Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple In Strong Position For iTunes Store Contract Extensions?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The higher fee is not only for a DRM-free song, it's also for a song encoded at twice the bitrate, which means only the highest of purists will complain about artifacts (i.e. they also complain about CDs to begin with).
It means digital downloads are finally good enough to stop buying CDs altogether. No DRM also means our purchased music will still be playable in 50 years.
And only single tracks are priced higher, albums prices are the same. Which means a better incentive to buy whole albums if enough tracks are worth buying.
Coupled with the "Complete My Album" feature, this should lead to increased album sales.
Poor record companies...
How many artists have been screwed by the record companies over the years? How many artists have been given a few thousand dollars for an album, only to have the record companies make millions on that same album, giving not a penny to the artist? And what do the record companies say? "Hey, they signed a contract..." So for the record companies to suddenly become altruistic and say that piracy, iTunes, no DRM... hurts the artists is disingenuous (aka a bloody lie).
Apple is finally--after surviving the 1990s, thanks to Steve Jobs--reaping the fruits of its vision. And what is that vision? Providing the best-made, best-designed, most versatile, most advanced, and most innovative products for its customers. iTunes is a product of that vision, and, like other Apple products, it has changed people's perception of what the computer is capable of. The record companies never had trouble with new technologies before--they went from records and tape (eight-track and cassette) to CD and various recording technologies without any trouble--but now that they no longer have a vertical monopoly on music production and distribution, technology is suddenly an obstacle. Like Bob Dylan wrote (which record company has the right to his songs???), the times they are a-changin'. Record companies love exploiting fads and popular culture, except, it seems, when that culture marginalizes them.
It's time that the record companies took a bit of their own medicine and had the terms of their deals dictated to them instead of the other way around. Sure, Steve Jobs should negotiate and try to give them something they want, but as the driving force behind Apple--and the 2.5 billion or so songs sold to date on iTunes, most of the money from which goes to the record companies--he deservedly has the upper hand. He had the courage to battle Microsoft at a time when Microsoft seemed omnipotent and Apple's future uncertain, so there's no reason he should listen to the dictates of the music executives now that he can negotiate from a position of strength.
Just my opinion...
By the way, I just stumbled across the http://www.roughlydrafted.com website. If you're not familiar with it (which was me yesterday), it has a bunch of in-depth articles (several new ones appearing each week) revolving around Apple, its history, its products, its outlook... Check it out.
mashny
How many artists have been screwed by the record companies over the years? How many artists have been given a few thousand dollars for an album, only to have the record companies make millions on that same album, giving not a penny to the artist? And what do the record companies say? "Hey, they signed a contract..." So for the record companies to suddenly become altruistic and say that piracy, iTunes, no DRM... hurts the artists is disingenuous (aka a bloody lie).
Apple is finally--after surviving the 1990s, thanks to Steve Jobs--reaping the fruits of its vision. And what is that vision? Providing the best-made, best-designed, most versatile, most advanced, and most innovative products for its customers. iTunes is a product of that vision, and, like other Apple products, it has changed people's perception of what the computer is capable of. The record companies never had trouble with new technologies before--they went from records and tape (eight-track and cassette) to CD and various recording technologies without any trouble--but now that they no longer have a vertical monopoly on music production and distribution, technology is suddenly an obstacle. Like Bob Dylan wrote (which record company has the right to his songs???), the times they are a-changin'. Record companies love exploiting fads and popular culture, except, it seems, when that culture marginalizes them.
It's time that the record companies took a bit of their own medicine and had the terms of their deals dictated to them instead of the other way around. Sure, Steve Jobs should negotiate and try to give them something they want, but as the driving force behind Apple--and the 2.5 billion or so songs sold to date on iTunes, most of the money from which goes to the record companies--he deservedly has the upper hand. He had the courage to battle Microsoft at a time when Microsoft seemed omnipotent and Apple's future uncertain, so there's no reason he should listen to the dictates of the music executives now that he can negotiate from a position of strength.
Just my opinion...
By the way, I just stumbled across the http://www.roughlydrafted.com website. If you're not familiar with it (which was me yesterday), it has a bunch of in-depth articles (several new ones appearing each week) revolving around Apple, its history, its products, its outlook... Check it out.
mashny
I can not see any advantage to a subscription service to me. If I was forced to go this route I doubt I would use iTunes any more. I dont rent movies, I wont rent music.
Further I wont be forced to buy x number of tracks per month. I buy what I want when I want.
Further I wont be forced to buy x number of tracks per month. I buy what I want when I want.
Regarding the whole DRM/Subscription thing, check out this link: http://ce.seekingalpha.com/article/32487
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
I hope that when Apple goes to negosh with the TV and movie industries, that said industries push Apple to encode their shows/movies at higher rates (like 720 p would be awesome). Because ABC has streaming shows on its website for free that seem to me to be at least the quality of iTunes downloads. I imagine that the decision at what to encode it at is Apple's. I can't imagine the networks have anything to lose from having the highest possible encoding?
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
So if you can upgrade each track for $.30 but you already own the whole album and albums don't have a higher price for the non-DRM version, could you upgrade your whole album for free and avoid the $.30 per track surcharge?
Also, do you think they'll sell DRM/non-DRM albums at the same price, or will they eliminate the sale of the DRM album?
Interesting. If this is where the whole rumor started, I have less faith in the whole thing (Besides the fact that Apple would almost surely write their own DRM, let's not forget they are a software company).
There is so much steam around here about subscription service... I don't think it's going to be subscribe-or-die... that would be supid! Surely we'll be able to buy what we want to keep. But consider how ?TV could play into the user experience if it were subscription:
You're sitting on the couch, rifling through your video library on your ?TV, nothing looks interesting because you've seen them all three times before. You are in the mood for something new, and you've been wondering what the big deal is about "Grey's Anatomy" or Whatever movie your friends have been talking about. Well, if you're a subscriber, and you've paid your $X.99 for the month, browse to your flick, get it, and start watching it in a few seconds when the cache is built up...
you'd find so much more material that you liked because each download is no longer explicitly linked to a purchase. Now, when you're crazy about a movie, or tv show, You can STILL buy it!. And, of course, you can still BUY your music.
If you rent movies on ANY regular basis, this idea should be attractive to you... Of course, I REALLY wish they would start adding special feature content.
Now, as for DRM, There will have to be for subscription... but that doesn't mean there has to be for purchases... or at least for MUSIC purchases (I doubt the movie execs will be half as willing to listen to ex-DRM talk as the music folks).
Anyway, I'm holding off netflix to hear what Apple will do, and if they do offer a subscription for video content, I'll not only sign up, I'll buy an ?TV to boot.
of course they do. that way they can make bank repeatedly on the same old tired material without getting off their ass to promote it, much less seeking new talent altogether. why be helpful and increase musical richness and diversity by giving plethoras of indie artists a hand up when you can continue to be fat and lazy while making things difficult for them and real paying customers?
i actually wouldn't mind a subscription model in addition to the current pricing scheme. it would allow me to sample more songs, especially whole albums where i would otherwise be interested in only the singles. i don't think it would stop me from buying music. i actually think it would encourage me to buy more, especially whole albums. but i'm guessing i'm in the minority here. oh well.
I just don't like renting music. Period.