Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple 'iTunes Producer'

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,684
39,587
MacMinute reports on a Billboard Bulletin article that reveals Apple is in the process of launching new tools for the iTunes Music Store.

The 'iTunes Producer' is said to provide artists and labels the ability to encode and send music directly to Apple. Apple is also said to have arranged a deal with Google to provide discounts on advertising for iTunes-associated labels.
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2003/10/23/apple-itunes-producer/
Heh the recording companies are gonna love that - way to cut them out the loop, Apple.

Well, I got no problem with that - they made good money overcharging the public for uh....as long as records/tapes/CDs have existed.
 
anyone think this is a mistake so soon?

This would effectively make Apple a label, which does two things:

(1) It definitely increases the conflict with Apple Corps.

(2) It will impact the RIAAs opinion of the store. I wonder what kind of deal Apple has with the majors? If Apple's license for major label content was pulled over disagreements with the majors, the iTMS would be dead in the water.

I've always thought this is the logical evolution of this store (i.e., artists don't need the scumsucking, bottom-feeding leeches at the major labels anymore), but I thought Apple would wait a year or two before really setting this up.

Of course, as a music lover and RIAA hater, I'd love to watch those *******s drown in the quagmire of hate they've stirred up between both the artists and the music fans.
 
I'm not positive but I don't think this has anything to do with cutting the labels out of the loop yet. These are just tools for the labels and artists to use to submit their stuff to work with the store much easier. However I would like to find out more detailed info as to what it takes to make ones self an independant label and submit music to the store. I don't really see any details anywhere that indicated specific requirements or anything.
 
I think that this software collection is designed for the labels. It would stream line their submissions to the store. Is Apple doing all the encoding? If they are then that could be one reason for the backup of all the songs. Did Steve not say that the a reason why songs take time to get to the store is that they are not of high quality?

I think that this will speed up the process, even making ti possible for more labels to get on board.
 
Re: anyone think this is a mistake so soon?

Originally posted by suzerain
This would effectively make Apple a label, which does two things:
(2) It will impact the RIAAs opinion of the store. I wonder what kind of deal Apple has with the majors? If Apple's license for major label content was pulled over disagreements with the majors...
Click to expand...

Not if they wanted to keep the copyrights they currently own. Such an act would be anti-competitive, and doing so causes a copyright holder to lose their copyrights. Napster died before the issue could be litigated, but Apple has the money to stay the course.
 
Note that if Steve is true to the statements he made only last week, then all the submitted music will be heavily screened. Sorry, no singing in the shower.

I'll summarize the quote from memory ;): Watch the QT stream for verbatim.

"That's 400,000 *QUALITY* tracks... We're not letting just anyone put music onto the iTMS... this is *QUALITY* music."
 
this just in: apple records is seeking to hire dozens of lawyers for a major lawsuit.

funny stuff :) i still think AR will lose a court case. or apple will buy them out, or something...

this is great news overall, i wonder if Producer will be mac/pc or just mac?

pnw
 
Re: anyone think this is a mistake so soon?

Originally posted by suzerain
(2) It will impact the RIAAs opinion of the store. I wonder what kind of deal Apple has with the majors? If Apple's license for major label content was pulled over disagreements with the majors, the iTMS would be dead in the water.
Click to expand...

My impression (I have no insider info) is that the difference is: Apple does all the work (rip high quality AAC's, put them online, scan the cover art, put together any promotional materials for the iTMS) for the major labels on Apple's dime, but it's largely DIY for the indie labels.
 
Imagine all the artists ... La La La La La ...

What if Apple bought Apple, They could then become the new digital Label Company. I wonder if Steve Jobs was a fledgling musician in his younger days and never leg go of a dream to be a rock star.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
 
Re: Re: anyone think this is a mistake so soon?

Originally posted by frinky23
Not if they wanted to keep the copyrights they currently own. Such an act would be anti-competitive, and doing so causes a copyright holder to lose their copyrights. Napster died before the issue could be litigated, but Apple has the money to stay the course.
Click to expand...

Explain what this means more fully, if you wouldn't mind. I don't know much about copyright law.

In my pedestrian understanding, which comes from both signing contracts with record labels (design work, mostly), and reading books like "Hit Men" by Fredric Dannen, the labels are already an anticompetitive cartel (which also includes the distributors and radio outlets like Clear Channel).

I guess the major case for me would be if a large act, like a Lenny Kravitz, or R.E.M., or Jay-Z, decided to just fill out the remainder of their contract with the label, and then self-distribute, utilizing a company like Apple who would give them a greater percentage of royalties, then it would seem to me the labels would get pissed off.

So, I can imagine labels approaching Apple and saying, "we're not going to let you build a business on top of our old catalog, which we invested billions of dollars in acquiring, and then turn around and sign away our artists".

To me, this makes sense...like, if CompUSA is a store carrying Compaq computers, and then suddenly Compaq buys the Best Buy chain, and is now in the business of selling computers, I could see CompUSA saying "well...piss off...we're going to sell Hewlett-Packard machines now."
 
To me, this makes sense...like, if CompUSA is a store carrying Compaq computers, and then suddenly Compaq buys the Best Buy chain, and is now in direct competition with them, I could see CompUSA saying "well...piss off...we're going to sell Hewlett-Packard machines instead."
Click to expand...

Compaq = HP (2003 merger)

I still understand your analogy, though. ;)
 
Re: anyone think this is a mistake so soon?

Originally posted by suzerain

I've always thought this is the logical evolution of this store (i.e., artists don't need the scumsucking, bottom-feeding leeches at the major labels anymore), but I thought Apple would wait a year or two before really setting this up.

Of course, as a music lover and RIAA hater, I'd love to watch those *******s drown in the quagmire of hate they've stirred up between both the artists and the music fans.
Click to expand...

Amen to that! The RIAA has it coming.
 
Wow... 30 Positive, 0 Negative... how often does that happen? A handful of odd-thinking people always find a reason to rate every story Negative.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back