The Amazon MP3 Download service is great and have my "approval". However, they don't have a huge collection yet. As long as it's something in the 256kbps or higher quality bit-rate and Apple or the suppliers keep supporting, I don't mind the DRM.
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.
Warner Music Considering Not Renewing Long-Term iTunes Contract
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Amazon MP3 Download service is great and have my "approval". However, they don't have a huge collection yet. As long as it's something in the 256kbps or higher quality bit-rate and Apple or the suppliers keep supporting, I don't mind the DRM.
they'll be back. it's the almighty dollar that all of these companies pray to. they are greedy and trying to take the 100% cut themselves rather than use proven technology. we've seen all the failed attempts at music services, the same will happen with video. a few companies with major backing and support will take over the game (my money is still on apple) and they'll realize it's easier to have a couple of distributors that excel at distribution and then they don't need to be bothered with all the interchangeability issues.
To you question "p.s eagerdragon do you honestly believe that if apple turns into a music label they will pay the artist better?" --- Yes honestly I do believe that. To get them to come and join, to rub it into the other labels faces, and to continue to provide content for their primary business.
As to your second question: "Do you honestly believe apple will offset their earnings to satisfy
end users?" --- No, but I never claimed they would. IMHO Apple lowers prices for customers to increase sales or to break into a new business, not to make the customers happy.
its easy to brush off all of these stories, but the truth is, this is a huge issue. In 1 or 2 years when all of these companies start pulling their content, Apple is going to see some major issues. You cant make money selling content based software without the content. Just ask Sony and their PS3.
Sorry to burst your apple utopia bubble, but there is no way Apple can become an independent label. They will get sued up their ass by Apple Corps. Part of their agreement is to differentiate the Apple iTunes/iPod platform from being a label. Apple will change their name before they start publishing their own music. Legally, there is no chance.
Playing Chicken? Really? With Apple?
That's all this is. The labels are upset because, right now, when people think music, they don't think "Columbia" or "BMG" or "Sony" - they think iPod or iTunes. It's starting to grate on them.
They're not in control of the industry any more because Apple has more or less monopolized the digital distribution arm of the music biz. Is that good? So far, yes; they haven't done anything exploitative per se (other than protecting their monopoly) and have even gone so far as to stand up to a demand on the part of content producers (NBC) to raise prices.
Is this a monopoly? Absolutely. eMusic and Amazon's mp3 service aside, iTunes is the undisputed king right now (80% market share or something). Amazon has actually managed to underprice Apple (that the majors have agreed to sell DRM-free for Amazon and not Apple just demonstrates how childish/shortsighted they are) but they can't possibly keep it up. eMusic is mostly indie and, love indie though I do, it isn't exactly a gold mine. Fergie is a gold mine (I DON'T love Fergie). Why on earth would the labels try to play chicken with the company that brought their industry back from the brink not three years ago? iTunes's top sellers are listed right next to Billboard's at this point. I don't understand what the labels have to gain from this.
No, until Apple uses its posture in digital distribution to do something disgusting (up 'til now they've been going out of their way to protect their customers - to keep them, not just to be nice), nobody'll catch me complaining.
...but if something's cheaper on Amazon's mp3 site, you can bet I'll get it there. There's a looming price war in digital music. I'm very excited for it.
That's all this is. The labels are upset because, right now, when people think music, they don't think "Columbia" or "BMG" or "Sony" - they think iPod or iTunes. It's starting to grate on them.
They're not in control of the industry any more because Apple has more or less monopolized the digital distribution arm of the music biz. Is that good? So far, yes; they haven't done anything exploitative per se (other than protecting their monopoly) and have even gone so far as to stand up to a demand on the part of content producers (NBC) to raise prices.
Is this a monopoly? Absolutely. eMusic and Amazon's mp3 service aside, iTunes is the undisputed king right now (80% market share or something). Amazon has actually managed to underprice Apple (that the majors have agreed to sell DRM-free for Amazon and not Apple just demonstrates how childish/shortsighted they are) but they can't possibly keep it up. eMusic is mostly indie and, love indie though I do, it isn't exactly a gold mine. Fergie is a gold mine (I DON'T love Fergie). Why on earth would the labels try to play chicken with the company that brought their industry back from the brink not three years ago? iTunes's top sellers are listed right next to Billboard's at this point. I don't understand what the labels have to gain from this.
No, until Apple uses its posture in digital distribution to do something disgusting (up 'til now they've been going out of their way to protect their customers - to keep them, not just to be nice), nobody'll catch me complaining.
...but if something's cheaper on Amazon's mp3 site, you can bet I'll get it there. There's a looming price war in digital music. I'm very excited for it.
And another thing...
It doesn't matter that the labels are abandoning Apple for Amazon (for presumably a bigger share of each download).
Think about it, what are people going to play all of those DRM-free mp3s on?
...iPods.
Apple still makes money off of every Amazon download; every music download anywhere means one more person has one more reason to buy an iPod.
It doesn't matter that the labels are abandoning Apple for Amazon (for presumably a bigger share of each download).
Think about it, what are people going to play all of those DRM-free mp3s on?
...iPods.
Apple still makes money off of every Amazon download; every music download anywhere means one more person has one more reason to buy an iPod.
who cares if apple "wins" we're consumers and we simply want whats gunna be best. They need to be creative and original if they want to stay at the top
Actually I'm not so sure this is the case any more. Apple settled the dispute with Apple Corps permanently after a judge basically threw out Apple Corps umpteenth suit against Apple Inc. Under the current terms, Apple Inc. owns all rights to the trademark "Apple" and Apple Corps licenses it from Apple, Inc. I think this settlement also allows Apple to proceed with any further development into the music business with no more interference from Apple Corps. The terms of the settlement do not include an injunction in Apple Corps' favor.
So that means that monies have been exchanged to release Apple, Inc. from any further litigation on the matter, for once and for all... and Apple Corps no longer owns the trademark rights to the Apple name... which implictly also means they cannot sue Apple Inc. for ANY use of the trademark, but Apple could sue them because Apple Corps has licensed the trademark for limited use.
However, I don't think Apple Inc. wants to become a publisher/recording label. I think instead what they're angling to do is to sign artists into a different kind of distribution agreement where the artists own the copyright and license it for distribution through Apple. Apple would not see any marginal benefit from usurping the antiquated model of securing A&R through disbursement of advances and retention of optioned material and the tremendous expense associated with A&R scouting, management, radio promotion, etc. It's far more profitable for Apple to act as a hybrid distributor/retailer under which the artist retains all rights and consequently also foots their own bill for recording expenditures. This is also preferable for the artists because modern A&R contracts are tantamount to indentured servitude... in many cases the studio options albums they have the right not to promote much less release, and the artist is still obligated to recoup their advances at their current royalty rate which averages about 7% of gross margin—NOT MSRP—less manufacturing, packaging, marketing, promotion, distribution and sales for all but a handful of artists in the world, the two highest-paid being Michael Jackson and Madonna at roughly 25% and 20% respectively.
Under this type of agreement with Apple, instead of earning less than 77 cents per album and having to recoup loans at this rate prior to accruing payable royalties (out of which they must also pay their producer, agent and band members) artists would collect at least 60% of gross margin AND have the flexibility of electing other distribution agreements and not being restricted by a label's Right of First Refusal.
I began assessing the validity of this model about ten years ago in a paper I wrote titled "Technology and the Music Industry: Music Distribution via the Internet" in which I explored the historical distribution model from the 1940s to the present day and then examined the emerging technologies that were at that time opening the door for artists to achieve global distribution and marketing on their own via the Internet. The move by Apple to position themselves as a retailer of independent artists scares the hell out of RIAA because there are many major artists who already have a following that they'll take with them when their contracts are up. Lesser artists on the roster (the 85% of major label artists who don't sell enough albums to break even on their advances... but make nice, intentional tax writeoffs for the labels) are not so much the concern, but they'll go too because they will find themselves gaining access to a much larger audience through direct agreements with iTunes/Apple.
The motivation to do away with the promotion machinery is simple when you consider the math. At 7% of gross margin, it may take a recording artist 250,000 album sales just to recoup their advance before they can start collecting a dime of royalties. However, an independent artist who sells one album at $9.99 on iTunes has just made more money than the label-signed recording artist. This is true of both major and minor label-signed artists.
Ironically, the original model for this type of agreement is Led Zeppelin, whose license to Superhype Music, their publisher, ended after 26 years upon which termination all copyrights went back to Led Zeppelin and thenceforth were licensed out by the band's members/estates to whomever they wished to distribute through on THEIR terms.
Say goodbye to RIAA and hello to the global independent recording artist!
Legal digital music such as iTunes hasn't done jack squat for the industry. It's going straight to hell and has been for quite some time. "Brought back from the brink" is a ridiculous exaggeration considering that legal downloads do not make up for the continued plummet of physical music sales. If legal downloads were replacing those lost sales fully and even increasing overall music sales, THEN you could say that Apple saved the industry. Otherwise, the general trend is that the music industry is screwed at this point.
Those reviews aren't credible. My iPod's 5 years old and might have lousy sound quality (and I'm not in a hurry to buy a new one either), but Creative can't hold a candle to Apple's build quality.
Microsoft OTOH seems to be doing fairly decent there, lol.
I really like Amazon's music download store, probably because I've been a longtime Amazon customer.
However it's not nearly as nice and full featured as iTunes - no way!
Most importantly the sound quality of mp3 vs AAC is definitely inferior. MP3 tracks sound compressed and have no headroom. I've listened to many Amazon mp3 tracks and compared them to iTunes AAC and iTunes wins hands down. AAC tracks have a natural, spacious sound - that's because the waveform of AAC codec output very closely matches that of the source, whereas MP3 is very distorted.
I guess that for those whose eardrums have been so abused that they can't tell the difference, then mp3 at Amazon is the way to go. But for people with normal or exceptional hearing, AAC sounds so much better regardless of the bitrate, there's simply no contest.
Also iTunes offers a better music download shopping experience.
However it's not nearly as nice and full featured as iTunes - no way!
Most importantly the sound quality of mp3 vs AAC is definitely inferior. MP3 tracks sound compressed and have no headroom. I've listened to many Amazon mp3 tracks and compared them to iTunes AAC and iTunes wins hands down. AAC tracks have a natural, spacious sound - that's because the waveform of AAC codec output very closely matches that of the source, whereas MP3 is very distorted.
I guess that for those whose eardrums have been so abused that they can't tell the difference, then mp3 at Amazon is the way to go. But for people with normal or exceptional hearing, AAC sounds so much better regardless of the bitrate, there's simply no contest.
Also iTunes offers a better music download shopping experience.
Did I not read that Apple Corp. have now passed all copyright of 'Apple' to Apple Inc. Apple Corp. now use the 'Apple' name with Apple Inc.'s permission?
You are correct.The last settlement gave Apple,Inc. full control over the name Apple and in fact Apple,Inc. did indeed license the name back to Apple Corps.
Apple,Inc. can do whatever it wants to do in regards to any type of music label.
That's interesting. I guess Apple paid Apple Corps a crapload of cash for that, otherwise I can't think of why Apple Corps would agree to it. Pretty cool though for Apple. They no longer have to deal with this copyright crap.
One misstep after another. The music industry is amazing in how persistent they are in not getting it.
I'd love to see a breakdown of what Apple sells on iTunes because I'm betting that the bulk of their music sales are not corporate and mainstream stuff. If it was, you can bet Apple would be begging and pleading with them to stay, but Apple's refusal to cave in (as well as their anti-DRM stance) speaks volumes. The great thing about iTunes is that indie artists and non-rock music are now just as accessible as the corporate bands. You can find that stuff just as easily now. You no longer have to dig through the stuff in the back of some dingy store hoping to strike gold. It's right there, waiting to pop up in a search and be downloaded.
The worst thing the corporate labels can do right now is run away from that, but there they go. I think a band's presence on iTunes is going to be a very important factor in their success and the more the music corporations shy away from it, the more the indie artists will get the spotlight and the more they will sell their stuff. And no, I'm not saying that because I'm rooting for Apple's success or because I'm an indie music fan. I'm saying that because iTunes is the de facto music download store right now and there's no way these guys are going to be able to undercut that. Pulling your goods out of such a store seems about as wise as shooting yourself in the foot.
I'd love to see a breakdown of what Apple sells on iTunes because I'm betting that the bulk of their music sales are not corporate and mainstream stuff. If it was, you can bet Apple would be begging and pleading with them to stay, but Apple's refusal to cave in (as well as their anti-DRM stance) speaks volumes. The great thing about iTunes is that indie artists and non-rock music are now just as accessible as the corporate bands. You can find that stuff just as easily now. You no longer have to dig through the stuff in the back of some dingy store hoping to strike gold. It's right there, waiting to pop up in a search and be downloaded.
The worst thing the corporate labels can do right now is run away from that, but there they go. I think a band's presence on iTunes is going to be a very important factor in their success and the more the music corporations shy away from it, the more the indie artists will get the spotlight and the more they will sell their stuff. And no, I'm not saying that because I'm rooting for Apple's success or because I'm an indie music fan. I'm saying that because iTunes is the de facto music download store right now and there's no way these guys are going to be able to undercut that. Pulling your goods out of such a store seems about as wise as shooting yourself in the foot.
Wait you mean you can't put velvet ropes around a section of sidewalk and institute a 16 dollar cover charge?
Where have I heard that model before? oh yeah. THE RECORD INDUSTRY
Where have I heard that model before? oh yeah. THE RECORD INDUSTRY
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Apple has no monopoly on music downloads as there is no barrier to entry. The fact that Amazon is competing is proof of that. Past competitor incompetence does not equate to a monopoly.
tmay