Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Universal Music Group's iTunes Contract

Let's see how tough they talk when Apple is #1

Bosunsfate said:
So, Apple is the dominant player?

What music company is stepping up to stop the Wal-mart machine?

Is this just a case with Universal trying to take out their frustration on someone they can maybe push around?
Click to expand...


Bricks and mortar CD sales are decreasing at the rate of 12%/year while online digital download sales are increasing at 49%. At that rate Apple will be the #1 retail store in the USA for music sales in mid to late 2008. It should be a lot of fun to watch.

Considering the generous portion of each sale that the music companies get I don't think this kind of threat means anything. A paper tiger. Not that the French would talk a tall tale and then fold when it comes time to fight. No, that's never happened before.

Apple sells music online to sell iPods (where the profit is), and now iPhones.
 
rockosmodurnlif said:
I fail to see how this could possibly be bad for Universal. They're saying that iTunes will continue to be able to sell their songs but that they are reserving the right to let other digital music services sell their songs. Am I right or wrong? If I'm wrong, show me and explain.
Click to expand...

From the tone of the article, it sounds as if Universal is threatening to move part of its catalog elsewhere. From a sales aspect, other digital music services are lagging far behind Apple.

My thoughts are if people can't find it on iTunes, they're not going to be downloading other software or setting up other accounts just to purchase some exclusive Universal track. They'd probably just end dl it off the p2p networks.
 
JGowan said:
THE EXACT WORDING WAS...
Click to expand...
…different before WSJ updated their article.
Pretty sensational, if you ask me... and not the good kind. :confused:
Click to expand...
There were also other reports (e.g. on drudge) claiming that it was a done deal, so the MR version was actually pretty moderate at the time it was posted.
 
Mudo said:
... does anyone know what artists would be removed from iTMS?
Click to expand...

Some of Universal's artists include:

Jay-Z, Beastie Boys, DMX, Ludacris, Method Man, Nas, Run DMC, Indigo Girls, Josh Kelly, Los Lobos, The Polyphonic Spree, Queen, Bryan Adams, Maroon Five, Aerosmith, Mary J. Blige, Macy Gray, Snoop Dogg, Audioslave, Keane, Nirvana, No Doubt, Tupac Shakur, Gewn Stefani, 50 Cent, Dr. Dre, Eminem, Nine Inch Nails, Black Eyed Peas, everyone signed to Motown, Godsmak, HIM, Elton John, Prince, George Strait, Johnny Cash, Tricia Yearwood, Willie Nelson...and the list goes on...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Universal_Music_Group_artists
 
Posted by mrfrosty
Also can someone tell me what deep sixing is ? We don't have this phrase in england and if i were to guess it's meaning it wouldn't be printable :)
Click to expand...
It is an English expression! :rolleyes:

A leadman's cry of "six deep" or "by the deep six" from ye olde sailing ships.
 
I really hope that they don't try to bargain into a subscription service. I don't like that crap....and it seems some record labels really like it.
 
rockosmodurnlif said:
I fail to see how this could possibly be bad for Universal. They're saying that iTunes will continue to be able to sell their songs but that they are reserving the right to let other digital music services sell their songs. Am I right or wrong? If I'm wrong, show me and explain.
Click to expand...

I think its more a of a control issue then anything. For years the music companies got away with charging an outrageous amount and apple came along a threw a wrench in it. Suddenly people are becoming popular overnight because over iTunes and the middle man of the record company looses more power over what we listen to and how we buy.
 
In the worst case scenario, if Universal decided to stop allowing music to be sold on iTunes, the only one it hurts is Universal.

Imaging Universal trying to explain to their existing artists why no-one can buy their music on iTunes; imagine Universal trying to renew a contract with an artist or sign a hot new band, but having to admit that they won't have their music available on iTunes.

It won't work. It would be one thing if iTunes was still some up and coming service, but it is established now.

Apple doesn't need Universal at this point; Universal would shoot themselves in the foot to cut off such a large source of music sales.
 
Zadillo said:
In the worst case scenario, if Universal decided to stop allowing music to be sold on iTunes, the only one it hurts is Universal.

Imaging Universal trying to explain to their existing artists why no-one can buy their music on iTunes; imagine Universal trying to renew a contract with an artist or sign a hot new band, but having to admit that they won't have their music available on iTunes.

It won't work. It would be one thing if iTunes was still some up and coming service, but it is established now.

Apple doesn't need Universal at this point; Universal would shoot themselves in the foot to cut off such a large source of music sales.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder if a paradigm shift isn't due. Maybe artists should sign with a new division of Apple. They could call it Apple Corp. .... ?? ;)
 
prediction

Although it's never a good idea to predict the future on the internet (as there is a permanant record of your foolish ramblings) I can't help but feel a kind of mysterious static force surrounding the Music industry, to me it spells their demise & the rise of a new overload.

The industry is ripe for a new system, prehaps it could be Google?, new bands & artists sign up with google-music, a few famous bands make the move over & soon you'll find that Universal et al are nothing but an archive for old country music classics.
 
Digitalclips said:
Makes you wonder if a paradigm shift isn't due. Maybe artists should sign with a new division of Apple.
Click to expand...

I think this is something the labels are concerned about.

Not so much that Apple actually wants to start a record label (I know they also settled with Apple Corps, the Beatles label, but I'm not sure if that includes the possibility of Apple themselves actually running a label themselves).....

But we're in an age where an artist can record an album, upload it themselves and sell it on iTunes if they wanted.

The labels primary role seems to be more about promotion, etc. at this point, but in this age of MySpace, YouTube, iTunes Store, etc. even that is changing.

The traditional labels are probably scared to death of a future where any old artist records their own music, promotes themselves on the internet via MySpace, etc. and sells their own music through the iTunes Store (or even their own website).

P.S. The coolest thing of course would be if Apple Inc. bought Apple Corps and ran it as their own music label - something like what the Beatles originally dreamed it might be, letting it live on as a real and innovative new label, as opposed to primarily just a label for Beatles stuff. I can't imagine this would ever happen, but it would be cool.
 
Maybe this will be the catalyst to push apple into becoming a record label. With myspace and iTunes, artists hardly need a label like Universal anymore.
 
I think Apple just needs to start up their own music label, or buy a smaller one (Apple Corps?). That way any artist can just sell their music through iTunes (and maybe as physical media), and Apple can give them a better cut of the profit than is usual. That would basically fix Apple's dependence on external carriers. Same thing with AT&T, if I were Apple, I'd be building my own network right now (or buying it... Helio?), just to make sure that other companies weren't responsible for my survival.

Edit: Wow, did JPark, Zadillo, and I think of the same thing or what.
 
Zadillo said:
I think this is something the labels are concerned about.

Not so much that Apple actually wants to start a record label (I know they also settled with Apple Corps, the Beatles label, but I'm not sure if that includes the possibility of Apple themselves actually running a label themselves).....

But we're in an age where an artist can record an album, upload it themselves and sell it on iTunes if they wanted.

The labels primary role seems to be more about promotion, etc. at this point, but in this age of MySpace, YouTube, iTunes Store, etc. even that is changing.

The traditional labels are probably scared to death of a future where any old artist records their own music, promotes themselves on the internet via MySpace, etc. and sells their own music through the iTunes Store (or even their own website).

P.S. The coolest thing of course would be if Apple Inc. bought Apple Corps and ran it as their own music label - something like what the Beatles originally dreamed it might be, letting it live on as a real and innovative new label, as opposed to primarily just a label for Beatles stuff. I can't imagine this would ever happen, but it would be cool.
Click to expand...

You p.s. was my point exactly. I was only half joking.
 
lsyx said:
I think Apple just needs to start up their own music label, or buy a smaller one (Apple Corps?). That way any artist can just sell their music through iTunes (and maybe as physical media), and Apple can give them a better cut of the profit than is usual. That would basically fix Apple's dependence on external carriers. Same thing with AT&T, if I were Apple, I'd be building my own network right now (or buying it... Helio?), just to make sure that other companies weren't responsible for my survival.

Edit: Wow, did JPark, Zadillo, and I think of the same thing or what.
Click to expand...

Jinx :D
 
Message from S. Jobs:

You don't want to play ball with me? OK. I'll make my own music label. And it will be the best on the planet! :D
 
Digitalclips said:
You p.s. was my point exactly. I was only half joking.
Click to expand...

Yeah..... I don't know, there just seems to be something cosmically right about the idea of Apple Inc. acquiring Apple Corps and turning it into a real label again.

I've always thought it was a shame that Apple Corps never really took off (I know they had some great artists, etc. but still), and that its primarily known today because of the Beatles catalogue.

Apple Corps should be a vibrant label with new and groundbreaking acts; it shouldn't just be a music museum (don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Beatles fan...... but I think back when the Beatles were around, they would have been disappointed too to know that in 2007, the biggest act on the label was still them).
 
I think ultimately Apple is sitting in the driver's chair - since they're a major distribution channel for the music labels. It would take two or more major labels to band together to force better deals for themselves, which is unlikely to happen without some disclosure of those (confidential) deals to their competition.
 
I've said it before and I will say it again. Its the music industry who pulls the strings not Apple. If they want to pull support for the iPod and back someone else its really up to them.
 
Zadillo said:
Yeah..... I don't know, there just seems to be something cosmically right about the idea of Apple Inc. acquiring Apple Corps and turning it into a real label again.

I've always thought it was a shame that Apple Corps never really took off (I know they had some great artists, etc. but still), and that its primarily known today because of the Beatles catalogue.

Apple Corps should be a vibrant label with new and groundbreaking acts; it shouldn't just be a music museum (don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Beatles fan...... but I think back when the Beatles were around, they would have been disappointed too to know that in 2007, the biggest act on the label was still them).
Click to expand...

I agree and just maybe we will soon learn there was more the the Apple v Apple settlement than we all realized. It would be pretty cool to see Apple Corps' logo again only this time along with Apple Inc's.
 
HiRez said:
I'm kind of surprised the record labels haven't all gotten together and formed their own music store, locking out the others and splitting the profits amongst themselves. They'd get 100% of the profits (minus technical overhead) and could control pricing and any other factors they wanted to.
Click to expand...

Just a few antitrust hurdles to clear.:p
 
Digitalclips said:
I agree and just maybe we will soon learn there was more the the Apple v Apple settlement than we all realized. It would be pretty cool to see Apple Corps' logo again only this time along with Apple Inc's.
Click to expand...

True; I was just reading up on that, and forgot that apparently part of the settlement is still sealed/not public.

Who knows what all they have worked out between each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back