PDA

View Full Version : Universal Music Group's iTunes Contract




MacRumors
Jul 1, 2007, 09:44 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The Wall Street Journal is reporting (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118334130094154901.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) that Universal Music Group is set to notify Apple that it will not be renewing their long term contract to sell digital music through Apple's iTunes Store. Instead they will continue with a "short-term" sales agreement, which would mean Universal's catalog would remain on iTunes for the time being.
Though it is unlikely to have sweeping effects immediately, the change could give Universal more flexibility in its dealings with competitors to iTunes -- for instance enabling the company to offer other digital download stores parts of its catalog exclusively to other services.
The exact impact of shift is not entirely clear, but record labels have been reportedly concerned with Apple's increasing dominance in digital music sales.



Peace
Jul 1, 2007, 09:47 PM
Sounds more like a bargaining tool to get Apple to charge more for downloads.

bytethese
Jul 1, 2007, 09:48 PM
I wonder what this means for Ringtones, if any, on the iPhone.

Why wouldn't they want to position themselves on the long term with the #3 music retailer in the US?

narco
Jul 1, 2007, 09:49 PM
Damn, these labels are totally clueless.

Fishes,
narco.

Fuchal
Jul 1, 2007, 09:49 PM
They must hate that they are selling so much music. We should all go back to using peer-to-peer networks to make them happy.

HiRez
Jul 1, 2007, 09:50 PM
I'm kind of surprised the record labels haven't all gotten together and formed their own music store, locking out the others and splitting the profits amongst themselves. They'd get 100% of the profits (minus technical overhead) and could control pricing and any other factors they wanted to.

Grimace
Jul 1, 2007, 09:50 PM
uhoh. hopefully the price of AAPL won't plumment tomorrow. I was hoping that we'd have sales numbers from the iPhone.

Kingsly
Jul 1, 2007, 09:50 PM
Dont they realize how much something like this could hurt them? The results are in: iTunes is best digital music store around!

bommai
Jul 1, 2007, 09:50 PM
Universal Music is still owned by the French company right. I don't think it is part of Universal Studios which is now owned by GE (NBC). Isn't Universal Music the one that is getting money for every zune sold. May be they want the same deal from Apple too!! Yeah right.

thevofl
Jul 1, 2007, 09:50 PM
Damn, these labels are totally clueless.

Fishes,
narco.

Completely and utterly clueless

Bosunsfate
Jul 1, 2007, 09:51 PM
So, Apple is the dominant player?

What music company is stepping up to stop the Wal-mart machine?

Is this just a case with Universal trying to take out their frustration on someone they can maybe push around?

BigJohno
Jul 1, 2007, 09:51 PM
This doesnt make any sense... Dont they want itunes to dominate which would in turn mean more money for them????

kinless
Jul 1, 2007, 09:52 PM
Bye Universal. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

We don't need your kind around here.

Steve1496
Jul 1, 2007, 09:54 PM
Bad move. Who makes the decisions at these record companies? iTunes is the 3rd largest music retailer, and Universal doesn't want a good relationship with Apple.

Bad move Universal!

Object-X
Jul 1, 2007, 09:55 PM
What other services?

Pants Dragon
Jul 1, 2007, 09:58 PM
Not a smart move. I somehow doubt Steve will let that stand. You're either in on his terms or out.

puckhead193
Jul 1, 2007, 09:58 PM
yawn...they just want apple to charge more but in the end they will realize how important itunes is and will stay the same...i'm not worried one bit

zim
Jul 1, 2007, 10:00 PM
oh no Apple, Please don't sell our music with no expense to us. Please don't make us money while we can sit back on our fat :eek:

And to think, I was reading an article the other day that suggested that the music industry had learned their lesson :rolleyes:

AlBDamned
Jul 1, 2007, 10:00 PM
Bite. Hand. Feed. Typical. :rolleyes:

blueflame
Jul 1, 2007, 10:01 PM
This is a bunch of bull. From my understanding, it is not as if the record labels are losing money by selling online. I do agree that this is a bargaining tool so they can sell more exclusive deals to other providers, but I do not see them trying to particularly single out itunes. iTunes being the #3 is a very good place for them. it is their digital wallmart. No one complains about wallmart prices, and the record companies love it. lots of money.
I think everyone is trying to demonize (partially rightfully) the record industry. While I do think that they are scummy, I think some of this criticism is pretty much made up by us fanboys with media frenzy help.
just my thoughts.

thevofl
Jul 1, 2007, 10:01 PM
<sarcasm>

I guess I will have to run and buy a Universal CD at Best Buy.

</sarcasm>

Bosunsfate
Jul 1, 2007, 10:02 PM
I'm kind of surprised the record labels haven't all gotten together and formed their own music store, locking out the others and splitting the profits amongst themselves. They'd get 100% of the profits (minus technical overhead) and could control pricing and any other factors they wanted to.

Monopoly for one. No way they could ever agree for two.:D

LloydBraun89
Jul 1, 2007, 10:02 PM
They're just a bunch of damn fools if you ask me.

Flipstar
Jul 1, 2007, 10:05 PM
Maybe the sharing of Zune revenue is working out for them. :rolleyes:

I guess they're thinking Apple is getting too powerful in the digital music arena.

iMeowbot
Jul 1, 2007, 10:05 PM
Universal Music is still owned by the French company right.
Right, Vivendi. They actually spun off the water business a few years ago, entertainment is their main thing now.
I'm kind of surprised the record labels haven't all gotten together and formed their own music store, locking out the others and splitting the profits amongst themselves.
Early on, they did try that. Vivendi actually bought mp3.com several years ago and never figured out what to do with it. BMG snapped up Napster a little earlier and also couldn't figure out what to do with it. Warner, BMG and EMi got together and failed to figure out how to make it work with MusicNet. Oh, and UMG and Sony tried and failed to do this with Pressplay, the wreckage of which became the current Roxio-backed incarnation of Napster.

chrisgeleven
Jul 1, 2007, 10:05 PM
My guess is they are trying to get the $1 per iPod deal Microsoft got with the Zune.

john7jr
Jul 1, 2007, 10:06 PM
Universal lost my sales after they blanket-accused us all of buying iPods just to steal their music. What a bunch of turds.

Go. Fine. Lose sales. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

ghall
Jul 1, 2007, 10:11 PM
Oh poor Universal. Not making enough millions?

synth3tik
Jul 1, 2007, 10:12 PM
That sounds like it sucks to me.

mi5moav
Jul 1, 2007, 10:12 PM
So, if your Microsoft 90% dominace is fine but 10% dominace in music sales is scaring the industry come on retards. Sick of all this damn greed.

avkills
Jul 1, 2007, 10:13 PM
What a bunch of dummies. iTunes was done right, they will learn.

-mark

rockthecasbah
Jul 1, 2007, 10:13 PM
This decision by Universal makes no sense to me, iTunes recently just became the 3rd largest music distributor, why would you reduce availability of your music in a store that large?!?!

Silly record companies.

AaronICT
Jul 1, 2007, 10:24 PM
So like what happens if all the record companies get a brainiac idea to not renew at all, ever again, and try to launch their own digital music store?

Granted it would be terrible and fail, but where would that leave iTunes?

Draelius
Jul 1, 2007, 10:26 PM
So like what happens if all the record companies get a brainiac idea to not renew at all, ever again, and try to launch their own digital music store?

Granted it would be terrible and fail, but where would that leave iTunes?

Indy label.

Mudo
Jul 1, 2007, 10:26 PM
... does anyone know what artists would be removed from iTMS?

LagunaSol
Jul 1, 2007, 10:27 PM
uhoh. hopefully the price of AAPL won't plumment tomorrow. I was hoping that we'd have sales numbers from the iPhone.

That would be a brainless move by investors, as Apple doesn't really make much from digital downloads. But I've seen Apple stock drop for brainless reasons before...

Bring on the age where artists sell their music themselves through iTunes. The labels are doomed to extinction; this is just a desperate move to demonstrate some sort of power...

Pull out of iTunes and hurt my investment in AAPL, Universal, and I'll not buy a drop of media from you in any format again. Period.

john7jr
Jul 1, 2007, 10:28 PM
It's a bluff.

I say call it. Let them go. They will either back down or they will actually leave. Either way, they look like the sleezballs suing old ladies and dead people while calling the rest of us thieves. The bottom line is they just lose money. If they want to take their ball and go home let them, the game will go on without their whining. It will hurt Apple in the short term, but not as much as it will hurt Universal. It's giving away near-effortless revenue on their part. How much effort can it take to batch-convert their new releases to AAC?

All the while EMI just looks better in comparison because they acknowledge the consumer's desires. Supply and demand.

JGowan
Jul 1, 2007, 10:28 PM
Universal Music Group (UMG) is the largest business group and family of record labels in the recording industry. With a 25.5% market share, it is one of the Big Four record labels. It belongs to the French conglomerate Vivendi SA.

UMG's record labels have many of the world's biggest artists [1] including The Killers, McFly, Shania Twain, Bon Jovi, Elton John, Method Man, Tupac Shakur, Aaliyah, Jay-Z, Mariah Carey, t.A.T.u., Eminem, Dr. Dre, Diana Ross, Reba McEntire, Luciano Pavarotti, U2, Kanye West, Bone Thugs-N-Harmony and 50 Cent. UMG owns one of the largest music publishing businesses of the world, the Universal Music Publishing Group.

In the United States UMG is located in Santa Monica, California, and New York City, New York along with Universal Music Group Nashville; in the UK the group has a number of offices in London. Vivendi's headquarters are in France, in Paris.

More Info from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Music_Group)

----

Sad about U2, with Bono and Steve being so tight. We'll see how they want to respond when EMI brings the Beatles on before Christmas and starts selling vast amounts. They'll be staying put.

----

I love it when a SOURCE for any story is some masked un-named person who must remain anonymous. I call BS. WSJ just stirring the crap pot to stink it up for all concerned.

.:R2theT
Jul 1, 2007, 10:29 PM
iTunes was responsible for 15% of Universal's worldwide revenue in the first quarter, $200 milliion! What if Apple just said goodbye to Universal? Would it really hurt Apple that much?

inkswamp
Jul 1, 2007, 10:31 PM
Dear Universal Music Group,

Prepare to be Steved.

Sincerely,
Apple

AoWolf
Jul 1, 2007, 10:33 PM
This makes me really really not want to got start lime wire up. I mean its illegal and would be screwing these fine folks over. :rolleyes:

macintel4me
Jul 1, 2007, 10:34 PM
Universal needs Apple more than Apple need Universal right now.

...unless there is something we don't know about it, Universal is being greedy.

JGowan
Jul 1, 2007, 10:37 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The Wall Street Journal is reporting (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118334130094154901.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) that Universal Music Group is set to notify Apple that it will not be renewing their long term contract to sell digital music through Apple's iTunes Store. Instead they will continue with a "short-term" sales agreement, which would mean Universal's catalog would remain on iTunes for the time being.

The exact impact of shift is not entirely clear, but record labels have been reportedly concerned with Apple's increasing dominance in digital music sales.THE EXACT WORDING WAS...

Universal Music May Seek Contract With Shorter Term for iTunes Sales
BY ETHAN SMITH AND NICK WINGFIELD
Highlighting continuing tension between the music industry and Apple Inc., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group is considering notifying the Cupertino, Calif., company that it isn't renewing a long-term contract to sell digital music downloads through the increasingly powerful iTunes Store, according to a person familiar with the situation.

The move doesn't mean Universal will ...

Pretty sensational, if you ask me... and not the good kind. :confused:

TitoC
Jul 1, 2007, 10:41 PM
Did you ever see one of these fictional "music industry" movies, where you're getting a behind the scenes look of what's it like to be in the music industry and they have this record company executive that is an over the top stereotypical character? And you think they can't be THAT cheesey, THAT stupid, THAT out of touch, have THAT much bad taste? Yeah, they can . . .

Worse part is that they are almost always WORSE in real life.

No vision, no forsight. Just greed.

Forget about vision or forsight, how about just SIGHT!

Let us know how that new job goes . . . .

twoodcc
Jul 1, 2007, 10:44 PM
i'm sad to hear this. sounds like they are jealous of apple's success

Digitalclips
Jul 1, 2007, 10:45 PM
Right, Vivendi. They actually spun off the water business a few years ago, entertainment is their main thing now.


And of course the French love helping with all things from English speaking countries :rolleyes:

Someone got a list of top artists involved here?
EDIT/ OK I see that's been done now, thnx.

slughead
Jul 1, 2007, 10:47 PM
That sounds like it sucks to me.

No kidding. In spite of the people wanting to believe this wont hurt Apple, it actually will.

I don't shop on iTMS at all (for music, anyway), but if I did, they'd be losing a lot of my business.

Universal is THE WORLD'S BIGGEST music corporation. Everyone likes at least a band or two on their labels, I like several, personally.

I'm not even pissed at Universal, this is just really bad news for iTunes. Universal knows exactly how much money they make from iTunes, they must've just seen a way for them to make more. Maybe they'll make their own online store that sells DRM-free iPod-compatible tracks and charges $2. Regardless of what they do, they probably know what they're doing. To say they're 'clueless' really proves that you are the one who is clueless.

Seeing the failure of lower-priced music stores with unpopular tracks, clearly we can recognize that people want music they LIKE, not music from companies whose politics they agree with. Thinking otherwise is a romantic pipe-dream.

Again, this will hurt both companies, but I'd imagine Universal will make more money this way--somehow.

Edit: woops, my post was under the impression of matt drudge's headline on this--that UMG was leaving itunes

Edit2:
Universal, which produces one in three albums sold in the United States, will continue to sell music via iTunes on a month-to-month basis, rather than be locked in to a two-year agreement Apple had proposed, the source said.

The music company could now agree to offer significant portions of its repertoire exclusively to new partners, potentially weakening Apple's dominant hold on digital music retail.

The two sides had extended a previous two-year agreement by 12 months last summer, and that deal expired last month, the source said.

so they are sort of posturing to leave.

rockosmodurnlif
Jul 1, 2007, 10:49 PM
I fail to see how this could possibly be bad for Universal. They're saying that iTunes will continue to be able to sell their songs but that they are reserving the right to let other digital music services sell their songs. Am I right or wrong? If I'm wrong, show me and explain.

Outsiderdude26
Jul 1, 2007, 10:49 PM
As someone in the 'biz' I understand that it just shortening their contract, i.e. making a short term contract instead of an entire year. This could be because they want a piece of the pie (AKA 'Zune deal') or have to leverage against Apple in some weird way.

Either way Apple is not a company to be trifled with.

Universal will come back on its knees and will have DRM free music by the end of next year On iTunes.

inkswamp
Jul 1, 2007, 10:51 PM
...unless there is something we don't know about it, Universal is being greedy.

They're really not just being greedy. They're trying to position themselves so they can be a vital force in the big change that is happening in music. Right now, music is in full sway going digital. The market and distribution model as the music industry knows them (i.e., CD sales in brick-and-mortar stores) is eroding faster than they can deal with. They can see where this is all heading and get a very blunt reminder each time iTunes jumps up another notch in the list of top 5 music sellers.

Under the old model, they were the 500 lb. gorillas, but under the new model, Apple is. And that's fair. Apple deserves to be. They were the only company out there that looked at where everything was going and what was happening and put it all together and then took the big gamble to see if they were right (think how devastating a blow it would have been had the iPod and iTunes been a flop.) The gamble paid off and now they are gradually pulling power out of the music industry's hands.

The only thing music companies can do right now is try to wedge themselves into Apple's plans any way they can and fight for a little bit of power. They've already lost the battle and they know their days are numbered. Their big mistake was that they didn't foresee where all this was going or, if they did have any idea, they didn't have enough guts or vision to make their own iPod and iTunes. Instead, they sat around and carped about Napster and started suing people which is a dead-end approach.

A good analogy that many of us will understand is Microsoft and PC makers in the late 80s and early 90s. At one time, the hardware makers were the powerful ones but Microsoft turned the tables on them because they saw where it was going and that software was going to be the real center of power in this arrangement. The smart PC makers jockeyed for a position in all that but were still subjugated to MS. Likewise, music companies are doing the same with Apple. The last thing UMG wants right now is to get removed from iTunes. That would be like MS revoking Dell's license to sell Windows. It would devastate them. I think UMG is just trying to play hardball with Apple to get whatever they can and secure some position of power in the iTunes-dominated music world. There's no way in hell they are going to let themselves be cut out of that however.

ajhill
Jul 1, 2007, 10:52 PM
So, Apple is the dominant player?

What music company is stepping up to stop the Wal-mart machine?

Is this just a case with Universal trying to take out their frustration on someone they can maybe push around?


Bricks and mortar CD sales are decreasing at the rate of 12%/year while online digital download sales are increasing at 49%. At that rate Apple will be the #1 retail store in the USA for music sales in mid to late 2008. It should be a lot of fun to watch.

Considering the generous portion of each sale that the music companies get I don't think this kind of threat means anything. A paper tiger. Not that the French would talk a tall tale and then fold when it comes time to fight. No, that's never happened before.

Apple sells music online to sell iPods (where the profit is), and now iPhones.

NewSc2
Jul 1, 2007, 10:53 PM
I fail to see how this could possibly be bad for Universal. They're saying that iTunes will continue to be able to sell their songs but that they are reserving the right to let other digital music services sell their songs. Am I right or wrong? If I'm wrong, show me and explain.

From the tone of the article, it sounds as if Universal is threatening to move part of its catalog elsewhere. From a sales aspect, other digital music services are lagging far behind Apple.

My thoughts are if people can't find it on iTunes, they're not going to be downloading other software or setting up other accounts just to purchase some exclusive Universal track. They'd probably just end dl it off the p2p networks.

iMeowbot
Jul 1, 2007, 10:53 PM
THE EXACT WORDING WAS...
…different before WSJ updated their article.
Pretty sensational, if you ask me... and not the good kind. :confused:
There were also other reports (e.g. on drudge) claiming that it was a done deal, so the MR version was actually pretty moderate at the time it was posted.

Draelius
Jul 1, 2007, 10:57 PM
... does anyone know what artists would be removed from iTMS?

Some of Universal's artists include:

Jay-Z, Beastie Boys, DMX, Ludacris, Method Man, Nas, Run DMC, Indigo Girls, Josh Kelly, Los Lobos, The Polyphonic Spree, Queen, Bryan Adams, Maroon Five, Aerosmith, Mary J. Blige, Macy Gray, Snoop Dogg, Audioslave, Keane, Nirvana, No Doubt, Tupac Shakur, Gewn Stefani, 50 Cent, Dr. Dre, Eminem, Nine Inch Nails, Black Eyed Peas, everyone signed to Motown, Godsmak, HIM, Elton John, Prince, George Strait, Johnny Cash, Tricia Yearwood, Willie Nelson...and the list goes on...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Universal_Music_Group_artists

Digitalclips
Jul 1, 2007, 10:59 PM
Posted by mrfrosty
Also can someone tell me what deep sixing is ? We don't have this phrase in england and if i were to guess it's meaning it wouldn't be printable :-)

It is an English expression! :rolleyes:

A leadman's cry of "six deep" or "by the deep six" from ye olde sailing ships.

OutThere
Jul 1, 2007, 11:00 PM
I really hope that they don't try to bargain into a subscription service. I don't like that crap....and it seems some record labels really like it.

AoWolf
Jul 1, 2007, 11:01 PM
I fail to see how this could possibly be bad for Universal. They're saying that iTunes will continue to be able to sell their songs but that they are reserving the right to let other digital music services sell their songs. Am I right or wrong? If I'm wrong, show me and explain.

I think its more a of a control issue then anything. For years the music companies got away with charging an outrageous amount and apple came along a threw a wrench in it. Suddenly people are becoming popular overnight because over iTunes and the middle man of the record company looses more power over what we listen to and how we buy.

Zadillo
Jul 1, 2007, 11:01 PM
In the worst case scenario, if Universal decided to stop allowing music to be sold on iTunes, the only one it hurts is Universal.

Imaging Universal trying to explain to their existing artists why no-one can buy their music on iTunes; imagine Universal trying to renew a contract with an artist or sign a hot new band, but having to admit that they won't have their music available on iTunes.

It won't work. It would be one thing if iTunes was still some up and coming service, but it is established now.

Apple doesn't need Universal at this point; Universal would shoot themselves in the foot to cut off such a large source of music sales.

JoshH
Jul 1, 2007, 11:09 PM
Dear Universal Music Group,

Prepare to be Steved.

Sincerely,
Apple

Ha... I love this new verb. :cool:

Digitalclips
Jul 1, 2007, 11:10 PM
In the worst case scenario, if Universal decided to stop allowing music to be sold on iTunes, the only one it hurts is Universal.

Imaging Universal trying to explain to their existing artists why no-one can buy their music on iTunes; imagine Universal trying to renew a contract with an artist or sign a hot new band, but having to admit that they won't have their music available on iTunes.

It won't work. It would be one thing if iTunes was still some up and coming service, but it is established now.

Apple doesn't need Universal at this point; Universal would shoot themselves in the foot to cut off such a large source of music sales.

Makes you wonder if a paradigm shift isn't due. Maybe artists should sign with a new division of Apple. They could call it Apple Corp. .... ?? ;)

Riquez
Jul 1, 2007, 11:11 PM
Although it's never a good idea to predict the future on the internet (as there is a permanant record of your foolish ramblings) I can't help but feel a kind of mysterious static force surrounding the Music industry, to me it spells their demise & the rise of a new overload.

The industry is ripe for a new system, prehaps it could be Google?, new bands & artists sign up with google-music, a few famous bands make the move over & soon you'll find that Universal et al are nothing but an archive for old country music classics.

iMeowbot
Jul 1, 2007, 11:12 PM
The NYT version (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/02/business/media/02universal.html) of the story claims that UMG already notified Apple last week.

Zadillo
Jul 1, 2007, 11:14 PM
Makes you wonder if a paradigm shift isn't due. Maybe artists should sign with a new division of Apple.

I think this is something the labels are concerned about.

Not so much that Apple actually wants to start a record label (I know they also settled with Apple Corps, the Beatles label, but I'm not sure if that includes the possibility of Apple themselves actually running a label themselves).....

But we're in an age where an artist can record an album, upload it themselves and sell it on iTunes if they wanted.

The labels primary role seems to be more about promotion, etc. at this point, but in this age of MySpace, YouTube, iTunes Store, etc. even that is changing.

The traditional labels are probably scared to death of a future where any old artist records their own music, promotes themselves on the internet via MySpace, etc. and sells their own music through the iTunes Store (or even their own website).

P.S. The coolest thing of course would be if Apple Inc. bought Apple Corps and ran it as their own music label - something like what the Beatles originally dreamed it might be, letting it live on as a real and innovative new label, as opposed to primarily just a label for Beatles stuff. I can't imagine this would ever happen, but it would be cool.

JPark
Jul 1, 2007, 11:14 PM
Maybe this will be the catalyst to push apple into becoming a record label. With myspace and iTunes, artists hardly need a label like Universal anymore.

lsyx
Jul 1, 2007, 11:15 PM
I think Apple just needs to start up their own music label, or buy a smaller one (Apple Corps?). That way any artist can just sell their music through iTunes (and maybe as physical media), and Apple can give them a better cut of the profit than is usual. That would basically fix Apple's dependence on external carriers. Same thing with AT&T, if I were Apple, I'd be building my own network right now (or buying it... Helio?), just to make sure that other companies weren't responsible for my survival.

Edit: Wow, did JPark, Zadillo, and I think of the same thing or what.

Digitalclips
Jul 1, 2007, 11:16 PM
I think this is something the labels are concerned about.

Not so much that Apple actually wants to start a record label (I know they also settled with Apple Corps, the Beatles label, but I'm not sure if that includes the possibility of Apple themselves actually running a label themselves).....

But we're in an age where an artist can record an album, upload it themselves and sell it on iTunes if they wanted.

The labels primary role seems to be more about promotion, etc. at this point, but in this age of MySpace, YouTube, iTunes Store, etc. even that is changing.

The traditional labels are probably scared to death of a future where any old artist records their own music, promotes themselves on the internet via MySpace, etc. and sells their own music through the iTunes Store (or even their own website).

P.S. The coolest thing of course would be if Apple Inc. bought Apple Corps and ran it as their own music label - something like what the Beatles originally dreamed it might be, letting it live on as a real and innovative new label, as opposed to primarily just a label for Beatles stuff. I can't imagine this would ever happen, but it would be cool.

You p.s. was my point exactly. I was only half joking.

JPark
Jul 1, 2007, 11:17 PM
I think Apple just needs to start up their own music label, or buy a smaller one (Apple Corps?). That way any artist can just sell their music through iTunes (and maybe as physical media), and Apple can give them a better cut of the profit than is usual. That would basically fix Apple's dependence on external carriers. Same thing with AT&T, if I were Apple, I'd be building my own network right now (or buying it... Helio?), just to make sure that other companies weren't responsible for my survival.

Edit: Wow, did JPark, Zadillo, and I think of the same thing or what.

Jinx :D

Kwill
Jul 1, 2007, 11:19 PM
You don't want to play ball with me? OK. I'll make my own music label. And it will be the best on the planet! :D

Zadillo
Jul 1, 2007, 11:20 PM
You p.s. was my point exactly. I was only half joking.

Yeah..... I don't know, there just seems to be something cosmically right about the idea of Apple Inc. acquiring Apple Corps and turning it into a real label again.

I've always thought it was a shame that Apple Corps never really took off (I know they had some great artists, etc. but still), and that its primarily known today because of the Beatles catalogue.

Apple Corps should be a vibrant label with new and groundbreaking acts; it shouldn't just be a music museum (don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Beatles fan...... but I think back when the Beatles were around, they would have been disappointed too to know that in 2007, the biggest act on the label was still them).

brasscat
Jul 1, 2007, 11:23 PM
I think ultimately Apple is sitting in the driver's chair - since they're a major distribution channel for the music labels. It would take two or more major labels to band together to force better deals for themselves, which is unlikely to happen without some disclosure of those (confidential) deals to their competition.

SiliconAddict
Jul 1, 2007, 11:23 PM
I've said it before and I will say it again. Its the music industry who pulls the strings not Apple. If they want to pull support for the iPod and back someone else its really up to them.

Digitalclips
Jul 1, 2007, 11:24 PM
Yeah..... I don't know, there just seems to be something cosmically right about the idea of Apple Inc. acquiring Apple Corps and turning it into a real label again.

I've always thought it was a shame that Apple Corps never really took off (I know they had some great artists, etc. but still), and that its primarily known today because of the Beatles catalogue.

Apple Corps should be a vibrant label with new and groundbreaking acts; it shouldn't just be a music museum (don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Beatles fan...... but I think back when the Beatles were around, they would have been disappointed too to know that in 2007, the biggest act on the label was still them).

I agree and just maybe we will soon learn there was more the the Apple v Apple settlement than we all realized. It would be pretty cool to see Apple Corps' logo again only this time along with Apple Inc's.

The Monkey
Jul 1, 2007, 11:26 PM
I'm kind of surprised the record labels haven't all gotten together and formed their own music store, locking out the others and splitting the profits amongst themselves. They'd get 100% of the profits (minus technical overhead) and could control pricing and any other factors they wanted to.

Just a few antitrust hurdles to clear.:p

Zadillo
Jul 1, 2007, 11:32 PM
I agree and just maybe we will soon learn there was more the the Apple v Apple settlement than we all realized. It would be pretty cool to see Apple Corps' logo again only this time along with Apple Inc's.

True; I was just reading up on that, and forgot that apparently part of the settlement is still sealed/not public.

Who knows what all they have worked out between each other.

HiRez
Jul 1, 2007, 11:33 PM
Just a few antitrust hurdles to clear.:pWell...that hasn't stopped a lot of other industries from finding a way. The almighty dollar trumps the law, at least in our current leadership environment.

Peace
Jul 1, 2007, 11:33 PM
iTunes was responsible for 15% of Universal's worldwide revenue in the first quarter, $190 milliion! What if Apple just said goodbye to Universal? Would it really hurt Apple that much?

if those figures are right I'd say Universal is going to lose $160 million while Apple loses $10 million.dumb move.

zioxide
Jul 1, 2007, 11:34 PM
Record industry people are ****ing idiots. I hope they do stop selling on iTunes and then their sales ****ing plummet.

valiar
Jul 1, 2007, 11:35 PM
I really hope that they don't try to bargain into a subscription service. I don't like that crap....and it seems some record labels really like it.

Not that it matters if THEY like it...
I don't see any subscription service out there doing as well as iTunes does at the moment.

blueskyrocket
Jul 1, 2007, 11:38 PM
If they want to charge more (ie $2/track), it will only send people like us back to P2P networks again. If that happens, I'd love to see a torrent site called P2PUMG where only UMG stuff gets traded. Or better still, a micropayments option similar to Corbis, where bands & artists set their own pricing and remove the middle man (UMG) altogether. After all, that is what the internet does best, it removes middle people. I could see the day, where Apple actually promotes the indie artist and runs big public concert days. In Australia, similar to the "Big Day Out" series. Thinking even further ahead, if Apple were to buy one of the big labels ( I actually thought that EMI would have been a good start, though it has just recently been sold), it would buy them a seat at the table of the negotiations for digital sales. Well, a bigger seat than they already have.
UMG does not have the talent to setup their own digital site, even though they have seen how its done. It will be just like, Moto, Ericson, Samsung & Nokia have seen what Apple has done with the iPhone, ie they now have the formula, but they wont be able to do diddly squat about it!

mrkramer
Jul 1, 2007, 11:45 PM
I hope that they don't drop off their music, but if they do then unless they sell their music for $.99 per song like iTunes and DRM free so I can use it on my iPods on some other service then I will start downloading any music from Universal from limewire or other such program.

Teddy's
Jul 1, 2007, 11:46 PM
Why they all can't be just happy and enjoying their $$$millions$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and leave us mere mortals enjoying our 99cent songs with our $300 iPods? and stuff.

oh right, lawyers...


As my teacher of Finance used to say:

Q: What makes a rich person happier?
A: More money!

bigjohn
Jul 1, 2007, 11:46 PM
Everyone just wants a taste, no big deal...

What also is not a big deal are ringtones, seriously folks. You'll get your silly ringtones for your silly ifones. (yeah i spelled it wrong, what of it, the other way is silly).

Digitalclips
Jul 1, 2007, 11:50 PM
True; I was just reading up on that, and forgot that apparently part of the settlement is still sealed/not public.

Who knows what all they have worked out between each other.

Fingers crossed :)

It would give Paul something to do when he eventually stops touring too.

Digitalclips
Jul 1, 2007, 11:52 PM
Well...that hasn't stopped a lot of other industries from finding a way. The almighty dollar trumps the law, at least in our current leadership environment.

What leadership? :(

ezekielrage_99
Jul 2, 2007, 12:03 AM
They must hate that they are selling so much music. We should all go back to using peer-to-peer networks to make them happy.

Great idea that would save me a heap on iTunes Music vouchers :D

Darkroom
Jul 2, 2007, 12:06 AM
jesus, why is it that every 2 minutes the music industry heads are announcing as LOUD AS THEY CAN that they're scared about something and trying to make more money... money money money...

EAT IT BIG 4!!!!

OutThere
Jul 2, 2007, 12:14 AM
Not that it matters if THEY like it...
I don't see any subscription service out there doing as well as iTunes does at the moment.

I think that it's a delusion that companies have that people will ever want to step away from actually purchasing something...even if it is just a file, into a system where, if they decided not to continue their subscriptions, they would no longer have their music.

JFreak
Jul 2, 2007, 12:14 AM
I'm kind of surprised the record labels haven't all gotten together and formed their own music store, locking out the others and splitting the profits amongst themselves. They'd get 100% of the profits (minus technical overhead) and could control pricing and any other factors they wanted to.

I'm surprised the record companies aren't happy. The tech overhead is a huge expense that they would outsource anyway, so why not Apple? This is the first time that electronic music store is profitable for everyone and they're still greedy enough to want more profit.

Companies should listen to customers as Apple does. Of course the record companies want to charge more, but if they charge so much customers don't want to pay for it, then there's no sales! Apple has negotiated a perfect balance so customers want to buy and companies get the money they would otherwise not be getting [assuming people would somehow download the music anyway].

If they don't want to play it legal, then they're putting out a message: it is okay to pirate music as long as the hugely overpriced CD:s sell well. That's the Microsoft way and I hate it.

AlBDamned
Jul 2, 2007, 12:15 AM
Some more coverage over at Reuters..

http://secondlife.reuters.com/stories/2007/07/01/b1e7db9c08ec08bf6e477cec5e9115c6/

original here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUKN0128300220070702

Yankees 4 Life
Jul 2, 2007, 12:15 AM
this is totally bogus, its not apple's fault that they happen to create an awesome product that no one else can even match.... what jealousy on universal's part

Xtremehkr
Jul 2, 2007, 12:16 AM
Record labels are in enough trouble already, without pulling this crap. The whole business model is becoming outdated, recording label wise.

Yankees 4 Life
Jul 2, 2007, 12:20 AM
Record labels are in enough trouble already, without pulling this crap. The whole business model is becoming outdated, recording label wise.

i agree, they waste their time selling 14.00 cds that shoudl be 5 bucks, they are so dumb and i cant wait for this to bite them in the @ss

SeaFox
Jul 2, 2007, 12:23 AM
I'm kind of surprised the record labels haven't all gotten together and formed their own music store, locking out the others and splitting the profits amongst themselves. They'd get 100% of the profits (minus technical overhead) and could control pricing and any other factors they wanted to.

It wouldn't work because the iPod has been the digital music player for while, and the only type of DRM that has ever been available on the iPod is Apple's Fairplay. So the labels would either have to play ball with Apple, or sell plain MP3 if they wanted to be usable on the iPod. Until recently, none of them would ever consider selling plain MP3s. Apple not licensing WMA is what allowed them to take control.

The labels are only concerned about Apple's dominance in the industry because they're used to being the domineering ones. Apple is making it too easy to make them obsolete.

lessthandmb
Jul 2, 2007, 12:37 AM
Major labels are dinosaurs. In the last few years they have turned into nothing but banks, and will soon be obsolete. Bands get less than half of what they did ten years ago for recording budgets - but the shareholders and all the other financial heads are making more than ever. Greed? noooo. This is just another example of them fearing loss of control. They work on the same business plan since 1970. How is that going to work 40 years later? Nobody is buying records anymore, and they cannot get past that. Its as if their Mrs. perfect was under their complete control but has now found another man. They are lashing out in anger randomly, and are looking completely foolish. Let them fall.

Jeremy

--unfortunately, big labels kept the music scene from being flooded with endless amounts of mediocracy, which is where we are now. Way too much music and way too watered down. I dont believe that 13 year olds playing sloppy, uninteresting music should be on the same platform as bands like Wilco, Dave Matthews Band, and many others who are PROFESSIONALS. Thats the problem with Myspace and many other music networks.

Xtremehkr
Jul 2, 2007, 12:38 AM
There was an interesting article in the business section of the newspaper sometime in the last week that tried to explain the continuing decline in full album sales. As a whole, music sales are down across the board. There is both a consumer and artist backlash against recording labels who have become progressively more greedy. Trent Reznor has also ranted about this recently.

With artists like Paul McCartney headed to Starbucks, kudos to him for trying, something is being done.

If iTunes were to start producing its own artists, it would have the advantage of being able to promote artists, whenever customers come to iTunes to purchase music.

I can see why traditional record labels are worried. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find too much empathy for them, as they've been extorting consumers and artists in every way they could think of for decades.

Peace
Jul 2, 2007, 12:39 AM
I just don't see any other competing online music service being able to generate $160 million a year in revenues for Universal.
They either make a really dumb move and lose $160 million in a year or lose maybe $100 million by moving it's catalog to some other online provider.Either way they lose a LOT of money.
This is a bluff/bargaining tool plain and simple.They want a subscription model on iTunes or $2.99 a song..

It may be coincidental but this news comes out 2 days after the launch of the iPhone.Which is tied to iTunes.

miketcool
Jul 2, 2007, 12:44 AM
Announcement for Tuesday besides something related to G5 Powerbooks:

Steve Jobs lists Apple Inc. new business after;

1: The Ulmighty Mac
2: The Ubiquitous iPod
3: The Amazing iPhone
4: The Labeless Music Label (garageband gets an agent!)

Hope that Apple Corp lawsuit settlement panned out just right so Steve can start his new world media empire. Please save us from the stuffed pigs who charge us vast amounts of money to gain access to art! They try to make museums as free as possible so we can enjoy the works. Why am I shelling out $15 a CD to listen to an artist only to go to jail if I share it?

miketcool
Jul 2, 2007, 12:47 AM
--unfortunately, big labels kept the music scene from being flooded with endless amounts of mediocracy, which is where we are now. Way too much music and way too watered down. I dont believe that 13 year olds playing sloppy, uninteresting music should be on the same platform as bands like Wilco, Dave Matthews Band, and many others who are PROFESSIONALS. Thats the problem with Myspace and many other music networks.

To be fair, to each his own. :D

iMeowbot
Jul 2, 2007, 12:54 AM
With artists like Paul McCartney headed to Starbucks, kudos to him for trying, something is being done.
…except that Starbucks distribution is handled by Universal :/

Xtremehkr
Jul 2, 2007, 12:57 AM
…except that Starbucks distribution is handled by Universal :/

It's a start though, the stranglehold recording labels once held is being broken.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 2, 2007, 01:12 AM
I fail to see how this could possibly be bad for Universal. They're saying that iTunes will continue to be able to sell their songs but that they are reserving the right to let other digital music services sell their songs. Am I right or wrong? If I'm wrong, show me and explain.

Well at least there's ONE person on here that can read. This is the ONLY intelligent post I've read in this thread. The rest is the usual uninformed fanboy ranting that makes Apple users look like religious zealots to the rest of the world. If you've got a point to make, back it up with some logic at least. "YOU SUCK" is not an argument. :rolleyes:

We have no idea what Universal has up their sleeve or what deals they're making in the background. They haven't dropped support for iTunes at this time and so jumping to the conclusion that they absolutely will is premature at best. Even the article says what it will mean in the long term is unclear at this time. What advantage is there for Universal to sign a long term contract with Apple? Is Apple going to give them something more than they're getting with short term contracts? If not, what's the point in signing your options away??? THAT would be stupid business. Businesses do not operate on groupie/fan logic.

iMikeT
Jul 2, 2007, 01:17 AM
Nothing more than a pseudo bargaining tool.

At the moment, they have $$ in their eyes. In the end, they will crack.

Phormic
Jul 2, 2007, 01:29 AM
A desperate bargaining chip by a company who's days, certainly in musical terms, are numbered.

The final death rattle of another dinosaur, proving itself to be an irrelevance in this modern age. No doubt Universal's board members sit around drinking port and reminiscing about the days when everybody bought CD's full of songs they didn't want, at a terrifying mark-up, while giving stuff-all to the artist who created it.

The sooner artists can sell music on iTunes directly and bypass these morons, the better.

aLoC
Jul 2, 2007, 01:47 AM
The only way to get on the iPod without iTunes is to have no DRM. So maybe that's what they're planning ultimately.

macidiot
Jul 2, 2007, 01:48 AM
I'm kind of surprised the record labels haven't all gotten together and formed their own music store, locking out the others and splitting the profits amongst themselves. They'd get 100% of the profits (minus technical overhead) and could control pricing and any other factors they wanted to.

They tried that. Remember PressPlay? You probably don't because it failed miserably.

Some_Big_Spoon
Jul 2, 2007, 01:51 AM
Hey Universal, good luck with that.

wnurse
Jul 2, 2007, 01:55 AM
They must hate that they are selling so much music. We should all go back to using peer-to-peer networks to make them happy.

Now, now now.. anyone who was on a peer to peer network didn't switch to buying music legally, i don't care how nice itunes is (and really, it's not all that nice.. itunes kinda suck, the ipod itself is nice, itunes is necessary evil). That's a hollow threat and if the music companies hired even decent competent techies, they can track everyone who used peer to peer and prosecute them (or at least a significant enough portion that it would reduce peer to peer to a mere nuisance). The music companies have not really brought the hammer but if too high a percentage of people turn to peer to peer, they will be in for the shock of their lives.

wnurse
Jul 2, 2007, 02:12 AM
Announcement for Tuesday besides something related to G5 Powerbooks:

Steve Jobs lists Apple Inc. new business after;

1: The Ulmighty Mac
2: The Ubiquitous iPod
3: The Amazing iPhone
4: The Labeless Music Label (garageband gets an agent!)

Hope that Apple Corp lawsuit settlement panned out just right so Steve can start his new world media empire. Please save us from the stuffed pigs who charge us vast amounts of money to gain access to art! They try to make museums as free as possible so we can enjoy the works. Why am I shelling out $15 a CD to listen to an artist only to go to jail if I share it?

Yes, save you from the stuffed pigs who charge you vast amounts of money so you can be serviced by a stuffed pig who charges you vast amounts of money for a computer.. yep.. makes sense to me.

You people are funny!!!!.. thinking that artist should cut out the music companies and sell directly on itunes.. if i was an artist capable of cutting out the music companies.. why the F**C would i sell through itunes?. Why would i replace one monopolistic operation for another?.. why not sell directly to the consumer?. What exactly is the advantage of me, an artist selling through itunes?. You really think usher needs itunes?. or the rolling stones or the beatles?. These artist were huge long before itunes. Why would they sell their music on itunes for pennies just so apple fanboys can get their music for 99c?. Why not sell directly through a personal website for lots more money?.

You guys are hilarious!!!. it's 3 in the morning and i'm having a good laugh.
You'all should take a chill pill.. This is business.. apple doesn't have a right to dictate terms to the music companies.. it's not apple product, it's theirs (just like how apple dictated terms to AT&T about their phone, same way music companies can dictate terms to apple about their music.. or are you all saying turnabout is not fair play?).

RoDe
Jul 2, 2007, 02:17 AM
Man I hate those damn record labels. Universal still want's that variable pricing thing, more money for bigger artists and all that crap. They just one to pressure Apple in to giving in. Man Apple should start there own record label. They should lure the artists with free iPods ;)

dakscott
Jul 2, 2007, 02:29 AM
Just wanted to point out to everyone, the article actually says that Universal is
"CONSIDERING notifying Apple" about their contract, and that is only "according to a person 'familiar' with the situation."

This all sounds pretty speculative at this juncture. Besides the WSJ isn't always spot on with their predictions.

JeffDM
Jul 2, 2007, 02:35 AM
Not that it matters if THEY like it...
I don't see any subscription service out there doing as well as iTunes does at the moment.

I don't think that's an accurate indicator, because NO form of online music sales or subscription is doing as well as iTunes.

i agree, they waste their time selling 14.00 cds that shoudl be 5 bucks, they are so dumb and i cant wait for this to bite them in the @ss

I think that if they thought it would make them more net income, then CDs would be priced that way. Somehow, I doubt that.

I fail to see how this could possibly be bad for Universal. They're saying that iTunes will continue to be able to sell their songs but that they are reserving the right to let other digital music services sell their songs. Am I right or wrong? If I'm wrong, show me and explain.

I don't understand, Uni has exclusives with Apple? I don't think that's true. Uni can sell non-exclusive distribution rights to anyone and everyone they choose.

JeffDM
Jul 2, 2007, 02:36 AM
I love it when a SOURCE for any story is some masked un-named person who must remain anonymous. I call BS. WSJ just stirring the crap pot to stink it up for all concerned.

I doubt that, WSJ is a lot better than that, they generally seem to be very cautious with respect to vetting of sources that can't be made known. They aren't prone to rampant rumormongering like Apple rumor sites are.

So, if your Microsoft 90% dominace is fine but 10% dominace in music sales is scaring the industry come on retards. Sick of all this damn greed.

Universal has nothing to do with Microsoft's software business, so the first part of your statement is moot. I don't think it's about the 10% of total music sales but the fact that Apple controls maybe 80% of the download sales, and they seem to be aware that download sales are the future. "digital sales" was a dumb statement to make on the part of the article as music on CDs is digital too.

i already refuse to buy anything from sony, including their music, and movies (which i go out of my way to pirate.... its worth my time to just pay for it, but i feel its the right thing to do to go out of my way to deny them revenue until they stop their anti consumer ways) now i guess i will start getting my Universal music from the pirate bay.... f-em


How about you not use their media, period? Otherwise, I think you only help them by bolstering their piracy complaints.

... does anyone know what artists would be removed from iTMS?

My guess is none, assuming they let the contract lapse. Basically, this sounds like going month-to-month on your mobile phone service - the service stays the same, just without the contract.

Ha... I love this new verb. :cool:

I think "Steved" has been around for several years. I think I first heard about it when the Mac Cube was announced to have an nVidia graphics board rather than ATI because ATI "spilled the beans". I think it existed before then.

Uragon
Jul 2, 2007, 02:41 AM
I'm kind of surprised the record labels haven't all gotten together and formed their own music store, locking out the others and splitting the profits amongst themselves. They'd get 100% of the profits (minus technical overhead) and could control pricing and any other factors they wanted to.

because they lack in visions, but full of greed.....:confused:

rockosmodurnlif
Jul 2, 2007, 03:03 AM
I don't understand, Uni has exclusives with Apple? I don't think that's true. Uni can sell non-exclusive distribution rights to anyone and everyone they choose.

If you are right, then why is this news?

What does this do exactly?

D 5
Jul 2, 2007, 03:09 AM
I think Apple just needs to start up their own music label, or buy a smaller one (Apple Corps?). That way any artist can just sell their music through iTunes (and maybe as physical media), and Apple can give them a better cut of the profit than is usual. That would basically fix Apple's dependence on external carriers. Same thing with AT&T,if I were Apple, I'd be building my own network right now (or buying it... Helio?), just to make sure that other companies weren't responsible for my survival.

Edit: Wow, did JPark, Zadillo, and I think of the same thing or what.

How did you know?:D

For the power of Grayskull, :apple: is using att as a guinea pig? How can that be possible?

I better stay "iTuned":D

Bye Bye Baby
Jul 2, 2007, 03:22 AM
I'm kind of surprised the record labels haven't all gotten together and formed their own music store, locking out the others and splitting the profits amongst themselves. They'd get 100% of the profits (minus technical overhead) and could control pricing and any other factors they wanted to.

Apple's success is not just an internet site- it truly is a lesson in end-to-end marketing and sales. It has been so successful precisely because of the service and ease with which the whole thing integrates itself with each element.

It is worrying the reasons for which Apple's 'edifice' is under attack. I think Apple has been greedy with the iphone- wanting also a portion of the revenue from long term contracts. I just wonder if some people in the industry are not getting a little worried about Apple's agressive pricing and revenue policy. I think it is an insurance against Apple's dominance and locking oneself into a situation with no room to move.

zgh1999
Jul 2, 2007, 03:23 AM
Simple.

If you end up not on iTunes, I will end up not buying your songs.

Simple. Bye bye Universal. No one will miss you if you leave.

Don't let the door stop you.

crees!
Jul 2, 2007, 05:08 AM
So a greedy music label is worried about selling music and making money off a major online distributor. This goes against everything they're about. :eek:

surferfromuk
Jul 2, 2007, 05:16 AM
I'm kind of surprised the record labels haven't all gotten together and formed their own music store, locking out the others and splitting the profits amongst themselves. They'd get 100% of the profits (minus technical overhead) and could control pricing and any other factors they wanted to.


The whole bloody online music affair is still a big fat greedy mess.

This is exactly how Apple got their lead in the first place...they just offered a good clean no strings service...


...and if the HMV store is anything to go buy it'll not work and try to destroy your operating system (on XP that is)...I guess a syndicate of 'music lawyers' don't make particularly good 'web developers'...

surferfromuk
Jul 2, 2007, 05:25 AM
It is worrying the reasons for which Apple's 'edifice' is under attack. I think Apple has been greedy with the iphone- wanting also a portion of the revenue from long term contracts.

greedy ? you serious? Can you show me what percentage they're getting - I've seen this rumor but I've not yet seen any concrete evidence of this...I'd be interested to know just how greedy they have been...

Regardless, Apple are in the computer business - the iphone is the obvious future of computers. They are protecting their own future and delivering a great life enhancing product in the process...don't live in america but from what I gather the at&t rates seem comparable to other providers so Apple's 'greed' as you put it certainly hasn't resulted in a fleecing of the consumer...

Besides ;

You can be certain of one thing if Apple are't no'1 - Microsoft will be!!

Universal better realise that M$ will play 'softie' ONLY until they own the entire racket...then it's hardball...

at least Apple stand for fair and decent...god forbid M$ take hold of another monopoly...

whooleytoo
Jul 2, 2007, 06:13 AM
At the end of the day, the labels have the power as long as the artists stay signed with them. The labels can find other (albeit, smaller) stores, but Apple can't get other music.

I don't think any of the labels are happy with the dominance of iTMS - it pretty much gives Apple a free hand when negotiating deals & pricing. It's hardly a surprise that Universal - the biggest fish in the pond - is the first to start flexing its muscles.

I can't see much changing until some major artists start defecting from the big labels and go directly (or through a small indy label) to online stores. They'd still need marketing (at a decent rate this time - it's ridiculous than artists only get <10% of the retail price, while with someone like CDBaby they can get 60%). I'm surprised some ambitious label exec with the marketing experience & contacts hasn't seen the opportunity and set up a new 'sell direct to online stores and we'll market you' label.

Tara Davis
Jul 2, 2007, 06:21 AM
Bricks and mortar CD sales are decreasing at the rate of 12%/year while online digital download sales are increasing at 49%. At that rate Apple will be the #1 retail store in the USA for music sales in mid to late 2008. It should be a lot of fun to watch.

Considering the generous portion of each sale that the music companies get I don't think this kind of threat means anything. A paper tiger. Not that the French would talk a tall tale and then fold when it comes time to fight. No, that's never happened before.

Apple sells music online to sell iPods (where the profit is), and now iPhones.

My puppy has grown 315% over the last year. At this rate, she will be bigger than my car by 2011.

Project
Jul 2, 2007, 06:22 AM
i actually think it is fair that the manufacturer should get a share of the contract revenues each month for a phone.

It is Apple who have really done the hard work with the iPhone and made it what it is. Yet their income = $500 but AT&Ts = $2,000 over the 2 years.

psychofreak
Jul 2, 2007, 06:29 AM
i actually think it is fair that the manufacturer should get a share of the contract revenues each month for a phone.

It is Apple who have really done the hard work with the iPhone and made it what it is. Yet their income = $500 but AT&Ts = $2,000 over the 2 years.

Wrong thread? Or insanity?
why the F**C would i.

What is that word?

BornAgainMac
Jul 2, 2007, 06:32 AM
I wish I can list what music I bought from them. I buy a lot of iTunes music.

psychofreak
Jul 2, 2007, 06:33 AM
Now the Beatles deal happened, Apple have a good opportunity to put a 'Publish' button on GarageBand, like the one on iWeb...

SMARTZ
Jul 2, 2007, 06:45 AM
Personally Universal have never known what they were doing period. Remember the great Sierra game publishers which they bought and then brought to its knee's, even though they had at the time some of the best loved and well recognised games (Half Life 2 anyone). Put simply because they like entering foreign markets and lack the understanding to effectively contribute something new. They have a pioneering spirit with the business acumen of a spoilt child.

Ipod's i feel were just the first evolution, in some ways the Iphone needs to be a success because it will safeguard the move from the Ipod as a single function device.

Universal should feel free to go and work with Microsoft im sure they'll both be happy together. I know why not produce a Universal branded Zune with some exclusive content......for you to squirt at people...:p

Agathon
Jul 2, 2007, 06:52 AM
Now, now now.. anyone who was on a peer to peer network didn't switch to buying music legally.

I did. Hunting for the stuff I like on P2P takes too much time. It's easier for me to give Apple a buck a song.

Having said that, if music labels attempt to screw us out of decent paid downloads, everyone should go back to P2P and put them out of business.

Project
Jul 2, 2007, 06:57 AM
Wrong thread? Or insanity?


What is that word?


Right thread - it was in response to the dude who said Apple is getting greedy by wanting a share of the revenues from AT&T. I should have quoted him and my post would have made more sense.

bbcxx
Jul 2, 2007, 07:15 AM
I've said it before and I will say it again. Its the music industry who pulls the strings not Apple. If they want to pull support for the iPod and back someone else its really up to them.

UMG earned 200 000 000$, while Apple is not earning anything with the iTMS. In case of conflicting interests, who would end up losing? :cool:

Porchland
Jul 2, 2007, 08:02 AM
Bye Universal. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

We don't need your kind around here.

The record labels are so consolidated that the absence of any one major would knock a pretty big hole in the iTunes Store. Still, I'd like to see Apple lock Universal out when the current contract expires.

The artists would revolt, the consumer backlash would fall largely on Universal, and Steve Jobs would hold up his hands and say 'We just want to keep consumer costs down and maintain a level playing field for the artists.'

Guess who's gonna win that one?

Stella
Jul 2, 2007, 08:06 AM
Its a free market...

However, I find it strange that music industry dislike Apple's dominance, but find microsoft dominance ok for all IT related industries.

Also strange, that you would attempt to close the door on one of your largest outlets...

BlackLilyNinja
Jul 2, 2007, 08:32 AM
... UMG might want to rethink this strategy..

Steve doesn't lose. That coupled with music labels' credibility decreasing exponentially makes for a bad business move.

invalidname
Jul 2, 2007, 09:19 AM
try not to spend all your Zune kickbacks on a single binge at Liquor Barn.

Jahadeem
Jul 2, 2007, 09:39 AM
Universal Music is still owned by the French company right. I don't think it is part of Universal Studios which is now owned by GE (NBC). Isn't Universal Music the one that is getting money for every zune sold. May be they want the same deal from Apple too!! Yeah right.

From all the paperwork (PDFs) I've read...

Universal owns part of Vivendi and Vivendi owns part of Universal. They currently let Vivendi completely run the music part of the business with a close eye on them.
Remember, Vivendi owns Blizzard owns WarCraft!

Zadillo
Jul 2, 2007, 09:47 AM
From all the paperwork (PDFs) I've read...

Universal owns part of Vivendi and Vivendi owns part of Universal. They currently let Vivendi completely run the music part of the business with a close eye on them.
Remember, Vivendi owns Blizzard owns WarCraft!

Vivendi Universal Games doesn't own Blizzard; they simply are the publisher for Warcraft, etc.

lessthandmb
Jul 2, 2007, 09:53 AM
To be fair, to each his own. :D

;) you're right...a lot of those freedoms can help a lot of unknown acts. I just feel 99% of them don't need to be heard anyway. This coming from a person who produces independant bands for a living.

wnurse
Jul 2, 2007, 10:12 AM
The record labels are so consolidated that the absence of any one major would knock a pretty big hole in the iTunes Store. Still, I'd like to see Apple lock Universal out when the current contract expires.

The artists would revolt, the consumer backlash would fall largely on Universal, and Steve Jobs would hold up his hands and say 'We just want to keep consumer costs down and maintain a level playing field for the artists.'

Guess who's gonna win that one?

The music companies?. Why would artist be interested in keeping cost down?. How do you think the music companies will spin this to the artist?. Hmm, lets think this question through for a sec shall we?. The music companies want more money so they can pay artist more.. apple wants to pay the music companies less thus indirectly paying the artist less (artist gets a percentage so obviously, the higher the number the more the percentage is worth).. i dunno which artist wants less money. I'm sure we can find one somewhere.

wnurse
Jul 2, 2007, 10:16 AM
I did. Hunting for the stuff I like on P2P takes too much time. It's easier for me to give Apple a buck a song.

Having said that, if music labels attempt to screw us out of decent paid downloads, everyone should go back to P2P and put them out of business.

Everyone?... even granny or that 10 year old who mom gaved him an itunes account.. everyone eh?.

Good for you though on switching to legal music.. you must be like betamax.. extinct.

shamino
Jul 2, 2007, 10:21 AM
I've said it before and I will say it again. Its the music industry who pulls the strings not Apple. If they want to pull support for the iPod and back someone else its really up to them.
Sure, but it's not that simple. It's a matter of who stands to gain/lose more.

Universal always has the right to pull their catalog. But who will be the big loser here? Apple or Universal? Will people stop buying iPods if Universal songs aren't in the iTunes Store?

Given the well-established fact that most songs on iPods don't come from the iTunes Store, I think it is pretty clear that Apple's iPod sales will not be impacted at all. But Universal will lose millions in sales - which they will not make back from other sources (like CDs or WMA-based download services.)
I'm surprised the record companies aren't happy. The tech overhead is a huge expense that they would outsource anyway, so why not Apple? This is the first time that electronic music store is profitable for everyone and they're still greedy enough to want more profit.
It's about control, not money.

Several years ago, when Hillary Rosen was still in charge of the RIAA, she accidentally let it slip in a press conference that the RIAA is all about labels retaining total control of the music, and doesn't care about money. They will voluntarily lose millions of dollars if it means nobody else has control over their product.

But stock-holders don't share this opinion. If they start losing too much, they may find their entire board of directors voted out of office. So they have to play the high-stakes game of threatening to cut off sales, and then doing nothing when (hopefully) the press isn't paying attention.
I fail to see how this could possibly be bad for Universal. They're saying that iTunes will continue to be able to sell their songs but that they are reserving the right to let other digital music services sell their songs. Am I right or wrong? If I'm wrong, show me and explain.
If that was all they were saying, then there wouldn't be a news story.

They have always had the right to sell through other stores. Do you think Apple is preventing Universal from selling through Napster, or any of the other WMA-based download services? Universal already sells through all these venues.

The fact that no customers are interested in buying from these services, with their confusing DRM terms (where every song may have different rights attached) and confusing pricing schemes (where you often don't even know what the price is until after you commit to a purchase) and subscription models (where failure to keep on paying causes your entire music collection to self-destruct.)

Universal is upset that Apple is providing what customers want, and that they aren't able to change that. They want to dictate all terms, and they think customers will simply fall in line and pay up. The fact that all other legal download services (where the labels do dictate terms) have failed in the marketplace doesn't matter. The fact that they were failing before iTunes came along doesn't matter either.
This is business.. apple doesn't have a right to dictate terms to the music companies..
Right? Since when did rights have anything to do with this.

Apple, like all other music stores, has the right to charge their customers whatever they want to charge. Universal, as the supplier, has the right to refuse to make product available. None of this is in dispute.

If Universal really thinks they can be more profitable selling through other venues, they're welcome to try. Nobody is going to stop them. But most people think they'll lose a fortune and gain nothing in return.
The record labels are so consolidated that the absence of any one major would knock a pretty big hole in the iTunes Store. Still, I'd like to see Apple lock Universal out when the current contract expires.
That would be equally silly. Why lock them out? Even if they choose to accept the current licensing/pricing model, you'd refuse to let them re-up their contract? That makes no sense whatsoever.
The artists would revolt, the consumer backlash would fall largely on Universal, and Steve Jobs would hold up his hands and say 'We just want to keep consumer costs down and maintain a level playing field for the artists.'
If Apple tried to impose a lockout, public opinion would be against Apple, not Universal, and they'd be right.

Vindictiveness is never good business policy.

wnurse
Jul 2, 2007, 10:23 AM
Simple.

If you end up not on iTunes, I will end up not buying your songs.

Simple. Bye bye Universal. No one will miss you if you leave.

Don't let the door stop you.

What if other labels follow?.. will you not be buying their songs too?. You think universal is the only label thinking this way?. how naive!

Rocketman
Jul 2, 2007, 10:24 AM
Are they also "concerned" they get a much higher percentage of the take on Apple's iTunes music store, than from any other reseller on a per song delivered basis?

Rocketman

miniConvert
Jul 2, 2007, 10:28 AM
Wow, the record labels do really make it incredibly easy to hate them, don't they?

Talk about playing with fire - I certainly hope Steve can kick them into line without muddling up iTunes pricing.

shamino
Jul 2, 2007, 10:36 AM
The music companies?. Why would artist be interested in keeping cost down?. How do you think the music companies will spin this to the artist?. Hmm, lets think this question through for a sec shall we?. The music companies want more money so they can pay artist more.. apple wants to pay the music companies less thus indirectly paying the artist less (artist gets a percentage so obviously, the higher the number the more the percentage is worth).. i dunno which artist wants less money. I'm sure we can find one somewhere.
That's how they labels will spin it, and I'm sure they'll use some creative accounting practices to make sure the artists never get paid, but it would all be based on lies.

The record labels make more money per-song from iTunes downloads than they do from CD sales. Much more. When you strip our manufacturing costs, distribution costs, and retail markup, a record label typically makes about $3 per CD - divided by 10 tracks and you get about 30 cents per song. Apple gives the labels 65 cents per song.

But the labels aren't satisfied with that. They want even more. After all, if they make 65 cents from a 99 cent song, then they could make $1.65 from a $2 song. And if Apple charged $3 (what cell carriers charge for ring-tones), they'd make $2.65 for that song. And if they charged $5 (retail price for a CD single), they'd make $4.65 for the song. The fact that most customers wouldn't pay $2 (or $3 or $5) for the song doesn't matter. They'd rather have 83% (or 88% or 93%) of nothing than 65% of something.

And although they'll claim it's all for the artists, that would also be a lie. The artists will end up getting paid the same pathetic 2-5 cents per song that they get now. And even that money will go to pay back the advance they were given during the recording process, so the artists will get absolutely nothing in exchange for the price hike.

macidiot
Jul 2, 2007, 10:51 AM
From all the paperwork (PDFs) I've read...

Universal owns part of Vivendi and Vivendi owns part of Universal. They currently let Vivendi completely run the music part of the business with a close eye on them.
Remember, Vivendi owns Blizzard owns WarCraft!

Vivendi was/is a French water utility.

They bought Universal from Seagrams, the liquor company, which did a fairly spectacular job of trying to run the company into the ground thanks to Edgar Bronfman.

Vivendi somewhat recently sold most of Universal (film and television production) to General Electric, which owns NBC, among other things, and created NBC Universal. Vivendi kept the music group.

Also, Barry Diller and USA Networks has a bizarre and incestuous relationship with Universal. It's so complicated, I don't think Universal even gets it. But my take is that Universal was/is basically Barry's bitch.

Universal is not an independent company. It is a division of either Vivendi or General Electric.

On a side note, Edgar Bronfman, after selling Universal, tried to buy it back. He failed, but did manage to buy Warner Music. Which he is currently running into the ground. On the bright side, he has become very good at blaming "pirates" (arrrr) for it.

nightelf
Jul 2, 2007, 11:34 AM
Universal should stop selling its music on iTunes.

So they can beg to Steve to take them back.

surferfromuk
Jul 2, 2007, 11:50 AM
Anyone know who the top ten universal artists are?

feakbeak
Jul 2, 2007, 12:26 PM
This is simply another case of the labels acting out and showing their discontent with Apple. As Apple grows as a music retailer they gain more power, especially in the digital market. Apple has so far kept the upper-hand in maintaining the price points they desire and controlling most aspects of how the music is maintained and marketed - the Apple brand is prominent in all of these interactions. It's a much different experience than buying a CD at Target, where the fact that you bought it from Target and play it on your Sony CD player is more or less irrelevant.

Apple has kept the iPod/iTunes/iTMS system closed, that's always been there business model with any market - sometimes it works in the favor, sometimes it works against them. In this case it has proven to be very successful. This closed system and the fixed pricing are probably the biggest points of contention from the labels. They've been fighting about it for years, they will continue to fight and who will win is unknown. Currently, I think Apple holds more power but that can change.

I still wonder if or when Apple will open up their system and how it will affect their business. In the PC/Mac war days their closed system really hurt them. I expected the rest of the market would be smart enough to come up with real competition to the iTunes system by now but they have been lame so far. Time will tell...

Apple isn't as wonderful and innocent as so many posters seem to believe though. Apple is shrewd in their business dealings. Don't get me wrong, Apple makes very innovative and quality products and is deserving of accolades. However, Apple didn't "save music" or do anything with altruistic intentions that you seem to bestow on them. This is a fight for power and money, that is all - it's business.

Swift
Jul 2, 2007, 12:56 PM
They desperately want to dislodge iTunes from their effective control of the music market. They want control of pricing and promotion. SpiralFrog, anybody remember that? A music store, apparently. Universal was a company that wants to keep Apple DRM'ed up, though maybe they could control a cross-platform DRM with Windows -- they just can't help trying to screw up the digital market like they did with physical music storage.

They should just get lost. They don't have any role in the music market today. They should go to a business they're good at: hmm, running child prostitution rings? Just trying to think what they're good at.

I hope that Apple announces a major sign-up of indies with the no-DRM, high quality business. Then they can't claim that Apple's a monopoly any longer, since if you buy aac unprotected music, you can load it on your Zune or your Samsung gigabeat if you want.

Oh, I remember, the head of UMG said "iPod owners are thieves." Yes, go and buy that Universal music! I always buy stuff from people who insult me.

Bitter little men in their Ferraris with their comb-backs and their 18-year-old model friends. Go jump in the lake.

Anybody buy music because a "label" sells it? Uh-uh. The tragedy is, Amy Whitehouse and Black-Eyed Peas are with them.

Swift
Jul 2, 2007, 01:01 PM
Apple has kept the iPod/iTunes/iTMS system closed, that's always been there business model with any market - sometimes it works in the favor, sometimes it works against them. In this case it has proven to be very successful. This closed system and the fixed pricing are probably the biggest points of contention from the labels.

Only it isn't closed. Apple has said it wants to end DRM, which is what makes it closed. They've started with EMI. The indies are to come.

What does a music "label" do except hire acts, loan them money to make their recordings, then get them to work like slaves and never get out of debt? Why did Prince change his name to "formerly known as"? Because of record labels. They make contracts with artists when they don't have a dime, and the majority of them end up in debt. It once made sense, because recording equipment was expensive and scarce and distribution was a bitch. Now it isn't. Ergo, labels are like the Mafia. Drive 'em out of business and free the music.

job
Jul 2, 2007, 01:01 PM
If anyone read the actual article listed by Reuters, everyone would realize that Universal is still selling their music catalogue on a month-to-month basis with iTunes. It doesn't mean that Universal has stopped working with Apple or has stopped using iTunes. All it means is that if Universal wants to hold out an exclusive album for one month from iTunes, it can.

Universal did not want to agree to a long term, two-year contract with Apple and the iTunes store.

The FUD in this thread is incredible. :eek:

dashiel
Jul 2, 2007, 01:02 PM
Makes you wonder if a paradigm shift isn't due. Maybe artists should sign with a new division of Apple. They could call it Apple Corp. .... ?? ;)

i believe this has been the plan all along. it might have to be spun off as ala filemaker pro to avoid monopoly accusations, but i'm confident it will happen. apple was probably waiting until they hit as the number 1 seller of music, but universal may force their hand.

same thing will happen with the phone, at&t will be heaped on the scrap pile of dinosaur companies who attempted to prevent the future from happening instead of embracing it.

shamino
Jul 2, 2007, 01:40 PM
... It's a much different experience than buying a CD at Target, where the fact that you bought it from Target and play it on your Sony CD player is more or less irrelevant.
It's mostly irrelevant with iTunes as well. 1/3 of the songs (the EMI tracks and some independents) are available without DRM, and will therefore play everywhere. Although there aren't many non-iPod portable players capable of playing AAC, there are many computer-based players and car stereos that support the format. And tracks without DRM can be converted to MP3 or other more popular formats, if necessary.

The DRM-wrapped tracks on iTunes can all be burned to CD, making them compatible with the rest of the world as well.
... This closed system and the fixed pricing are probably the biggest points of contention from the labels.
The labels are the ones demanding the closed system. EMI eventually came around and decided to offer tracks without DRM, but the other three major labels are quite adamant about making sure iTunes tracks remain as closed as possible.

As for fixed pricing, that's just greed, plain and simple. They are making a nice profit, and their customers are happy. But they think they can get more money if Apple would only let them squeeze the market a bit tighter. They're welcome to that opinion, but history has repeatedly shown that it is wrong. Higher prices (such as those they charge on other download services) result in less, not more, profit. Higher prices convince customers to stop buying - they end up going without new music or they download from illegal sources.

They were really happy with the money from Apple when they thought the service was going to be a failure. Now that it's a success, they want control over it. If Apple has any brains, they'll make sure the labels never get that kind of control - if they do, iTunes will be run into the ground, just like all of the other download services.
I still wonder if or when Apple will open up their system and how it will affect their business.
You mean like how they now offer to sell non-DRM tracks whenever the copyright holder gives permission?

It doesn't seem to have hurt them.

Or do you still think the best solution is to go DRM-everywhere, and give the DRM software to the rest of the world? The complete failure of protected-WMA download services should have eliminated that idea from the realm of plausibility by now.
Apple isn't as wonderful and innocent as so many posters seem to believe though. Apple is shrewd in their business dealings. Don't get me wrong, Apple makes very innovative and quality products and is deserving of accolades. However, Apple didn't "save music" or do anything with altruistic intentions that you seem to bestow on them. This is a fight for power and money, that is all - it's business.
Did anybody say otherwise?

But whatever their motivation, their business practices are more consumer friendly than everybody else. This is something that I, as a consumer, have no problem supporting.

In comparison, look at the record labels. They treat everybody else with total contempt and hatred - this includes the artists, the distributors, the retailers, and the customers. You buy their product, and they call you a pirate. You sign on as an artist, and you never see a penny profit. You try to sell CDs, and you have to obey their price-fixing schemes or risk having your supply cut off. Would you expect anybody to support this?

Yankees 4 Life
Jul 2, 2007, 01:43 PM
i hope the door doesnt hit them in the @ss when they realize the mistake they are making

cliffjumper68
Jul 2, 2007, 04:20 PM
Universal has everything to lose on this one. It is soo easy to pirate content, if they limit legitimate purchases. Well, they are only encouraging piracy. 99 cents is better than zero. With all the bad press over the last 6 years you think the greedy labels would be lying pretty low. Especially after interogating a 12 year old girl. If the devil was in business he would be running the RIAA. That is why I stick to indy music. Check out the South by southwest songs download. There are some great bands at that festival.

DMK
Jul 2, 2007, 05:05 PM
You people are funny!!!!.. thinking that artist should cut out the music companies and sell directly on itunes.. if i was an artist capable of cutting out the music companies.. why the F**C would i sell through itunes?. Why would i replace one monopolistic operation for another?.. why not sell directly to the consumer?. What exactly is the advantage of me, an artist selling through itunes?. You really think usher needs itunes?. or the rolling stones or the beatles?. These artist were huge long before itunes. Why would they sell their music on itunes for pennies just so apple fanboys can get their music for 99c?. Why not sell directly through a personal website for lots more money?.

What you don't seem to get is that a music label is very different from iTunes. iTunes is essentially a distributor. When a song is on iTunes it is being sold directly to the consumer and this is what is scaring the ****** out of record labels. Record stores will all be gone soon. Music labels will only operate on the level of marketing and promotion. Artists need iTunes to sell their music but they need record labels for publicity, radio promotion, tour support , press, etc.

The advantage to selling on iTunes is that it is the 3rd biggest music retailer. There are millions of people who use it to find out what the new releases are and sample the music before they buy it. Sure, I guess an artist could just sell their music on a personal website, but I guess they don't need to sell it at Wal-Mart or Target either. Perhaps Universal can open up their own retail outlets and just sell their own CD's and nobody elses. does that make good business sense ?

iTunes is an established presence the way Best Buy and Target are in the non-virtual world. And, yes, the Beatles and The Stones were famous before iTunes...no duh. But, you might have heard about this new thing called the world wide web? That was then, this is now. :p

emotion
Jul 2, 2007, 06:02 PM
The best bit of this is the fact that we won't see a U2 (universal artists) branded iPhone....yes!

As for Universal. Weren't they demanding a tax on all music players because we all are stealing music and needed to pay for it (!!, the cheek!).

elgruga
Jul 2, 2007, 09:50 PM
So you have probably 140 million iPods (by now, its close to that) and they buy $200 million worth of your product, which is all gravy because it costs you sweet ******* all to sell it.

But you want to sell it through other online services (like which?) and NOT to the iPod owners. Hmmm.
So the 140 million iPods (and counting) cant buy your music, and the 20 million other mp3 players can.

And someone here actually stated that the record companies were NOT clueless. Excuse while I ROTF and LMAO........!

I must write to Universal and apply for the job of CEO because its obvious that my CAT could run the company better than the current people.

Lets see: I cant find the track I want on iTunes because the DOLTS at Universal have pulled them.
What shall I do? Thinks for a few seconds, fires up Limewire and gets the track.

Can these people get more stupid? No, they have finally reached the lowest recorded IQ levels.

elgruga
Jul 2, 2007, 09:53 PM
Anyone interested in a class-action libel suit against the record co's for calling us all thieves?

Stella
Jul 2, 2007, 10:20 PM
The record industry have a lot of power. They can make or break online music stores, and they can do that with iTunes in a single breath.


1. They dictate terms to Apple, Apple refuse and labels withdraw from iTunes
2. Other music stores take note, and accept the music industry terms
3. Profit!

macidiot
Jul 2, 2007, 10:47 PM
The record industry have a lot of power. They can make or break online music stores, and they can do that with iTunes in a single breath.


1. They dictate terms to Apple, Apple refuse and labels withdraw from iTunes
2. Other music stores take note, and accept the music industry terms
3. Profit!

True, but the music industry is run by greedy whores. Try as they might, they will not be able to resist the #1 sugar daddy, iTunes music store.

icechunk
Jul 2, 2007, 11:17 PM
I think Apple just needs to start up their own music label, or buy a smaller one (Apple Corps?). That way any artist can just sell their music through iTunes (and maybe as physical media), and Apple can give them a better cut of the profit than is usual. That would basically fix Apple's dependence on external carriers.

I don't think Apple wants to be a record label. Selling content through their online store is one thing but managing artists, tours, music videos, promotion is another.

Isn't Itunes just available in the US? Hello, Universal has been selling music for much longer than apple has. Whats wrong with a company trying to fix the price they want to sell their product at?

I have a feeling apple has been acting too big for its own good lately. Iphone locked to one carrier and its a closed platform?? Haven't we been saying thats whats wrong with M$ ??? Now Apple its telling music companies they HAVE to sell their songs at $xyz no more?? I say a reality check is due. Itunes became so popular in a few years...there is no telling what happens in the next few years. Maybe they can try and play nice after all these music companies are their customers too.

emotion
Jul 3, 2007, 02:46 AM
The record industry have a lot of power. They can make or break online music stores, and they can do that with iTunes in a single breath.


1. They dictate terms to Apple, Apple refuse and labels withdraw from iTunes
2. Other music stores take note, and accept the music industry terms
3. Profit!

Maybe 10 years ago. The major label record industry are in big trouble currently.

Stella
Jul 3, 2007, 07:42 AM
True, but the music industry is run by greedy whores. Try as they might, they will not be able to resist the #1 sugar daddy, iTunes music store.

Absolutely!

Add to that: old farts who live in the past and won't embrace new technologies and view them as threats.

emotion
Jul 3, 2007, 07:45 AM
Absolutely!

Add to that: old farts who live in the past and won't embrace new technologies and view them as threats.

I think they're aware of the new tech. I mean they must have figures for their own iTMS sales.

I think this is an attempt to align themselves with MS or any other iTMS-competitor.

rish
Jul 3, 2007, 08:17 AM
Go ahead play the turd, but once you do that I will learn of all the comapnies that Universal is tied in with and boycott their music. In fact what I will do is purchase cheap second hand cd's from a store.

Bunch of Ar.. Wipes!

Sick and tired of the anti Apple companies and media, really sick.

shamino
Jul 3, 2007, 08:18 AM
Anyone interested in a class-action libel suit against the record co's for calling us all thieves?
Why? You like making lawyers rich? Class action suits may hurt the target of the suit, but they do nothing to benefit the "victims" that the class supposedly consists on. All of the money goes to the lawyers.
The record industry have a lot of power. They can make or break online music stores, and they can do that with iTunes in a single breath.

1. They dictate terms to Apple, Apple refuse and labels withdraw from iTunes
2. Other music stores take note, and accept the music industry terms
3. Profit!
You forgot:
1a. They lose millions of dollars that they were making from iTunes, which they don't make back from any other medium, because the iTunes customers don't go to any other download service and don't buy the CDs.

1b. Shareholders demand to know why the labels are deliberately giving up all that money, simply to make a political statement.

1c. The labels quickly change their minds on this issue and pretend 1 never happened.

2a. Nobody cares what the dozens of other download services do. They were never making any money to begin with.

lorductape
Jul 3, 2007, 09:19 AM
They must hate that they are selling so much music. We should all go back to using peer-to-peer networks to make them happy.

way ahead of you ;) it's obviously what they're trying to get us to do, idk, maybe the head of the RIAA is secretly the guy who runs the pirate bay...

JimmyK
Jul 3, 2007, 11:39 AM
Vivendi Universal Games doesn't own Blizzard; they simply are the publisher for Warcraft, etc.

Blizzard is a subsidiary of Vivendi.

AdeFowler
Jul 3, 2007, 11:49 AM
This rumour is now being denied by Apple, which doesn't surprise me as it made no sense.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/07/03/apple.universal.not.gone/

Zadillo
Jul 3, 2007, 12:12 PM
Blizzard is a subsidiary of Vivendi.

Ahh, my bad. I knew Blizzard was private, and always thought that meant they were completely independent. I didn't realize they actually were a subsidiary of Vivendi.

nydoofus
Jul 4, 2007, 12:28 AM
Stupid record companies. They really do know how to shoot themselves in the foot. And what's with Universal. Didn't they also force MS to pay $1 per Zun sold?

emotion
Jul 4, 2007, 01:46 AM
Stupid record companies. They really do know how to shoot themselves in the foot. And what's with Universal. Didn't they also force MS to pay $1 per Zun sold?

Yes, because we're all thieves and they need to claw back all the money they've "lost" from us stealing their product.

Sheesh.

Peace
Jul 4, 2007, 11:33 AM
Like I said before.Universal is posturing for more money.

Apple Inc. denied reports Monday that record label Universal Music Group did not plan to renew its contract to sell songs on its online iTunes Store.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/03/BUGM5QPPLG1.DTL

JeffDM
Jul 4, 2007, 11:43 AM
Like I said before.Universal is posturing for more money.

Apple Inc. denied reports Monday that record label Universal Music Group did not plan to renew its contract to sell songs on its online iTunes Store.

I don't really trust Apple PR either though. They've taken hints from Orwell on how to do PR.

Peace
Jul 4, 2007, 12:02 PM
I don't really trust Apple PR either though. They've taken hints from Orwell on how to do PR.

Nor do I.

Here's why :

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=18459

surferfromuk
Jul 4, 2007, 02:08 PM
Let's see how their 'we don't need no iTunes music store' resolution holds up in 12 months time when the iPhone nano is shipping a 100 million units a year, iPhone one is shipping 50 million a year, Ipod 6G is shipping 50mill and eermm well you know what I mean...

Worse still 500 million iTunes customers are busy buying artists from other labels and sending them into the celebrity stratosphere...

VERY risky power play from Universal....You know they're almost stupid enough to go bust over this!...

Kirkmedia
Jul 4, 2007, 04:53 PM
You don't want to play ball with me? OK. I'll make my own music label. And it will be the best on the planet! :D


Then all the labels won't renew their contracts. Personally, I think there is more chance of Apple to stop selling digital music(for other labels) than to continue if they start their own label.

Kirkmedia
Jul 4, 2007, 05:10 PM
The record labels are so consolidated that the absence of any one major would knock a pretty big hole in the iTunes Store. Still, I'd like to see Apple lock Universal out when the current contract expires.

The artists would revolt, the consumer backlash would fall largely on Universal, and Steve Jobs would hold up his hands and say 'We just want to keep consumer costs down and maintain a level playing field for the artists.'

Guess who's gonna win that one?

I think Universal's artists will revolt if Apple locks out Universal. Those artists won't support itunes. Artists are greedy too. Apple has to leave the ball in
Universals court, so Apple doesn't look like the bad guy.

MikeTheC
Jul 4, 2007, 09:29 PM
Some thoughts on this...

First off, I don't personally give a damn if the entire recording label industry burns and rots in hell. They are and have for the longest time imaginable been nothing more than a gigantic parasite feeding off of the artists and the general public. The sooner they're gone, the better for everyone.

Secondly, I know full well that Apple, like any other big business (and just as important any other publicly-traded -- i.e. "there are shareholders" -- business) are in it to make a buck. However, apart from that, you have to also take a look at what Apple's agenda is. Yes, I understand the mantra of "follow the money", but even if you had God and The Devil in two different businesses trying to make money, at the end of the day you still have to take congnizance of the fact that it's two different business owners, and two very different agendas.

Thirdly, no matter what else you may say, the Labels aren't helping to make their artists rich -- except in the sense of helping to put their name about -- it's the artists who make themselves rich (or don't) depending on what business strategy they employ. If you look at my own CD collection, it (with a few exceptions) stopped in the mid 1990s when, as a result of both the signal to noise (aka "good stuff to garbage") ratio swung disproportionately towards the "noise" side as well as the availability of alternative means of acquiring music.

Forthly, that "alternative means" does not exclusively mean p2p, but also indie artist sources as well.

I know this may be construed as an "advertisement" but I can't help it, these sources are worthy of your attention:

Waterbug Records: Sam Pacetti (http://www.waterbug.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=76)
Acoustic Eidolon (http://www.acousticeidolon.com/)
South Park (Colorado) Music Festival (http://www.southparkmusic.com/)

I list these (and have elsewhere from time to time) because I feel they're worth your time to check out, both for the beauty of their own works as well as to demonstrate there's plenty of alternatives to the namby-pamby pablum puke that the Big 4 try to spoon-feed us.

Oh, and to the poster(s) who wanted to convince us we're just looking at this wrong or that we're nothing but Apple Fanbois, well... consider the source, you trolls!!!

surferfromuk
Jul 5, 2007, 11:26 AM
Then all the labels won't renew their contracts. Personally, I think there is more chance of Apple to stop selling digital music(for other labels) than to continue if they start their own label.

...and so the digital music revolution did end as each and every label attempted to build a stupid clunky music store of their own not thinking for one second that the general public would ;

a) not know where the crap to get such and such an artist from since they don't know which label theyr're on
b) not be prepared to trawl through 500 different, complex websites, all requiring different logins and credit card accounts and download folders and other tedious complexities all just to get music onto their mp3 players.
c) not prepared to have a multitude of bespoke formats, music players, download agents, drm software checkers etc etc that would doubtless evolve from every label attemptin to do their own thing
d) find that half their music became subscription based
e) thought it was really too much like hard work so 'junior' said he'd just go get a copy for them - and we all know what that means...

rdrr
Jul 5, 2007, 02:17 PM
How much yearly revenue does Universal currently receive from iTunes sales? It has got to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It just doesn't make any business sense to me. I know they probably want an increase in price for song downloads, and probably a piece of the revenues for each iPod/iPhone sold, (not going to happen). I have always thought that $0.99 for a song was a fair price, and I love the fact I am not forced to pay for the filler that the record labels force down our throats on albums.

If they pull their catalog from the iTunes store, well I'll just buy less music, and be tempted once again will the illegal side of the digital music scene. That isn't a threat, but a reality of what they are doing. Most people use a service like iTunes because they want to own music. Take that away or make it too expensive, and you are turning more people into what your number one complaint about the digital music industry is.