Universal Music Group's iTunes Contract

[MagnusVonMagnum]

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.

Well at least there's ONE person on here that can read. This is the ONLY intelligent post I've read in this thread. The rest is the usual uninformed fanboy ranting that makes Apple users look like religious zealots to the rest of the world. If you've got a point to make, back it up with some logic at least. "YOU SUCK" is not an argument.

We have no idea what Universal has up their sleeve or what deals they're making in the background. They haven't dropped support for iTunes at this time and so jumping to the conclusion that they absolutely will is premature at best. Even the article says what it will mean in the long term is unclear at this time. What advantage is there for Universal to sign a long term contract with Apple? Is Apple going to give them something more than they're getting with short term contracts? If not, what's the point in signing your options away??? THAT would be stupid business. Businesses do not operate on groupie/fan logic.

 

[iMikeT]

Nothing more than a pseudo bargaining tool.

At the moment, they have $$ in their eyes. In the end, they will crack.

 

[Phormic]

A desperate bargaining chip by a company who's days, certainly in musical terms, are numbered.

The final death rattle of another dinosaur, proving itself to be an irrelevance in this modern age. No doubt Universal's board members sit around drinking port and reminiscing about the days when everybody bought CD's full of songs they didn't want, at a terrifying mark-up, while giving stuff-all to the artist who created it.

The sooner artists can sell music on iTunes directly and bypass these morons, the better.

 

[aLoC]

The only way to get on the iPod without iTunes is to have no DRM. So maybe that's what they're planning ultimately.

 

[macidiot]

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.

They tried that. Remember PressPlay? You probably don't because it failed miserably.

 

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Hey Universal, good luck with that.

 

[wnurse]

They must hate that they are selling so much music. We should all go back to using peer-to-peer networks to make them happy.

Now, now now.. anyone who was on a peer to peer network didn't switch to buying music legally, i don't care how nice itunes is (and really, it's not all that nice.. itunes kinda suck, the ipod itself is nice, itunes is necessary evil). That's a hollow threat and if the music companies hired even decent competent techies, they can track everyone who used peer to peer and prosecute them (or at least a significant enough portion that it would reduce peer to peer to a mere nuisance). The music companies have not really brought the hammer but if too high a percentage of people turn to peer to peer, they will be in for the shock of their lives.

 

[wnurse]

Announcement for Tuesday besides something related to G5 Powerbooks:

Steve Jobs lists Apple Inc. new business after;

1: The Ulmighty Mac
2: The Ubiquitous iPod
3: The Amazing iPhone
4: The Labeless Music Label (garageband gets an agent!)

Hope that Apple Corp lawsuit settlement panned out just right so Steve can start his new world media empire. Please save us from the stuffed pigs who charge us vast amounts of money to gain access to art! They try to make museums as free as possible so we can enjoy the works. Why am I shelling out $15 a CD to listen to an artist only to go to jail if I share it?

Yes, save you from the stuffed pigs who charge you vast amounts of money so you can be serviced by a stuffed pig who charges you vast amounts of money for a computer.. yep.. makes sense to me.

You people are funny!!!!.. thinking that artist should cut out the music companies and sell directly on itunes.. if i was an artist capable of cutting out the music companies.. why the F**C would i sell through itunes?. Why would i replace one monopolistic operation for another?.. why not sell directly to the consumer?. What exactly is the advantage of me, an artist selling through itunes?. You really think usher needs itunes?. or the rolling stones or the beatles?. These artist were huge long before itunes. Why would they sell their music on itunes for pennies just so apple fanboys can get their music for 99c?. Why not sell directly through a personal website for lots more money?.

You guys are hilarious!!!. it's 3 in the morning and i'm having a good laugh.
You'all should take a chill pill.. This is business.. apple doesn't have a right to dictate terms to the music companies.. it's not apple product, it's theirs (just like how apple dictated terms to AT&T about their phone, same way music companies can dictate terms to apple about their music.. or are you all saying turnabout is not fair play?).

 

[RoDe]

Man I hate those damn record labels. Universal still want's that variable pricing thing, more money for bigger artists and all that crap. They just one to pressure Apple in to giving in. Man Apple should start there own record label. They should lure the artists with free iPods

 

[dakscott]

Just wanted to point out to everyone, the article actually says that Universal is
"CONSIDERING notifying Apple" about their contract, and that is only "according to a person 'familiar' with the situation."

This all sounds pretty speculative at this juncture. Besides the WSJ isn't always spot on with their predictions.

 

[JeffDM]

Not that it matters if THEY like it...
I don't see any subscription service out there doing as well as iTunes does at the moment.

I don't think that's an accurate indicator, because NO form of online music sales or subscription is doing as well as iTunes.

i agree, they waste their time selling 14.00 cds that shoudl be 5 bucks, they are so dumb and i cant wait for this to bite them in the @ss

I think that if they thought it would make them more net income, then CDs would be priced that way. Somehow, I doubt that.

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.

I don't understand, Uni has exclusives with Apple? I don't think that's true. Uni can sell non-exclusive distribution rights to anyone and everyone they choose.

 

[JeffDM]

I love it when a SOURCE for any story is some masked un-named person who must remain anonymous. I call BS. WSJ just stirring the crap pot to stink it up for all concerned.

I doubt that, WSJ is a lot better than that, they generally seem to be very cautious with respect to vetting of sources that can't be made known. They aren't prone to rampant rumormongering like Apple rumor sites are.

So, if your Microsoft 90% dominace is fine but 10% dominace in music sales is scaring the industry come on retards. Sick of all this damn greed.

Universal has nothing to do with Microsoft's software business, so the first part of your statement is moot. I don't think it's about the 10% of total music sales but the fact that Apple controls maybe 80% of the download sales, and they seem to be aware that download sales are the future. "digital sales" was a dumb statement to make on the part of the article as music on CDs is digital too.

i already refuse to buy anything from sony, including their music, and movies (which i go out of my way to pirate.... its worth my time to just pay for it, but i feel its the right thing to do to go out of my way to deny them revenue until they stop their anti consumer ways) now i guess i will start getting my Universal music from the pirate bay.... f-em

How about you not use their media, period? Otherwise, I think you only help them by bolstering their piracy complaints.

... does anyone know what artists would be removed from iTMS?

My guess is none, assuming they let the contract lapse. Basically, this sounds like going month-to-month on your mobile phone service - the service stays the same, just without the contract.

Ha... I love this new verb.

I think "Steved" has been around for several years. I think I first heard about it when the Mac Cube was announced to have an nVidia graphics board rather than ATI because ATI "spilled the beans". I think it existed before then.

 

[Uragon]

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.

because they lack in visions, but full of greed.....

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

I don't understand, Uni has exclusives with Apple? I don't think that's true. Uni can sell non-exclusive distribution rights to anyone and everyone they choose.

If you are right, then why is this news?

What does this do exactly?

 

[D 5]

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.

How did you know?

For the power of Grayskull, is using att as a guinea pig? How can that be possible?

I better stay "iTuned"

 

[Bye Bye Baby]

You've got to be kidding???

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.

Apple's success is not just an internet site- it truly is a lesson in end-to-end marketing and sales. It has been so successful precisely because of the service and ease with which the whole thing integrates itself with each element.

It is worrying the reasons for which Apple's 'edifice' is under attack. I think Apple has been greedy with the iphone- wanting also a portion of the revenue from long term contracts. I just wonder if some people in the industry are not getting a little worried about Apple's agressive pricing and revenue policy. I think it is an insurance against Apple's dominance and locking oneself into a situation with no room to move.

 

[zgh1999]

Simple.

If you end up not on iTunes, I will end up not buying your songs.

Simple. Bye bye Universal. No one will miss you if you leave.

Don't let the door stop you.

 

[crees!]

Hold On...

So a greedy music label is worried about selling music and making money off a major online distributor. This goes against everything they're about.

 

[surferfromuk]

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.

The whole bloody online music affair is still a big fat greedy mess.

This is exactly how Apple got their lead in the first place...they just offered a good clean no strings service...


...and if the HMV store is anything to go buy it'll not work and try to destroy your operating system (on XP that is)...I guess a syndicate of 'music lawyers' don't make particularly good 'web developers'...

 

[surferfromuk]

It is worrying the reasons for which Apple's 'edifice' is under attack. I think Apple has been greedy with the iphone- wanting also a portion of the revenue from long term contracts.

greedy ? you serious? Can you show me what percentage they're getting - I've seen this rumor but I've not yet seen any concrete evidence of this...I'd be interested to know just how greedy they have been...

Regardless, Apple are in the computer business - the iphone is the obvious future of computers. They are protecting their own future and delivering a great life enhancing product in the process...don't live in america but from what I gather the at&t rates seem comparable to other providers so Apple's 'greed' as you put it certainly hasn't resulted in a fleecing of the consumer...

Besides ;

You can be certain of one thing if Apple are't no'1 - Microsoft will be!!

Universal better realise that M$ will play 'softie' ONLY until they own the entire racket...then it's hardball...

at least Apple stand for fair and decent...god forbid M$ take hold of another monopoly...

 

[whooleytoo]

At the end of the day, the labels have the power as long as the artists stay signed with them. The labels can find other (albeit, smaller) stores, but Apple can't get other music.

I don't think any of the labels are happy with the dominance of iTMS - it pretty much gives Apple a free hand when negotiating deals & pricing. It's hardly a surprise that Universal - the biggest fish in the pond - is the first to start flexing its muscles.

I can't see much changing until some major artists start defecting from the big labels and go directly (or through a small indy label) to online stores. They'd still need marketing (at a decent rate this time - it's ridiculous than artists only get <10% of the retail price, while with someone like CDBaby they can get 60%). I'm surprised some ambitious label exec with the marketing experience & contacts hasn't seen the opportunity and set up a new 'sell direct to online stores and we'll market you' label.

 

[Tara Davis]

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.

My puppy has grown 315% over the last year. At this rate, she will be bigger than my car by 2011.

 

[Project]

i actually think it is fair that the manufacturer should get a share of the contract revenues each month for a phone.

It is Apple who have really done the hard work with the iPhone and made it what it is. Yet their income = $500 but AT&Ts = $2,000 over the 2 years.

 

[72930]

i actually think it is fair that the manufacturer should get a share of the contract revenues each month for a phone.

It is Apple who have really done the hard work with the iPhone and made it what it is. Yet their income = $500 but AT&Ts = $2,000 over the 2 years.

Wrong thread? Or insanity?

why the F**C would i.

What is that word?

 

[BornAgainMac]

I wish I can list what music I bought from them. I buy a lot of iTunes music.