Universal Confirms iTunes Contract Change

[Earendil]

Amazing response. My multi billion dollar corporation is better than yours. Lord.

I can only assume you are making fun of me.
This decision only gets any kind of response if we care about the company, and what they do for the consumer. How I view what they do for the consumer (which is me) and how I see that future has a lot to do with how much I trust them. That goes for all of us here.

Exactly why are you here making fun of people on a forum for keeping up with corporate news that may effect future products they intend to buy? Go make fun of someone else... like a reflection.

 

[csimmons]

Last time I checked Apple make a LOT more money than even the biggest music corporation. Many of you are very misguided, which is fine. I couldn't care less.

Good night!

Music is not Apple's CORE business.

In fact, Music isn't really Universal's core business either; film and TV is. CD sales is a very small part of their music revenue; the majority comes from publishing. Of the big four major record labels, only EMI has music as it's core business, and they're actually doing better than Sony / BMG, Universal and Warner. Ironically, it's EMI who will probably benefit the most from close cooperation with Apple. Universal will find out soon enough.

 

[Earendil]

UMG is very successful as a CD distribution company. Wmart controls the retail end. Apple is the leading efile retailer for music and, in the current business environment, in distribution. UMG is just allowing itself not to get tied into a longterm deal while the distribution and retail end of efiles is still taking shape.

I really enjoy the greed comments. Do you think Apple is not greedy?!

I do think they are greedy. I think Universal is more so.
Thus, if power has to be with either of them, I'd rather it be with Apple.

But perhaps my trust is misplaced and Apple is greedier and cares less for the consumer than Universal does. I'm opening to being enlightened.

 

[macnews]

The not signing a new long term contract by Universal doesn't mean they will not be selling on iTMS. I doubt even if it did, the end result would hurt iTMS. People with iPods are just fine downloading their music and while the lack of Universal artists could lower overall downloads and/or sales for iTMS, people are not going to stop using it altogether. They have a lot of money and time put in to loading up their iPods (either with music purchased from iTMS or ripped off already bought CD's), not to mention the cost of the actual iPod.

I think Universal is testing the waters to see other reactions and the potential money gained or lost. If more labels refuse long term contracts it could open things up for the labels. If they lose money they may be back and vice versa if they make more money.

As to the entire "break Apple's monopoly" argument, this is just crazy. Universal never tried or cried to the Walmart monopoly (they are the biggest retail music seller). Also, Universal could really care less about variable pricing. What they really want - and why they care about the Apple monopoly - are subscriptions. Myself or my family (wife and kids) don't buy on average more than $10 a month in music. Maybe one or two months a year we will spend $10-$20 but that is it. What the big labels want are more people renting their music on a monthly basis in electronic form. This increases the overall money spent while at the same time forcing people like myself to revert back to the "by the cd for only one song" habit. I'm not going there again and I doubt many other people will either.

 

[ogee]

What the big labels want are more people renting their music on a monthly basis in electronic form. This increases the overall money spent while at the same time forcing people like myself to revert back to the "by the cd for only one song" habit. I'm not going there again and I doubt many other people will either.

I agree. I hadnt bought more than 10 CDs since 1990! Since I got my wife her first iPod, we have bought about 90 odd, a lot through iTunes. I doubt I would go back to hard CD purchase again.

 

[itgoesforfun]

Music is not Apple's CORE business.

In fact, Music isn't really Universal's core business either; film and TV is.

You're mixing up two different companies. Universal Music is still under Vivendi and Film & TV is NBC/Universal<GE. Universal Music also has quite a nice business under it's umbrella.

 

[thirdwaver]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people think they know what they're talking about when they clearly don't.

This is about preventing another monopoly, which is never good for business. If things stay the way they are Apple will end up with too much power. Regardless of who it is, a monopoly is a bad thing.

Just because it's Apple everybody here seems to think it'd be OK!

I couldn't pass this up without responding. I get so tired of hearing that the iTunes music store is a monopoly. It's true that if you purchase songs from the ITMS, you must play them on an iPod, but the iPod plays many file formats so there's nothing stopping you from buying your music in MP3 form, or *gasp* on CD and ripping it yourself.

<begin tortured analogy>

Think of it this way: You own a car (an iPod) which can use four different kinds of gas. You stop at a gas station (ITMS) that only sells gas for your particular car. Neither your car or the gas station represent a monopoly. A monopoly is when your car only uses one brand of gasoline that just happens to be made by the company that makes the car, they sell tons of cars and put one of their gas stations on every corner.

</end tortured analogy>

So you see, sir, it is YOU who do not know what you're talking about (in this case at least).

 

[Earendil]

Last time I checked Apple make a LOT more money than even the biggest music corporation. Many of you are very misguided, which is fine. I couldn't care less.

Good night!

Of curse, UMG only does music. While Apple does music and other things. That said...

Net Income
Universal Music Group 480 million
Apple 1.7 billion
Vivendi (UMG's parent company) 4 billion

~Tyler



source: wikipedia

 

[the vj]

Deals behind

Remember that Universal may have a dela with CD printing companies that can be affected and probably these people gave them a even better deal, the same with record stores and teh entire distribution market despite other traditional companies who are getting affected by the iTunes distribution.

Is like gas companies, is not imaginable that after so long there is not a fuel that won't hurt the environment but so many industries depending on oil and fosil fules make it impossible to make the switch.

Record companies have been working with traditional chanels of distribution for more than 100 years and Apple is changing that.

 

[macadam212]

Boycott Universal Music, Support EMI & Apple

I love the Apple community, just found this site, its a place where you can add your signature in protest of Universal's stupid decision.


http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/FREE_MUSIC/index.html

 

[rjwill246]

Last time I checked Apple make a LOT more money than even the biggest music corporation. Many of you are very misguided, which is fine. I couldn't care less.

Good night!

What the hell has that to do with the price of eggs? Good grief! You are mixing one part of the business with another... that is illogical.

 

[72930]

I love the Apple community, just found this site, its a place where you can add your signature in protest of Universal's stupid decision.


http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/FREE_MUSIC/index.html

Has any online petition EVER done anything?

 

[macnews]

Has any online petition EVER done anything?

Honestly, the is a DAMN good question. Serious. Anyone know the answer?

 

[macadam212]

No but it made me feel better...well kinda

 

[inkswamp]

I think the mp3 player/music download market is comparable right now to the PC market back in the mid-80s when companies like Microsoft started to realize that the real center of power was going to be in the production of software, not hardware. Back then, everyone thought the real power was in the production of hardware and that software was sort of an incidental thing, but Microsoft (and Apple, to be fair) proved that wrong.

In this case, the bet was between music downloads and CDs. The music industry bet the farm on CDs and sort of begudgingly went along with Apple as it went forward with the download/mp3 player side (and did so with more zeal and smarts than anyone else--not unlike Microsoft pursuing software 20+ years ago.)

The bottom line is that I think Universal knows they are on the losing side of this and are just making lots of noise and flailing about in an effort to secure as much power in this new download ecosystem that clearly isn't going away any time soon--and neither is Apple and iTunes. My bet is that they will learn that they are doing themselves more harm than good and will come crawling back. Comparing it to the hardware/software dichotomy of the 80s, it's a little like Dell refusing to work with Microsoft in an effort to reduce MS's power. They would hurt themselves more than they would hurt Microsoft. Univeral is about to do the same, IMHO.

 

[rdrr]

Kinda reminds me of...

Step 1: Remove catalog from iTunes.
Step 2: ....
Step 3: Profit!

 

[shen]

errr, what now?

i know i am not that bright, but....

"Universal may be interested in offering exclusive music to other online services besides iTunes"

ummm, what other service is that exactly?

 

[iris_failsafe]

Like FSJ would say: some frigtards want to shoot themselves in the foot

 

[MikeTheC]

Universal Music can go **** themselves if they want, I suppose, but this is probably either nothing more than posturing or maybe standardization of business practices.

Not that I was buying music from them anyway...

 

[nxent]

expletive

 

[aussie.damo]

I couldn't pass this up without responding. I get so tired of hearing that the iTunes music store is a monopoly. It's true that if you purchase songs from the ITMS, you must play them on an iPod, but the iPod plays many file formats so there's nothing stopping you from buying your music in MP3 form, or *gasp* on CD and ripping it yourself.

<begin tortured analogy>

Think of it this way: You own a car (an iPod) which can use four different kinds of gas. You stop at a gas station (ITMS) that only sells gas for your particular car. Neither your car or the gas station represent a monopoly. A monopoly is when your car only uses one brand of gasoline that just happens to be made by the company that makes the car, they sell tons of cars and put one of their gas stations on every corner.

</end tortured analogy>

So you see, sir, it is YOU who do not know what you're talking about (in this case at least).

So by your logic, because my PC can run a number of Operating Systems (Vista, Linux, BSD), Microsoft is not a monopoly?

Perhaps you should check your definition of monopoly before making such tortured analogies.

Oh and so I don't get accused of arguing one way or the other, I don't think that iTMS is a monopoly.

 

[spooks99]

The only non-retarded post on this thread.

Do you people even read the article before posting?

So far that's all it's doing, but as the article suggests, "Universal may be interested in offering exclusive music to other online services." Exclusive to someone else = not on itunes. I think this is what people are reacting to--the indication that this is just a first step to transfer Universal's catalog somewhere else.

 

[Rocketman]

Apple is not a "monopolist" in the music space. It is an innovator attracting fad and long-term business. Unlike Microsoft, Standard Oil, and other declared monopolists who had a vertical channel monopoly, Apple is competing against Napster and allmp3. They are competing with a paid service against FREE services and WINNING. (NOTE: with a slim to none profit margin and delivering all value added to copyright holders)

If the music distributors break that, even to a degree, they will be cutting their own balls off. I predict that will indeed happen, due to the egotistical behavior they employ.

Rocketman

 

[KindredMAC]

So far that's all it's doing, but as the article suggests, "Universal may be interested in offering exclusive music to other online services." Exclusive to someone else = not on itunes. I think this is what people are reacting to--the indication that this is just a first step to transfer Universal's catalog somewhere else.

You hit the nail on the head. I'm looking farther down the road than right now.

Universal's terms are totally opening up for non-iTunes releases at any point.

Besides Universal would be crazy to take the catalog off of iTunes, the #3 top music outlet. They aren't going to do that, but this could easily turn into Target vs Wal-Mart when one offers a special edition of something that the other does not.

 

[cliffjumper68]

Macworld.co.uk confirms an earlier rumor that Universal would not be renewing their long term contract with Apple fur iTunes music distribution.

Macworld.co.uk suggests that this Universal may be interested in offering exclusive music to other online services besides iTunes, in an attempt to reduce Apple's control of online music distribution.

Article Link

Universal is only hurting themselves. I think emi is much better at meeting the needs of the consumer.