Well, not exactly. The studio/label system thrives on control. The more people listen to "outside the mainstream" and perhaps even (perish the thought!) "unlabeled" music, the less control the labels have. The less control they have, the less able they are to swindle artists out of their earnings. The less able they are to swindle artists the less likely they are to make the escalating profits they so enjoy.
Let there be no mistake: at the very core, the main labels do not want to "broaden the horizons" of their listeners. They want to control what you think is good enough to buy. The only way they will cede this control is if they have no other choice.
That having been said, Apple stands to benefit greatly from offering more variety than your average Sam Goody. More variety means more sales, and to Apple, all sales are essentially equal. When you introduce people to new music, people (well, okay, me, I'm talking about me here
) are more likely to go on a "buying spree" snapping up everything that artist ever put out. Such impulse or short-decision purchases are always good for retailers.So, between Apple and the Big 5 Labels, who will win out in this issue? I suspect that Apple will offer enough breadth initially to make a mark for themselves, but the "real" breadth and depth of catalogue won't be seen until the service has proven itself and is essentially self-sustaining. Right now, Apple has little bargaining power; once the service has proven itself Apple will be in a much better position to promote its interests above those of the labels.
