independent artist's website [leilalopezsongs.com] to listen to songs that were recorded at home, using a sound board and a G4 Mac. The album was entirely self-produced by said artist (who isn't me). She did all of the recording herself. She now independently distributes her music via iTunes, CD Baby, and at her live shows. She has been on tour, which she booked entirely on her own. Twice. Further proof that megalocorps are not necessary if you are willing to put your heart into the music.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apply won't start (Score:4, Insightful)
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:2)
But with music clubs, you can refuse the CD of the month, and pay nothing. (Though I will admit that BMG is apparently now not accepting new members, and is referring users to one like you mention -- $6.99/month with a 'queue' of CDs, and you get charged even if you have no CDs in your queue.)
Though I've gotten the vast majority of my CDs through BMG (and loooong ago some through Columbia, which had some CDs BMG didn't have), for under $6/CD including
the ridiculous "shipping" charges.
So basically, you're r
Re: (Score:2)
OH man...wait till they offer that to ME. I'll clean up!!!!
I like some pretty exotic things, and Lord help them if they include beer, wine and liquor in that average food bill!!! When I go to the grocery store, booze often runs at least a good 1/3 of my grocery bill.
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]
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)
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: (Score:2)
It's even worse reporting than that. DRM is copy "protection" (or would be if fairy dust existed and you really could make bits uncopyable), but copyright protection is cops, lawyers, and legislators.
You can't protect your copyright with DRM. You can only fool yourself into thinking it can keep anybody from infringing copyright.
SRM - Dumb Restrictions of Media
Re:misleading wording (Score:4, Insightful)
SRM - Dumb Restrictions of Media
Ironic typos are the best!
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:Megs of music!? (Score:2)
That would be funny, because right now there is no reason not to push the quality through the roof. But because I dabble with dinosaur mp3 players as a hobby, you can fit a lot more music at 80kbs-rate (spelling off) in 256 megs than 192 kbs-rate.
That might interact with the world of bandwidth caps on the isp side too.
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: (Score:2)
Maybe, except that the minimal cost of digital distribution has started to allow bands to make their music available without the help of a major label. Both no-name and big famous bands are experimenting and starting to be successful doing it all on their own. While there will still be some space for larger labels to operate, their monopoly on the mass-production of music has been cracked by technology, and will continue to erode away.
If Apple loses leverage and the major labels try to jack up prices two or
Re: (Score:2)
"They could charge $15 for a CD that cost them $1 to print and $5 to create, market, and manage."
Aren't you forgetting the entire wholesale/retail aspect of that $15 price? The distributors? The music store that got half the money for stocking the shelves, BUYING the shelves, turning on the lights, hiring staff, paying the lease, and so on?
Saying in so many words that the labels got $9 in profit after $6 of expenses is just wrong.
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: (Score:2)
There's also the often ignored fact that CD prices have DECLINED since introduction. Many new release CDs can be had for $10-12, despite decades of inflation where the costs of many other things ($3 for a loaf of bread) have dramatically increased.
Re: (Score:2)
No, PEOPLE are treating is as an intangible product with no costs involved or associated with creation, production, or distribution.
And even predating recording music had a tangible aspect: you needed musicians, instruments, often a concert hall or some other venue. You needed to give your time. You needed to travel to where it was being produced. You paid for a ticket. Music doesn't just appear out of thin air.
From my perspective, it's a pure accident of technology that are enabling people to swipe recordi
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
You still need copyright holders' approval to sell the music, something that Apple can potentially interfere with.
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
With brick and mortar, the RIAA screwed up and Walmart became such a large retail outlet they gained significant ability to push back and negotiate with the RIAA. The RIAA's attempts to give Amazon better terms than Apple and crazy (probably illegal) clauses in their contracts were an attempt to keep Apple from doing it online.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
"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).
iThugs?
Or are you talking about a different type of hit?
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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's a good point, but if the iTunes music store is stifling new entrants into the cell phone market, then Apple will have to start worrying about monopoly rulings.
Perhaps they've learned from Bill Gates, though, and they've taken out a sizable insurance policy in the form of loose pursed lobbyists.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that premise is based on the assumption that iPod users only buy from iTunes because they are locked to it. Remember people are free to rip their own CDs and since Amazon sells DRM-free songs, people don't necessarily have to buy from iTunes to get music.
Sure, but that can all end up in iTunes as well. All Palm needs to do is add a good integration to fetch music from an existing iTunes library - in fact that would save them a huge amount of work since they could focus on the selection aspect and not
Re: (Score:2)
iTunes itself doesn't do anything special to non-DRMed music. It does organize the files if the user allows it; but all any other media program has to do is be pointed to the directories where these music files are located. iTunes also stores metadata like playlists in their own files which they are not likely to share with Palm. Palm doesn't need any of that really. They just need to know where the files are located.
But you miss the point: Palm needs their own application store. Music is just one th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Google returns several ways to get Amarok to sync with an iPod Touch.
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: (Score:2)
I disagree.
The industry would ahve seen the light sooner or later, even if it was out of desperation.
Apple had the advantage of being a technical company that knows that any software can be circumvented..it's the nature of software.
In fact, if the industry wasn't already in a panic when Jobs went to them, iTunes wouldn't exist now.
So some credit does go to the industry for seeing the need for online distribution and recognizing it's better to let someone who knows WTF they are doing handle the digital distr
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. The industry would ahve seen the light sooner or later, even if it was out of desperation.
Actually, by the time the industry saw the light it would have been too late. They would have blindly walked into MS proprietary DRM and would be positioned against another abusive trust, but one with a history of abusing their way into new markets with alacrity.
Right now the RIAA has to walk away from DRM or the iPod listening market or capitulate to Apple on some matters. Without Apple, they'd be looking at walking away from users of all portable players and computers and the Xbox or capitulate to MS and
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, they only realized that they couldn't deal with themselves after they repeatedly shot themselves in the foot trying to make the issue go away. Napster was the big thing years before iTMS came on the scene. And even before that people were writing about how things were changing. The music industry should've seen this coming a million miles away, and should have had a better strategy from the beginning. They should have expected a napster to appear one day and had a plan to compete with it.
Instead they w
They haven't yet realized (Score:2)
Meh, they only realized that they couldn't deal with themselves after they repeatedly shot themselves in the foot trying to make the issue go away.
They have not realized yet - Apple has forced them to go DRM free on iTunes, but it was very much against their inclination...
If the music industry had truly come to the correct realization, would we have seen the recent Microsoft announcement, which doesn't even allow song transfer from one device to another if you upgrade?
If the music industry had truly realiz
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.
I agree, partly (Score:2)
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.
I very much agree with the first part, that most video watched will be only once. Thus the nature of DRM to make a purchase really more of a (in practice) unlimited rental, does not matter.
The second part, I'm not as su
Re: (Score:2)
The second part, I'm not as sure of. Even though you only want to watch most things once, portability is still of value - because you may want to watch something on a laptop, or portable device (like an iPhone or other small media player).
I agree you may want to watch it on such a device, but generally just one device. Usually, it is a device you are also using to purchase said content. So I may want to watch a movie on my laptop, but I'm also buying it from my laptop and so DRM restrictions usually never come into play. I may want to watch it on a smartphone or the like, but I generally buy it using that device too. In some cases you currently buy video via your laptop to watch on your network unaware device, but that use case is probably d
NO Subscription Fee to HEAR (Score:2)
I'm never going to pay a subscription fee to hear an unlimited amount. I would pay a subscription fee to download and own all I want in any given month.
Re:Dependency and Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
...except the labels don't need to. They can leave the
management of MP3 devices to someone else. All they need
now or ever needed really was an effective ecommerce site.
They don't need to "control the experience" like Apple.
Even Apple doesn't even really need it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a lot of time to develop an application as usable and stable as iTunes.
If you're talking about the music store, yes. If you're talking about the PC application, I'm going to have to turn my head to the side and shoot my green tea out my nose. At least on a Windows box, my experience with iTunes has been forcefully installing Quicktime and hogging system resources like a bloated bitch.
All software sucks. (Score:2)
If you're talking about the music store, yes. If you're talking about the PC application, I'm going to have to turn my head to the side and shoot my green tea out my nose.
I don't want to know about your fetishes.
I've used music players on Windows and *nix, commercial and free, and all of them suck dirty swamp water through moldy sweat socks. iTunes sucks less than most. It could be that there's one or two that suck less than iTunes, but it's near the top of the smelly heap.
* Skinned user interfaces. No. Hel
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And this, friends, is why Apple's the player to beat and everyone else can't figure out why.
Yes, if you wanted to do it the clunky way of navigate to website / browse / shopping-cart / checkout / download / copy to player / copy to portable - that can be done without much work.
However, for the rest of the people who *don't want to* or *can't* do that, Apple's packaged it up nicely. You don't go to your browser to buy music - you go to your music player. You don't manage files on your portable through your c
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between fit and polish. Anyone could write the application. MS with it's billions of dollars is already on revision 3 of the Zune software. It's almost the same functionality and stability as iTunes. Many others have tried. And failed.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that it's not as easy as some people think. "Hey, all it takes is a little code and I can have a music webstore." If it was that easy, iTunes wouldn't be as popular as it is today. Unfortunately people will also discount the hard work and polish that Apple has put into iTunes simply as not the reason they are #1. They rather believe it was lock-in.
They also don't see the reality of the situation that the record companies control the music and will not likely agree to allow anyone sell DRM fr
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple isn't that unreasonable about outside services working on iTunes and iPods. At a minimum I know that Audible.com has a tie in to Apple's i* DRM, you can activate iTunes and iPods to play their books. Surely the music industry could have worked something similar out (especially early on, before iTunes itself became a Juggernaut.)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
They've tried and failed with Napster, PlaysForSure, etc. The problem was that they didn't have the technical prowess to set up a seamless integrated operation. They don't have the facilities to understand websites, hardware etc. It took Apple who was willing to do it all before online music was a success.
Also the demands of DRM and tight control doomed most of the implementations because they want the consumer to pay for a copy for every device or rent music. They even fought against the idea MP3 pla
Re: (Score:2)
There's two big reasons why.
First off, creating a good online music store is hard. Lots of people have tried already, and very few have been successful. Just because the labels have access to lots of songs doesn't mean that they know how to create an online storefront and run the backend system that it would require. Sure, they can try to hire someone else to do it, but there aren't too many people out there with an established track record for this sort of thing for them to pick from.
Second, Apple's got th
Software is not their core competency (Score:2)
How come none of the labels have launched a similair service (it's not really the most original idea of all times)?
As others have noted they have tried.
The reason they will never succeed, is because they are not software companies and never will be - nor should they be. They exist to edit artists down to ones that will probably be popular, and market them.
Even when they partner with companies that are software companies, the fact they are the ones driving requirements means the results will always suck, an