[alphasubzero949]

Warner chief threatens to scalp iTunes

A Warner Music executive has threatened to cut off Apple if Steve Jobs continues to refuse to give ground on iTunes Music Store pricing.
Digital strategy chief Michael Nash said during a discussion at a wireless telecoms conference that the music industry has let Apple get too much power in the digital downloads market.

'What if Jobs says 39 cents or 29 cents per download - what then?,' he said. 'The industry can say, OK we'll cut him off - very few people buy music from digital downloads.'

He added that he is sure that the Apple CEO would find another way to sell iPods.

Nash's comments echoes those made last week by Warner CEO Edgar Bronfman, who called for Apple to adopt variable pricing and share out revenues from iPod sales.

Time to hit up P2P.

[Kevin]

This will be yet another example of their greed.

No one is asking 39 or 29 cents to be set.

Pure FUD.

[Kerrigan]

Jobs' ego could be the end of his media dreams. I hope he's learned his lesson the first time around in the 80s.

[Kevin]

I don't think this has to do with ego. Buy self respect maybe?

[alphasubzero949]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Jobs' ego could be the end of his media dreams. I hope he's learned his lesson the first time around in the 80s.

Don't underestimate Jobs' ego. Warner should go talk to Disney for advice about screwing with teh Steve at the table. Tell me that Disney is still churning out hit films after Pixar packed their bags.

What I find amusing is that the ********* from Warner is talking as if Apple needs them to stay afloat in the digital music arena.

[loki74]

Hmm.. well him wanting a little more information as far as Apple's plans for the pricing is resonable IMO. But this is totally the wrong way to go about it. But what this--

share out revenues from iPod sales.

OKAY WTF???? Share out revenues from iPod sales??? can you say "rip-roarin' RIDICULOUS??" Yeah, we invent a machine that plays music, but we should give you a cut of its profits because you have music? pffft. right.

[Kerrigan]

Record companies are greedy, I'm not defending them, but they also play hardball and Apple needs to be careful. The iPod didn't become a hit until the iTMS was released with the support of all the major labels. It may very well be that the success of the iPod depends on the iTMS. If Warner were to pull out then the whole thing could collapse like a house of cards.

Warner could also start spreading FUD and get the RIAA to go after iPod users. Remember, these are the companies that have practically shut down P2P by suing old ladies and children and anyone else just to make an example; they are ruthless.

Jobs can't go around biting the hand that feeds him, it's bad for Apple.

[PurpleGiant]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The iPod didn't become a hit until the iTMS was released with the support of all the major labels. It may very well be that the success of the iPod depends on the iTMS.

Why then, is the iPod a massive success in Australia too - when all the legal download services here don't work with it?

iTMS definitely is not the reason the iPod is a hit. It's form, function, capacity, style and marketing are the reason for it's success.

[Cubeoid]

those bastardas!

[Wiskedjak]

meh ... I don't buy or listen to anything put out by the major labels

[teney7]

I hate record companies. F Them.

[ApplCmptrDood]

"I hate record companies. F Them."
Here Here! I can't believe Warner. They will lose a lot of money from this...

[Salty]

Apple just needs to start bundling Xfactor Seriously I don't pirate reallly I have maybe 30 songs in total that I don't own on CD or from iTunes out of my 1800 songs. But if they kill the iTMS I'll probably start pirating.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The iPod didn't become a hit until the iTMS was released with the support of all the major labels.

It may very well be that the success of the iPod depends on the iTMS. If Warner were to pull out then the whole thing could collapse like a house of cards.

Jobs can't go around biting the hand that feeds him, it's bad for Apple.

Yeah, none of that is well thought out.
While its possible the ITMS would fold without cooperation from the labels the iPod's success is not dependent on its existence anymore and I doubt it ever was. The whole iPod brand is now far too entrenched into consumer's minds as the iconic must-have MP3 player. Everyone and their mother is familiar with what the iPod is and they can easily differentiate between it and its competitors. Given its foothold in the market and the expanded line that now runs the whole range of price points it has legs on it for at least another 5-7 years just from the current momentum.

Additionally, Apple makes so little money from each iTMS transaction it is not going to hurt them financially. So long as they keep the integration with the iTunes software and non-DRM MP3 remains the most popular format for people to store their music in then the products and profits will survive. It is the functionallity between the software and MP3 player that is the crowd pleaser not the storefront.

To be honest I always figured that the iTMS was destined to die in its current incarnation. The whole process of buying music online has to be standardized and compatibility to play purchased music has to be there no matter the player's brand. Until that is all worked out by the two or three yet-to-be-determined companies that will be the big players the industry will go back and forth like a seesaw.

[OreoCookie]

Seeing as 2/3 of the price are costs, just for Apple, I don't see how to lower the price to 39 or 29 cents. Pure FUD. The majors are just afraid that there is something beyond their control. If they kill the iTunes Music Store, I'll just go back to P2P for things I don't find used on amazon.

[moodymonster]

Warner are control freaks.

They messed up the video rental market with the dual pricing/simultaneous retail release.

And those cardboard boxes they used to package their DVDs, wtf?

[porieux]

...

[Y3a]

The coke heads at warner are nuts. There current music isn't WORTH more than 29 cents a tune. in the 80's, Warner used to sell lots of warped LP's and say no skips no refund/replacement.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Jobs' ego could be the end of his media dreams. I hope he's learned his lesson the first time around in the 80s.

Puh-leeze. Who is going to spend $2.99 per single? Are you?

The record companies are getting like 70¢ on each song, right? And Apple's had more than half a billion downloads, right?

Do the math. The record companies are greedy bastards. And stupid too.

[Super Mario]

hee hee hee Apple has the money, the studios, and the distribution on internet and retail shops to start its own music company. They can sign artists and keep all the profit for Apple and the artists. Then whats going to happen if a Apple/Pixar Music Productions happens, heh Warner?

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Y3a

The coke heads at warner are nuts. There current music isn't WORTH more than 29 cents a tune. in the 80's, Warner used to sell lots of warped LP's and say no skips no refund/replacement.

The coke heads who make the music are nuts too if they say nothing. Who wants to buy their singles for more than 99 cents for nothing material?

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Randman

The record companies are greedy bastards.

This cannot possibly be repeated often enough. Artists, publish your music independently. Listeners, buy independently produced music.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by Super Mario

hee hee hee Apple has the money, the studios, and the distribution on internet and retail shops to start its own music company.

It's been addressed many times before. Apple can't do this because of the legal deal with the Beatles' Apple.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Randman

It's been addressed many times before. Apple can't do this because of the legal deal with the Beatles' Apple.

Psss, Pixar? I wrote that too.

[Randman]

Pixar and Apple are separate companies.

[ShotgunEd]

Originally Posted by Randman

It's been addressed many times before. Apple can't do this because of the legal deal with the Beatles' Apple.

Of course they can, they just can't use the name Apple.

Why do you think iPod ads don't say Apple anywhere?

They use use the logo but never the name.

[JoshuaZ]

Steve is the man!

[Salty]

Actually I could see Steve using Pixar to start a label .

Or at least buy a smaller label and then make it really big really fast if the labels try this sorta crap.

[Rob van dam]

Originally Posted by ShotgunEd

Of course they can, they just can't use the name Apple.

Why do you think iPod ads don't say Apple anywhere?

They use use the logo but never the name.

what if paul macartney joined the apple board of directors maybe apple could have some right's to an "apple branded" record company

[typoon]

The record industry really ticks me off. They are sueing everyone and their grandmother for illegal downloads and now tha there is a LEGAL way to download music they want to shoot themselves in the foot and take 3 steps back.

[turtle777]

FUD.

iPods work well with mp3's from P2P, so chose your death, sucker !

-t

[Kevin]

Yeah most people I know that have iPods don't even USE the store.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yeah most people I know that have iPods don't even USE the store.

I don't. I wouldn't even think about buying music that's not on a CD. I want to have a hard copy. I bought 1 song from the iTunes store when it just came out just to try it.

[SirCastor]

Maybe we ought to start some sort of letter writing campaign. A few thousand letters to WB might convince them that we're not interested in paying more, and since the power remains with us to get music in an extra-legal fashion, we'll pursue it. Then they get nothing.

[ShotgunEd]

I use the store for convenience. I'd rather own a physical object.

I've bought two albums from the iTMS
Neil Young - Prarie Wind
Smog - A River Ain't Too Much Love

I have a full 20GB iPod from ripping my CDs.

[Chuckmcd]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

This cannot possibly be repeated often enough. Artists, publish your music independently. Listeners, buy independently produced music.

I can't argue with this... it's true. The problem is distribution and sales. I have a friend who is a Christian musician/youth pastor. He'd been churning out indy record with his band(s) for 10 years, until one of his records was heard by someone in league with a label. At the time most of the other members of the band we're doing odd jobs and struggling to make ends meet. The lead singer was okay, because he had a full time job that allowed him to do the band thing too since it was part of their ministry. Since they've been signed they've exploded, even got a write up in Rolling Stone this month (unusual for a Christian band)... Now they're all living off what they make as artists (except my friend who's still a youth pastor too).

Without the support/promotion/backing of a label... relatively no one would have ever heard of them.

I'm not a big fan of the RIAA, but what good is it to spend your life struggling to make ends meet when you're good enough to do very well, you're just need the exposure.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I don't. I wouldn't even think about buying music that's not on a CD. I want to have a hard copy.

That's exactly the opposite of my thinking. I hate having so many CDs lying around when I only listen to music on my Mac and iPod. Now I only buy CDs if they are significantly cheaper or unavailable on the iTMS.

[stevesnj]

Its an empty threat...so Warner would rather stop all profit ftom ITMS? huh I doubt it

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stevesnj

Its an empty threat...so Warner would rather stop all profit ftom ITMS? huh I doubt it

I wouldn't put it past a music label to to do exactly that if they can't have more profit. I'm sure ITMS only amounts to a small percentage of their profit margin, especially now that they can't force customers to purchase 7 crappy songs in order to get 3 mediocre ones.

Remember, music labels don't behave in a logical manner.

[Gee4orce]

You know, I'm getting more and more to thinking that it could be the BEST thing in the long run for the record companies to pull the plug. Why ? Because then Apple will set up as a label in their own right - yeah, Apple Records can go f*ck themselves - and then sign up artists for download-only distribution. Artists get a bigger share of the royalties, Apple actually makes a profit off iTunes, and the record companies are out in the cold.

OK - so maybe it's a couple of years too early. But in 5 years time everybody will be downloading their music. Record shops will be more like antique collectors shops. The record companies know it - and they also know that nobody has been able to come up with a download experience that comes anywhere close to iTunes/iPod.

The way it see it, Apple holds most of the cards in this game. The record companies see it too - their position is weakening by the day. If they are going to pull the plug it has to be now or never....

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

You know, I'm getting more and more to thinking that it could be the BEST thing in the long run for the record companies to pull the plug. Why ? Because then Apple will set up as a label in their own right - yeah, Apple Records can go f*ck themselves - and then sign up artists for download-only distribution.

I was thinking the same thing. And I suspect that Jobs might have had similar thoughts. Especially with the popularity of the iPod, artists would be clamouring to be on board.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

But in 5 years time everybody will be downloading their music. Record shops will be more like antique collectors shops. The record companies know it - and they also know that nobody has been able to come up with a download experience that comes anywhere close to iTunes/iPod.

Not if the iTMS continues to offer inferior quality downloads. I'll keep buying CDs for albums. I haven't downloaded much from the iTMS.

Mike

[mdc]

Originally Posted by lavar78

That's exactly the opposite of my thinking. I hate having so many CDs lying around when I only listen to music on my Mac and iPod. Now I only buy CDs if they are significantly cheaper or unavailable on the iTMS.

my thoughts exactly.
i buy around 20 or so albums a year all from the iTunes store since i don't like, nor have any use after an import, of the cds. The only times i have bought a cd in recent memory is when i went to a show, bought them, and got them signed by the artists.

Now they sit on my shelf.

[starman]

For MOST of their life, yes, my CDs have now become the "master archives", but when I get a chance to sit and listen to a CD on my good system, I use the CD. At 60 MPH with the window down, it doesn't matter how good your iPod sounds. My concern lately has been space, but I could solve that problem by keeping certain CDs in the main room, and lesser used ones elsewhere.

Mike

[olePigeon]

I like to buy CDs ever since I reformatted my comptuer and forgot to back up the songs I bought. I'll download from iTMS, but only if I got it for free or something (like a soda cap or gift card.)