PDA

View Full Version : Warner Music Considering Not Renewing Long-Term iTunes Contract




MacRumors
Oct 25, 2007, 02:11 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Warner Music Group may be the latest content provider to become increasingly restless (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102402410.html) with Apple's pricing terms according to The Washington Post.

While the iTunes store undoubtedly saved a bleeding music industry, the same can not be said of TV and Movie content. One television studio has gone as far as to pull its content (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/31/apple-to-stop-selling-nbc-television-shows/) (NBC Universal). The Washington Post states that the difference lies in how TV has many more distribution outlets, whereas music had only 2 when iTunes came.

However, now that music labels have broadened their distribution (example (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/12/universal-music-free-music-plan-to-take-on-itunes/)), even music companies appear to be drifting away from iTunes reliance. While none have outright pulled their music, Universal Music Group did not renew its long-term contract (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/05/universal-confirms-itunes-contract-change/) to sell songs on iTunes, pursuing rather a more flexible month-to-month option. The article indicates that Warner Music Group is also considering such a move, though no decision has been made.

Still, iTunes represents a major player in music sales. According to the latest numbers, iTunes is the 3rd largest music retailer in the U.S. (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/22/itunes-continues-its-climb-3rd-largest-music-retailer/)

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/25/warner-music-considering-not-renewing-long-term-itunes-contract/)



yoman
Oct 25, 2007, 02:13 PM
Well. Maybe Apple will move to a more indie catalog and function as a pseudo label of thier own.

Sceneshifter
Oct 25, 2007, 02:17 PM
No surprise! iTunes was able to bully everyone around, but as soon as alternatives show their tail, customers are sure to look elsewhere

mustang_dvs
Oct 25, 2007, 02:18 PM
I really don't get why content providers are looking to 'play hardball' with Apple by threatening to balkanize the legal distribution of digital music, especially when the iPod holds an 80% share of the market, and iTunes is, so far, the only digital music model to have shown steady profits and customer growth.

You'd think that they forgot how they got into this mess in the first place.

chr1s60
Oct 25, 2007, 02:18 PM
I don't fear music companies leaving iTunes and I don't think Apple should either. Pretty much everyone I know uses iTunes to buy their music these days. I can't even remember the last time I bought or went with someone to buy an actual cd either. Any music company that leaves iTunes will likely see a huge drop in sales. With the enormous number of iPods shipped every year it is obvious iTunes is the reasonable choice for all major music companies. Any company that decides to leave will most likely see a huge drop in online sales, but they will most likely come crawling back to Apple. Something a lot of companies might overlook is that iTunes is a trusted online music store. Most people will not buy from any random music store online, instead they want something trusted that is reliable and that just happens to be what iTunes is.

Am3822
Oct 25, 2007, 02:19 PM
If this sort of thing goes on, the iTunes store could turn out to be like those Soviet department stores --- rows upon rows of nearly empty shelves.

megfilmworks
Oct 25, 2007, 02:19 PM
How can Warner Music Group kick sand in the face of the number 3 music retailer?
Apple will continue to grow, (10,000,000 iPods sold this quarter) and Warner (if they jump ship completely) will end up the big loser.

nagromme
Oct 25, 2007, 02:20 PM
Yearly contract or no, and temporary posturing/withdrawals aside, the big content providers will keep dealing with iTunes because it makes them increasing amounts of money. And they'll deal with other online music stores too. Nearly all of which will flounder, but competition is good. The ones that emerge as successful will be those that move towards DRM-free and really high quality. Like Amazon MP3 Store, and especially iTunes. All of those songs will play on iPods and non-iPods alike, and can be managed through iTunes.

Meanwhile iPods--Apple's real money-maker in music--will continue to sell through the roof. If anything, the emergence of other iPod-friendly stores like Amazon will HELP Apple, not hurt them. A major label could go ALL-Amazon and not iTunes and people would STILL buy iPods to play those songs.

Now, if a major label goes all-Microsoft, all-Windows-Media, I don't expect that to work out well for anyone. It would be a short-lived experiment, and their catalog would then be back on the iPod (whether on iTunes or not). And Warner doesn't seem to be talking about anything even THAT serious--just a non-renewal of contracts and exclusives, not pulling of music from iTunes.

The industry is changing, and Apple may not get yearly commitments as easily. But they'll still sell more iPods and more music downloads than ever before, they'll still get exclusive promo deals, and the whole situation will still get better and better for Apple AND for consumers AND for the music labels themselves--whether they fight the changes or not. And video content owners will come to catch on too.

jaw04005
Oct 25, 2007, 02:20 PM
These media companies are archaic. I guess they want everyone under 30 to go back to stealing music. Ridiculous.

The vast majority of consumers are NOT going to stake out multiple online music distributors to get a specific artist or song.

johnee
Oct 25, 2007, 02:20 PM
Can someone please enlighten me why these labels feel it's better to go month to month rather than long term? Do they have to pay any money to apple each month vs. a set fee? I have no idea how apple contracts with the labels....

Is it simply to have the option to pull out ( :D ) whenever they want?

shen
Oct 25, 2007, 02:20 PM
after 3 years of legal music downloads i might have to go back to file sharing. oh well.....

P-Worm
Oct 25, 2007, 02:21 PM
No surprise! iTunes was able to bully everyone around, but as soon as alternatives show their tail, customers are sure to look elsewhere

How exactly did iTunes bully everyone around? I can see how you would say that as far as the record companies are conserned because Apple obviously did a lot of the pushing, but how did iTunes bully the customer? :confused:

P-Worm

LillieDesigns
Oct 25, 2007, 02:21 PM
I can't wait until this bites all the record labels in the ass.

I know if I want music I can go to a store and buy the cd or find it on iTunes. If it's not in one, it's in the other.

If I go to buy a cd and it's in neither and they expect me to go searching for it on Amazon or Rhapsody or a personal store on their websites I'm going to be less inclined to pay for the cd.

Keep it easy record labels, people do not want the hassle.

megfilmworks
Oct 25, 2007, 02:23 PM
Can someone please enlighten me why these labels feel it's better to go month to month rather than long term? Do they have to pay any money to apple each month vs. a set fee? I have no idea how apple contracts with the labels....

Is it simply to have the option to pull out ( :D ) whenever they want?

They want to be able to negotiate with other on line retailers and leave their options open for negotiations with Apple.

ccreighton
Oct 25, 2007, 02:23 PM
I think all the hoolaw is good for the industry. You have far more artists doing it their own way and cutting from the industry suits which is creating a lot of tension. Once the artists start realizing that they make more money on their own via digital distribution, things will change as they slowly are. Whether Apple has artists or not via the "industry" as a middleman won't matter. They set themselves up nicely for the next round of fights. Say goodbye to the bigwigs who steal most of the profit from the great artists. And the independent artists have already realized the potential or will if they haven't of doing things on their own. Apple with adapt to the changes accordingly, they always do...

Willis
Oct 25, 2007, 02:24 PM
Im another who doesntunderstand why Music Labels are trying to get back at Apple and iTunes. Apple have done alot to save the music industry, but its a model that not everyone likes.

Apple does develop its haters and in doing so, people will always try and boycot it.

I rarely buy music online however because I like owning the actual Album with the cover, even though it gets burnt straight onto my comp and then my iPod. Bizarre but thats me.

It is just one of those things I guess.

boss1
Oct 25, 2007, 02:27 PM
Doesn't matter how you look at it or feel about it. Reality of it is that Apple is treading on a fine wire. iTunes is not God's gift to the world. It emerged at an opportune time but nothing lasts for ever.


Compromise for longevity is a smarter move for Apple. You can't tyrant and demand allegiance to your rules when other avenues of relief are appearing to those you preach to.

triskadecaepyon
Oct 25, 2007, 02:27 PM
I think a lot of companies are scared on the positions Apple is taking these days. DRM free and stuff... and the music labels are getting itchy for money. They think that their own distribution would be more profitible. But seriously... who would want to keep track of a universal music and warner music account and whatever their charges are?

darksol360
Oct 25, 2007, 02:30 PM
...and Apple will have the upperhand. So, they'll leave, and then Apple will dictate how and how much they will be paying to return to iTunes, THE MOST POPULAR ONLINE STORE. Do they realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot? I know friends <ahem> that gladly paid a year pass for Heroes... now, its which BT has the best version for the Apple TV...

RidleyGriff
Oct 25, 2007, 02:31 PM
The labels -- and networks and studios -- continue to demonstrate a complete and total lack of understanding of this market.

The device -- the iPod -- drives the media sales. It is the platform. They will not hurt Apple's dominance by utilizing vendors like Amazon. Those who are successful will take the Amazon approach -- iPod compatibility is the main selling point. It is the "killer app" for any music service. This will only further entrench Apple on the hardware side, which in turn will make iTunes the most desirable music portal to an ever further degree, because of its convenience and integration.

People want easy. They want a one-application approach. You don't get to be the #3 music retailer by appealing only to tech-savvy individuals; you get there by appealing to the entire market. Grandparents, kids, and tech savvy 20somethings and 30 somethings alike.

The refusal to deal with TV and movies is doing only one thing -- stalling the growth of digital video. But as the HD-DVD fiascos have shown, there is no long-term vision in Hollywood these days, only desperate attempts to improve the bottom line for their current quarter. Which is understandable from a business perspective, but sets up film and tv studios to be in the same position the record labels find themselves now.

With the iPod focus now firmly on video, consumers will find a way, legal or not, justified or not. They can either meet consumer demand, or face the consequences.

Frankly, the labels trying to retrain consumers, or the studios trying to fool everybody that they don't want video on their iPods, but really only on their laptops, doesn't work, isn't working, and will continue to not work.

Something eventually will give. If the mp3 music industry debacle has taught us anything, it is that the consumers will not be the ones giving anymore.

waynesworldri
Oct 25, 2007, 02:31 PM
bit torrent. enjoy hulu, for however long it lasts. :)

Shadow
Oct 25, 2007, 02:33 PM
I wasnt particulaly bothered when Universal (if it was them) jumped ship, but I am bothered about WB. If they do jump ship, I will be the first to download Limewire.

WhySoSerious
Oct 25, 2007, 02:33 PM
All of you.......you're not looking at the big picture here!

This is bad. Right now, iPods represent roughly 80% of the market. However, if music labels begin to abandon iTunes, then that means there will be less and less of a selction available on iTues for customers to purchase, which means less and less people will buy iPods because the iTune selection doesn't carry "their song", which means the customer will begin to buy brand-x MP3 player, which means less songs are purchased off iTunes, which means more label companies will drop because they aren't making money, which means less people buy iPods because "their song" isn't on iTunes......etc, etc.

Not good Apple. Work it out, share a popscile. Play nice.

Shadow
Oct 25, 2007, 02:36 PM
All of you.......you're not looking at the big picture here!

This is bad. Right now, iPods represent roughly 80% of the market. However, if music labels begin to abandon iTunes, then that means there will be less and less of a selction available on iTues for customers to purchase, which means less and less people will buy iPods because the iTune selection doesn't carry "their song", which means the customer will begin to buy brand-x MP3 player, which means less songs are purchased off iTunes, which means more label companies will drop because they aren't making money, which means less people buy iPods because "their song" isn't on iTunes......etc, etc.

Not good Apple. Work it out, share a popscile. Play nice.

Not sure about that...people buy iPods because they are good players not because of the store. A recent study showed that most of the music on iPods is pirated anyway (I think ;))....

Blue Velvet
Oct 25, 2007, 02:36 PM
Let's not get too hysterical... wait, this is MacRumors. What am I saying? ;)


Warner Music Group, whose contract with Apple expires at year-end, is considering switching to a month-to-month deal with Apple, said a source with knowledge of the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no decision has been made.


So there it is. No decision. No news.

kkat69
Oct 25, 2007, 02:36 PM
I don't get how people take the immediate reaction that Apple is being a bully.

They aren't forcing anyone to stay with them. They agree to a terms and if those terms aren't met then an agreement isn't made, simple as that.

All this does is solidify the fact that Apple/iTunes aren't he money hungry people, the Music industry is. 99c is NOT a lot, even for older music that's harder to find.

I would rather buy the music when I want it, rather than pay a monthly fee and run the risk of not downloading anything this month or that month. So basically I paid a month for nothing.

Now of course (and I would take all this back) if I had UNLIMITED downloads for that monthly fee then MAYBE but the public is already taxed so much with monthly fees for things this just adds another that eats away and nickle and dimes your bank statement. When iTunes is just a pay as you go type of thing. I prefer iTunes. DRM free is not an issue (when you know what to do) and as far as I'm concerned, it's my music I buy no one elses. I do as I wish and I do just that.

But if it's not unlimited or it's bandwidth/size restricted (ie., 5mb a month = 5.99, 20mb a month = 11.99) then forget it. I don't want to aquire another senseless monthly subscription.

rockosmodurnlif
Oct 25, 2007, 02:36 PM
I don't see the connection between iPods, iTunes and the iTunes store. Keep in mind I use the iPod and iTunes. But not the iTunes store. So far, not using the store has yet to affect my music collection or my iPod.

gwangung
Oct 25, 2007, 02:40 PM
The labels -- and networks and studios -- continue to demonstrate a complete and total lack of understanding of this market.

Do we expect anything else?

Remember, studios are a group that doesn't give a cut of downloaded programs to screenwriters.

Um, hello? You're making money off this, and you're not giving a cut to THE WRITERS???? Ya think if ya did, you wouldn't be facing a strike from the WGA???

lookmark
Oct 25, 2007, 02:42 PM
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...

TheBobcat
Oct 25, 2007, 02:44 PM
No major music label has left iTunes, I don't get why everyone gets stuck on that with these stories. They're just not committing to terms for a long period of time. These companies don't sign agreements to sell CDs at Wal-Mart years at a time, why should they on iTunes? If they do bail, then that's their problem and will suffer the monetary pain of doing so.

This is just posturing, trying to let Apple think that they're not the ones with all the cards in this thing. No sane, or at the very least, money-grubbing company would walk away from the number three retailer in their segment, or if so, for very long.

Popeye206
Oct 25, 2007, 02:46 PM
I really believe this is just the music companies trying to see if they can muscle the industry around. Lets face it. The music industry is in trouble! Album/CD sales are down and will continue to fall. They show iTunes in the #3 position, but I would bet that if you look at Walmart and Best Buy market share over the last few years they are falling. Just look in Walmart... the CD section is getting smaller and is pathetic. People want to buy what they like and only what they like. Two or three songs here and there.... not a CD for $17.99 for just one song and 10 others that stink!

It would be natural for the desperate music industry to try some of this to increase their share of the iTunes pie or the on-line music sales. In the long run... I think we'll see more artist go independent (why do you need a lable if distribution requires no capital for product?)... I think we'll see more singles released (why wait to release 10 songs once every 1.5 years when you can release a new song every other month?). Finally, I think we'll see Apple make changes to keep the lables happy... I think Apple knows iPods need content to thrive and will do what they can to keep our iPods well fed.

RidleyGriff
Oct 25, 2007, 02:47 PM
All of you.......you're not looking at the big picture here!

This is bad. Right now, iPods represent roughly 80% of the market. However, if music labels begin to abandon iTunes, then that means there will be less and less of a selction available on iTues for customers to purchase, which means less and less people will buy iPods because the iTune selection doesn't carry "their song", which means the customer will begin to buy brand-x MP3 player, which means less songs are purchased off iTunes, which means more label companies will drop because they aren't making money, which means less people buy iPods because "their song" isn't on iTunes......etc, etc.

Not good Apple. Work it out, share a popscile. Play nice.

I disagree rather strongly, box33. People are already accustomed to their iPods, and rate their devices highly. People already have an aversion to the record labels. People are also already used to getting their music through non-legal means.

What is Apple's stronghold? The device, and the device/software integration. What's the only way for any store to get an edge on iTMS? Gotta be compatible with iPods. What does that do for apple? Still makes their device the driving force of the industry.

The labels are going DRM free because it is their ONLY option of creating different online sales entities that can play on iTunes. Apple used the labels demand for DRM against them, and now the labels are screwed, b/c DRM free tracks only help iPod.

If some new player comes out that is more appealing, then we'll have an issue. But that hasn't happened yet.

Additionally, the networks and studios are going in the exact wrong direction with video. They are ignoring the market that exists, and trying to create new ones for which their is no want.

This entire game has been a chess match, and frankly -- whether somebody's an Apple fan or not -- I think one would be ill-advised to say the record labels, or studios/networks, have better long term vision in terms of the tech space and consumer wants/needs than Apple.

hugodrax
Oct 25, 2007, 02:49 PM
What they want is variable pricing. 2.00 a song for the good songs, 1.25 for the not so good song and maybe some songs cannot be purchased individually so you have to purchase the whole album etc.. And probably a more restrictive DRM where its 1 PC and 1 device and that is it.

SciTeach
Oct 25, 2007, 02:49 PM
Here's a question....

How many artists use Warner Music?

I'm sure it is a large quantity and it would be an impact to iTunes, but are we talking 20%, 30%,...?

Jetson
Oct 25, 2007, 02:51 PM
If this is how the big labels treat their cash cow, iTunes, you can just imagine how they treat the artists and other creative individuals who don't have as much leverage.

I would love to see Apple Inc. put out a shingle named Apple Records and start signing major artists themselves. Since they've settled things with the Beatles old record label, Apple Inc. might be able to use that industry expertise, and give the artists much better terms than the RIAA fascists. :rolleyes:

Apocalypse
Oct 25, 2007, 02:52 PM
All of you.......you're not looking at the big picture here!

This is bad. Right now, iPods represent roughly 80% of the market. However, if music labels begin to abandon iTunes, then that means there will be less and less of a selction available on iTues for customers to purchase, which means less and less people will buy iPods <snip>

I'm afraid you're gravely mistaken. iPod was out for almost two years before iTunes store was even around. iPods play any music, not just DRMed music from iTunes. People can import any CD or MP3 into iTunes and put it on their iPod. If a bunch of stupid music labels decide to drop from iTunes, it'll probably just end up hurting them. I haven't seen any store as convenient as iTunes so far, and I'd much prefer to use it than Joe Music Label MP3 Store Deluxe™.

waynesworldri
Oct 25, 2007, 02:52 PM
i disagree with the notion that apple has to play the greed game with publishers. the ipod is right now in a very profitable bubble and apple having invented this digital music economy right in front of everyone's very eyes is reaping the benefits as it rightly should. however, it is inevitable that over time, margins for the ipod, etc will be put under pressure and this explosive hardware/software integration profit run will settle down.

this to me is simply about the publishers, having their butts saved by apple in the first place, now getting overtly greedy and demanding a bigger piece of the profits that apple has been getting. Now they want either a slice of ipod revenue (not gonna happen) or the itunes/ipod/apple tv/imac ecosystem profits (again, not gonna happen) and they're not above threatening higher prices for the consumer to get there.

the amazing thing to me is that while DRM-free tracks at Amazon are nice.. it's the price that will bring people there, not the the DRM-freeness. So, that's simply an experiment to see if there's a way to break the stranglehold Apple has on the revenue and profit bubble that everyone is seeing drive Apple's stock price through the roof. Eventually, the Amazon price threat will go away as the publishers can't make much more money there, either and it's impossible for a retailer to compete in the platform ecosystem that Apple is excelling at right now. Microsoft is investing billions with the Xbox platform and what a cut throat business that is!

So the publishers have proven that price controls are their game and while they sold cd's at a higher price than cassettes even though they were a fraction of the costs to produce, they will try and price-fix this market as well. Good luck to them. I doubt it will work this time. The value of buying simply at a modest price (still very profitable, mind you) when you could alternately download the same content illegally for free was simple enough that anyone could understand it. Monkey with that and you could kill the golden goose. Kudos to apple for knowing this and shame on the music publishers for trying to savage the very animal that rescued them in the first place.

pagansoul
Oct 25, 2007, 02:53 PM
One, the music industry is not leaving iTunes, they are just going month by month and not year by year. If they can get a better deal they want to be able to leave with a at most 30 day wait. No one likes being tied to a yearly contract (see iphone & AT&T). Two, I do not use iTunes to buy music, like most people I use iTunes to organize my CDs and feed my pods. If iTunes didn't sell music but just provided the organization, covers, artist information and clips I would still use it. I would love it for Podcasts alone. I buy my music from resellers and flea markets and I'm sure the record companies want a piece of that action also. In their perfect world everything self distructs after warranty and you have to buy it again. That's the way business works today.

hh83917
Oct 25, 2007, 02:53 PM
My take on this is since Apple is currently the 3rd largest online music seller, if Warner leaves iTunes, it'll hurt Warner for short term until they find someone else (i.e Amazon). But in the long term Apple is the one that's going to suffer after everyone eventually follow the trend leaving iTunes resulting iTunes music store with no music to sell (probably only EMI might stay, I think). :(

Yes, they are not leaving iTunes, but they just want it so if they want to, they can. It'll suck for Apple and probably make Apple less of a bully and possible bring more competition to the online music business, which is good for the consumers.

bubblegum80
Oct 25, 2007, 02:55 PM
Here's a question....

How many artists use Warner Music?

I'm sure it is a large quantity and it would be an impact to iTunes, but are we talking 20%, 30%,...?

Its one of the major record labels man. Many indie companies have their stuff distributed through them.

I never used iTunes store, I really really wanted to use it, but they never distributed enough Japanese music. Most stuff stayed within the Japanese store, and even they didn't get much. Which is a shame, because they had all the French, Nigerian, British, and Icelandic artists I wanted buy "digital" albums from. Too bad for iTunes, they lost 100+ album sales. I'll keep my CD, and SACD collection from now.

Consultant
Oct 25, 2007, 02:56 PM
Doesn't matter how you look at it or feel about it. Reality of it is that Apple is treading on a fine wire. iTunes is not God's gift to the world. It emerged at an opportune time but nothing lasts for ever.

Compromise for longevity is a smarter move for Apple. You can't tyrant and demand allegiance to your rules when other avenues of relief are appearing to those you preach to.

Any company trying to keep the price low for the consumers is a tyrant? You must work for the music industry.

The whole reason we are here is because of #5 below. We have already been through 1-5...

1. music labels become too greedy, trying to charge $$$ for a CD which is exactly a bundle of a few great songs and mediocre songs.

2. People realize that, and ripped the music, and pass around the good songs.Ttons of people were copying music for free. Music labels do not receive a penny.

3. iTunes, due to ease of use, quick search, great music player app, and clear pricing, becomes the largest electronic music store. Yes, there is no bundling; you can buy only your favorite song without paying $15 $20 for a whole cd. (reducing piracy and providing money to these music labels at the same time)

4. labels forgot why people pirate music, gets money from iTunes, becomes greedy again and wants more from iTunes. Pressures iTunes to charge more and pressures iTunes to let the labels bundle unwanted songs for higher prices (do you think the labels want iTunes to charge 10 cents per song?)

5. iTunes refuse to increase the price of songs, yes, iTunes REFUSED to increase price of individual songs.

6. the same misguided people that almost put the labels out of business decides to do it on their own again. Bad usability, bad MS DRM that won't work on MS players turns people off.

(many of those iTunes-wanna be digital distribution companies already failed, some as recently as this year)

7. people will start pirate music on a big scale again, independent recording artists will bypass the labels and goes to iTunes.

8. iTunes alive and well, labels go bankrupt

bubblegum80
Oct 25, 2007, 02:57 PM
I'm afraid you're gravely mistaken. iPod was out for almost two years before iTunes store was even around. iPods play any music, not just DRMed music from iTunes. People can import any CD or MP3 into iTunes and put it on their iPod. If a bunch of stupid music labels decide to drop from iTunes, it'll probably just end up hurting them. I haven't seen any store as convenient as iTunes so far, and I'd much prefer to use it than Joe Music Label MP3 Store Deluxe™.

I can buy anything I want from HMV. Anything... music related that is.

Blue Velvet
Oct 25, 2007, 02:59 PM
...independent recording artists will bypass the labels and goes to iTunes.

8. iTunes alive and well, labels go bankrupt

I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous vision... artists might create their own labels, but labels going bankrupt? Nope.

bubblegum80
Oct 25, 2007, 02:59 PM
Any company trying to keep the price low for the consumers is a tyrant? You must work for the music industry.

The whole reason we are here is because of #5 below. We have already been through 1-5...

1. music labels become too greedy, trying to charge $$$ for a CD which is exactly a bundle of a few great songs and mediocre songs.

2. People realize that, and ripped the music, and pass around the good songs.Ttons of people were copying music for free. Music labels do not receive a penny.

3. iTunes, due to ease of use, quick search, great music player app, and clear pricing, becomes the largest electronic music store. Yes, there is no bundling; you can buy only your favorite song without paying $15 $20 for a whole cd. (reducing piracy and providing money to these music labels at the same time)

4. labels forgot why people pirate music, gets money from iTunes, becomes greedy again and wants more from iTunes. Pressures iTunes to charge more and pressures iTunes to let the labels bundle unwanted songs for higher prices (do you think the labels want iTunes to charge 10 cents per song?)

5. iTunes refuse to increase the price of songs, yes, iTunes REFUSED to increase price of individual songs.

6. the same misguided people that almost put the labels out of business decides to do it on their own again. Bad usability, bad MS DRM that won't work on MS players turns people off.

(many of those iTunes-wanna be digital distribution companies already failed, some as recently as this year)

7. people will start pirate music on a big scale again, independent recording artists will bypass the labels and goes to iTunes.

8. iTunes alive and well, labels go bankrupt

CD's are not expensive, nor are they overpriced.

seashellz2
Oct 25, 2007, 03:01 PM
I think iTunes and iPod are now too entrenched-and unstoppable:
Amazon has too many fingers in the pie, too late.
Plus Steve will have something up his sleeve.

The music industry is dying-and they dont have even a tiny clue as to why.
It is not pirating, filesharing, nor online stores-it is thier Jurassic-age model of how its SUPPOSED to work.
Or rather how it USED to work.
And it isnt.
And they are in a panic.

BLUELION
Oct 25, 2007, 03:04 PM
I really don't get why content providers are looking to 'play hardball' with Apple by threatening to balkanize the legal distribution of digital music, especially when the iPod holds an 80% share of the market, and iTunes is, so far, the only digital music model to have shown steady profits and customer growth.

You'd think that they forgot how they got into this mess in the first place.

True, but then again some old dogs don't learn new tricks. What Apple should do is continue to trek as it has and once these folks (universal, et.al.) do notice their loss Apple should anti up the fee to pay with itunes.

That and the labels are are short sighted about the profits to be made. Collaborative efforts garner more sales in the end. Apple has it right.

princealfie
Oct 25, 2007, 03:06 PM
CD's are not expensive, nor are they overpriced.

Wow, you have lots of bank accounts to afford all that.

studiomusic
Oct 25, 2007, 03:06 PM
All I can see is that they (Warner, Universal) will get less of a percentage on the sales they make on iTunes.

Or that's how it should be...
You sign a multi-year deal, you get a price break, you want month to month, you pay full price.

So Apple should be making more off of these labels than they are now. I can't see any advantage in having a multi-year contract otherwise.:confused:

e-coli
Oct 25, 2007, 03:07 PM
Who cares where the music comes from as long as it works on both the mac and pc and is compatible with the ipod?

you can always buy the cd if the music companies totally ***** the bed.

And besides, who listens to big-label music anymore? It's all complete over-produced garbage. Indie labels and self-promo are on fire these days. Who needs a record company anymore?

BLUELION
Oct 25, 2007, 03:08 PM
Any company trying to keep the price low for the consumers is a tyrant? You must work for the music industry.

The whole reason we are here is because of #5 below. We have already been through 1-5...

1. music labels become too greedy, trying to charge $$$ for a CD which is exactly a bundle of a few great songs and mediocre songs.

2. People realize that, and ripped the music, and pass around the good songs.Ttons of people were copying music for free. Music labels do not receive a penny.

3. iTunes, due to ease of use, quick search, great music player app, and clear pricing, becomes the largest electronic music store. Yes, there is no bundling; you can buy only your favorite song without paying $15 $20 for a whole cd. (reducing piracy and providing money to these music labels at the same time)

4. labels forgot why people pirate music, gets money from iTunes, becomes greedy again and wants more from iTunes. Pressures iTunes to charge more and pressures iTunes to let the labels bundle unwanted songs for higher prices (do you think the labels want iTunes to charge 10 cents per song?)

5. iTunes refuse to increase the price of songs, yes, iTunes REFUSED to increase price of individual songs.

6. the same misguided people that almost put the labels out of business decides to do it on their own again. Bad usability, bad MS DRM that won't work on MS players turns people off.

(many of those iTunes-wanna be digital distribution companies already failed, some as recently as this year)

7. people will start pirate music on a big scale again, independent recording artists will bypass the labels and goes to iTunes.

8. iTunes alive and well, labels go bankrupt

AND THIS IS HOW THE END GAME SHALL BE PLAYED OUT. If more of these label CEO's really had a brain between their ears they would use some common sense to their policies and think it through. if they did they would reach similar conclusions and build a positive working relationship to maximize profits using the model used by Apple.

RidleyGriff
Oct 25, 2007, 03:08 PM
CD's are not expensive, nor are they overpriced.

I think everyone agrees $9.99 is a fair price for a CD, but how did they get there?

By huge retailers like Wal-Mart pressuring the labels to lower their wholesale price. It wasn't by the kind benevolance of the labels.

Without the kind of pressure Wal-Mart/Best Buy/Amazon brought, we'd still be paying $16.99 at Tower for CDs.

The labels do not understand the value of their product in the public eye, period. Especially digitally.

Quillz
Oct 25, 2007, 03:11 PM
Not sure about that...people buy iPods because they are good players not because of the store. A recent study showed that most of the music on iPods is pirated anyway (I think ;))....
I don't know about that. Many credible reviews have long stated that players by Creative and Microsoft are better than the iPod. I'm pretty sure the appeal of the iPod is how easily it ties into the iTunes Store, and thus, its wide array of available music.

boss1
Oct 25, 2007, 03:12 PM
...snip.......

like i said, you can look at it or envision a future for it in your case, however you wish. none the less the reality of it is that Apple is playing hardball in it's own backyard, but the industry giants are vigorously trying to creating other ball parks to play in quickly, not in Apple's backyard.


This news bit may not be much news as it's apparent that Warner is merely playing scare tactics in order to let Apple know, "buddy, your not holding all the cards here". still the story highlights the delicate balance that is the relationship between Apple and the Copyright holders (music & movies).


I never said I agree with pricing and the labels. But i'm not stupid either. Comprise would be wise for the long haul.


EDIT: btw , regarding your comment about me working in the music industry. You are correct but not in your context. I actually like the "Free music model" . The sale of music is only about 25% of revenue generated in the music industry as it is. The entire dispute in the music industry regarding piracy has more to do with control (god knows technology flipped, fried, and blended up the former control and distribution model in a short few years) then it has to do with revenue from sales.

dante@sisna.com
Oct 25, 2007, 03:14 PM
I don't know about that. Many credible reviews have long stated that players by Creative and Microsoft are better than the iPod. I'm pretty sure the appeal of the iPod is how easily it ties into the iTunes Store, and thus, its wide array of available music.

Creative maybe has a few competitve players. But Players by Microsoft?

Comeon, the Zune is no iPod.

gkarris
Oct 25, 2007, 03:16 PM
Warner Music and NBC Studios can watch their income from digital distribution go down as Apple iPod sales go up.

Okay guys, have fun on the XBox 360 and Zune...

jackc
Oct 25, 2007, 03:18 PM
It'll be just like when Foreman went to look for a new job, then came crawling back to Dr. Cuddy.

3D-Troll
Oct 25, 2007, 03:19 PM
I do not know which artists are at which label. If I want to buy some songs and have to figure out at which label they are available and sign up for an account all the convenience is gone. I just won't bother with it. Apple has a great solution for it. I guess we just have to wait till the labels see a shrinking bottom line and come to their senses.

Steffen

Skemo
Oct 25, 2007, 03:20 PM
Amazon's music service is clearly superior to iTunes. I'll take a DRM-free browser-based platform-independent music service over a bloated DRM-infused iTunes. Let me use my music without implying I'm a crook. Consumer trust, novel idea I know.

nagromme
Oct 25, 2007, 03:20 PM
Let's not get too hysterical... wait, this is MacRumors. What am I saying? ;)


Originally Posted by The Article
Warner Music Group, whose contract with Apple expires at year-end, is considering switching to a month-to-month deal with Apple, said a source with knowledge of the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no decision has been made.


So there it is. No decision. No news.

Well said :) I added additional emphasis: there's no decision on switching to a DIFFERENT deal with Apple. This article is NOT about Warner leaving iTunes.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled hysteria.

Shadow
Oct 25, 2007, 03:24 PM
I don't know about that. Many credible reviews have long stated that players by Creative and Microsoft are better than the iPod. I'm pretty sure the appeal of the iPod is how easily it ties into the iTunes Store, and thus, its wide array of available music.

Have you got a source?

EagerDragon
Oct 25, 2007, 03:27 PM
OK, Apple Inc to my knowledge can become a Label it self. Time to start signing artists. Apple can pay the Artists a lot better than the Major Labels since it has little overhead. It can even promote them and their concerts.

I wonder what the big labels will do if Apple heads that way.

megfilmworks
Oct 25, 2007, 03:31 PM
So the publishers have proven that price controls are their game and while they sold cd's at a higher price than cassettes even though they were a fraction of the costs to produce, they will try and price-fix this market as well. Good luck to them. I doubt it will work this time.
Your terms are wrong. Publishers are not record labels, there income is statutory (set by law). You are talking about the record labels and distribution issues.

Consultant
Oct 25, 2007, 03:33 PM
I don't know about that. Many credible reviews have long stated that players by Creative and Microsoft are better than the iPod. I'm pretty sure the appeal of the iPod is how easily it ties into the iTunes Store, and thus, its wide array of available music.

I think Quillz has bad eye sights or taking some hallucinogen drugs.

Engadget review on zzzz.une: "We came away underwhelmed and not at all surprised -- and why? The expectations were for Microsoft to deliver a "Microsoft" player and system; maybe not too shabby looking, but not very usable, and definitely bug-ridden."

Also, "The Microsoft Zune is not backward compatible with WMA-DRM9; weak native video support (cannot play protected content) and no video offerings from Zune Marketplace; cannot be used as a hard drive (and no UMS support); proprietary USB; minimal bundled accessories;"

As to creative, they make too many so-so players with so-so reviews that there aren't any reviews of their recent players. By the way, creative flash players are usually pretty bloated, about twice the size of iPod Nanos, and their video players are usually the thickness of (or larger than) the 6 year old first generation iPod.

boss1
Oct 25, 2007, 03:35 PM
OK, Apple Inc to my knowledge can become a Label it self. Time to start signing artists. Apple can pay the Artists a lot better than the Major Labels since it has little overhead. It can even promote them and their concerts.

I wonder what the big labels will do if Apple heads that way.

That sounds easy and logical. however, there are established circles and hurdles in this industry that Apple is not positioned to overcome. Never mind the fact that Apple doesn't have the management, staff or facilities in place to take on the arduous task of promoting a single artist let alone a few hundred. To top that off Apple doesn't have an established Library of musical works to generate streaming income from....the list goes ..the point is ... it's just not as easy it you make it sound.

uNext
Oct 25, 2007, 03:35 PM
I purchased music from itunes.
I purchased music from amazon mp3 service.

My conclusion is apple have a tough competitor
amazon service is nice thats where i been buying my music lately.

Bye Bye iTunes.....

I dont get it can somebody please answer me this...

Apples monopoly is accepted and worshipped
but microsoft operating system and office is not?
which leads me to believe if amazon takes itunes spot and they start shelling out numerous products will this community start hating on amazon and start screaming monopoly?

The mac community overall is helpful but man the double standrad logic behind being a mac fan is overkill.

p.s eagerdragon do you honestly believe that if apple turns into a music label they will pay the artist better? Do you honestly believe apple will offset their earnings to satisfy
end users? I CAN JUST IMAGINE the screams of shareholders if it where to happen.

I am just looking at it as a shareholder and in a business way. It makes no sense to me but maybe you can enlighten me on some key points you may have.

EagerDragon
Oct 25, 2007, 03:35 PM
I hope Apple pays less to Labels that are on a month to month plan, simply refuses to extend their month to month dreams. Sign a contract, get less with no contract, or take your content and run.

waynesworldri
Oct 25, 2007, 03:37 PM
Your terms are wrong. Publishers are not record labels, there income is statutory (set by law). You are talking about the record labels and distribution issues.

i stand corrected. :)

nagromme
Oct 25, 2007, 03:41 PM
I don't know about that. Many credible reviews have long stated that players by Creative and Microsoft are better than the iPod. I'm pretty sure the appeal of the iPod is how easily it ties into the iTunes Store, and thus, its wide array of available music.

And many credible reviews have long stated that the iPod's interface/ease of use (not just iTunes management) is better than Creative and Microsoft :) Small size and great design have often been pluses too.

I'm pretty sure the appeal of Microsoft players is... um... sorry, I got nothing :o

(I've never seen ANY credible review state that any player is "better" in a simplistic, blanket sense than the iPod line. Better if you want to rent music, or record voice memos without an add-on, or have FM DJ's, etc.--better in specific ways for specific needs: that's more credible. While the iPod is better for others.)

Not that this article is about Warned taking music off of iTunes anyway.

EagerDragon
Oct 25, 2007, 03:42 PM
I purchased music from itunes.
I purchased music from amazon mp3 service.

My conclusion is apple have a tough competitor
amazon service is nice thats where i been buying my music lately.

Bye Bye iTunes.....

I dont get it can somebody please answer me this...

Apples monopoly is accepted and worshipped
but microsoft operating system and office is not?
which leads me to believe if amazon takes itunes spot and they start shelling out numerous products will this community start hating on amazon and start screaming monopoly?

The mac community overall is helpful but man the double standrad logic behind being a mac fan is overkill.

Not double standards, M$ makes buggy crap, has constant hacking bacause it is easy to find those bugs and because the design sucks, is slow to inovate, has little imagination, and is constantly pushing their protocols to others instead of using open standards.

What you see Apple doing is business, they have a hot distribution point, they know how to market it. They are invited to sell thru iTunes or go elsewhere, no bullying, no presure, little or no negotiation. Just because someone is not willing to bend, does not mean that they are bullying, it means they have a strong product and a strong hand. Sort of take it or leave it.
Are you Bill?

twoodcc
Oct 25, 2007, 03:43 PM
well this isn't good, but at least it hasn't happened yet

mrrydogg
Oct 25, 2007, 03:43 PM
Music Companies are stupid.

They have ALWAYS been 4 steps behind. Now instead of making their music available on multiple sites giving consumers several options, they want to start dictating again. This is the same attitude that got them in trouble to begin with.

My guess is, Apple wants exclusivity. iTunes or no store. I think Apple should cave in this demand if it is one. iTunes, no matter what Amazon, Walmart, whoever does...will still be highly lucrative because of the iPod and the iTunes compatibility with it. Plain and simple.

redfirebird08
Oct 25, 2007, 03:44 PM
I really don't get why content providers are looking to 'play hardball' with Apple by threatening to balkanize the legal distribution of digital music, especially when the iPod holds an 80% share of the market, and iTunes is, so far, the only digital music model to have shown steady profits and customer growth.

You'd think that they forgot how they got into this mess in the first place.

Actually, it's Apple that has played hard ball. They want a fixed price instead of variable pricing, which is ridiculous when you think about it. As far as I'm concerned, variable pricing is more fair. A longer song should cost more, and likewise, a shorter song should cost less. Older songs should cost less whereas new ones should cost the full amount.

The other issue is that Apple refuses to offer a subscription model for the iPod and iTunes. The music industry wants them to use subscriptions but they refuse, and in turn, the music companies are now being jackasses right back at Apple.

EagerDragon
Oct 25, 2007, 03:45 PM
That sounds easy and logical. however, there are established circles and hurdles in this industry that Apple is not positioned to overcome. Never mind the fact that Apple doesn't have the management, staff or facilities in place to take on the arduous task of promoting a single artist let alone a few hundred. To top that off Apple doesn't have an established Library of musical works to generate streaming income from....the list goes ..the point is ... it's just not as easy it you make it sound.

Never said it was easy, never said it will take them a week. Personnel can be hired, experience can be gained, its a matter of wanting.

eastcoastsurfer
Oct 25, 2007, 03:47 PM
First off, Apple has bullied around the music industry. They have used the ipod/itms success as a big stick to get what they want. The music industry is irked b/c they don't think they are getting enough cut out of the usage of their product. Without music the ipod would be useless. As far as apple is concerned they make their money off of their hardware, so they don't mind putting huge downward pressure on the song prices.

Apple losing music on itms is a bad thing. Everyone I know who isn't tech-savy has purchased an ipod/itms. They purchased the complete experience and not just some music player. Losing music off of itms will make them rethink what their next player should be, and this is something Apple should be worried about.

I'm sure the labels have mentioned to Apple that if they want to list their music and use it to sell ipods then they want a cut of that juicy ipod revenue. Sounds like the label being greedy, but where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, the deal Apple has with ATT for the iphone...

seedster2
Oct 25, 2007, 03:47 PM
My conclusion is apple have a tough competitor
amazon service is nice thats where i been buying my music lately.

Bye Bye iTunes.....

I dont get it can somebody please answer me this...

Apples monopoly is accepted and worshipped
but microsoft operating system and office is not?
which leads me to believe if amazon takes itunes spot and they start shelling out numerous products will this community start hating on amazon and start screaming monopoly?

The mac community overall is helpful but man the double standrad logic behind being a mac fan is overkill.




Agreed, the double standard is so obvious and ridiculous. there are superior vehicles for purchasing music from smaller competitors but the fanboyism keeps them in denial. Lemmings I tell you:rolleyes:


(That said i do continue to use itunes for tv shows;))

EagerDragon
Oct 25, 2007, 03:47 PM
Actually, it's Apple that has played hard ball. They want a fixed price instead of variable pricing, which is ridiculous when you think about it. As far as I'm concerned, variable pricing is more fair. A longer song should cost more, and likewise, a shorter song should cost less. Older songs should cost less whereas new ones should cost the full amount.

The other issue is that Apple refuses to offer a subscription model for the iPod and iTunes. The music industry wants them to use subscriptions but they refuse, and in turn, the music companies are now being jackasses right back at Apple.

Their store, their distribution point. They can sell for what they want, and the labels can join or stay out.

celavato
Oct 25, 2007, 03:51 PM
We now return you to your regularly scheduled hysteria.

I don't think the music companies can collude and all pull out of iTunes as that would violate antitrust laws. But one of them can play a game of chicken and pull out on their own and hope the others follow. If that happens, Apple would have a serious problem on its hands.

I think the more likely scenario is that the music companies will continue to force Apple to sell DRM tracks while letting others sell them DRM-free. This ploy won't have any impact as most people never run up against iTunes DRM and probably don't even know it exists. Plus Apple can still increase the quality of DRM tracks to 256K to better compete.

boss1
Oct 25, 2007, 03:53 PM
Never said it was easy, never said it will take them a week. Personnel can be hired, experience can be gained, its a matter of wanting.

I think you should evaluate the over simplicity of your responses. If apple distributes for Warner, EMI, Sony and others. What does kind of deal do you think these companies are going to barter with Apple when Apple the record label uses iTunes to push Apple's artist to the number 1 slots?

And if those labels leave Apple what kind of choice for music will iTunes be left with? Apple artists? you can kiss the success of iTunes goodbye if that happens.

bubblegum80
Oct 25, 2007, 03:56 PM
I think everyone agrees $9.99 is a fair price for a CD, but how did they get there?

By huge retailers like Wal-Mart pressuring the labels to lower their wholesale price. It wasn't by the kind benevolance of the labels.

Without the kind of pressure Wal-Mart/Best Buy/Amazon brought, we'd still be paying $16.99 at Tower for CDs.

The labels do not understand the value of their product in the public eye, period. Especially digitally.

I don't understand why people point fingers at the labels.

It is the retailers that raise CD prices. cduniverse.com is a prime example. They mark their prices up more than 30% the RRP.

Other retailers follow the same pattern, and soon you have to pay higher prices. It is the discount stores like Wal-Mart that fight to lower price standards set by specialized retailers like Tower Records.

The record labels don't receive any of the mark ups set by the retailers. Knowing where to shop is a key to not getting ripped off.

HMV is one of the best retailers you can buy stuff from.

hayesk
Oct 25, 2007, 03:58 PM
Amazon's music service is clearly superior to iTunes. I'll take a DRM-free browser-based platform-independent music service over a bloated DRM-infused iTunes. Let me use my music without implying I'm a crook. Consumer trust, novel idea I know.

iTunes is already going DRM free - and at higher quality than Amazon.

The iTunes app is much more optimized than a web browser for browsing and searching for music, playing previews, etc.

iTunes is much nicer for purchasing - you purchase the song and it's instantly in your music application and syncs with your iPod next time you connect it. A web browser can not do that.

You'd have to be some kind of masochist to think a web browser is better for browsing and buying music than an app with features developed explicitly for that purpose.

imwoblin
Oct 25, 2007, 04:00 PM
I find it comical that the music companies keep falling over their own feet when it comes to digital distribution of music. Apple (computer company) single handedly saved their asses by creating an electronic distribution model that ushered in the legal way to download music. These guys are a train wreck waiting to happen, and should thank their lucky stars that a computer company helped them make millions of easy dollars without them(music companies) doing a damn thing...

redfirebird08
Oct 25, 2007, 04:00 PM
Their store, their distribution point. They can sell for what they want, and the labels can join or stay out.

Actually, the labels can set a MSRP on it and if they feel that Apple is selling it at too much of a discount from that, then they should definitely leave the store. I think the labels' biggest issue with Apple is the flexibility especially with regard to newer releases vs. older releases. I mostly listen to older music so it kind of annoys me when I see older songs being sold for the same price as newer ones, even if the album price is much lower. And mind you, I'm not talking about Bob Dylan or other classic artists like that, I'm talking about random "filler" songs by the likes of Guns N' Roses. By all means, if a song is incredible and really popular even if it's old, then sell it at a higher price. But if it's just some random album track that was never released to radio? $1.08 including tax is too much unless the song is longer.

thirdwaver
Oct 25, 2007, 04:05 PM
Don't forget that the iPhone and iPod touch both now support ITMS. Overnight, this added over a million devices who are able to browse the store and buy music remotely. This has and will continue to greatly increase "impulse buying" of songs. I've already purchased a few this way. That's value add for the ITMS that the others don't have.

I imagine that this might be one of the unspoken reasons why Apple is dragging its feet on the SDK for the iPhone. Once it's released, it will only be a week before Amazon and others begin releasing iPhone applications for their music stores.

Stella
Oct 25, 2007, 04:06 PM
Their store, their distribution point. They can sell for what they want, and the labels can join or stay out.

True. However, a store that has nothing to sell will go out of business pretty soon.

redfirebird08
Oct 25, 2007, 04:11 PM
Don't forget that the iPhone and iPod touch both now support ITMS. Overnight, this added over a million devices who are able to browse the store and buy music remotely. This has and will continue to greatly increase "impulse buying" of songs. I've already purchased a few this way. That's value add for the ITMS that the others don't have.

I imagine that this might be one of the unspoken reasons why Apple is dragging its feet on the SDK for the iPhone. Once it's released, it will only be a week before Amazon and others begin releasing iPhone applications for their music stores.

Don't kid yourself. 90% of the people buying the Touch or the iPhone already own iPods to begin with and are already iTunes customers. The Wi-Fi iTunes Music Store, on the other hand, has a ton of potential. Perhaps this is what you were trying to refer to? The Wi-Fi store will give people plenty of chances for impulse buying, which I think is far more likely when you've got a small device in your hands instead of a computer. You tend to think things through more when you're on the computer.

MrMoore
Oct 25, 2007, 04:12 PM
I think what is happening now is that the music companies want to cut out the "middle man". Probably when they were first were approached by Apple on allowing legal digital downloads, they were skeptical that it would actullay work, but agreed to help slow down the illegal (Napster, Morpheus, Limewire) downloaded.

When iTunes exploded, they could not believe how successful it could be. Now they want to control the pricing and stop having to give Apple a piece of the pie. The only thing I think is wrong with that thinking is that having things centralized on iTunes made it easier for people to buy music. If I have to go to one place for Warner, one place for Universal, one place for EMI, and one place for Sony, I might not buy as much. IMO. YMMV.

SthrnCmfrtr
Oct 25, 2007, 04:14 PM
Actually, the labels can set a MSRP on it and if they feel that Apple is selling it at too much of a discount from that, then they should definitely leave the store. I think the labels' biggest issue with Apple is the flexibility especially with regard to newer releases vs. older releases. I mostly listen to older music so it kind of annoys me when I see older songs being sold for the same price as newer ones, even if the album price is much lower. And mind you, I'm not talking about Bob Dylan or other classic artists like that, I'm talking about random "filler" songs by the likes of Guns N' Roses. By all means, if a song is incredible and really popular even if it's old, then sell it at a higher price. But if it's just some random album track that was never released to radio? $1.08 including tax is too much unless the song is longer.

They could use an equation to determine the price. Higher demand = higher price.

Not talking about a $3 variation, more like a range from $.75 to $1.25.

People like me who loathe most popular music would rejoice.

RidleyGriff
Oct 25, 2007, 04:16 PM
I don't understand why people point fingers at the labels.

It is the retailers that raise CD prices. cduniverse.com is a prime example. They mark their prices up more than 30% the RRP.

Other retailers follow the same pattern, and soon you have to pay higher prices. It is the discount stores like Wal-Mart that fight to lower price standards set by specialized retailers like Tower Records.

The record labels don't receive any of the mark ups set by the retailers. Knowing where to shop is a key to not getting ripped off.


You are incorrect. A big deal was made back in 2003 when Universal lowered their wholesale prices -- i.e., what distributors pay for the merchandise -- from the $12 they had been at (with a suggested retail price of $18), to $9 (SRP of $13).

Do you really think Tower Records watched their sales decline -- due to non-competitive prices -- and didn't lower them just... because? They didn't because they couldn't sell them for wholesale and still make a profit to run their company.

The record labels hate Apple because the a la carte system and lack of bundling is killing them. Over the past 15 years they've truly become dependent on the "2-3 singles and filler" formula for their artist's records, and have signed, developed, and produced appropriately. The a la carte system, where people can just buy what they want, is killing their profits because people, when given a choice of what they really want, just aren't buying full albums.

This is the big point they don't want to bring up, because it will reveal an inherent weakness in the product they are selling (i.e., that their full albums maybe aren't really worth buying).

redfirebird08
Oct 25, 2007, 04:19 PM
They could use an equation to determine the price. Higher demand = higher price.

Not talking about a $3 variation, more like a range from $.75 to $1.25.

People like me who loathe most popular music would rejoice.

Agreed, although I think anything under 1 minute long should not be charged any more than 50 cents. It's ridiculous that "intro" tracks are 99 cents + tax on ITMS and pretty much every other download store. That sucks in my opinion. It should be based on the size of the file and distribution costs (bandwidth) plus popularity.

Blue Velvet
Oct 25, 2007, 04:23 PM
Over the past 15 years they've truly become dependent on the "2-3 singles and filler" formula for their artist's records, and have signed, developed, and produced appropriately.


Fifteen years? I'm surprised because many of the albums I've purchased over the last 15 years are solid throughout... the single has been dead for years; there are plenty of album-orientated artists that dont even think of releasing a single, whatever form it takes.

No, the simple fact is, is that very few acts have it in themselves to write and create a consistently strong album more than once or twice. Those that do are the big household names.

redfirebird08
Oct 25, 2007, 04:25 PM
You are incorrect. A big deal was made back in 2003 when Universal lowered their wholesale prices -- i.e., what distributors pay for the merchandise -- from the $12 they had been at (with a suggested retail price of $18), to $9 (SRP of $13).

Do you really think Tower Records watched their sales decline -- due to non-competitive prices -- and didn't lower them just... because? They didn't because they couldn't sell them for wholesale and still make a profit to run their company.

The record labels hate Apple because the a la carte system and lack of bundling is killing them. Over the past 15 years they've truly become dependent on the "2-3 singles and filler" formula for their artist's records, and have signed, developed, and produced appropriately. The a la carte system, where people can just buy what they want, is killing their profits because people, when given a choice of what they really want, just aren't buying full albums.

This is the big point they don't want to bring up, because it will reveal an inherent weakness in the product they are selling (i.e., that their full albums maybe aren't really worth buying).

Great post. :)

What's so funny about this situation is that the labels used to live on singles (1950's and 1960's). Then the Beatles and the likes of Bob Dylan in the mid-60's began putting out great albums. Suddenly the entire industry switched to focusing on albums, and the 1970's saw some incredible albums from the likes of Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and so on. Unfortunately, the 80's and 90's brought about the one hit wonder and thus the consumers felt ripped off because they paid $10-15 for one killer song and 10 or more crappy songs.

artman1033
Oct 25, 2007, 04:35 PM
Well said :) I added additional emphasis: there's no decision on switching to a DIFFERENT deal with Apple. This article is NOT about Warner leaving iTunes.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled hysteria.

I read the original article too. I was wondering when anyone would realize this is a non story. GOOD FOR YOU :):):):)

mustang_dvs
Oct 25, 2007, 04:36 PM
Actually, it's Apple that has played hard ball. They want a fixed price instead of variable pricing, which is ridiculous when you think about it. As far as I'm concerned, variable pricing is more fair. A longer song should cost more, and likewise, a shorter song should cost less. Older songs should cost less whereas new ones should cost the full amount. Longer songs should cost more, eh? I guess you don't listen to symphonies, opera, jazz or Iron Butterfly, huh? Variable pricing is ludicrous -- setting a single, easy to remember price is best for the consumer and creates a uniform, predictable experience.

The other issue is that Apple refuses to offer a subscription model for the iPod and iTunes. The music industry wants them to use subscriptions but they refuse, and in turn, the music companies are now being jackasses right back at Apple.Subscription services have show time and time again, that people don't like to rent music. The brilliance of the iTunes/Amazon type system is that once you've plunked down your money, you can do want you want with it -- burn it to CD, put it on a PMP or listen on your computer.

Don't kid yourself. 90% of the people buying the Touch or the iPhone already own iPods to begin with and are already iTunes customers.Actually, the data released by Apple and NPD shows that 40-50% of iPhone purchasers didn't already own an iPod.

redfirebird08
Oct 25, 2007, 04:40 PM
Mustang, actually I do listen to quite a bit of longer stuff. I consider anything 8 minutes or longer to be pretty long, which is why in that case you might as well buy the frickin' album itself. Pink Floyd has some songs that are ridiculously long, Led Zeppelin has some live stuff that is ridiculously long, and I have no problem if they sell it at a higher price point. All songs were not created equal. You cannot sit there and say that a 25 minute long song should cost the same as a 4 minute song, and you can't say that a 4 minute song should cost the same as a 20 second one.

I believe subscription services would work if Apple did it. What you have to understand is that most of the people who use subscription services go out of their way to find them. Apple has a monopoly with the iTunes store and draws a ton of casual users. I think people love using iPods, and if you used the same DRM as FairPlay with obviously no burning rights, then it becomes a great option for people. You would STILL have the option to buy songs or albums, perhaps at a discounted price for having the subscription. There's nothing wrong with giving the labels and the consumers some flexibility.

As for the iPhone, thanks for the correction. :)

BLUELION
Oct 25, 2007, 04:40 PM
...The mac community overall is helpful but man the double standrad logic behind being a mac fan is overkill...do you honestly believe apple will offset their earnings to satisfy end users? ....

honestly if Amazon emerges in a better position to garner more of the market so be it. But the truth still stands that the iPod is a sound piece of electronic equipment and other manufacturers have not quite been able to come close to replicating it. Perhaps that may change in the future, but the lessons of economics and of the marktet place is that you have the in a direct position to control the content/product you wish to sell to the masses. Apple is the driver of the hardware, MS, and Amazon are not.

We see both these companies trying to build their networks with Samsung, Panasonic and others to bring the hardware side to their plan. By the time they get a good player out there, Apple will have had that much more time for R&D to have developed major improvements to the current iPod that it will continue to dominate.

gnasher729
Oct 25, 2007, 04:50 PM
Creative maybe has a few competitve players. But Players by Microsoft?

Comeon, the Zune is no iPod.

Nobody would have taken any notice of the Zune whatsoever if it hadn't been produced by Microsoft. And it sells in a distant fourth place.

To put it into perspective: If Apple had announced a new iPod, and the result had been the Zune, there would have been enormous disappointment on MacRumors.

digitalbiker
Oct 25, 2007, 04:55 PM
The only thing I think is wrong with that thinking is that having things centralized on iTunes made it easier for people to buy music. If I have to go to one place for Warner, one place for Universal, one place for EMI, and one place for Sony, I might not buy as much. IMO. YMMV.

Really, I don't see any difference buying music than buying anything else. I don't shop for electronics at one store. I don't buy food from one restaurant.

Itunes could be re-written to access amazon store, universal's store, sony's store, etc. etc. You would then select the store and download the music that you want. The interfaces might not be as consistent and you would have to deal with mp3 vs aac etc. but it wouldn't be a big deal.

Apple will still sell their ipods and itunes would still be the key tool to manipulate content on the ipod.

bubblegum80
Oct 25, 2007, 05:12 PM
You are incorrect. A big deal was made back in 2003 when Universal lowered their wholesale prices -- i.e., what distributors pay for the merchandise -- from the $12 they had been at (with a suggested retail price of $18), to $9 (SRP of $13).

Do you really think Tower Records watched their sales decline -- due to non-competitive prices -- and didn't lower them just... because? They didn't because they couldn't sell them for wholesale and still make a profit to run their company.

The record labels hate Apple because the a la carte system and lack of bundling is killing them. Over the past 15 years they've truly become dependent on the "2-3 singles and filler" formula for their artist's records, and have signed, developed, and produced appropriately. The a la carte system, where people can just buy what they want, is killing their profits because people, when given a choice of what they really want, just aren't buying full albums.

This is the big point they don't want to bring up, because it will reveal an inherent weakness in the product they are selling (i.e., that their full albums maybe aren't really worth buying).

Actually I'm not, the major record labels sign thousands of musicians throughout different divisions, and then sub-divisions who are in cooperation with indie labels, throughout many nations.

I know a few distributors right now, If I started a business, prices for original pressed CD's are around US$3.99-US$5.99 depending on your distributor. Non localised artists are higher priced.

This, dependent on 2-3 singles filler stuff is nonsense.

If you don't know where to find the talented modern musicians you would like, or where to buy CDs without getting ripped by the merchants, then thats your problem.

Steve Jobs even said most people purchase the whole album from the iTunes store. Don't blame it on the record labels. My guess is that the labels are likely thinking, why are we paying Apple for this?

They are likely starting up their own online digital music store, considering Sony has had a successful digital store for many years.

Why pay Apple anything to do it, when it is easier to do it yourself?

Where is my thinking coming from? 4 years of international relationship and business studies focused on the music industry, and Japan.

Really, I don't see any difference buying music than buying anything else. I don't shop for electronics at one store. I don't buy food from one restaurant.

Itunes could be re-written to access amazon store, universal's store, sony's store, etc. etc. You would then select the store and download the music that you want. The interfaces might not be as consistent and you would have to deal with mp3 vs aac etc. but it wouldn't be a big deal.

Apple will still sell their ipods and itunes would still be the key tool to manipulate content on the ipod.

Because you would need to pay Apple some of the profits.

It is an unnecessary expense.

Blue Velvet
Oct 25, 2007, 05:14 PM
This, dependent on 2-3 singles filler stuff is nonsense.

If you don't know where to find the talented modern musicians you would like, or where to buy CDs without getting ripped by the merchants, then thats your problem.


Thank you; someone speaking with some sense and experience, rather than people parroting the same lines they've heard others say elsewhere without thinking things through.

chelsel
Oct 25, 2007, 05:20 PM
I would MUCH rather see music on Amazons NO DRM 256K MP3 service vs the DRM locked down 128K iTunes offerings... this is an EXCELLENT move.

minik
Oct 25, 2007, 05:37 PM
I would MUCH rather see music on Amazons NO DRM 256K MP3 service vs the DRM locked down 128K iTunes offerings... this is an EXCELLENT move.

The Amazon MP3 Download service is great and have my "approval". However, they don't have a huge collection yet. As long as it's something in the 256kbps or higher quality bit-rate and Apple or the suppliers keep supporting, I don't mind the DRM.

EagerDragon
Oct 25, 2007, 06:03 PM
Actually, the labels can set a MSRP on it and if they feel that Apple is selling it at too much of a discount from that, then they should definitely leave the store.

Sounds pretty close to what I said previously.

superfunkomatic
Oct 25, 2007, 06:03 PM
they'll be back. it's the almighty dollar that all of these companies pray to. they are greedy and trying to take the 100% cut themselves rather than use proven technology. we've seen all the failed attempts at music services, the same will happen with video. a few companies with major backing and support will take over the game (my money is still on apple) and they'll realize it's easier to have a couple of distributors that excel at distribution and then they don't need to be bothered with all the interchangeability issues.

EagerDragon
Oct 25, 2007, 06:05 PM
True. However, a store that has nothing to sell will go out of business pretty soon.

Damn good point. It is a risk when you take a hard stance.

EagerDragon
Oct 25, 2007, 06:14 PM
I purchased music from itunes.
I purchased music from amazon mp3 service.

My conclusion is apple have a tough competitor
amazon service is nice thats where i been buying my music lately.

Bye Bye iTunes.....

I dont get it can somebody please answer me this...

Apples monopoly is accepted and worshipped
but microsoft operating system and office is not?
which leads me to believe if amazon takes itunes spot and they start shelling out numerous products will this community start hating on amazon and start screaming monopoly?

The mac community overall is helpful but man the double standrad logic behind being a mac fan is overkill.

p.s eagerdragon do you honestly believe that if apple turns into a music label they will pay the artist better? Do you honestly believe apple will offset their earnings to satisfy
end users? I CAN JUST IMAGINE the screams of shareholders if it where to happen.

I am just looking at it as a shareholder and in a business way. It makes no sense to me but maybe you can enlighten me on some key points you may have.

To you question "p.s eagerdragon do you honestly believe that if apple turns into a music label they will pay the artist better?" --- Yes honestly I do believe that. To get them to come and join, to rub it into the other labels faces, and to continue to provide content for their primary business.

As to your second question: "Do you honestly believe apple will offset their earnings to satisfy
end users?" --- No, but I never claimed they would. IMHO Apple lowers prices for customers to increase sales or to break into a new business, not to make the customers happy.

megfilmworks
Oct 25, 2007, 06:16 PM
. Many credible reviews have long stated that players by Creative and Microsoft are better than the iPod. I'm pretty sure the appeal of the iPod is how easily it ties into the iTunes Store, and thus, its wide array of available music.
Huh? What planet were you on when you read those reviews? Planet MS??

xenotaku
Oct 25, 2007, 06:26 PM
its easy to brush off all of these stories, but the truth is, this is a huge issue. In 1 or 2 years when all of these companies start pulling their content, Apple is going to see some major issues. You cant make money selling content based software without the content. Just ask Sony and their PS3.

xenotaku
Oct 25, 2007, 06:30 PM
To you question "p.s eagerdragon do you honestly believe that if apple turns into a music label they will pay the artist better?" --- Yes honestly I do believe that. To get them to come and join, to rub it into the other labels faces, and to continue to provide content for their primary business.

As to your second question: "Do you honestly believe apple will offset their earnings to satisfy
end users?" --- No, but I never claimed they would. IMHO Apple lowers prices for customers to increase sales or to break into a new business, not to make the customers happy.



Sorry to burst your apple utopia bubble, but there is no way Apple can become an independent label. They will get sued up their ass by Apple Corps. Part of their agreement is to differentiate the Apple iTunes/iPod platform from being a label. Apple will change their name before they start publishing their own music. Legally, there is no chance.

BornAgainMac
Oct 25, 2007, 06:32 PM
It will increase piracy. This is bad.

lemikam
Oct 25, 2007, 06:32 PM
That's all this is. The labels are upset because, right now, when people think music, they don't think "Columbia" or "BMG" or "Sony" - they think iPod or iTunes. It's starting to grate on them.

They're not in control of the industry any more because Apple has more or less monopolized the digital distribution arm of the music biz. Is that good? So far, yes; they haven't done anything exploitative per se (other than protecting their monopoly) and have even gone so far as to stand up to a demand on the part of content producers (NBC) to raise prices.

Is this a monopoly? Absolutely. eMusic and Amazon's mp3 service aside, iTunes is the undisputed king right now (80% market share or something). Amazon has actually managed to underprice Apple (that the majors have agreed to sell DRM-free for Amazon and not Apple just demonstrates how childish/shortsighted they are) but they can't possibly keep it up. eMusic is mostly indie and, love indie though I do, it isn't exactly a gold mine. Fergie is a gold mine (I DON'T love Fergie). Why on earth would the labels try to play chicken with the company that brought their industry back from the brink not three years ago? iTunes's top sellers are listed right next to Billboard's at this point. I don't understand what the labels have to gain from this.

No, until Apple uses its posture in digital distribution to do something disgusting (up 'til now they've been going out of their way to protect their customers - to keep them, not just to be nice), nobody'll catch me complaining.

...but if something's cheaper on Amazon's mp3 site, you can bet I'll get it there. There's a looming price war in digital music. I'm very excited for it.

lemikam
Oct 25, 2007, 06:38 PM
It doesn't matter that the labels are abandoning Apple for Amazon (for presumably a bigger share of each download).

Think about it, what are people going to play all of those DRM-free mp3s on?

...iPods.

Apple still makes money off of every Amazon download; every music download anywhere means one more person has one more reason to buy an iPod.

restless~native
Oct 25, 2007, 06:43 PM
I have two words for the labels:

PARADIGM SHIFT!

brsboarder
Oct 25, 2007, 06:45 PM
who cares if apple "wins" we're consumers and we simply want whats gunna be best. They need to be creative and original if they want to stay at the top

Avatar74
Oct 25, 2007, 06:46 PM
Sorry to burst your apple utopia bubble, but there is no way Apple can become an independent label. They will get sued up their ass by Apple Corps. Part of their agreement is to differentiate the Apple iTunes/iPod platform from being a label. Apple will change their name before they start publishing their own music. Legally, there is no chance.

Actually I'm not so sure this is the case any more. Apple settled the dispute with Apple Corps permanently after a judge basically threw out Apple Corps umpteenth suit against Apple Inc. Under the current terms, Apple Inc. owns all rights to the trademark "Apple" and Apple Corps licenses it from Apple, Inc. I think this settlement also allows Apple to proceed with any further development into the music business with no more interference from Apple Corps. The terms of the settlement do not include an injunction in Apple Corps' favor.

So that means that monies have been exchanged to release Apple, Inc. from any further litigation on the matter, for once and for all... and Apple Corps no longer owns the trademark rights to the Apple name... which implictly also means they cannot sue Apple Inc. for ANY use of the trademark, but Apple could sue them because Apple Corps has licensed the trademark for limited use.

However, I don't think Apple Inc. wants to become a publisher/recording label. I think instead what they're angling to do is to sign artists into a different kind of distribution agreement where the artists own the copyright and license it for distribution through Apple. Apple would not see any marginal benefit from usurping the antiquated model of securing A&R through disbursement of advances and retention of optioned material and the tremendous expense associated with A&R scouting, management, radio promotion, etc. It's far more profitable for Apple to act as a hybrid distributor/retailer under which the artist retains all rights and consequently also foots their own bill for recording expenditures. This is also preferable for the artists because modern A&R contracts are tantamount to indentured servitude... in many cases the studio options albums they have the right not to promote much less release, and the artist is still obligated to recoup their advances at their current royalty rate which averages about 7% of gross margin—NOT MSRP—less manufacturing, packaging, marketing, promotion, distribution and sales for all but a handful of artists in the world, the two highest-paid being Michael Jackson and Madonna at roughly 25% and 20% respectively.

Under this type of agreement with Apple, instead of earning less than 77 cents per album and having to recoup loans at this rate prior to accruing payable royalties (out of which they must also pay their producer, agent and band members) artists would collect at least 60% of gross margin AND have the flexibility of electing other distribution agreements and not being restricted by a label's Right of First Refusal.

I began assessing the validity of this model about ten years ago in a paper I wrote titled "Technology and the Music Industry: Music Distribution via the Internet" in which I explored the historical distribution model from the 1940s to the present day and then examined the emerging technologies that were at that time opening the door for artists to achieve global distribution and marketing on their own via the Internet. The move by Apple to position themselves as a retailer of independent artists scares the hell out of RIAA because there are many major artists who already have a following that they'll take with them when their contracts are up. Lesser artists on the roster (the 85% of major label artists who don't sell enough albums to break even on their advances... but make nice, intentional tax writeoffs for the labels) are not so much the concern, but they'll go too because they will find themselves gaining access to a much larger audience through direct agreements with iTunes/Apple.

The motivation to do away with the promotion machinery is simple when you consider the math. At 7% of gross margin, it may take a recording artist 250,000 album sales just to recoup their advance before they can start collecting a dime of royalties. However, an independent artist who sells one album at $9.99 on iTunes has just made more money than the label-signed recording artist. This is true of both major and minor label-signed artists.

Ironically, the original model for this type of agreement is Led Zeppelin, whose license to Superhype Music, their publisher, ended after 26 years upon which termination all copyrights went back to Led Zeppelin and thenceforth were licensed out by the band's members/estates to whomever they wished to distribute through on THEIR terms.

Say goodbye to RIAA and hello to the global independent recording artist!

redfirebird08
Oct 25, 2007, 06:58 PM
That's all this is. The labels are upset because, right now, when people think music, they don't think "Columbia" or "BMG" or "Sony" - they think iPod or iTunes. It's starting to grate on them.

They're not in control of the industry any more because Apple has more or less monopolized the digital distribution arm of the music biz. Is that good? So far, yes; they haven't done anything exploitative per se (other than protecting their monopoly) and have even gone so far as to stand up to a demand on the part of content producers (NBC) to raise prices.

Is this a monopoly? Absolutely. eMusic and Amazon's mp3 service aside, iTunes is the undisputed king right now (80% market share or something). Amazon has actually managed to underprice Apple (that the majors have agreed to sell DRM-free for Amazon and not Apple just demonstrates how childish/shortsighted they are) but they can't possibly keep it up. eMusic is mostly indie and, love indie though I do, it isn't exactly a gold mine. Fergie is a gold mine (I DON'T love Fergie). Why on earth would the labels try to play chicken with the company that brought their industry back from the brink not three years ago? iTunes's top sellers are listed right next to Billboard's at this point. I don't understand what the labels have to gain from this.

No, until Apple uses its posture in digital distribution to do something disgusting (up 'til now they've been going out of their way to protect their customers - to keep them, not just to be nice), nobody'll catch me complaining.

...but if something's cheaper on Amazon's mp3 site, you can bet I'll get it there. There's a looming price war in digital music. I'm very excited for it.

Legal digital music such as iTunes hasn't done jack squat for the industry. It's going straight to hell and has been for quite some time. "Brought back from the brink" is a ridiculous exaggeration considering that legal downloads do not make up for the continued plummet of physical music sales. If legal downloads were replacing those lost sales fully and even increasing overall music sales, THEN you could say that Apple saved the industry. Otherwise, the general trend is that the music industry is screwed at this point.

JoeG4
Oct 25, 2007, 07:01 PM
I don't know about that. Many credible reviews have long stated that players by Creative and Microsoft are better than the iPod. I'm pretty sure the appeal of the iPod is how easily it ties into the iTunes Store, and thus, its wide array of available music.

Those reviews aren't credible. My iPod's 5 years old and might have lousy sound quality (and I'm not in a hurry to buy a new one either), but Creative can't hold a candle to Apple's build quality.

Microsoft OTOH seems to be doing fairly decent there, lol.

Jetson
Oct 25, 2007, 07:18 PM
I really like Amazon's music download store, probably because I've been a longtime Amazon customer.

However it's not nearly as nice and full featured as iTunes - no way!

Most importantly the sound quality of mp3 vs AAC is definitely inferior. MP3 tracks sound compressed and have no headroom. I've listened to many Amazon mp3 tracks and compared them to iTunes AAC and iTunes wins hands down. AAC tracks have a natural, spacious sound - that's because the waveform of AAC codec output very closely matches that of the source, whereas MP3 is very distorted.

I guess that for those whose eardrums have been so abused that they can't tell the difference, then mp3 at Amazon is the way to go. But for people with normal or exceptional hearing, AAC sounds so much better regardless of the bitrate, there's simply no contest.

Also iTunes offers a better music download shopping experience. :cool:

macboy62
Oct 25, 2007, 07:26 PM
Sorry to burst your apple utopia bubble, but there is no way Apple can become an independent label. They will get sued up their ass by Apple Corps. Part of their agreement is to differentiate the Apple iTunes/iPod platform from being a label. Apple will change their name before they start publishing their own music. Legally, there is no chance.

Did I not read that Apple Corp. have now passed all copyright of 'Apple' to Apple Inc. Apple Corp. now use the 'Apple' name with Apple Inc.'s permission?

Peace
Oct 25, 2007, 07:37 PM
Did I not read that Apple Corp. have now passed all copyright of 'Apple' to Apple Inc. Apple Corp. now use the 'Apple' name with Apple Inc.'s permission?

You are correct.The last settlement gave Apple,Inc. full control over the name Apple and in fact Apple,Inc. did indeed license the name back to Apple Corps.

Apple,Inc. can do whatever it wants to do in regards to any type of music label.

Avatar74
Oct 25, 2007, 07:39 PM
Did I not read that Apple Corp. have now passed all copyright of 'Apple' to Apple Inc. Apple Corp. now use the 'Apple' name with Apple Inc.'s permission?

Yes. See my post above. Apple's free to do whatever they want now.

redfirebird08
Oct 25, 2007, 07:40 PM
That's interesting. I guess Apple paid Apple Corps a crapload of cash for that, otherwise I can't think of why Apple Corps would agree to it. Pretty cool though for Apple. They no longer have to deal with this copyright crap. :)

inkswamp
Oct 25, 2007, 07:48 PM
One misstep after another. The music industry is amazing in how persistent they are in not getting it.

I'd love to see a breakdown of what Apple sells on iTunes because I'm betting that the bulk of their music sales are not corporate and mainstream stuff. If it was, you can bet Apple would be begging and pleading with them to stay, but Apple's refusal to cave in (as well as their anti-DRM stance) speaks volumes. The great thing about iTunes is that indie artists and non-rock music are now just as accessible as the corporate bands. You can find that stuff just as easily now. You no longer have to dig through the stuff in the back of some dingy store hoping to strike gold. It's right there, waiting to pop up in a search and be downloaded.

The worst thing the corporate labels can do right now is run away from that, but there they go. I think a band's presence on iTunes is going to be a very important factor in their success and the more the music corporations shy away from it, the more the indie artists will get the spotlight and the more they will sell their stuff. And no, I'm not saying that because I'm rooting for Apple's success or because I'm an indie music fan. I'm saying that because iTunes is the de facto music download store right now and there's no way these guys are going to be able to undercut that. Pulling your goods out of such a store seems about as wise as shooting yourself in the foot.

puuukeey
Oct 25, 2007, 08:02 PM
Wait you mean you can't put velvet ropes around a section of sidewalk and institute a 16 dollar cover charge?

Where have I heard that model before? oh yeah. THE RECORD INDUSTRY

joeshell383
Oct 25, 2007, 08:25 PM
I really don't get why content providers are looking to 'play hardball' with Apple by threatening to balkanize the legal distribution of digital music, especially when the iPod holds an 80% share of the market, and iTunes is, so far, the only digital music model to have shown steady profits and customer growth.

You'd think that they forgot how they got into this mess in the first place.

It is to protect themselves in the future.

TMay
Oct 25, 2007, 08:28 PM
I purchased music from itunes.
I purchased music from amazon mp3 service.

My conclusion is apple have a tough competitor
amazon service is nice thats where i been buying my music lately.

Bye Bye iTunes.....

I dont get it can somebody please answer me this...

Apples monopoly is accepted and worshipped
but microsoft operating system and office is not?
which leads me to believe if amazon takes itunes spot and they start shelling out numerous products will this community start hating on amazon and start screaming monopoly?



Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.

Apple has no monopoly on music downloads as there is no barrier to entry. The fact that Amazon is competing is proof of that. Past competitor incompetence does not equate to a monopoly.

tmay

ajhill
Oct 25, 2007, 08:29 PM
Threatening to leave iTunes is like Proctor and Gamble threatening to leave Walmart. You may not like the 800 lb Gorilla, but if you want to sell products to the masses you need to go where the market is. And that IS NOW and will continue to be iTunes.

Analysts and critics don't understand that iTunes succeeds because it is a fully integrated, well oiled machine that is so simple to use that everyone loves it.

The few critics here may have their annoyances and choose to go elsewhere in protest, but the masses will go with what is the simplest and popular. And that's Apple and iTunes.

It will TRULY be news when a major label decides to give up all the revenue because they don't like Apple. The bastards, Apple saves their but and this is how they thank them?

Al

joeshell383
Oct 25, 2007, 08:29 PM
...and Apple will have the upperhand. So, they'll leave, and then Apple will dictate how and how much they will be paying to return to iTunes, THE MOST POPULAR ONLINE STORE. Do they realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot? I know friends <ahem> that gladly paid a year pass for Heroes... now, its which BT has the best version for the Apple TV...

They have the content and "content is king". I'm not sure why people seem to get that mixed up. If they pull out of iTunes, they are still in business. The reverse is not true for the iTunes store.

F.D.
Oct 25, 2007, 08:31 PM
All of you.......you're not looking at the big picture here!

This is bad. Right now, iPods represent roughly 80% of the market. However, if music labels begin to abandon iTunes, then that means there will be less and less of a selction available on iTues for customers to purchase, which means less and less people will buy iPods because the iTune selection doesn't carry "their song", which means the customer will begin to buy brand-x MP3 player, which means less songs are purchased off iTunes, which means more label companies will drop because they aren't making money, which means less people buy iPods because "their song" isn't on iTunes......etc, etc.

Not good Apple. Work it out, share a popscile. Play nice.

You're wrong. A recent independent survey discovered that only 5% of iPod owners buy their music from iTunes. And the maths back it up.

Around 100,000,000 iPods sold. Around 3 billion songs sold. That works out at around 30 songs for every Ipod sold.

Looking at these figures, one could comfortably assume that Apple could shut down the iTunes Music Store tomorrow with barely a dent to iPod sales.

Cinch
Oct 25, 2007, 08:39 PM
Apple as I recall is in the hardware individuality-lifestyle centric business. When did they get into the content control business? I agree with Warner Music, NBC and any other content creators that want to break away from iTunes.

I just delete several Podcasts (video) today and opt for NBC and Discovery Channel websites instead. These two websites take time to navigate to shows, but I like the fact that I can replace TV with my MacBook. Wouldn't it be nice to have a website where you can browse all shows on TV and then set a play list with only a few clicks (I'm not talking about youtube).

Apple is becoming Microsoft. Disclaimer, I no longer own AAPL.

Cinch

Yuppi
Oct 25, 2007, 09:04 PM
iTMS is no longer attractive. Well it is "ok" to have an integrated shopping in a client. And the reason that it worked so extremly well is mostly because the competitors sucked. They tried to sell you some DRM stuff that was unusable on those players that I liked AND they were more expensive.
Now I discovered the indi labels for me, and I'm not willing to pay 9,99 EUR when I could pay 8,88 USD for an album. Especially when in the first case I receive a DRM-AAC and in the later case a high quality MP3.
The winds have changed, and as long Apple tries to insist on it's 0.99 sheme it's sales will decline as there is a better competition. And that is good for us. I don't buy from Apple because I'm a stupid fanboy, but because the stuff they sell is worth it's money. And that is not the case for iTMS any longer.

hagjohn
Oct 25, 2007, 09:22 PM
IMHO, it's a ploy by the labels/studios to get Apple to be less restrictive. Remember, labels/studios are use to being the big men on the block but Apple has come along with iTunes and they are not use to someone standing up to them.

mustang_dvs
Oct 25, 2007, 09:24 PM
Apple as I recall is in the hardware individuality-lifestyle centric business. When did they get into the content control business? I agree with Warner Music, NBC and any other content creators that want to break away from iTunes. They're not in the "content control business. They're in the content distribution business. The fact that Apple wants a uniform pricing structure for similar products from different providers makes perfect sense to me.

I just delete several Podcasts (video) today and opt for NBC and Discovery Channel websites instead. These two websites take time to navigate to shows, but I like the fact that I can replace TV with my MacBook.Glad that NBC's video website is working for you -- it hasn't worked for any of my computers for more than two weeks, no matter the browser or whether I'm over my home or office LANs. Lots of other users are having the same problem, NBC claims that they don't see it on their end, therefore it isn't a problem (link (http://boards.nbc.com/nbc/index.php?showtopic=768961)), which is truly a sign of understanding your market.

Apple is becoming Microsoft. Disclaimer, I no longer own AAPL.I still don't understand what's driving this new meme -- it's the new "Apple is beleaguered" FUD. And frankly, the contents of your stock portfolio does not matter to me -- I'm pretty certain that you're not Warren Buffett.

EagerDragon
Oct 25, 2007, 10:22 PM
Sorry to burst your apple utopia bubble, but there is no way Apple can become an independent label. They will get sued up their ass by Apple Corps. Part of their agreement is to differentiate the Apple iTunes/iPod platform from being a label. Apple will change their name before they start publishing their own music. Legally, there is no chance.

That was settled out of court. Apple Corp dont even have the rights to "Apple Corp", they are now licencing it from "Apple Inc", they can no longer sue.

pooryou
Oct 25, 2007, 10:41 PM
iTunes and Amazon are both too expensive for lossy files. eMusic FTW!

stakis
Oct 26, 2007, 12:42 AM
I don't understand where this whole idea of Apple being a bully is a bad thing.

AS far as I'm concerned, don't we want Apple to stick it to the record companies??? I mean, if in, soon we will see single tracks for 3.99 or albums where the best song can only be purchased if the entire albums is purchased.

I think Apple should have a "take it or leave it" relationship with the labels because if they don't we "consumers" will just be the ones screwed over in the end.

Just my two sense

lemikam
Oct 26, 2007, 12:50 AM
Legal digital music such as iTunes hasn't done jack squat for the industry. It's going straight to hell and has been for quite some time. "Brought back from the brink" is a ridiculous exaggeration considering that legal downloads do not make up for the continued plummet of physical music sales. If legal downloads were replacing those lost sales fully and even increasing overall music sales, THEN you could say that Apple saved the industry. Otherwise, the general trend is that the music industry is screwed at this point.

"Hasn't made up for it," no, you're absolutely right, it hasn't made up for it. I didn't say that the music industry was "saved," I only said that the majors were "brought back from the brink." The brink of being left up the digital creek without the digital paddle. They moved slowly. Apple dragged them into the future, more or less against their will.

Apple was vindicated and the majors are still trying to beat Apple at the game Apple basically invented; the majors will probably wind up losing. THIS is why they aren't saved yet. The majors refuse to dance with the one that brought them. They're gonna get burned...and even if they win on the iTunes Store front (which I don't think they will) Apple STILL sells more iPods. It's a win/win-a-bit-less situation for Apple and a win/lose for the majors. They're electing to put themselves in danger of losing for no fathomable reason.

And anybody who thinks the iPod can't survive without the iTunes Store is flatly out of their minds. People don't buy iPods because they like the iTunes Store; it's the other way around. The iPod is the "gateway drug" for the aspiring Mac addict. iTunes is the next logical step AFTER the iPod, not before.

Cinch
Oct 26, 2007, 01:52 AM
They're not in the "content control business. They're in the content distribution business. The fact that Apple wants a uniform pricing structure for similar products from different providers makes perfect sense to me.

Glad that NBC's video website is working for you -- it hasn't worked for any of my computers for more than two weeks, no matter the browser or whether I'm over my home or office LANs. Lots of other users are having the same problem, NBC claims that they don't see it on their end, therefore it isn't a problem (link (http://boards.nbc.com/nbc/index.php?showtopic=768961)), which is truly a sign of understanding your market.

I still don't understand what's driving this new meme -- it's the new "Apple is beleaguered" FUD. And frankly, the contents of your stock portfolio does not matter to me -- I'm pretty certain that you're not Warren Buffett.

It cost "This American Life" a PRI/NPR radio show, I believe $108K per year to have their program broadcast via podcast. Whether the consumer pays or not, the content creators have to sign contracts with Apple to distribute their materials via iTunes. Contracts may or may not include fees, and Apple is playing the unnecessary middleman IMHO.

My first comment was direct and critical of Apple, and I wanted to disclose my position for people to know where I'm coming from.

What is the harm in commenting on Apple's pricing structure of music and video?:rolleyes:

The day we stop being critical of entities that have immense influence on our lives, is the day we abdicate our freedom and become consumer serfs. Doh! I forgot, I'm in the reality distortion field, Steve Jobs created to protect ourselves from our own ignorance.

Cinch

Uragon
Oct 26, 2007, 05:31 AM
I think iTunes and iPod are now too entrenched-and unstoppable:
Amazon has too many fingers in the pie, too late.
Plus Steve will have something up his sleeve.

I think you are quite correct with that assumption. If I am not mistaken, Apple is known in the past to do it themselves if nobody does or are hesitant to do it for the Mac platform.

MacBoySeattle
Oct 26, 2007, 08:09 AM
LOL All these threats of going back to Limewire and file sharing because company's won't play ball with Apple make me laugh.

The next time I turn on the News and see some metrosexual girly Mac user crying about losing in court after being sued by the RIAA, I will ofcourse have a bitch beer and laugh my butt off lol!

GQB
Oct 26, 2007, 08:52 AM
Nearly all of which will flounder.

That would be 'founder'... 'flounder' is a fish.
The labels will be hoist by their own petard.

GQB
Oct 26, 2007, 08:55 AM
How exactly did iTunes bully everyone around? I can see how you would say that as far as the record companies are conserned because Apple obviously did a lot of the pushing, but how did iTunes bully the customer? :confused:

P-Worm

By 'bullying around' most mean that Jobs forced labels to allow individual song downloads instead of bundling (i.e. have to buy 10 crappy songs to get 1 good one ala CDs), and standard pricing.
In other words, he stood up for his customers.

Bully away, Steve.

GQB
Oct 26, 2007, 09:02 AM
All of you.......you're not looking at the big picture here!

This is bad. Right now, iPods represent roughly 80% of the market. However, if music labels begin to abandon iTunes, then that means there will be less and less of a selction available on iTues for customers to purchase, which means less and less people will buy iPods because the iTune selection doesn't carry "their song", which means the customer will begin to buy brand-x MP3 player, which means less songs are purchased off iTunes, which means more label companies will drop because they aren't making money, which means less people buy iPods because "their song" isn't on iTunes......etc, etc.

Not good Apple. Work it out, share a popscile. Play nice.

Over 90% of music on most peoples' iPods comes from CD collections.
(Way over, if I remember correctly.)
I think the general concensus is correct, that if the recording industry insists on balkanizing the market, they will simply keep losing. I'm not going to hunt through multiple stores to find a particular song... That means no sale.

This will be ugly for a while, but this is really a time its good to have the biggest negotiating assole around on your side. Go get 'em Steve.

GQB
Oct 26, 2007, 09:12 AM
Yes, they are not leaving iTunes, but they just want it so if they want to, they can. It'll suck for Apple and probably make Apple less of a bully and possible bring more competition to the online music business, which is good for the consumers.

Its so sad seeing the Stockholm syndrome at work here.

Get this straight... we WANT to see Apple bullying the labels. Labels are EVIL. They do not want us to own our content... they want us to RENT it. They rape artists. They steal.

Apple's not perfect... its a corporation. But they're our only muscle.
Stop feeling sorry for the coke-snorting Hollywood crooks and look out for your own interests.

mr.666
Oct 26, 2007, 09:21 AM
after 3 years of legal music downloads i might have to go back to file sharing. oh well.....

Amen!
GRREEEEEEDDDYYY- these MF's STILL dont realize thet the price is what makes iTms a success- they want more more more!!! and for all of you morons defending the record co's and talking about competeition and how the artist will have a choice? you are just too clueless to deal with just shut up.

not all bands can pull a NIN or radiohead (good ideas) cuase they cant break free from these multi album **** deals they made. the only soulution to help a band directly and support them LIVE. buy a t-shirt or cd at the show so the mony goes in their pocket not the bitch ass labels!

mr.666
Oct 26, 2007, 09:24 AM
Its so sad seeing the Stockholm syndrome at work here.

Get this straight... we WANT to see Apple bullying the labels. Labels are EVIL. They do not want us to own our content... they want us to RENT it. They rape artists. They steal.

Apple's not perfect... its a corporation. But they're our only muscle.
Stop feeling sorry for the coke-snorting Hollywood crooks and look out for your own interests.


^^^^^^
damn straight GQB!!!!!

GQB
Oct 26, 2007, 09:26 AM
The day we stop being critical of entities that have immense influence on our lives, is the day we abdicate our freedom and become consumer serfs. Doh! I forgot, I'm in the reality distortion field, Steve Jobs created to protect ourselves from our own ignorance.

Cinch

We get it. You hate Apple. And somehow you think the labels are these poor little babies who represent our interests. Not sure where you've been for the past, oh, 30 years.
But cool. You obviously think your interests are on the side of guys who's claim to their consumers' interest so far has been $18 CDs with one hit and 10 crap fillers.
Stockholm... Stockholm... Stockholm.

lazyrighteye
Oct 26, 2007, 09:31 AM
DRM is not, nor ever will be, the answer for either consumers or content providers. Period.

Competition is good.
The "industry" is not.

Did I miss anything?

GQB
Oct 26, 2007, 09:32 AM
I mostly listen to older music so it kind of annoys me when I see older songs being sold for the same price as newer ones, even if the album price is much lower. And mind you, I'm not talking about Bob Dylan or other classic artists like that, I'm talking about random "filler" songs by the likes of Guns N' Roses. By all means, if a song is incredible and really popular even if it's old, then sell it at a higher price. But if it's just some random album track that was never released to radio? $1.08 including tax is too much unless the song is longer.

And you think that if the labels have their way, the price for older content will drop? Dream on. All that will happen will be that hits will jump to $3 per.
Not that I particularly care... like you I pretty much buy quality which means older.
But the labels treat their talent like commodities, so we need to treat the labels' product likewise.

BTW, any word on how the labels intend to distribute that quarter million they're choking out of that woman who lost the file download case a few weeks back? That'll all be going to their artists, right?

yeah... didn't think so.

mustang_dvs
Oct 26, 2007, 11:20 AM
It cost "This American Life" a PRI/NPR radio show, I believe $108K per year to have their program broadcast via podcast. Whether the consumer pays or not, the content creators have to sign contracts with Apple to distribute their materials via iTunes. Contracts may or may not include fees, and Apple is playing the unnecessary middleman IMHO.Listing a Podcast through iTunes is totally free -- Apple simply provides a link to the content and a page about the content, as created by the uploader. Updates are handled by an RSS feed.

TAL's cost comes as a result of bandwidth costs and the copyright agreements with their contributors ...TAL’s rational is that their contract with contributors states they must pay the contributors for each download. This excuse is a little strange considering This American Life writes the contract. Altering future contracts, and making the episodes freely available for downloading/timeshifting is feasable (NPR has done it.)...

What is the harm in commenting on Apple's pricing structure of music and video?:rolleyes:

The day we stop being critical of entities that have immense influence on our lives, is the day we abdicate our freedom and become consumer serfs.There's nothing wrong with constructive comments -- Apple's pricing structure, to be sure isn't perfect (I think $1.99 for TV shows at less than 480p is too high, when DVD content costs less per episode to purchase, and is more costly to distribute). That said, I think a lot of comments seem to ignore than, at most, Apple gets 4-6% of the gross cost of the download, most of which is spent on infrastructure.

While I think corporate (or any other sort of) fanboyism is strange, I hold knee-jerk criticism in similarly low regard. The fact is that no for-profit company exists solely (or primarily) for the sake of benevolent philanthropy.

That said, I'd hate to say it, but in the modern age of media consolidation, we've already abdicated our freedoms, when Sumner Redstone can freely comment on the fact that a Republican Presidential candidate is more advantageous to Viacom's bottom line -- I can't imagine how that doesn't filter down to CBS's news division. The same with GE's influence over NBC and MSNBC, Time Warner's impact on CNN's "journalism" and Disney's influence on ABCnews. (Rupert Murdoc's influence on his "news" outlets is well documented.) It's unsurprising that the recent report illustrating that the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is now back to 1920's-era structures was suppressed by the very people who were portrayed in an unflattering light.

MikeTheC
Oct 26, 2007, 11:26 AM
Oh, c'mon people, what do you expect from an industry that promotes "artists" such as Britney Spears, J-Lo and the cretins who produce rap? (And no, I will not use the m- word in the same sentence as the r- word. ;) )

Seriously, the Entertainment Injusticetry is so skewed, so corrupted, so screwed up and power hungry, are you really surprised by *anything* that they do?

I do not -- and will not -- support the music industry, due to it's own bad behavior and it's ties with the rest of the E.I. I will, however, support individual artists when they produce content I want, only when they produce content that I want, and only as long as they themselves don't adopt any bad business behaviors or practices.

We need to do something about the problem, folks, not just bitch about it.

redfirebird08
Oct 26, 2007, 11:27 AM
"Hasn't made up for it," no, you're absolutely right, it hasn't made up for it. I didn't say that the music industry was "saved," I only said that the majors were "brought back from the brink." The brink of being left up the digital creek without the digital paddle. They moved slowly. Apple dragged them into the future, more or less against their will.

Apple was vindicated and the majors are still trying to beat Apple at the game Apple basically invented; the majors will probably wind up losing. THIS is why they aren't saved yet. The majors refuse to dance with the one that brought them. They're gonna get burned...and even if they win on the iTunes Store front (which I don't think they will) Apple STILL sells more iPods. It's a win/win-a-bit-less situation for Apple and a win/lose for the majors. They're electing to put themselves in danger of losing for no fathomable reason.

And anybody who thinks the iPod can't survive without the iTunes Store is flatly out of their minds. People don't buy iPods because they like the iTunes Store; it's the other way around. The iPod is the "gateway drug" for the aspiring Mac addict. iTunes is the next logical step AFTER the iPod, not before.

Ah, looks like I misunderstood what you were referencing. Thanks for clarification on what you meant by brink. I thought you meant brink of collapse, not just a digital clusterf*ck. In this case, I agree completely with you that Apple did save them from the brink of having one heck of a problem in digital distribution. It's still a massive problem and will continue to be one as long as illegal sharing goes on, but Apple did save them from even more disaster than they already have seen and currently are seeing.

I fully agree with you about iPods as well. The iPod is what gets people to use iTunes, and even then most people don't use iTunes very often. The average iPod supposedly has only 10% of its music purchased from iTunes. Most comes from legally bought CD's or from illegal downloads.

thirdwaver
Oct 26, 2007, 03:00 PM
I dont get it can somebody please answer me this...

Apples monopoly is accepted and worshipped but microsoft operating system and office is not?

Agreed, the double standard is so obvious and ridiculous. there are superior vehicles for purchasing music from smaller competitors but the fanboyism keeps them in denial. Lemmings I tell you:rolleyes:

I think you both need to look up monopoly in the dictionary. This point has been made over and over but you folks choose to ignore the facts... Apple allows you to put almost any type of song you want (aside from Microsoft's proprietary formats) on your iPod. The only requirement they've had is that if you want to shop at the ITMS, you need to play it on an iPod (and that requirement came from the record companies since, at the time, it was nearly impossible to comply with their requirements without wrapping the song inside a DRM).

iPod owners are not required to shop at ITMS and even though ITMS (use to) require an iPod to play the songs, there were plenty of other options to get those same songs without ITMS... Hence, no monopoly. The only thing stopping more competitors to ITMS is the record companies' ridiculous demands which they seem to be waking up about (hence Amazon's DRM Free store).

There are an estimated 950,000 attorneys in the United States. The six degrees of separation theory says that you both probably know one of them. Why don't you go ask one of them if the Apple ITMS is a monopoly.

MikeTheC
Oct 26, 2007, 10:56 PM
It's always amazed me why people come to this board -- which is clearly a community for Mac users -- and then whine and bitch and complain about Apple's presence in the membership's lives, in the market place, and so forth.

Unless maybe it's just you flapping your lips so people will pay attention to you.

Yeah, that's gotta be it.

The iPod is a success and continues to be a success not because Apple is forcing it down anyone's throats, but because the majority of portable music player-using folks out there have and continue to choose it over everything else. That's the same reason why the iTunes app is "successful" and why the iTMS is successful and dominant. What part of this don't you folks get?

If you don't want to use an iPod and/or iTunes and/or iTMS, then by all mean don't. There are a number of other options out there to choose from, and if for you they are more palatable, then go that way.

boss1
Oct 27, 2007, 06:08 AM
Oh, c'mon people, what do you expect from an industry that promotes "artists" such as Britney Spears, J-Lo and the cretins who produce rap?....


why are those who produce rap cretins? I like rap :confused: And J-Lo is a hard working individual, she has a fan base that's willing to pay cash for her wether you personally disagree or not, she's sellable, so it only makes sense to allow her to continue to due business in entertainment.

We need to do something about the problem, folks, not just bitch about it.

What are you suggesting exactly? or is your post just part of the pointless ranting you infer to as not solving problems.

PCMacUser
Oct 27, 2007, 07:26 AM
why are those who produce rap cretins? I like rap :confused: And J-Lo is a hard working individual, she has a fan base that's willing to pay cash for her wether you personally disagree or not, she's sellable, so it only makes sense to allow her to continue to due business in entertainment.
Um, you mean 'continue to do business', don't you? North Americans pronounce 'do' and 'due' the same (unlike other English speaking countries), so this is often mistaken... I've also seen a lot of people say that they'll 'make due with something', where it's actually meant to be 'make do'. Just trying to help.

bubblegum80
Oct 27, 2007, 07:34 AM
It's always amazed me why people come to this board -- which is clearly a community for Mac users -- and then whine and bitch and complain about Apple's presence in the membership's lives, in the market place, and so forth.

Unless maybe it's just you flapping your lips so people will pay attention to you.

Yeah, that's gotta be it.

The iPod is a success and continues to be a success not because Apple is forcing it down anyone's throats, but because the majority of portable music player-using folks out there have and continue to choose it over everything else. That's the same reason why the iTunes app is "successful" and why the iTMS is successful and dominant. What part of this don't you folks get?

If you don't want to use an iPod and/or iTunes and/or iTMS, then by all mean don't. There are a number of other options out there to choose from, and if for you they are more palatable, then go that way.

You don't know how the music industry works, so go to university and learn.

F.D.
Oct 27, 2007, 04:42 PM
By 'bullying around' most mean that Jobs forced labels to allow individual song downloads instead of bundling (i.e. have to buy 10 crappy songs to get 1 good one ala CDs), and standard pricing.
In other words, he stood up for his customers.

Bully away, Steve.

Quite right