People don't follow the news properly.
Question: Who is the owner for the "Apple" trademark in the music space?
Answer: Apple Inc.
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 to Start Record Label with Jay-Z and Beyonce?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People don't follow the news properly.
Question: Who is the owner for the "Apple" trademark in the music space?
Answer: Apple Inc.
Arcane? In the late 80s Apple hardware was way more expensive than PC hardware. Well wasn't Apple hardware better? Yes it was, but nobody cared. It was pretty reasonable that the buying public shifted to PCs. Nobody forced them to. You speak of me being "oblivoius" - oblivoius to what? The intense popularity of Jay-Z and Beyoncé? How does this muddy the conversation? People are free to choose whatever music they want - in this case, lots of people choose Jay-Z and Beyoncé.
Oh give me a break. I live in Chicago, where there is surely lots of hip-hop and rap, but its because thats what the public wants. And it isn't hard to find other choices. We have dozens and dozens of radio stations to choose from, covering all genres pretty darn well. Nobody is forced to listen to any particular artist, and new alternative radio stations often fail here. But not by their own choosing. You're complaining that your faovirte artist doesn't get equal air-time to Beyoncé in Chicago. So are you saying you want regulated equal air time to every artist, even if the public doesn't want that? You're not going to change the African-American community's mind because you force them to listen to Garth Brooks. They'll just turn the radio off, and not buy advertiser's products.
This is just your opinion of what is good or bad. I personally don't find most hip-hop music very good at all. I think the lyrics are usually terrible and most of it is just copy-cat garbage. But I can understand why lots of people like this stuff, which they do. What would be the alternative here - all the major stations of Chicago switching to whatever genre of music you prefer?
Well, in the case of Windows versus Mac OS, Apple made some mistakes in the early days of the Macintosh that hindered it's market popularity. People chose not to use Macs, however superior they might have been (and were). In the case of IE vs Netscape... well, people chose to use evil Microsoft software, what else did they expect? And the ability to install Netscape as an alternative was always there anyway.
Yeah, and? What does this prove? The market chose VHS... they had more options with VHS, cheaper players, better porn, and eventually equal or superior quality (and longer movie lengths). If there was absolutely no reason for the market to choose VHS, they wouldn't have.
Long time reader; 1st-time poster.
For those who wonder what Jobs himself thinks about the possibility of Apple being or becoming a record label, consider that he already spoke on the subject to Rolling Stone magazine in the 12/8/03 issue. The following is from the very end of the interview:
RS: Do you expect that Apple will start signing musicians - and, in effect, become a record label?
SJ: Well, it would be very easy for us to sign up a musician. It would be very hard for us to sign up a young musician who was successful. Because that's what the record companies do.
We think there are a lot of structural changes that are gonna happen in the record industry, though. We've talked to a large number of artists who don't like their record company, and I was curious about that. The general reason they don't like the record company is because they think they've been really successful, but they've only earned a little bit of money. They feel they've been ripped off. They feel that.
But then again, the music companies aren't making a lot of money right now...so where's the money going? Is it inefficiency? Is somebody going to Argentina with suitcases full of one hundred dollar bills? What's going on?
After talking to a lot of people, this is my conclusion: a young artist gets signed, and he or she gets a big advance - a million dollars, or more. And the theory is that the record company will earn back that advance when the artist is successful.
Except that even though they're really good at picking, only one or two out of the ten that they pick is successful. And so most of the artists never earn back that advance - so the record companies are out that money. Well, who pays for the ones that are the losers?
The winners pay. The winners pay for the losers, and the winners are not seeing rewards commensurate with their success. And they get upset. So what's the remedy?
The remedy is to stop paying advances. The remedy is to go to a gross-revenues deal and tell an artist, "We'll pay you twenty cents on every dollar we get, but we're not gonna pay you an advance. The accounting will be simple: We're gonna pay you not on profits - we're gonna pay you off revenues. It's very simple: the more successful you are, the more you'll earn. But if you're not successful, you will not earn a dime. We'll go ahead and risk some marketing money on you. But if you're not successful, you'll make no money. If you are, you'll make a lot more money." That's the way out. That's the way the rest of the world works.
RS: So you see the recording industry moving in that direction?
SJ: No. I said I think that's the remedy. Whether the patient will swallow the medicine is another question.
From that, it's easy to see that Steve had not only thought about it, but actually investigated it as of 3 1/2 years ago, pre-the Apple vs. Apple settlement.
My take is don't be surprised if it's true. Per his comments above, Steve would only do this with established artists to begin with...maybe Prince next?Then you'd be talking about two people
Peace.
Olmecmystic
You know, Steve Jobs has a wonderful way of breaking complex things down and presenting it in a style anybody can digest.
Best post of this thread. Thank you for posting this Olmecmystic!
Long time reader; 1st-time poster.
For those who wonder what Jobs himself thinks about the possibility of Apple being or becoming a record label, consider that he already spoke on the subject to Rolling Stone magazine in the 12/8/03 issue. The following is from the very end of the interview:
...
Peace.
Olmecmystic
And I would find your taste in music just as dreadful. I find this rumor to be a sweet move for Apple.
Why, when Apple is putting Record companies out of business
Hello, think for a second people. Apple's iTunes music store has the potential to drastically limit the importance of the record company. Sure the music execs will say that you can't have a hit record without huge PR campaigns. They'll argue that you need to spend millions on ads, but just look how bad the music is nowadays. No amount of spending will make me buy a Justin Timberlake track.
Somehow the idea of a more direct route of getting the fans money directly into the hands of the band members has a great appeal. Hit songs will be hit songs with or without huge money being spent. Why do you think the guy who runs Facebook TURNED DOWN 1 BILLION DOLLARS. That's because he is holding out for 3 BILLION! Social networks like myspace and facebook is the new marketplace. What better place to find out what is hot than going to the network and seeing what everyone else is linking to.
CD sales are down 20% this year and falling faster each year. Online purchases are up 50% year over year and showing no signs of slowing.
Why would Apple become "A music" company when they are THE MUSIC COMPANY in the fastest growing market.
Apple Inc. becoming a record company would be like General Electric dropping electric locomotives and going back to making steam engines.
Not gonna happen people...
Hello, think for a second people. Apple's iTunes music store has the potential to drastically limit the importance of the record company. Sure the music execs will say that you can't have a hit record without huge PR campaigns. They'll argue that you need to spend millions on ads, but just look how bad the music is nowadays. No amount of spending will make me buy a Justin Timberlake track.
Somehow the idea of a more direct route of getting the fans money directly into the hands of the band members has a great appeal. Hit songs will be hit songs with or without huge money being spent. Why do you think the guy who runs Facebook TURNED DOWN 1 BILLION DOLLARS. That's because he is holding out for 3 BILLION! Social networks like myspace and facebook is the new marketplace. What better place to find out what is hot than going to the network and seeing what everyone else is linking to.
CD sales are down 20% this year and falling faster each year. Online purchases are up 50% year over year and showing no signs of slowing.
Why would Apple become "A music" company when they are THE MUSIC COMPANY in the fastest growing market.
Apple Inc. becoming a record company would be like General Electric dropping electric locomotives and going back to making steam engines.
Not gonna happen people...
Don't mind either artist, but if this were true Apple is proving why there are so many issues lately.No focus on computing, just media/gadget ventures
sadly, i agree
Doesn't GE still make steam engines for electricity production? Anyways, your analogy doesn't make sense. Apple signing artists would reduce their bottom line, so it is beneficial for Apple to do it.
That's true. Especially you. Apple Inc. now owns ALL trademarks related to Apple and is licensing them out TO Apple Corps.
It's as good as a buyout really
hmmmm. How about a recommendation that his new CD, excepting a couple songs, is actually really good for casual listening?
So such a line means he is a genius whose ideas can't ever be countered? Go figure...
Wow. Who said that?
Look, keep adding to the flame. So far your posts have been just pure ignorance and taking people's posts and throwing them way out of proportion. So, I posted a quote and then all of a sudden Jay-Z has an idea that "can't ever be countered?" WTF? I'm sorry. I was unaware that was the meaning of my post.
It's one thing to say you don't like the music genre (which is fine), but it's another thing to tossing around your bull***** about "affirmative action" in "African American" music. So, somehow "African American" artists aren't allowed to make money and live like rockstars? Hm. Odd. Sounds like that's what, say, almost all commercialized music artists do these days.
But, who am I to argue with a fool? Go figure...
Actually, the music played is not necessarily what "the public wants".
1. Some people buy more music, some people buy less music. If you see music played on the radio as an advertisement to buy music, then you would expect the station to play not the music that "the public" wants, but the music that "heavy music buyers" want.
2. On the other hand, you could see the music played as a means to attract listeners to a station, so that the station can sell advertisements (and the advertisers sell products). In that situation I have been told customers who are not easily swayed by advertisements are of no value to advertisers. So you wouldn't play music that "the public wants" but music that "people who are easily influenced by advertisements like".
People who just disregard hip-hop are uninformed in my opinion. I only wish they could see that behind the facade that gets all the plays on the radio station, it's an art form that relies on skillfull flows and powerful lyrics. Of course, you can always just dismiss rap as "drivel" if you are ignorant and close-minded enough...
Unfortunately, mainstream Hip-Hop has become representative of the art form as a whole. Casual listeners think to themselves that the garbage on the radio(pre-dominantly) speaks for every hip-hop artist out there. The paradox of the situation is that when an artist comes along, and starts to speak on progressive, thought provoking topics, he/she gets shunned by mainstream record labels/radio.
So, obviously the majority of people purchasing the music must not care for that message. Surprisingly, numerous studies have found that the majority of "purchased" hip-hop is by suburban white kids. I suspect they must want to live vicariously through these people; most of whom are just projecting a lifestyle intended to get them accepted by the mainstream. Perhaps all these people who rail against hip-hop, and all the "ills" associated with it, should talk to their kids about why they love such music? Or even better, why they find a Black artist speaking on positive topics, uninteresting??
Personally, I don't care for it. However, I have to ask you, what type of music isn't art that relies on skillful flows? Seems to me all music relies on this. I can disregard it because I find many of the lyrics to be offensive. It has nothing to do with ignorance.
He didn't give them away, they were "worked into" the ticket prices so everyone at the shows actually bought his album. It is actually a great idea and made his albums "chart" again after a long hiatus as a big seller.
The vocal functions in hip-hop are different than they are in other music.
I agree totally. That's why I don't listen to reggae -- a hotbed of homophobia and religious fanaticism. Country music is ****ing disgusting to me -- nothing but alcoholism, infidelity, and sexism (not to mention the snide jokes on rural dwellers). Modern rock is all puerile nonsense. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only music whose lyrics I don't hate is from the Baroque period
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only music whose lyrics I don't hate is from the Baroque period
What'd you mean? I could have sworn Beethoven was writing his 5th Symphony in tribute to wife-beating
The vocal functions in hip-hop are different than they are in other music.
I agree totally. That's why I don't listen to reggae -- a hotbed of homophobia and religious fanaticism. Country music is ****ing disgusting to me -- nothing but alcoholism, infidelity, and sexism (not to mention the snide jokes on rural dwellers). Modern rock is all puerile nonsense. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only music whose lyrics I don't hate is from the Baroque period
There is also an amazing amount of inspirational, positive lyricists who are reggae artists.
Well, making a new music label is not going to distract from the mac business like creating the best iPod ever did (although, I am not sure if it really distracted. Thats a debate for another day though). After all, they will not be shipping their Mac OS X engineers to Atlanta to help Jay-Z fix the sound on his newest album which is nearing its release date!
While Apple may have delayed the release of their latest mac products due to the iphone, fact is they are still head and shoulders ahead of their competitors. Vista will be months, if not years before it is usable. And besides processor speed, none of Dell, HP, Sony etc can catch up with Apple in terms of design and ease of use. Even if they do, they are still encumbered by a low quality OS. That allows Apple to take a little more time to fine tune their newest products without falling behind.
Also, if this rumor is true (which I doubt), it is all about protecting their iTunes eco-system, which arguably has made the mac revolution possible. There is no way Apple would have gone for the Intel deal if it was not for the massive reputation boost they got from the ipod/itunes system. Every publication in the world would have been telling people to not buy the computers, because it would be only a matter of time before Mac OS X went the way of the dodo. They still tried, but it was not as believable, because OS X had a far better rep than Windows, a rep which was significantly helped by the ipod.
