I wonder if Sony are going to self-impose a $5 a month 'media' charge to their own hardware - maybe release a Sony Bravia with free unlimited movie access. It's just a stupid idea.
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.
Universal Music 'Free Music' Plan to Take on iTunes
- Thread starter clevin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Makes me wonder if Universal are really that scared of Itunes.It still makes them money right? So I wonder if its more what it {Itunes etc} represents to the record companies,ie freedom for the artists from "them".
If there was ever a huge backlash at all the recording companies {from the artists} having control over music downloads could hinge on their survival.I mean if that happened and Itunes still had all the cards so to speak they would be screwed.
If there was ever a huge backlash at all the recording companies {from the artists} having control over music downloads could hinge on their survival.I mean if that happened and Itunes still had all the cards so to speak they would be screwed.
Not that i have any particular knowledge or insight here , but...
I think it's becoming more and more obvious that "record companies" and
the " music industry" are unnecessary.
For years they blurred the lens so you couldn't see what they were doing.
or in this case, not doing. I mean, "promotion" can mean anything, and usually means stuffing money in little accounting holes to avoid paying
the "artists"
I don't think the average person realizes, only one percent of all the recording
artists actually see any money from their sales.
I think these big multi tentacled media conglomerates are afraid of being exposed and
can see the writing on the wall.
No one wants to see their company become obsolete on their watch.
On the other hand, lots of people get indignant at the idea of paying for any works of art. They feel entitled to have it all now for free. Anyone who has invested years and tons of money to create a book, movie, or song,
only to have it torrented the next day knows that kicked in the gut feeling.
I mean, why bother creating anything other than a blog, if there is no
remuneration. It's not like we have free health care, food, and education here.
I think it's becoming more and more obvious that "record companies" and
the " music industry" are unnecessary.
For years they blurred the lens so you couldn't see what they were doing.
or in this case, not doing. I mean, "promotion" can mean anything, and usually means stuffing money in little accounting holes to avoid paying
the "artists"
I don't think the average person realizes, only one percent of all the recording
artists actually see any money from their sales.
I think these big multi tentacled media conglomerates are afraid of being exposed and
can see the writing on the wall.
No one wants to see their company become obsolete on their watch.
On the other hand, lots of people get indignant at the idea of paying for any works of art. They feel entitled to have it all now for free. Anyone who has invested years and tons of money to create a book, movie, or song,
only to have it torrented the next day knows that kicked in the gut feeling.
I mean, why bother creating anything other than a blog, if there is no
remuneration. It's not like we have free health care, food, and education here.
This is just an RIAA -- really let's just say it's Universal; the whole industry will jump on if it works -- grab to take control not only of production and distribution of music but sales as well. With the demise of small, mid-size and even large music-only shops, they see digital distribution as a why to grab the whole enchilada. With physical distribution, overhead costs, the whole learning of retail thing, etc., running storefronts for their own catalogs was not as easily undertaken as with digital distribution.
In general, with Universal, making HD DVD-exclusive agreements, pulling NBC programming from iTunes -- which was making them money over and above ad revenue from this programming -- now this, while still admitting they can't just walk away from iTunes sale, look at these decisions. Hubris and power-grabs. Ignore them, avoid their products at all costs, do not buy an HD DVD player if you prefer BD just so you can own Universal HD films, buy CDs of their music and not this device-dependent mess, stop bothering with their TV programming if you miss catching it on-air or recording, they will go away.
I believe Steve said there were 100,000,000 phones in use when he showed the iPhone this past January. Multiply that times $5.00/month and you can see why Universal Music thinks their idea is a good one.
If the phone companies' do this their options are to (1) eat the cost, (2) pass the cost onto all the customers, or (3) charge just the customers that want this service. I seriously doubt option #1 will happen, option #2 will anger too many people, and option #3 will require programmers to modify code, (i.e. work flow). This is a lot of trouble, and for what, to put money into another companies pockets? I don't think so.
What the phone companies should do is develop an application that will transfer music from a computer to the phone, and let people deal with where and how they get their music. The only formats needed are MP3, AAC, and WMA, but there is no reason why other formats can't be included.
So arrogant and illegal...
Wow. Universal assumes when I buy a cell phone I want to put their music on it? I really hope we don't start going down that path of dirty capitalism.
Tricking people into buying your product? That's not fair competition. Competing with iTunes would best be done by making an intuitive, attractive, and convenient online store. If it's better people will go. Apple would have to step up it's game and it would be a win win. Propping up competition by handy-capping Apple is just plain wrong. You get a store that may have selection but is in no way an improvement that will drive progress.
Amazon's store is okay but it's buried in a heap of all the other products Amazon sells (cookware, lawn mowers, etc). I don't feel like it's focused on selling music. It doesn't have all the networked links that help you discover new music. It's just not as attractive. I'm sure it will improve. But iTunes is better right now. The only thing better about Amazon is that they sell DRM free Universal music. That superiority is completely artificial and created by Universal to weaken iTunes. Now Universal considerers a $5/month music tax!!
They screwed up. They could of had a store like iTunes open years ago for them selves. They should have seen that digital music distribution would eliminate their dependance on retailers. Instead they freaked out about people "stealing" music. Now they are so behind they are stealing ideas from Microsoft's playbook. Trick and force people to buy your product, because actually competing on level ground takes too much effort. I hope they don't get away with this.
Wow. Universal assumes when I buy a cell phone I want to put their music on it? I really hope we don't start going down that path of dirty capitalism.
Tricking people into buying your product? That's not fair competition. Competing with iTunes would best be done by making an intuitive, attractive, and convenient online store. If it's better people will go. Apple would have to step up it's game and it would be a win win. Propping up competition by handy-capping Apple is just plain wrong. You get a store that may have selection but is in no way an improvement that will drive progress.
Amazon's store is okay but it's buried in a heap of all the other products Amazon sells (cookware, lawn mowers, etc). I don't feel like it's focused on selling music. It doesn't have all the networked links that help you discover new music. It's just not as attractive. I'm sure it will improve. But iTunes is better right now. The only thing better about Amazon is that they sell DRM free Universal music. That superiority is completely artificial and created by Universal to weaken iTunes. Now Universal considerers a $5/month music tax!!
They screwed up. They could of had a store like iTunes open years ago for them selves. They should have seen that digital music distribution would eliminate their dependance on retailers. Instead they freaked out about people "stealing" music. Now they are so behind they are stealing ideas from Microsoft's playbook. Trick and force people to buy your product, because actually competing on level ground takes too much effort. I hope they don't get away with this.
$5 per month per record label!!?? = $240
Haha, they are just crazy..
If there are 4 big record labels (Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony BMG, and Universal Music Group = controlling 70% of the worlds music), all charging $5 a month.. that's $5 x 4 lables x 12 months = $240 a year to listen to what if effectively "radio".
Plus your broadband/cell phone charges on top..
Plus whatever the "service provider" may add as his middle man fee...
In the US, non-DRM singles are say $0.89 - $0.99, OK lets say a nice round $1.00 for easy of mental calculation.. thats 240 songs!! or say on average 24 albums a year! (Think how much it will cost once this model gets over to the UK)
As a long time CD buyer, this model does not work. I do buy downloads quite often as well now, but I definitley do not spend $240 on music a year. (Probably also due to the fact that I would find it difficuolt to "find" 240 new songs a year.. thats like buying 1 song every week day). Of course it will be marketed as... "$5... well thats either 5 singles that you OWN, or unlimted music from Universal for 1 month!"
On a side note - This may model may work for a "younger" subscriber - but how would they afford to pay $240 on top of that mp3 player or music enabled cellphone (and monthly charges). Its still alot of "singles" you could buy instead.
Haha, they are just crazy..
If there are 4 big record labels (Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony BMG, and Universal Music Group = controlling 70% of the worlds music), all charging $5 a month.. that's $5 x 4 lables x 12 months = $240 a year to listen to what if effectively "radio".
Plus your broadband/cell phone charges on top..
Plus whatever the "service provider" may add as his middle man fee...
In the US, non-DRM singles are say $0.89 - $0.99, OK lets say a nice round $1.00 for easy of mental calculation.. thats 240 songs!! or say on average 24 albums a year! (Think how much it will cost once this model gets over to the UK)
As a long time CD buyer, this model does not work. I do buy downloads quite often as well now, but I definitley do not spend $240 on music a year. (Probably also due to the fact that I would find it difficuolt to "find" 240 new songs a year.. thats like buying 1 song every week day). Of course it will be marketed as... "$5... well thats either 5 singles that you OWN, or unlimted music from Universal for 1 month!"
On a side note - This may model may work for a "younger" subscriber - but how would they afford to pay $240 on top of that mp3 player or music enabled cellphone (and monthly charges). Its still alot of "singles" you could buy instead.
Two reasons why I love hearing about iTunes competitors:
1. They keep Apple on their toes, (hopefully) forcing them to treat their customers (us) better.
2. Apple makes their money sell the best music hardware. Who cares if people don't buy their content from the iTunes store. If they buy DRM-free music, it's going on an iPod. Why we make it like music stores were for the past 40 years? Everybody sells the same format, and then you play it on your hardware. How ludicrous would it have been if you could only play CDs bought at Tower on a Tower CD player. Give me a break.
3. (Yes, I can count) I love Amazon MP3. Cheaper and no DRM.
1. They keep Apple on their toes, (hopefully) forcing them to treat their customers (us) better.
2. Apple makes their money sell the best music hardware. Who cares if people don't buy their content from the iTunes store. If they buy DRM-free music, it's going on an iPod. Why we make it like music stores were for the past 40 years? Everybody sells the same format, and then you play it on your hardware. How ludicrous would it have been if you could only play CDs bought at Tower on a Tower CD player. Give me a break.
3. (Yes, I can count) I love Amazon MP3. Cheaper and no DRM.
This is spot-on. If as consumers we could wake up and realize how much power we have--in today's world we vote much more effectively with our dollars/euros/pounds/kroners/zlotis etc. than with ballots--we could collectively prevent giant companies from treating artists (and other productive employees) like they're expendable and customers like our opinions are irrelevant. This is no hippie spread-the-love-skip-the-deoderant BS: it's a market reality and it's time for us to flex some commercial muscle.
This Subscription Model is Anti-Consumer
This model is absolutely anti-consumer.
For the recording companies, this guarantees an income stream without having to do anything. They are under no obligation to output any new music whatsoever, and are likely to continue the signing of "artists" who are the least capital intensive to sign, record and promote. Or in other words, you'll get more of the same, if you're lucky.
The $5 per month subscription length isn't stated, which means that if you buy one of these devices, your subscription might be a year, might be two years, but it certainly isn't for the life of the player. And what is likely to happen is that the $5 is for the first year, or even first few months, where the subscription suddenly jumps to $10, $15...you name it. True to the thinking of these executives, if you don't resubscribe, the entire device will be an expensive paperweight.
For the device manufacturers (and likely, Microsoft), this is attractive because I believe the subscription will run out after one year. The cost to renew a subscription will be prohibitive enough that it's more attractive to just go out and buy a new MP3 player with the attached subscription.
On general principles, I'm tired of being accused of stealing their music. This is just a back door approach to hardware taxes and is likely to be extended to anything that plays music. Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of tying contracts and corporate America's attempts at picking my pocket for their addiction to unearned income.
It is a frightening thought that this issue will end up before Congress. Universal will plead for help in combating diminishing profits, and its lobby and broadcast outlets (NBC) will smooth way to some sort of legislation that amounts to a hardware or blank tape tax. At what point does the consumer just throw up their hands and quit buying?
This model is absolutely anti-consumer.
For the recording companies, this guarantees an income stream without having to do anything. They are under no obligation to output any new music whatsoever, and are likely to continue the signing of "artists" who are the least capital intensive to sign, record and promote. Or in other words, you'll get more of the same, if you're lucky.
The $5 per month subscription length isn't stated, which means that if you buy one of these devices, your subscription might be a year, might be two years, but it certainly isn't for the life of the player. And what is likely to happen is that the $5 is for the first year, or even first few months, where the subscription suddenly jumps to $10, $15...you name it. True to the thinking of these executives, if you don't resubscribe, the entire device will be an expensive paperweight.
For the device manufacturers (and likely, Microsoft), this is attractive because I believe the subscription will run out after one year. The cost to renew a subscription will be prohibitive enough that it's more attractive to just go out and buy a new MP3 player with the attached subscription.
On general principles, I'm tired of being accused of stealing their music. This is just a back door approach to hardware taxes and is likely to be extended to anything that plays music. Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of tying contracts and corporate America's attempts at picking my pocket for their addiction to unearned income.
It is a frightening thought that this issue will end up before Congress. Universal will plead for help in combating diminishing profits, and its lobby and broadcast outlets (NBC) will smooth way to some sort of legislation that amounts to a hardware or blank tape tax. At what point does the consumer just throw up their hands and quit buying?
Good point! I hadn't thought of this. [duh...]
It would be nice to eventually have one centralized vendor though, where you knew the $ was going to the artists. Maybe someday iTunes will become this?
It looks like SnoCap is offering a web module that will sell tracks directly from the artist. Works with MySpace or your own website. Not sure how fair their deal is, but it's encouraging.
http://www.snocap.com/
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=90929326
It would be nice to eventually have one centralized vendor though, where you knew the $ was going to the artists. Maybe someday iTunes will become this?
It looks like SnoCap is offering a web module that will sell tracks directly from the artist. Works with MySpace or your own website. Not sure how fair their deal is, but it's encouraging.
http://www.snocap.com/
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=90929326
Snocap's contract is HORRIBLE. after reading just the first page i refused to be a part of it.... That, and myspace is on the way out
Very cool! I am going to see how I can get on that one!
Thanks!!
just email them and then send them a cd.
I got to meet the creator of pandora about a year ago, and he is very supportive of local and indie artists.
Reading there model it seems the hardware producers pay $5/month for each piece of hardware sold. regardless of user activation of the service.
If a mobile phone includes the service it doesn't matter if a teenager or a grandma Universal want $90.
Time of death= stillborn
Nope, the reason they are so well off now is that they make great music, and play a hell of a great live show. If a band gets those two right the Interweb of music fans will take care of the rest.
These artists where known to most of there fans before they even signed with a label.
so the multi-million marketing machine didnt do a thing to help them.... Right...
You're so off base.
If you are against the right of an artist to earn income, then I don't agree with you, and that horse has been beaten to death,
BUT, I do think it is interesting that France, which is battling Apple over the length of the unlock DOES charge a royalty on blank media (CDs, DVDs) to "recoup" lost income due to pirated downloads. Seems like they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
In between their first single and their first album, Radiohead played a rock pub here in sydney that just up the road from my house. I know a couple of people there who still talk about that night. I still here random people on the bus talk about that night.
I understand that night was booked on reputation of the band playing live in england, and while the record companies where in early stages of signing.
Their music isn't commercial by any means so getting radio airplay or print ad's or any of the trick of those multi-million marketing isn't going to push them much.
But I'd put money on idea that anyone in sydney who own more than two album having a small degree of seperation to some at that gig.
The distribution that a big company offers has done them many a favor.
But these days you don't need the record companies distribution.
Or you do, but at least understand what it is they offer.
Apple dont 'need' iTunes to sell music - it happens to be a piece of SOFTWARE that links between servers and computers to facilitate the ease of use, software updates, ripping your cd's to your computer and iPod, etc.
Who cares if iTunes sells ZERO music? Not Apple - they sell hardware and maintain it with software. The average iPod owner buys 22 tracks from iTunes.
$22. Thats because so MUCH music is wandering FREE in the wild being shared by friends and family, copying old record and cd collections, people handing over dvd data copies of all their music to friends and strangers or girls they want to impress etc.
Music is FREE and WILD, and it will NOT go back into the Jail - ever.
The record biz should stick with iTunes, try to assist smaller bands to sell a few songs and make a few thousand off MANY thousands of new artists and amateurs with a few good songs.
Itunes is also a great FREE advertisement for the record labels - where else can you preview any song at home, and then buy it, or go to a store and buy the CD?
Itunes helps you FIND the music - an indispensable part of the music buying process. Cant find it and check it out, you WONT buy it.
Are the record labels going to give that up? Access to maybe 150 million iPod users by this Xmas?
I think not.
I used to work in the foul music biz, and there MANY songs out there - as good as the best in the biz - that you will never hear because the writers/performers dont want to play the nasty game.
What a joke this vapourous rumor is - the record companies are DUMBER than I thought if they think that a subscription service will work.
And no, I dont want to play music on my frickin' cell phone - unless its my iPhone!
Has anyone ever heard of building a company by having GOOD products, instead of attacking the competition?
Bill Gates has a lot to answer for.....
Also - Apple has a huge server farm to run iTunes music store, and the infrastructure for this isnt done overnight. It costs a few billion, too.
And its in many countries. Its a BIG setup.
Are the somewhat non-techy Music labels going to be able to even DO this?
Can they even AFFORD it?
I doubt it.
Who cares if iTunes sells ZERO music? Not Apple - they sell hardware and maintain it with software. The average iPod owner buys 22 tracks from iTunes.
$22. Thats because so MUCH music is wandering FREE in the wild being shared by friends and family, copying old record and cd collections, people handing over dvd data copies of all their music to friends and strangers or girls they want to impress etc.
Music is FREE and WILD, and it will NOT go back into the Jail - ever.
The record biz should stick with iTunes, try to assist smaller bands to sell a few songs and make a few thousand off MANY thousands of new artists and amateurs with a few good songs.
Itunes is also a great FREE advertisement for the record labels - where else can you preview any song at home, and then buy it, or go to a store and buy the CD?
Itunes helps you FIND the music - an indispensable part of the music buying process. Cant find it and check it out, you WONT buy it.
Are the record labels going to give that up? Access to maybe 150 million iPod users by this Xmas?
I think not.
I used to work in the foul music biz, and there MANY songs out there - as good as the best in the biz - that you will never hear because the writers/performers dont want to play the nasty game.
What a joke this vapourous rumor is - the record companies are DUMBER than I thought if they think that a subscription service will work.
And no, I dont want to play music on my frickin' cell phone - unless its my iPhone!
Has anyone ever heard of building a company by having GOOD products, instead of attacking the competition?
Bill Gates has a lot to answer for.....
Also - Apple has a huge server farm to run iTunes music store, and the infrastructure for this isnt done overnight. It costs a few billion, too.
And its in many countries. Its a BIG setup.
Are the somewhat non-techy Music labels going to be able to even DO this?
Can they even AFFORD it?
I doubt it.
Really it is total crap. It's not free if you have to pay $5 a month for it. Hell, I work hard to make sure I don't download music owned by these companies. Really I have no desire to give them money.
These record labels have been making the past time of buying music less and less fun. I used to get a real kick out of going to the record store and buying music. Now it is just such a pain in the ass that it is no longer fun. I no longer enjoy my music, and isn't that the point? To fickin' enjoy it?
These record labels have been making the past time of buying music less and less fun. I used to get a real kick out of going to the record store and buying music. Now it is just such a pain in the ass that it is no longer fun. I no longer enjoy my music, and isn't that the point? To fickin' enjoy it?
I can see it now...
Music execs put this service up and cut Apple out completely. They get majorly greedy and end up screwing over all the customers. Service dies.
It's kind of hard to believe the music industry isn't grateful to Apple for putting this all into place with the music store. They've made hundreds of millions that they never would've realized without Steve and his vision.
Music execs put this service up and cut Apple out completely. They get majorly greedy and end up screwing over all the customers. Service dies.
It's kind of hard to believe the music industry isn't grateful to Apple for putting this all into place with the music store. They've made hundreds of millions that they never would've realized without Steve and his vision.