Warner Music Considering Not Renewing Long-Term iTunes Contract

[ajhill]

They never learn

Threatening to leave iTunes is like Proctor and Gamble threatening to leave Walmart. You may not like the 800 lb Gorilla, but if you want to sell products to the masses you need to go where the market is. And that IS NOW and will continue to be iTunes.

Analysts and critics don't understand that iTunes succeeds because it is a fully integrated, well oiled machine that is so simple to use that everyone loves it.

The few critics here may have their annoyances and choose to go elsewhere in protest, but the masses will go with what is the simplest and popular. And that's Apple and iTunes.

It will TRULY be news when a major label decides to give up all the revenue because they don't like Apple. The bastards, Apple saves their but and this is how they thank them?

Al

 

[joeshell383]

...and Apple will have the upperhand. So, they'll leave, and then Apple will dictate how and how much they will be paying to return to iTunes, THE MOST POPULAR ONLINE STORE. Do they realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot? I know friends <ahem> that gladly paid a year pass for Heroes... now, its which BT has the best version for the Apple TV...

They have the content and "content is king". I'm not sure why people seem to get that mixed up. If they pull out of iTunes, they are still in business. The reverse is not true for the iTunes store.

 

[F.D.]

All of you.......you're not looking at the big picture here!

This is bad. Right now, iPods represent roughly 80% of the market. However, if music labels begin to abandon iTunes, then that means there will be less and less of a selction available on iTues for customers to purchase, which means less and less people will buy iPods because the iTune selection doesn't carry "their song", which means the customer will begin to buy brand-x MP3 player, which means less songs are purchased off iTunes, which means more label companies will drop because they aren't making money, which means less people buy iPods because "their song" isn't on iTunes......etc, etc.

Not good Apple. Work it out, share a popscile. Play nice.

You're wrong. A recent independent survey discovered that only 5% of iPod owners buy their music from iTunes. And the maths back it up.

Around 100,000,000 iPods sold. Around 3 billion songs sold. That works out at around 30 songs for every Ipod sold.

Looking at these figures, one could comfortably assume that Apple could shut down the iTunes Music Store tomorrow with barely a dent to iPod sales.

 

[Cinch]

content control business?

Apple as I recall is in the hardware individuality-lifestyle centric business. When did they get into the content control business? I agree with Warner Music, NBC and any other content creators that want to break away from iTunes.

I just delete several Podcasts (video) today and opt for NBC and Discovery Channel websites instead. These two websites take time to navigate to shows, but I like the fact that I can replace TV with my MacBook. Wouldn't it be nice to have a website where you can browse all shows on TV and then set a play list with only a few clicks (I'm not talking about youtube).

Apple is becoming Microsoft. Disclaimer, I no longer own AAPL.

Cinch

 

[Yuppi]

iTMS is no longer attractive. Well it is "ok" to have an integrated shopping in a client. And the reason that it worked so extremly well is mostly because the competitors sucked. They tried to sell you some DRM stuff that was unusable on those players that I liked AND they were more expensive.
Now I discovered the indi labels for me, and I'm not willing to pay 9,99 EUR when I could pay 8,88 USD for an album. Especially when in the first case I receive a DRM-AAC and in the later case a high quality MP3.
The winds have changed, and as long Apple tries to insist on it's 0.99 sheme it's sales will decline as there is a better competition. And that is good for us. I don't buy from Apple because I'm a stupid fanboy, but because the stuff they sell is worth it's money. And that is not the case for iTMS any longer.

 

[hagjohn]

IMHO, it's a ploy by the labels/studios to get Apple to be less restrictive. Remember, labels/studios are use to being the big men on the block but Apple has come along with iTunes and they are not use to someone standing up to them.

 

[mustang_dvs]

Apple as I recall is in the hardware individuality-lifestyle centric business. When did they get into the content control business? I agree with Warner Music, NBC and any other content creators that want to break away from iTunes.

They're not in the "content control business. They're in the content distribution business. The fact that Apple wants a uniform pricing structure for similar products from different providers makes perfect sense to me.

I just delete several Podcasts (video) today and opt for NBC and Discovery Channel websites instead. These two websites take time to navigate to shows, but I like the fact that I can replace TV with my MacBook.

Glad that NBC's video website is working for you -- it hasn't worked for any of my computers for more than two weeks, no matter the browser or whether I'm over my home or office LANs. Lots of other users are having the same problem, NBC claims that they don't see it on their end, therefore it isn't a problem (link), which is truly a sign of understanding your market.

Apple is becoming Microsoft. Disclaimer, I no longer own AAPL.

I still don't understand what's driving this new meme -- it's the new "Apple is beleaguered" FUD. And frankly, the contents of your stock portfolio does not matter to me -- I'm pretty certain that you're not Warren Buffett.

 

[EagerDragon]

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.

That was settled out of court. Apple Corp dont even have the rights to "Apple Corp", they are now licencing it from "Apple Inc", they can no longer sue.

 

[pooryou]

iTunes and Amazon are both too expensive for lossy files. eMusic FTW!

 

[stakis]

I don't understand where this whole idea of Apple being a bully is a bad thing.

AS far as I'm concerned, don't we want Apple to stick it to the record companies??? I mean, if in, soon we will see single tracks for 3.99 or albums where the best song can only be purchased if the entire albums is purchased.

I think Apple should have a "take it or leave it" relationship with the labels because if they don't we "consumers" will just be the ones screwed over in the end.

Just my two sense

 

[lemikam]

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.

"Hasn't made up for it," no, you're absolutely right, it hasn't made up for it. I didn't say that the music industry was "saved," I only said that the majors were "brought back from the brink." The brink of being left up the digital creek without the digital paddle. They moved slowly. Apple dragged them into the future, more or less against their will.

Apple was vindicated and the majors are still trying to beat Apple at the game Apple basically invented; the majors will probably wind up losing. THIS is why they aren't saved yet. The majors refuse to dance with the one that brought them. They're gonna get burned...and even if they win on the iTunes Store front (which I don't think they will) Apple STILL sells more iPods. It's a win/win-a-bit-less situation for Apple and a win/lose for the majors. They're electing to put themselves in danger of losing for no fathomable reason.

And anybody who thinks the iPod can't survive without the iTunes Store is flatly out of their minds. People don't buy iPods because they like the iTunes Store; it's the other way around. The iPod is the "gateway drug" for the aspiring Mac addict. iTunes is the next logical step AFTER the iPod, not before.

 

[Cinch]

They're not in the "content control business. They're in the content distribution business. The fact that Apple wants a uniform pricing structure for similar products from different providers makes perfect sense to me.

Glad that NBC's video website is working for you -- it hasn't worked for any of my computers for more than two weeks, no matter the browser or whether I'm over my home or office LANs. Lots of other users are having the same problem, NBC claims that they don't see it on their end, therefore it isn't a problem (link), which is truly a sign of understanding your market.

I still don't understand what's driving this new meme -- it's the new "Apple is beleaguered" FUD. And frankly, the contents of your stock portfolio does not matter to me -- I'm pretty certain that you're not Warren Buffett.

It cost "This American Life" a PRI/NPR radio show, I believe $108K per year to have their program broadcast via podcast. Whether the consumer pays or not, the content creators have to sign contracts with Apple to distribute their materials via iTunes. Contracts may or may not include fees, and Apple is playing the unnecessary middleman IMHO.

My first comment was direct and critical of Apple, and I wanted to disclose my position for people to know where I'm coming from.

What is the harm in commenting on Apple's pricing structure of music and video?

The day we stop being critical of entities that have immense influence on our lives, is the day we abdicate our freedom and become consumer serfs. Doh! I forgot, I'm in the reality distortion field, Steve Jobs created to protect ourselves from our own ignorance.

Cinch

 

[Uragon]

I think iTunes and iPod are now too entrenched-and unstoppable:
Amazon has too many fingers in the pie, too late.
Plus Steve will have something up his sleeve.

I think you are quite correct with that assumption. If I am not mistaken, Apple is known in the past to do it themselves if nobody does or are hesitant to do it for the Mac platform.

 

[MacBoySeattle]

LOL All these threats of going back to Limewire and file sharing because company's won't play ball with Apple make me laugh.

The next time I turn on the News and see some metrosexual girly Mac user crying about losing in court after being sued by the RIAA, I will ofcourse have a bitch beer and laugh my butt off lol!

 

[GQB]

Nearly all of which will flounder.

That would be 'founder'... 'flounder' is a fish.
The labels will be hoist by their own petard.

 

[GQB]

How exactly did iTunes bully everyone around? I can see how you would say that as far as the record companies are conserned because Apple obviously did a lot of the pushing, but how did iTunes bully the customer?

P-Worm

By 'bullying around' most mean that Jobs forced labels to allow individual song downloads instead of bundling (i.e. have to buy 10 crappy songs to get 1 good one ala CDs), and standard pricing.
In other words, he stood up for his customers.

Bully away, Steve.

 

[GQB]

All of you.......you're not looking at the big picture here!

This is bad. Right now, iPods represent roughly 80% of the market. However, if music labels begin to abandon iTunes, then that means there will be less and less of a selction available on iTues for customers to purchase, which means less and less people will buy iPods because the iTune selection doesn't carry "their song", which means the customer will begin to buy brand-x MP3 player, which means less songs are purchased off iTunes, which means more label companies will drop because they aren't making money, which means less people buy iPods because "their song" isn't on iTunes......etc, etc.

Not good Apple. Work it out, share a popscile. Play nice.

Over 90% of music on most peoples' iPods comes from CD collections.
(Way over, if I remember correctly.)
I think the general concensus is correct, that if the recording industry insists on balkanizing the market, they will simply keep losing. I'm not going to hunt through multiple stores to find a particular song... That means no sale.

This will be ugly for a while, but this is really a time its good to have the biggest negotiating assole around on your side. Go get 'em Steve.

 

[GQB]

Yes, they are not leaving iTunes, but they just want it so if they want to, they can. It'll suck for Apple and probably make Apple less of a bully and possible bring more competition to the online music business, which is good for the consumers.

Its so sad seeing the Stockholm syndrome at work here.

Get this straight... we WANT to see Apple bullying the labels. Labels are EVIL. They do not want us to own our content... they want us to RENT it. They rape artists. They steal.

Apple's not perfect... its a corporation. But they're our only muscle.
Stop feeling sorry for the coke-snorting Hollywood crooks and look out for your own interests.

 

[mr.666]

after 3 years of legal music downloads i might have to go back to file sharing. oh well.....

Amen!
GRREEEEEEDDDYYY- these MF's STILL dont realize thet the price is what makes iTms a success- they want more more more!!! and for all of you morons defending the record co's and talking about competeition and how the artist will have a choice? you are just too clueless to deal with just shut up.

not all bands can pull a NIN or radiohead (good ideas) cuase they cant break free from these multi album **** deals they made. the only soulution to help a band directly and support them LIVE. buy a t-shirt or cd at the show so the mony goes in their pocket not the bitch ass labels!

 

[mr.666]

Its so sad seeing the Stockholm syndrome at work here.

Get this straight... we WANT to see Apple bullying the labels. Labels are EVIL. They do not want us to own our content... they want us to RENT it. They rape artists. They steal.

Apple's not perfect... its a corporation. But they're our only muscle.
Stop feeling sorry for the coke-snorting Hollywood crooks and look out for your own interests.

^^^^^^
damn straight GQB!!!!!

 

[GQB]

The day we stop being critical of entities that have immense influence on our lives, is the day we abdicate our freedom and become consumer serfs. Doh! I forgot, I'm in the reality distortion field, Steve Jobs created to protect ourselves from our own ignorance.

Cinch

We get it. You hate Apple. And somehow you think the labels are these poor little babies who represent our interests. Not sure where you've been for the past, oh, 30 years.
But cool. You obviously think your interests are on the side of guys who's claim to their consumers' interest so far has been $18 CDs with one hit and 10 crap fillers.
Stockholm... Stockholm... Stockholm.

 

[lazyrighteye]

DRM is not, nor ever will be, the answer for either consumers or content providers. Period.

Competition is good.
The "industry" is not.

Did I miss anything?

 

[GQB]

I mostly listen to older music so it kind of annoys me when I see older songs being sold for the same price as newer ones, even if the album price is much lower. And mind you, I'm not talking about Bob Dylan or other classic artists like that, I'm talking about random "filler" songs by the likes of Guns N' Roses. By all means, if a song is incredible and really popular even if it's old, then sell it at a higher price. But if it's just some random album track that was never released to radio? $1.08 including tax is too much unless the song is longer.

And you think that if the labels have their way, the price for older content will drop? Dream on. All that will happen will be that hits will jump to $3 per.
Not that I particularly care... like you I pretty much buy quality which means older.
But the labels treat their talent like commodities, so we need to treat the labels' product likewise.

BTW, any word on how the labels intend to distribute that quarter million they're choking out of that woman who lost the file download case a few weeks back? That'll all be going to their artists, right?

yeah... didn't think so.

 

[mustang_dvs]

It cost "This American Life" a PRI/NPR radio show, I believe $108K per year to have their program broadcast via podcast. Whether the consumer pays or not, the content creators have to sign contracts with Apple to distribute their materials via iTunes. Contracts may or may not include fees, and Apple is playing the unnecessary middleman IMHO.

Listing a Podcast through iTunes is totally free -- Apple simply provides a link to the content and a page about the content, as created by the uploader. Updates are handled by an RSS feed.

TAL's cost comes as a result of bandwidth costs and the copyright agreements with their contributors

...TAL’s rational is that their contract with contributors states they must pay the contributors for each download. This excuse is a little strange considering This American Life writes the contract. Altering future contracts, and making the episodes freely available for downloading/timeshifting is feasable (NPR has done it.)...

What is the harm in commenting on Apple's pricing structure of music and video?

The day we stop being critical of entities that have immense influence on our lives, is the day we abdicate our freedom and become consumer serfs.

There's nothing wrong with constructive comments -- Apple's pricing structure, to be sure isn't perfect (I think $1.99 for TV shows at less than 480p is too high, when DVD content costs less per episode to purchase, and is more costly to distribute). That said, I think a lot of comments seem to ignore than, at most, Apple gets 4-6% of the gross cost of the download, most of which is spent on infrastructure.

While I think corporate (or any other sort of) fanboyism is strange, I hold knee-jerk criticism in similarly low regard. The fact is that no for-profit company exists solely (or primarily) for the sake of benevolent philanthropy.

That said, I'd hate to say it, but in the modern age of media consolidation, we've already abdicated our freedoms, when Sumner Redstone can freely comment on the fact that a Republican Presidential candidate is more advantageous to Viacom's bottom line -- I can't imagine how that doesn't filter down to CBS's news division. The same with GE's influence over NBC and MSNBC, Time Warner's impact on CNN's "journalism" and Disney's influence on ABCnews. (Rupert Murdoc's influence on his "news" outlets is well documented.) It's unsurprising that the recent report illustrating that the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is now back to 1920's-era structures was suppressed by the very people who were portrayed in an unflattering light.

 

[MikeTheC]

Oh, c'mon people, what do you expect from an industry that promotes "artists" such as Britney Spears, J-Lo and the cretins who produce rap? (And no, I will not use the m- word in the same sentence as the r- word. )

Seriously, the Entertainment Injusticetry is so skewed, so corrupted, so screwed up and power hungry, are you really surprised by *anything* that they do?

I do not -- and will not -- support the music industry, due to it's own bad behavior and it's ties with the rest of the E.I. I will, however, support individual artists when they produce content I want, only when they produce content that I want, and only as long as they themselves don't adopt any bad business behaviors or practices.

We need to do something about the problem, folks, not just bitch about it.