Music execs pulling plug on Apple.

[Zebo]

But some music executives have been chafing at the flat rate that Apple has insisted upon in its contracts with the big record labels, and they have been pressing publicly or privately for the right to charge Apple more for popular songs to capitalize on demand or, in the event of special promotions, to charge less. Edgar Bronfman Jr., the chairman of Warner Music Group, reinforced that idea at a recent investor conference, saying ?we believe that not every song, not every artist, not every album, is created equal.?

In the backdrop of the pricing dispute is an investigation by European regulators who are studying the roles of the music companies and Apple in setting prices in certain international markets.

At the same time, Mr. Jobs has refused the industry?s calls for Apple to license its proprietary copy restriction software to other manufacturers. Music executives want the software to be shared so that services other than iTunes can sell music that can be played on the iPod, and so that other devices can play songs bought from iTunes.

Little Stevie has always been a control freak and thats what almost killed apple computers, not licensing the OS or even apps to third party manufacturers and software developers. Now it looks like his tight fisted control is about to sink Apples lead again... this time as the premier mp3 player maker and digital content store (ipod and itunes respectively) for not sharing the wealth. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07...rsal.html?ref=business

 

[Kaido]

I love the iTunes store because I can find 99% of the music I want for 99 cents. This would be a major bummer if it comes true

 

[0roo0roo]

sad ms wouldn't stand up to the riaa, only apple to fight for us grr

 

[Nothinman]

sad ms wouldn't stand up to the riaa, only apple to fight for us grr

"Fight for us"? Looks to me like he's only fighting for himself and to keep his virtual monopoly of online music sales intact.

 

[ViRGE]

The RIAA has been fighting Apple on this for the last 3 years. This is nothing new.

 

[bearxor]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Little Stevie has always been a control freak and thats what almost killed apple computers, not licensing the OS or even apps to third party manufacturers and software developers.

Not that I disagree that Jobs is a control freak, but you do realize the clone program almost broke Apple back in the mid-90's. Like him or hate him, Jobs turned Apple back around when he came back on board and eliminating the clone program was one step that was taken.

Whether or not a clone program would work today is a debate for another thread...

 

[Zebo]

Mid 90's standard was already made, IBM PC's so there was a limited market and Apple couldnt afford others cannibalizing their limited fixed sales. I'm talking about stanglehold choices Jobs made in the early 80s by Apple, IBM and Microsoft respectively when Apple was king.

 

[Bowsky]

While Steve Jobs is trying to be controlling in this situation, it is hard to argue that he is not fighting on the side of the consumer. As mentioned, the record labels have frequently tried to re-negotiate higher prices on certain songs with Apple. Steve has always held to the idea of a flat rate.

Some may object to this thought, but the 99c per track has been beneficial to the consumer. It has helped eliminate confusion. Imagine if the record companies we're allowed to set their own varying pricing structure. "Songs for only $0.50 - $2.50". Where the price of certain songs may change arbitrarily. For the most part the fixed system has also save the consumer money. It is no secrete that the music companies want to charge more for the most popular songs, which is in all likely hood what the strong majority of customers use the program for.

Let's not also forget that iTunes has recently started selling DRM free songs from EMI. There is no doubt after Steve Job's public letter resenting DRM, that he is putting pressure on the other labels to follow suite. Many have been quite vocally against it.

Sorry for the lack of links, but if you have been following the iTunes saga at all, you'll know where to find them. Also, for those of you who are looking there are some holes in my argument, e.g. "iTunes DRM free tracks break the flat rate policy". I would address these, but it is late where I am.

 

[bearxor]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Mid 90's standard was already made, IBM PC's so there was a limited market and Apple couldnt afford others cannibalizing their limited fixed sales. I'm talking about stanglehold choices Jobs made in the early 80s by Apple, IBM and Microsoft respectively when Apple was king.

I see. So it's too late now as well right?

I don't have an iTunes account. Don't care about it but I agree that Steve has fought to keep the songs a flat rate for a few years now. They would probably jack the price of popular songs up to 1.99 while lowering older songs down to .75. Everyone would definitely end up paying more in the end.

Pressure to release DRM-free songs probably also lends to this "breakup". Apple and Microsoft have been quite honest with how they feel about DRM.

I say let Universal leave. A couple of quarters of lower-income will put pressure for them to come back and probably even better terms for Apple than what they're asking for now.

 

[0roo0roo]

yup, the music industry has been trying to kill itunes for a while now. they simply don't like selling songs one by one, they like selling albums where they can package a bunch of garbage songs along with 2 or 3 good ones and make a juicy profit on all of them. they've had that racket so long they can't deal with losing it.

"
"Fight for us"? Looks to me like he's only fighting for himself and to keep his virtual monopoly of online music sales intact. "

sorry dude, there is no monopoly really. the music companies are free to let anyone else sell music in any form they want..perhaps even mp3. but they simply wont is all, its not as if they have no choice. frankly they could kill jobs itunes in a single blow with an allofmp3 type site. only thing stopping them is the consistent stupidity of the riaa. as it stands they would rather only give lip service to making online sales viable if they had a choice, they would be like the mpaa setting up online video sales sites that are so drm'd and valueless that no one in their right mind would bother, but then they could claim they tried when ranting about piracy. itunes was an accidental monster that grew so big that they couldn't control it and thats good. as flawed as it is, its the only thing keeping them in line at all.

 

[Nothinman]

sorry dude, there is no monopoly really.

Name one other even semi-successful online music reseller besides iTunes.

they would be like the mpaa setting up online video sales sites that are so drm'd and valueless that no one in their right mind would bother, but then they could claim they tried when ranting about piracy

You mean like they did with bittorrent.com?

itunes was an accidental monster that grew so big that they couldn't control it and thats good. as flawed as it is, its the only thing keeping them in line at all.

The line it's keeping them in is one created by Jobs' and how is that any better than a line created by anyone else who's determined to keep a stranglehold on a market?

 

[preslove]

Apple barely makes any money off the music sales, after the costs of running the whole iTunes infrastructure is taken into account. Its sole purpose is to keep people buying iPods, not make $ directly. The music labels just wants to screw up online distribution just like they screwed up the established industry. By "screw up" I mean screw consumers on prices and almost dare them to pirate.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> sorry dude, there is no monopoly really. </end quote></div>

Name one other even semi-successful online music reseller besides iTunes.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> they would be like the mpaa setting up online video sales sites that are so drm'd and valueless that no one in their right mind would bother, but then they could claim they tried when ranting about piracy</end quote></div>

You mean like they did with bittorrent.com?

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> itunes was an accidental monster that grew so big that they couldn't control it and thats good. as flawed as it is, its the only thing keeping them in line at all. </end quote></div>

The line it's keeping them in is one created by Jobs' and how is that any better than a line created by anyone else who's determined to keep a stranglehold on a market?

That's not due to a monopoly, that's because iTunes / iPod is better! EMusic, Amazon, Microsoft (many times), Rhapsody, etc. etc. have tried the online music thing - even yahoo and walmart undercutting them on price. Consumers picked apple/itunes, so they won.

 

[Nothinman]

That's not due to a monopoly, that's because iTunes / iPod is better!

A monopoly is the result, not the cause...

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> sorry dude, there is no monopoly really. </end quote></div>

Name one other even semi-successful online music reseller besides iTunes.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> they would be like the mpaa setting up online video sales sites that are so drm'd and valueless that no one in their right mind would bother, but then they could claim they tried when ranting about piracy</end quote></div>

You mean like they did with bittorrent.com?

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> itunes was an accidental monster that grew so big that they couldn't control it and thats good. as flawed as it is, its the only thing keeping them in line at all. </end quote></div>

The line it's keeping them in is one created by Jobs' and how is that any better than a line created by anyone else who's determined to keep a stranglehold on a market?

because it wasn't created to screw the customer. the record companies would love to cut down the only thing keeping them from charging 1.99 a track and 15+ for an album. apple isn't determined to keep a stranglehold, they can't help the fact that they are popular. they have the best selection for a fair price. there isn't any reason you can't sell mp3s, they work fine on the ipod. there is plenty of room for competition, you just have to be willing to compete.

 

[Nothinman]

apple isn't determined to keep a stranglehold, they can't help the fact that they are popular.

They can't help it but they sure as hell aren't regretting it and yes they will do whatever they need to do to maintain their monopoly because they're a for-profit organization and that's what they do.

there is plenty of room for competition, you just have to be willing to compete.

Windows users like to say the same thing and to a point it's true, but only to a very small extent. The phrases "willing to compete" and "able to gain marketshare against a monopoly" aren't equal.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> apple isn't determined to keep a stranglehold, they can't help the fact that they are popular. </end quote></div>

They can't help it but they sure as hell aren't regretting it and yes they will do whatever they need to do to maintain their monopoly because they're a for-profit organization and that's what they do.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> there is plenty of room for competition, you just have to be willing to compete. </end quote></div>

Windows users like to say the same thing and to a point it's true, but only to a very small extent. The phrases "willing to compete" and "able to gain marketshare against a monopoly" aren't equal.

eh. i think windows is a monopoly. i think microsoft uses money to buy leverage in the market, be it from OEMs or retail stores, or whatever else.

apple isn't stopping anyone from selling music. as far as i know they don't have any exclusive contracts. you can't tell me the music industry couldn't sell music direct for 99 cents using the mp3 format, but they won't, because they can't control it and they don't want to sell for 99 cents. if anything the music industry themselves are forcing any "monopoly" that might exist.

 

[Nothinman]

eh. i think windows is a monopoly.

Well considering that's already been proven in court you'd have to be an idiot or a blind zealot to believe otherwise.

apple isn't stopping anyone from selling music.

MS isn't directly stopping anyone from selling software either, it's just that they've got people so reliant on their software that it's virtually impossible to make any headway against them. Sure they might do the occasional dirty trick of buying a competitor and rereleasing their software with a new name but that's nothing new and MS definitely isn't the worst. And I really doubt Apple would be any better than MS if they were in their position, in fact I'd guess that they'd be worse since they're so much more controlling of the hardware in addition to their software.

you can't tell me the music industry couldn't sell music direct for 99 cents using the mp3 format, but they won't, because they can't control it and they don't want to sell for 99 cents. if anything the music industry themselves are forcing any "monopoly" that might exist.

Actually they are, EMI started selling non-DRM music via iTunes around a month ago. I'm not sure if the files are MP3s but that's orthogonal and there would likely be complaining if it was MP3 anyway since mpeg compression is so lossy.

 

[randomlinh]

DRM free on itunes is NOT mp3, still aac. EMI is doing this with others too, so mp3's are a potential. I know trance/dance sites that sell mp3's at about $2/song, watermarked mp3's. While I don't agree on the pricing, why not do that now? I mean, the iTS stuff is essentially that, watermarked aac files.

regardless of if universal pulls out, I want to see apple push for drm free for indie bands and unsigned artists. Not that I know of many, but I'm slowly finding stuff.

 

[Nothinman]

DRM free on itunes is NOT mp3, still aac

And? AAC is essentially the successor to MP3 so what's the problem?

 

[note235]

thats why we pirate the songs

Rebellion

we the People need to stand up and fight ( or in this case, stop buying the songs and download them)

too crazy

 

[Nothinman]

Or how about just not buying/listening to them in the first place? Do you really think it's ok to steal something just because you don't like the price or the terms?

 

[n0cmonkey]

I buy less than 5 cds per year. I buy even fewer tracks from iTunes. My rebellion.

 

[Nothinman]

Same here, I listen to the radio when I'm driving but that's about it.

 

[0roo0roo]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Nothinman
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> sorry dude, there is no monopoly really. </end quote></div>

Name one other even semi-successful online music reseller besides iTunes.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> they would be like the mpaa setting up online video sales sites that are so drm'd and valueless that no one in their right mind would bother, but then they could claim they tried when ranting about piracy</end quote></div>

You mean like they did with bittorrent.com?

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote> itunes was an accidental monster that grew so big that they couldn't control it and thats good. as flawed as it is, its the only thing keeping them in line at all. </end quote></div>

The line it's keeping them in is one created by Jobs' and how is that any better than a line created by anyone else who's determined to keep a stranglehold on a market?</end quote></div>

there is no monopoly or strangle hold. the ipod plays mp3s for one. a non drm'd format. or even non drm aac. the only thing stopping a competitor is the music industry not dealing with them in a fair way. if jobs wanted a stangle hold the ipod wouldn't have played mp3 but drm only formats. the door is wide open. the music industry simply doesn't want another steve jobs standing on their necks. the door is wide open for an allofmp3.com type site with reasonable prices like itunes to walk in and slam itunes into oblivion, or atleast give it a good wackin. the only thing preventing this is the fear and stupidity of the riaa. it really doesn't count as a monopoly when the only barrier to competition is stupidity and fear by those with the power to easily compete.