Apple Working with U2 on New Music Format to Boost Digital Music Sales

Dilster3k said:
I'm sorry, improving the music format is only the very first step in a long road. The Amps / Dacs in our laptops and phones are terrible. And not everyone in the world has the best Hi-Fi headphones in the world, the range and accuracy in the EarPods is not revolutionary either.
Click to expand...

Or one could argue the Amps/Dacs compliment the Beats/Earpods perfectly.

Not new music format is going to improve that combination ;)
 
Interesting. But it will be challenging to convince people to pay for music again, when MANY people are accustomed to getting/hearing their music for free at this point.
 
It's been a long time since albums didn't suck. Bands come up with two good songs and a lot of filler and then they put it out as an album. The songs don't play together in a coherent way, don't tell a single story, don't relate to each other, etc. Half the time the artists don't even write the songs so there is no chance for there to be anything coherent about the album. Albums today are nothing more than playlists of a single artist. There's little chance anyone can do anything compelling to increase album sales given that state of affairs.

gnasher729 said:
Translation: You have to sign up to iTunes Match for one year to download all your music in the higher quality format.

----------



What about giving you a reason to buy more albums. Let's say 25 albums of your choice for $100. Something like Audible does with audio books.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not reading this as a new file format (mp3, AAC etc), more as a way of serving up the media, i.e.

Vinyl ->Tapes/Walkman ->CDs ->mp3s/iPods ->streaming/Spotify ->???

Perhaps they're just going to make every new album released automatically appear in our "purchased" section of iTunes (followed by a removal tool a few days later)?

Either way I get the feeling this will be another one of those things where Apple decides what's best for us.
 
If you're not seeing the big red "new copy protection and ultra-restrictive DRM" sign here, you're blind.

Surely a new high-quality lossless format will come into play to "sell" this idea, but this isn't free or in the best interest of the consumer.
 
crsh1976 said:
If you're not seeing the big red "new copy protection and ultra-restrictive DRM" sign here, you're blind.

Surely a new high-quality lossless format will come into play to "sell" this idea, but this isn't free or in the best interest of the consumer.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Apple know better sound quality doesn't sell anything. People don't care.
 
Is it definitely an audio file format? I can't imagine most music fans being excited by that.

I'd guess it might be more like a bundle of the audio, video, maybe even extras like apps/screensavers/ringtones for your smartphone and smartwatch.
 
Last edited:
Maybe a compressed audio format that plays well over Bluetooth? I love that I can get in my car and my stereo starts playing whatever was queued up on my phone, but the quality is so bad that it doesn't even hit my subwoofer channel.
 
barkomatic said:
Funny, I don't recall U2 being involved in the development of the iPod nor introducing it. Did Bono become an engineer?
Click to expand...

Bono is but a pawn in Apple's plans.

----------
512ke said:
Interesting. But it will be challenging to convince people to pay for music again, when MANY people are accustomed to getting/hearing their music for free at this point.
Click to expand...

Not unlike when Apple brought out the iPod.
 
whooleytoo said:
Is it definitely an audio file format? I can't imagine most music fans being fans by that.

I'd guess it might be more like a bundle of the audio, video, maybe even extras like apps/screensavers/ringtones for your smartphone and smartwatch.
Click to expand...

That was what i was thinking. I highly doubt it's an audio format - Apple has long been averse to talking about audio quality on the iTunes Store, and there's already plenty of room for them to improve things there with AAC and Apple Lossless.

I would imagine it's some sort of bundle with additional content - quite possibly in App form.
 
There are still people out there that want a music collection or a movie collection, which is fine.

However, there are some of us (like me) that want to break away from "digital hoarding." I've stopped buying DVD's thanks to services like Netflix and Amazon prime. I've stopped buying music or ripping CD's thanks to Spotify. I have a server with gigs of music and movies that stays powered down. The only time I turn it on nowadays is to look at photos and soon, I'll be uploading them all to the cloud.

A new format will be interesting, sure. However, it's only a matter of time before lossless quality can be streamed.

Again, if collecting these things are something you want to do then more power to ya! There's nothing wrong with it. I guess I don't want to worry about drive failures, file corruption, backups, etc. anymore and the market seems to be trending in that direction IMO.
 
I think that apple is in the perfect position to revolutionize the music industry. If they can do for musicians what they have done for software developers on their platform then that would be a huge win for artists, and Apple's 30 percent cut would be a huge improvement over current industry deals. I think that we are most of the way there already with digital music stores and streaming, but it's still YouTube that independent artists turn to when they need to be discovered. If Apple can put the whole experience into one $99 a year package like the developer programs are, with top tier recording software, training, marketing, and distribution, then that would be huge.
 
Apple is WAY out of touch on this one.

$100M to U2 for in essence, a free album? During U2's peak in the early 90s that would have been an insane deal. This is like your rich dad trying to buy a Lamborghini to impress his kids friends.
 
Music will go down somewhat.

Is like movie theaters was for theaters and TV for movie theaters.

People just want the experience, to listen to the "story" and the more accesible the better.

That is why DJs are making more than musicians, they bring you just the most popular song, so you do not have to wait to go to a concert and spent an entire evening to listen to that song that you like.

Streaming radio give you the experience without the need to purchase anything.

The thing is that musicians need to have more control over the revenue their music makes. There are great musicians who have quit because they do not make money and it is not worth spending a year creating an album for the return they get.
 
If they were actually going to release music in a new format, the new U2 album with the new iPhone would have been the time to do it.

And, no, I'm not really interested in rebuying my entire music collection again, thankyouverymuch.

zombiedictator said:
Apple is WAY out of touch on this one.

$100M to U2 for in essence, a free album? During U2's peak in the early 90s that would have been an insane deal. This is like your rich dad trying to buy a Lamborghini to impress his kids friends.
Click to expand...

$100 million is the cost of the entire iPhone 6/6 Plus/Apple Watch advertising campaign (primarily TV ads), Apple paid U2/UMG a small fraction of that amount for the album...

U2, Apple and the Deal Behind Getting ‘Songs of Innocence’ Free of Charge - WSJ.com

WSJ said:
As part of the deal forged by the band, manager Guy Oseary (hired by U2 last year to replace longtime manager Paul McGuinness) and Universal, Apple also made plans to use the first single from the album, “The Miracle (of Joey Ramone),” as a central element of a global, 30-day television advertising campaign for its new iPhones and Apple Watch. The campaign is believed to be worth around $100 million, according to a person familiar with the talks.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Me personally. If I'm buying music I'd prefer it to be in the physical form, same for movies. Never bought anything from iTunes or the other digital music stores; I actually like showcasing my music and movie collection next to my stereo. But I'm the complete opposite when it comes to video games, having a huge Steam collection beats having boxes upon boxes of video games in my gaming room.
 
I am not a music guy but can some one explain to me why is Apple so close with U2?

Are they like a big deal? I have heard of other artist like Elvis, Puff Daddy, Frank Sinatra, Beyonce, 50 cent, Cher... but I have only heard of Bono and U2 from Apple.
 
I never say things are cringeworthy, but the end of the practically flawless iPhone/Apple Watch event was cringeworthy. I don't get why it was necessary—especially the whole scripted button push part. I thought Apple wants young people to think they're cool? Isn't that why they bought Beats? Then they trot out Bono. Don't get me wrong, they're a decent band, and they do a lot for charity, but they haven't done much in a long time and they're losing their relevancy. Especially since U2 did that endorsement for Blackberry. Just goes to show that it's all about money (like most things). Surely there are tons of new musicians who Apple could partner with, and for cheaper. And if anyone can revolutionize music again, it's Apple. Just leave Bono out of it. Too much baggage.
 
Mr Fusion said:
It's not the quality. It's the content. ;)
Click to expand...
This. Like I said in my earlier post a few pages back it's most likely going to be an audio visual music file format. One that combines what we already have now, the audio, with what we lost lost with digital music, the immersive visual experience. A fully realized digital CD/LP like album/song format that adds new features (animation, music videos, etc) to the old physical CD/LP format and which is fully optimized for iPhone/iPod Touch screen and iPad/Mac/PC screens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top