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 to Sell Music Without Copy Protection... but Not on iTunes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
An iTunes killer
Remember how it seemed that every few months something would come out that was touted as an iPod killer. The new player from Dell, Sony, iRiver, Microsoft or whomever was going to kill the iPod. Yeah, whatever.
This now will be seen by some as an iTunes killer. Uh huh. Sure.
If I were a hot new artist, do you think I would want to be with Universal now? Where am I going to get the kind of exposure that I could get from iTunes? And when Apple finally comes out with a new iPod (my guess is next month
) do you think they're going to use a Universal artist in their ad campaign?
There are some who think that more choice is good but what if it's a false choice? Why am I am made to choose between a download service that I like, that I have used, that I am familiar with and.....Walmart? No thanks.
Look for Universal to start showing Apple more love once their trial (and error) ends. They'd best hope Apple forgives them.
Remember how it seemed that every few months something would come out that was touted as an iPod killer. The new player from Dell, Sony, iRiver, Microsoft or whomever was going to kill the iPod. Yeah, whatever.
This now will be seen by some as an iTunes killer. Uh huh. Sure.
If I were a hot new artist, do you think I would want to be with Universal now? Where am I going to get the kind of exposure that I could get from iTunes? And when Apple finally comes out with a new iPod (my guess is next month
) do you think they're going to use a Universal artist in their ad campaign?There are some who think that more choice is good but what if it's a false choice? Why am I am made to choose between a download service that I like, that I have used, that I am familiar with and.....Walmart? No thanks.
Look for Universal to start showing Apple more love once their trial (and error) ends. They'd best hope Apple forgives them.
This is just a test...
That's very true.
What this really is a test of is iTunes' dominance. This is a bigger risk than Universal realizes.
What if sales don't go up? Well, they've given iTunes even more leverage...and they've pissed off a large "partner."
In industries populated by real businessmen, a company would be happy that someone was selling $200 million worth of its stuff; they'd be a trusted partner. In the music industry, they complain that the outlet is too powerful and making too much money.
What happened, did the coke and hooker fund get low?
The music industry is showing just how retarded it is.
Yep but it won't work. iTunes is the only online music store that is actually selling something besides CDs... they don't even sell CDs
That's very true.
What this really is a test of is iTunes' dominance. This is a bigger risk than Universal realizes.
What if sales don't go up? Well, they've given iTunes even more leverage...and they've pissed off a large "partner."
In industries populated by real businessmen, a company would be happy that someone was selling $200 million worth of its stuff; they'd be a trusted partner. In the music industry, they complain that the outlet is too powerful and making too much money.
What happened, did the coke and hooker fund get low?
The music industry is showing just how retarded it is.
Remember the record industry is not the music industry. Don't lump a much larger industry in with the record companies who are just a segment.
How Should Apple Deal With This?
How Should Apple Deal With This?
1. Drop Universal Artist from the iTunes store?
2. Have an iTunes store sale - buy 1 song get 2nd song for half price?
3. Ignore it entirely?
4. iPod purchase gets 100 free songs?
5. Sell Universal Artist songs with any of the above promos only?
6. Remove the DRM from Universal Artist to skew the "test" results?
How Should Apple Deal With This?
1. Drop Universal Artist from the iTunes store?
2. Have an iTunes store sale - buy 1 song get 2nd song for half price?
3. Ignore it entirely?
4. iPod purchase gets 100 free songs?
5. Sell Universal Artist songs with any of the above promos only?
6. Remove the DRM from Universal Artist to skew the "test" results?
Not really any of those options are feasible solutions. On one hand, it is really in Apple's best interest to keep artists from Universal up and running on iTunes, yet it would really be a step backwards for the digital music industry for them to give in to Universal's ridiculous demands, as iTMS is both the pioneer and world leader in this regard.
Also, I don't really follow your logic of making bargain songs (options 2 and 4), care to explain? At any rate, 100 free songs (heck, even 50 free songs) with the purchase of an iPod sounds like a great promo deal.
Finally, option 6 would, I'm pretty sure, be illegal as this breeches the contract between Apple and Universal.
look at the corporate parents
Don't forget to make the distinction that Apple (through Steve Jobs' board positions) is aligned to Pixar/Disney/ABC Television and were talking about the Universal Music Group which is now NBC/Universal. It may be more about business and less about it being a personal power struggle to wrest away control of pricing.
Don't forget to make the distinction that Apple (through Steve Jobs' board positions) is aligned to Pixar/Disney/ABC Television and were talking about the Universal Music Group which is now NBC/Universal. It may be more about business and less about it being a personal power struggle to wrest away control of pricing.
What?
You have a free trial period, so you can see if the artists/labels there are to your liking. I personally love artists that sign on with smaller labels, so I use up my monthly allotment of 65 songs per month.
Your milage may vary; if i see an iTunes Plus (bitrate) song/album and if it is not available on emusic; I just buy it from iTunes. No biggie.
I agree. For me, both iTunes and emusic are both great outlets to buy digital downloads of music and/or videos/shows.
No surprise here: Universal executives, true to their music-label heritage, are a bunch of greedy, spiteful bastards. But we all knew that. They already get at least $0.90 of every song sold, but that's not enough for them. In iTunes, their music is available on the world's fastest-growing, and America's third largest music retailer, but that's also not enough for them. The fact that they're offering their music DRM-free, but not on iTunes, is pure spite.
Perhaps Universal wants a less-transparent method of music sales so they can continue to screw the public as well as the artists they claim to care so much about. Perhaps they are getting desperate because they can no longer vertically monopolize their industry.
I don't know whether Steve Jobs is a nice guy--it really doesn't matter to me--but I have only admiration for him as a visionary and CEO. His courage to stare down Microsoft when they were strongarming every other company in the computer industry--and using underhanded, illegal, and bullying tactics to squash competition--as well as his handling of the record labels has been audacious and masterful.
We'll see how this all plays out. My guess is that the days of Universal acting like the schoolyard bully are over.
Perhaps Universal wants a less-transparent method of music sales so they can continue to screw the public as well as the artists they claim to care so much about. Perhaps they are getting desperate because they can no longer vertically monopolize their industry.
I don't know whether Steve Jobs is a nice guy--it really doesn't matter to me--but I have only admiration for him as a visionary and CEO. His courage to stare down Microsoft when they were strongarming every other company in the computer industry--and using underhanded, illegal, and bullying tactics to squash competition--as well as his handling of the record labels has been audacious and masterful.
We'll see how this all plays out. My guess is that the days of Universal acting like the schoolyard bully are over.
I read that the record company recieves $.70 from every iTunes sale.
Apple should offer all of their music at cost ($0.70) for as long as they sell DRM free thru other channels , Apple can absorb that, and really screw their "Test" up
I has found Peter Lofrumento email address is Peter.Lofrumento@umusic.com. Let write a nice message to him.
Jobs may care somewhat, but he said it himself that it is about selling the iPods. So long as those DRM free (non-WMA) songs can be played on the iPod, everything is cool. Apple estimates that the average iPod owner only buys 25 songs a year through iTunes, so Universal is only going to hurt themselves.
Universal Music Group is not NBC or NBC Universal. It is not part of, or owned by, NBC Universal or GE. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vivendi SA.
Vivendi SA owns 20% of NBC Universal and GE owns the other 80%. NBC Universal owns and operates the theme parks, television, and film businesses under the Universal brand.
It's hardly emotionally driven. It is a mid-term strategy to ensure the online music distribution business does not become an Apple-controlled monopsony.
What are the chances that Universal *wants* this to fail? Perhaps nobody will buy any of this music from the hole in the wall place they are going to sell it out of. What can they come back and say at that point? I'm sure they can spin it how ever they want. Perhaps, they'll issue a public statement saying, "nobody wants DRMless music- iTMS sold more of our music WITH DRM than our hole in the wall outlet sold without DRM during the same period!"
What a mess. Talk about a couple industries have a major crisis- the recording and motion picture industries. They clung to their old, antiquated methods of distribution for so long, and it took a computer manufacturer to come along and open an online store to even get us into something that remotely resembles the 21st century.
The world is changing whether these guys accept it or not. Did anyone catch Colbie Caillat on iTMS? She had a free single of the week and now her album has been in the top 10 on iTMS for a few weeks. And remember, iTMS is one of the major music retailers in the US. I assume she attained this status without any airplay on the big corporate radio stations or CDs prominently displayed on an end cap in WalMart or Best Buy. Things like this are very encouraging. The Internet has provided a mechanism to defeat the government-granted monopolies that currently rule the legacy airwaves.
What a mess. Talk about a couple industries have a major crisis- the recording and motion picture industries. They clung to their old, antiquated methods of distribution for so long, and it took a computer manufacturer to come along and open an online store to even get us into something that remotely resembles the 21st century.
The world is changing whether these guys accept it or not. Did anyone catch Colbie Caillat on iTMS? She had a free single of the week and now her album has been in the top 10 on iTMS for a few weeks. And remember, iTMS is one of the major music retailers in the US. I assume she attained this status without any airplay on the big corporate radio stations or CDs prominently displayed on an end cap in WalMart or Best Buy. Things like this are very encouraging. The Internet has provided a mechanism to defeat the government-granted monopolies that currently rule the legacy airwaves.
Thanks for the link.
So.... U2 is with Universal. With Steve and Bono being such good buds...I wonder if there will be any issues there.
I don't think they'll succeed in selling much but I don't believe they want to succeed. They want to prove that the old way works best.
They probably don't like the idea that iTunes sells their wares pretty well because that gives Apple power and obviously, these people really like their own power. That's why they were bought by a utility company. (I think they did water, not electricity, though.)
They probably don't like the idea that iTunes sells their wares pretty well because that gives Apple power and obviously, these people really like their own power. That's why they were bought by a utility company. (I think they did water, not electricity, though.
)
I can't wait to see the Home and sub-'Genre' pages on iTunes change over the next few weeks to universal artist free zones.
Oh sure they'll still be on iTunes, but they won't get the limelight and won't it be interesting when all these other labels begin selling in droves!!!.
See how that 'impacts' on the test. Seriously without itunes Universal will get a nice $300 million dollar hole in there accounts.
This is a bit like the tyre company Michelin announcing that they are no longer planning to produce tyres for automobiles but intend to make them available for bicycles only - oh and only in Paraguay.
Are universal also holding out on Blu-ray too ? Seems like the same mentality at work...
Whoever is making these decisions is a 6:a.m vegas 'watch hocking' gambler in a cheap suit.
Apple should just buy Universal simply for the satisfaction of removing this bozo...
Oh sure they'll still be on iTunes, but they won't get the limelight and won't it be interesting when all these other labels begin selling in droves!!!.
See how that 'impacts' on the test. Seriously without itunes Universal will get a nice $300 million dollar hole in there accounts.
This is a bit like the tyre company Michelin announcing that they are no longer planning to produce tyres for automobiles but intend to make them available for bicycles only - oh and only in Paraguay.
Are universal also holding out on Blu-ray too ? Seems like the same mentality at work...
Whoever is making these decisions is a 6:a.m vegas 'watch hocking' gambler in a cheap suit.
Apple should just buy Universal simply for the satisfaction of removing this bozo...
I'm disappointed by this Universal move, as I'm sure most of you are.
It's clear that Universal see the future of music as being online, but don't see that future as being overly dominated by iTunes. They obviously feel that iTunes is inflexible to their ambitions, or they wouldn't be so keen on backing other horses.
I can understand their plight. They have the artists, yet very little power. Steve Jobs managed to sell music Apple's way, when the labels were still roaming in a mixture of expensive Microsoft DRM crippled tracks (I found several UK digital stores to impose much stricter DRM than iTunes, not to mention how damn difficult it can be when you need to move your music from one computer to another once your 3-PC limit has been reached) and subscription models.
I think it's also clear that Universal isn't ready to cut off its nose despite its face. It can probably imagine worse times than Apple succeeding in cementing its position as the worlds No.1 music retailer for the future. It's desperate to use this 'grace period' of conflicting DRM to experiment with retailers that have, relatively speaking, no clout with it. It probably doesn't have anything to gain, but at the same time it'll make some friends in online music and doesn't really have anything to lose with iTunes as it's doubtful Steve will say 'enough is enough' any time soon.
So, Universal are playing silly beggars before they're ready to get into bed with iTunes. Perhaps that's good for all of us, fuelling competition and keeping Apple on its toes. We just have to hope that, ultimately, Apple's rift with Universal heals and what is, without saying, the worlds best digital music store continues to be just that.
It's clear that Universal see the future of music as being online, but don't see that future as being overly dominated by iTunes. They obviously feel that iTunes is inflexible to their ambitions, or they wouldn't be so keen on backing other horses.
I can understand their plight. They have the artists, yet very little power. Steve Jobs managed to sell music Apple's way, when the labels were still roaming in a mixture of expensive Microsoft DRM crippled tracks (I found several UK digital stores to impose much stricter DRM than iTunes, not to mention how damn difficult it can be when you need to move your music from one computer to another once your 3-PC limit has been reached) and subscription models.
I think it's also clear that Universal isn't ready to cut off its nose despite its face. It can probably imagine worse times than Apple succeeding in cementing its position as the worlds No.1 music retailer for the future. It's desperate to use this 'grace period' of conflicting DRM to experiment with retailers that have, relatively speaking, no clout with it. It probably doesn't have anything to gain, but at the same time it'll make some friends in online music and doesn't really have anything to lose with iTunes as it's doubtful Steve will say 'enough is enough' any time soon.
So, Universal are playing silly beggars before they're ready to get into bed with iTunes. Perhaps that's good for all of us, fuelling competition and keeping Apple on its toes. We just have to hope that, ultimately, Apple's rift with Universal heals and what is, without saying, the worlds best digital music store continues to be just that.
Hmm ... it's a brave man who risks incurring the wrath of Jobs. Didn't work out too well for Michael Eisner, after all.
Whilst I have to (generally) agree that any kind of monopoly anywhere is a bad thing*, I remain entirely gob-smacked by the short-sightedness of the music industry as a whole where Apple is concerned.
I mean, how much money were they making from online sales pre-iTunes? Pretty much nothing. They argued that MP3 was a format inherent to piracy, that MP3s were baaaad, m'kay.
Then iTunes came along and proved, quite definitively, that it wasn't the format (online distribution of files, not MP3 specifically) that was wrong, it was the half-arsed business model that the industry had been trying to implement.
So then what to the major labels do? They moan that they're not making enough money from iTunes. What? As opposed to the bog-all they were making before? Yeah! Let's break the working, viable business model by messing with all the aspects of it that have been proven to make it work!
Cheeses. Ultimately, I suspect that the music labels' fear of iTunes is much more far-reaching. I suspect that they can see a time when artists sell directly to consumers via an online distro network and the labels' sweet scam where they screw both the artist and the consumer comes to an end.
The problem is that the major labels are looking at the very real possibility of extinction. The days of their business model are numbered and they lack either the imagination or the will to formulate a new one.
Cheers
Jim
* With the possible exclusion of utilities, postal services and rail networks, the breaking of whose monopolies in the UK hasn't exactly been a shining success.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Universal Music Group is a completely separate company from NBC Universal (which owns the Universal theme parks, film and television studios, NBC, USA, Bravo, and a variety of other businesses.)
You mean Universal's monopoly?
I agree. And that's why all hose greedy, slimy music companes have to disappear. Freedom to all.
Nemesis