[nath]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33850.html

i'm not trolling!

just thought this was a pretty interesting and balanced look at the way the record companies are making it so hard for tech companies to legitamise downloading music.

[CatOne]

Originally posted by nath:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33850.html

i'm not trolling!

just thought this was a pretty interesting and balanced look at the way the record companies are making it so hard for tech companies to legitamise downloading music.

I think it's rather silly... they really neglect to bring up the fact that the music store has been stated as motivation for getting people to buying more iPods.

[nath]

Originally posted by CatOne:
I think it's rather silly... they really neglect to bring up the fact that the music store has been stated as motivation for getting people to buying more iPods.

well done for trotting out the party line.




but i think the article is a little wider in its implications than the fortunes of apple.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by nath:
but i think the article is a little wider in its implications than the fortunes of apple.

i don't. apple is a hardware company and always has been. in a sense, the music store is nothing more than a form of advertising for apple hardware.

-r.

[nath]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
i don't. apple is a hardware company and always has been. in a sense, the music store is nothing more than a form of advertising for apple hardware.

-r.

the wider point being made is that apple have allowed the RIAA to continuing their racketeering. i take your point re hardware sales, and of course giving the record companies so big a cut has given apple a massive head start in the market. However there will be a ceiling for iPod sales and the more successful the store is, the more the infrastructure costs will increase.

[NeXTLoop]

There was an excellent article at the MacObserver about the Register article. Below is the relevant portion that really puts the whole thing in perspective....

I like Andrew Orlowski, but in this case he is just wrong. What he is missing is the fact that the current relationship between Apple, the labels, and the artists is not the way it will always be. I've already explained this in great detail, but Apple will soon, or eventually, be in the position of dealing directly with the artists. That means cutting the useless labels out of the equation is all but a certainty, unless they actually become productive partners. Apple is already working with CD Baby!, an independent distribution house that offers artists far better terms than the major labels, and that's just the beginning IMNHO.


Remember that Apple's contract with the labels lasts for only a year. When that was first revealed, many thought it was because the labels would want to hold Apple over a barrel at the end of that year. Dave Hamilton and I were discussing just yesterday that it is likely Apple that will be doing the holding, and the labels who will find themselves scrambling to keep in Apple's good graces. Remember, it is the labels that are making obscene profits from the iTMS, and they are going to want that to keep on keepin' on as CD sales fall and digital downloads increase.


Artists, too, are going to be in the position of renegotiating their own contracts. Once the super stars start claiming their proper cuts from digital sales, smaller artists will be able to also get a fair(er) shake, and don't forget that some of those artists could start dealing directly, or more directly, with Apple and the other download services.


This will lead to lower prices and the artists making more money, and that is what is inevitable.


The current situation with 99 cents a download and obscene profits for the labels, and no one else, is indeed doomed, but it is the iTMS (and by extension those competing services that remain competitive) that will be in the position to change with the times.

[nath]

thanks, that's a really interesting piece. Let's hope that's the way it goes!


[QUOTE]Originally posted by NeXTLoop:
[B]There was an excellent article at the MacObserver about the Register article. Below is the relevant portion that really puts the whole thing in perspective....

[tooki]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
i don't. apple is a hardware company and always has been. in a sense, the music store is nothing more than a form of advertising for apple hardware.

Read it again, it does mention it.

tooki

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by tooki:
Read it again, it does mention it.

tooki

i know that. i caught it the first time through. he can talk about wider implications all he likes, i just disagree and don't think they matter.

-r.

[nickm]

Apple is already working with CD Baby!, an independent distribution house that offers artists far better terms than the major labels

Is Apple actually working with CD baby? At the second music event, Steve said basically, "Some places will let you put up an album in their online store for $40. We don't want that crap". I thought CD Baby was one of those outfits. In fact, if you check CD Baby, iTunes is specifically not mentioned while everyone else is.

[nickm]

Hrm. This interview is from Oct. 8th and does say that CD Baby is on board the iTMS. I wonder what the deal is?

[Angus_D]

The deal is that you can pay CD Baby $40 and they'll consider submitting your music to the iTMS, who in turn will consider accepting it. At least, that's the impression I was under.

[kent m]

Originally posted by CatOne:
I think it's rather silly... they really neglect to bring up the fact that the music store has been stated as motivation for getting people to buying more iPods.

"So now we have it on record: the music store is a loss leader. Jobs said Apple would pay its dues to the RIAA, then seek to make money where it could, from its line of hardware accessories. When the conversation turned to rivals such as eTunes and Napster, Jobs said: "They don't make iPods, so they don't have a related business where they do [make money]"."