Slashdot Mirror
Apple Plans to Purchase Universal Music
mrbiiggy writes "Apparently Apple has been plotting to purchase Universal Music for $6 billion, reports Spiegel Online (read the Google translation). Who knew Apple even had that kind of cash? (The L.A. Times is also reporting this, free reg required.)"
I buy my music on CD, although I only grab them off the shelf when I want to check out the cover art and lyrics. I suppose I might start buying electronically, but unless the price drops to reflect the savings on manufacturing and distribution, I don't really see the point. I still like having a tangible object to associate with the artist's work. (so much so that whenever there's a sale on I end up buying albums I like that I ripped from friends)
Steve must be pretty sure that he's got a killer reason if he's planning such a huge move. I suppose that killer reason could be big savings to the consumer, but somehow I doubt it. What else is he going to offer?
If the Universal execs gain the upper hand in the merger/takeover:
Rip... Mix... Burn... Sue...
If Apple execs gain the upper hand in the merger/takeover:
Buy... Rip... Mix... Burn...
~ kjrose
Despite Apple's rampant efforts to protect their own IP, they've been remarkably free, say compared to Microsoft, in distributing technology that allows more liberal uses of information.
This could be very good or very bad.
Free giveaways out of Universal's catalouge could be an incredible boost to sale of music-related hardware like the iPod or software like iMovie. We all need soundtracks, right?
On the other hand, apple could be planning on using their new acquisition in order to further lock apple users into a single platform with costly upgrades. The idea that comes to mind is that they will start making 'Apple Only' music releases that can only be played on Jobs-approved hardware.
Personally, I hope that Apple will use this aquisition to free up music and maybe some more of their own IP and use it to further hardware sales.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
What about that injunction from Apple Records (the old Beatles record company) preventing Apple Computer from getting into the music business? Anyone know if this would apply?
Reeses
Jobs is the only one that "gets" it. With Univeral being one of the largest record companies- this could change the face of music inthe digital age.
My fear is that it's such a big addition to apple- will they loss focus. Look at the problems sony electronics have trying to be cutting edge but catering to Sony music's fears of piracy.
And what about that pesky lawsuit with Apple Records. Apple was never to go into the music business.
the largest record company (LA Times) and a member of the RIAA, therefore are they the largest member of the RIAA?
brands have Zero value. time to re-engage modern american capitalism to reality.
Quicktime has some pretty strong DRM built in so I'd assume that would be their choice. Macs and MS Windows win, linux loses again (which sucks). BTW, IFAIK the iPod can't play QT files (just MP3, MP3 VBR, WAV, AIFF, and Audible) but changes to the firmware might change that.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Ok, this makes a certain odd amount of sense as far as why apple might want it. Gives them some freedom to push digital media in whatever direction suits them. (good, bad, or indifferent) It also diversifies the business a bit which given Apple's niche strategy cannot be entirely a bad idea. If they can't beat Dell/Microsoft head on, it might be best to try something else.
A big concern from a business standpoint to me would be focus. Apple has done pretty damn well by focusing on producing really great machines (and software) that appeal to a couple specific segments of the market. Their expertise really is in the "art" of computer design, both hardware and software and experience. This doesn't necessarily translate to running a music label which is a completely different business with completely different requirements.
Granted Jobs has some exposure to this world (via Pixar) but that doesn't make it a good fit for Apple. I expect the culture clash will be huge. Apple is a pretty unique company. I don't see an obvious fit here.
What if, all of a sudden, the killer app for digital music fans were Mac-only?
Um, then Apple would go out of business because they sabotaged one huge market to try to gain a foothold in another?
is buy a CD online for a much reduced price (where is the golden rule that says music produces/artist have to be millionaires? I mean, noone else is..) but then rather than have to wait 2/3 days before it's delivered so I can listen to it, be given the oppotunity to download high bitrate ogg's of the album. That way I get the music on demand, and get the tangable album in a few days time too.
The dot com bubble burst, and techies took their pay cut.. I think it's about time the media bubble burst and the 'stars' take their pay cut too!
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
Unlikeley.
;-)
Evidence:
The iPod is available for Windows.
MP3s play on any computer.
OS X promotes open standards.
OS intentionally provides Windows and Linux interoperability.
Apple seems to has no interest in things that *lock* a user in. Sure, they have things that entice users to stay, like iTunes, but there's no lock-in there. I see the mentality being "well, you _could_ use something else, but why? Our stuff is SWEET!"
I don't know, to the extent that digital music/video drives hardware sales, Apple may even encourage file-sharing.
Of course, since MS competes head-to-head with Apple in the 'digital lifestyle products' market, if Apple goes through with this, I'd fully expect MS to try to parter/acquire a music label as well.
And considering that the consumer electronic+computer biz is worth much more than the music biz, it's not too far off to speculate that a day may soon come when the 'content brigade' plays second fiddle to the 'connectivity brigade'. Maybe wishful thinking, but I want to see record labels (with their gouging prices and barriers to competition) go the way of the dinosaurs.
They'll be using AAC, which I understand has some DRM built into it, disabled by default from quicktime. They're putting a lot of money into MP4, soon iPods and iTunes will support it. The benefit is that you get quite-nearly-exactly CD quality with relatively low bitrates. At 160kbit/s, one would be hard pressed to hear the difference.
karma: ouch!
At least we won't have to worry about copy protected cds that kill iMacs. Also, I though Apple could never be arecord company.
Well, Sony is both a hardware producer and music producer.
I would think that like Sony, Apple would have a schizophrenic attitude toward DRM. For it sometimes, and sometimes against it.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
This completely makes sense.
Everyone knows that the problem record companies face is an out-dated distribution system that fights, rather than takes advantage of the internet. They're charging $15 for a $.20 CD to pay for marketing and legal fees. Apple has distribution systems in place already for Quicktime, iTunes and even Software updates. They've been successfully selling stuff online for years.
And it fits in with the digital hub. It gives them content to sell in addition to playback and storage systems. It gives them leverage to make sure their hardware doesn't get caught out by DRM crap. And Jobs' other interests are in Pixar and the Gap. He's obviously in the world to influence and interact with Culture, more than he's interested in cashing in on some circuit design. Jobs' interest, and therefore Apple's, is in making things for people - to change the way people do things to make them easier and better (so that Apple and Jobs can make $$ on it, sure).
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a dumb rumor, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it happen either. Apple has been a Culture company a long time. They've been moving toward content for a long time.
I think you are exactly right.
I can just hear Jobs now, calling the record execs 'a bunch of bozos who don't get it'.
Jobs is famous for this. He thinks he's got it figured out. And you know what? I say, give him a shot. Anything's better than the ridiculous Town Elders From Footloose who are running the show now.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
First, there was the Profile4, the thing they tried to say was better than the iMac. Then, there was/is "RipMixRespect", strangely similar to Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn."
/ 84 4767p-5933052c.html
... And EMagic, well, that's part of UMG.
;-)
http://newsobserver.com/24hour/technology/story
So did Apple just take a big, steaming dump all over Gateway?
It seems that Gateway includes music downloads with EMusic as a part of their promotions to get people to buy their boxes
That's kinda funny, when you think about it. I wonder what the Gateway higher-ups are thinking right now.
And really, what, if anything, does this mean for Gateway? Are they now advertising for Apple?
-/-
Mikey-San
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
Apple realizes what no-one in the record industry does - that if you open wide the full possibilities for selling music, the take will be enormous.
If Apple buys Universal, then they can continue to sell normal CD's - but also sell everything online. Even older unpublished stuff, which is currently languishing. Then you have not just CD buyers, but nostalgia buyers and people who just want one hit song and not a whole CD. That provides many more channels for revenue, unlike normal music companies which oddly seems to desire that only limited revenue channels be allowed to exist.
Furthermore, by staying away from copy protection they save money over the stupid record companies spending all sorts of cash trying to prevent the CD buyer from accessing their own music! While other companies are building up bad will with stupid formats for online music and CD's that don't play in all CD players, Universal could sweep the industry.
At the very least, the entry of a non-music company into the music business has got to have some interesting ramifications somewhere. Especially when you have a computer company that understands consumers better than most at the helm...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
See, the current business model for music (sell recorded music bound to physical objects such as CDs) is, if not dying, on shakey ground. The reason Sony hasn't moved to widespread DRM is that they make three times as much money selling MP3 players as they do selling CDs.
I think Jobs is trying to get Apple to that place as well. He wants to use Universal's content as a way to drive up demand for iPods and iMacs.
If that's it, this is good news. It means a big chunk of the music industry will be owned by someone who'll just laugh at the RIAA.
Maybe because because Blizzard and Valve actually make money? Can't recall who else is under Vivendi Universal, but if Apple was trying to aquire those divisions too, this announcment would go from "Calafornia fell into the ocean" earth shattering to "Snowball fight in Hell! Hey look, a Snow-Saten"
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Everyone seems to forget that Jobs is also the CEO of Pixar (makers of Monsters, Inc,, Toy Story, A Bug's Life...).
I still remember about a year ago the NYT had a big Tech vs. the Entertainment Industry with a picture of Eisner (Disney CEO) representing the Entertainment industry, Jobs representing the tech industry (hiliting Apple's Rip, Mix, Burn campaign) and a screen shot of Monster's Inc. representing "pirated" works. Although the article stated Monster's Inc. was created by Pixar (distributed by Disney), the reporter seemed completely unaware of Job's other job. It would have added a whole new twist to the significance of the "facts".
I watched something (on CSPAN I think) a week or two ago. It was some kind of state hearing (with congressmen and such) about DRM (primarily the concerns of the MPAA I believe) and an Apple rep was there. He said something along the lines of the MPAA/RIAA's concerns weren't that important because Apple had something in the works that would fix the whole situation. Maybe this is it?
Sorry about the ambiguity of my report, I was doing a couple other things at the same time I was "watching" this hearing. Hopefully someone will know what meeting I am referring to and maybe even be able to quote the Apple employee.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
I've been working in the music business for about 10 years now... I've run my own label, worked for other independents, spent some time with Sony Music (in their distribution arm) and now work with all of the majors via a marketing consulting company. If Apple is thinking along the right lines this could be very good news for consumers. Why?
... from an insider's perspective, everyone in the business already understands that digital distribution is the future. The key arguement is HOW and under what TERMS. This could be a very interesting step in the right direction. Certainly exciting.
1. Universal Music Group is the largest major label in the industry.
2. UMG already owns an incredible MP3 download service called emusic.com. Yes, there are ZERO DRM controls. Just great music from thousands of artists (mainly independent at this point, but still an important step).
3. Apple would want to leverage their hardware/software assets vs. the content UMG controls. This would clearly mean cross selling between the iPod [one of Apple's most success products in years], the Mac platform, Quicktime, and all of UMG music/video assets.
Steve Jobs is a multi-billionaire in his own right. If he wanted to spend $6,000,000,000 on Universal Music then he - Steve Jobs - easily could. Aruably what we are seeing is Jobs setting Apple up to be a compeitor to Sony. He has always admired that company - I wouldn't be suprised if he has always wanted to emulate it.
Imagine an Apple/Pixar/Universal company. This isn't an ill-fitting puzzle like AOL Time Warner. This would be, very much, a calculated and very simple plan by Jobs to evolve Apple.
The last two things that Jobs would be missing in the plan would be a movie studio and a game console. Pixar could easily continue to work with the studios for distribution, thus the need for a studio goes down.
That leaves a game console. The GameCube is an excellent design, in my opinion, with digital hub aspirations of its own. "GameCube II" could prove to be a spectacular hit (especially if they have a Zelda and/or Metroid launch title)...and Apple could be heading that up. Would Nintendo sell itself to Jobs? They might...they just might.
The downside to this great (yet caffinated-induced-due-to-lack-of-sleep) fantasy is that we Mac users would almost be guaranteed of never seeing another version of MS Office past version 11.
But is that really a bad thing? ;)
Steve Jobs took Apple from 2 weeks from not being able to make payroll when he came back to having over 5 Billion in cash reserve. You can thank the iMac for that.
I suspect that if this rumor is true, the iPod and iTunes (maybe iTunes for Windows?) will be key parts of Apple's media strategy, linked to a rights management system.
When Apple added track counters to iTunes and the iPod, I wondered what use they would be for the end user. Does anybody really care how many times I've played any particular song? Not really. BUT... consider this model:
Apple could run a music portal geared specifically to iPod/iTunes users. (Content will drive further hardware sales... 'Only on an iPod')
Registered users would be able to download music freely, directly through the iTunes interface. No micropayments would be necessary. Each time you sync your iPod, the track count data could be uploaded and you get a monthly bill for your actual usage.
Billing and distribution of fees to artists would be administered in cooperation with ASCAP and other rights-management agencies.
This could be the new business model the music industry has been struggling to find since the days of Napster.
Another key point... Vivendi Universal owns MP3.com.
Think about it.
So why is a killer-app needed? Didn't need a killer-app to see PNG files in my browser. People will listen to whatever format their music arrives in. It's the music distributors who decide on the codec and they are very much concerned about patent liability.
Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
There are many different ways to view Apple's interest in Universal Music. 1. By owning the world's largest music company, Apple would have huge leverage in getting Best Buy AND Circuit City to sell Macs in their stores again. 2. Buck the trend of these encrypted music CDs not working in Mac CD/DVD drives. 3. Strengthen the Mac platform in music production and post production from the record company level on down... 4. Boosting iPod sales. Imagine if Apple's subscription system allowed you to download copies of the songs for your Mac (or PC) and allow you to transfer/copy and use them to your iPod; whereas transferring files to other MP3 portables cost extra. 5. Leverage in settling future standards issues like the current SACD vs. DVD-A (DVD Audio not the Trey Parker/Matt Stone definition of *DVDA*)... or Dolby Digital vs. DTS. 6. Enough clout to get the other multimedia companies to actually support the Mac on their DVD-Rom features on their movie releases... (longshot)... 7. Ringtone revenue. We've all been expecting an iPhone for a long time... 8. Haven't we been expecting Microsoft to purchase a media company for a long time now? Apple beats them AGAIN....
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
An AC wrote:
;)
> There are no longer arguements about Apples being
> more expensive than PCs because it is a fact that Apples
> are more expensive than PCs. Especially if you consider a
> full featured tower with hand picked, quality parts that
> you assembled yourself.
Funny, I've seen do-it-yourself instructions in magazines for gamer's PCs that cost $3000 or more. I've also seen "Walmart Specials" for $200-300.
Now, Apple is way too classy to offer "Walmart Specials", and will happily let PCs have that price category to themselves. Otherwise, Macs and PCs cost the same: whatever you want to spend on them.
There is one case where Apple is a real bargain, and that is high end nonlinear video editing. It used to be a few years back that you had to spend half a million US dollars on software and hardware. Now you can buy a top of the line PowerMac with all the trimmings along with Apple's Pro line of video software (Final Cut Pro and its amazing friends), and pay less than $10,000(US). Doesn't $240,000(US) sound like a sweet discount?
"What I'm thinking is different from what you are."
Belabera, "Mothra 3" 1998
Believe me, I was there for one or two of those meetings.
There are legitimate needs for DRM. Protecting music may or not be one of them, but making documents that are Very Hard for anyone who is not authorized to read and copy would be an extremely useful thing in a lot of industries... in fact, any industry where industrial espionage is a problem.
The meetings actually went more like this.
DRM SALES GUY
Hey, we have an unbreakable digital rights amangement system! It's 100% effective. You need to protect your... why are you looking at me like that?
APPLE GUY
100% effective, huh? Then why won't you tell us how it works? We ARE under a nondisclosure agreement. Also, incidentally, we cracked the protection on those two files you sent us last week, so I hope whatever you're plugging now is better.
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
I don't think this could possibly happen.
Back in 1981, Apple landed in legal trouble with "Apple Corps", the Beatles' record label. In November 1981, they agreed that Apple Computer could continue to do business under that name, so long as they didn't make any attempt to enter the music business.
Later, I believe around when System 7 came along, the Apple Corps lawyers got pissed off again because of the OS' new sound capabilities; the story (or maybe urban legend) goes that an Apple engineer renamed one of the alert sounds Sosumi, and told them it meant "lack of any musical qualities whatsoever" in Japanese.
So if the Apple Corps was upset about some cheesy System 7 alert sounds, imagine how they'd feel about Apple buying a record label. That is, if they're still around and if their agreement with Apple is still in effect.
If Apple Corps and their legal agreement are still potent, one would think that this would have prevented them from manufacturing the iPod and from developing their alleged music service as well. So it's likely that the Apple Corps stuff no longer matters. Still, interesting to think about.
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
That's missing the point. The obvious conclusion everyone is supposed to make is this, now said aloud in case you can't come to it yourself: "If it sounds Truly Bold on bitrates that make mp3 encoders sputter, it sounds Rather Majestic on higher bitrates."
Are you serious??? For digital backup, I can't imagine using anything less than -8 or whatever from FLAC. Or better yet, burn it on audio CD as an uncompressed .wav or a redbook audio track.
For my casual music listening, oggenc -q 6 is far more than adequate.
It's always easy to get hidebound and get stuck to using one thing that you know to work, rather than finding out what's actually best. I too thought MP3s were pretty good until I a) noted one rather high-bitrate MP3 sounded like crap compared to the CD, and b) a medium-bitrate Ogg Vorbis of same version sounded damn good still. Just my experiences, again...
Oh yeah, broadband world all right. Internet radio clients get faster lines. ISPs still charge the same per gigabyte from the radio server, as they have from the beginning of the time. Right?
Hell, I just tried downloading stuff from archive.org (an etree.org distributor). Had to leave the thing downloading the song for several minutes (didn't check, I went to sleep), and I have a "broadband" connection. It was a .shn file, which is a lossless, True Quality-Freak Format like FLAC. This is the quality we're aiming, streaming losslessly compressed stuff - by your logic, anything else is futile. Sure, maybe in future it's possible to stream this stuff. Right now, it's quite ridiculous to even try.
Wired readers out there will recall a recent profile of Barry Diller documenting the potential strength of Universal Music for the right investor. They might also remember a recent article about how schizophrenic Sony has become (they actually sued themselves- the music division sued an investment of the hardware division) in its CEO's quest to bring the music and hardware parts of the company together. Sony's CEO believes that the future of that company lies in hardware (this is the company that finally set a standard for DVDs) but the only portion of the company that made any money last year was the music division. So there are no changing things at Sony right now. Both the head of Sony and the head of Apple (two of the most innovative technology powerhouses ever) believe that bringing music and technology together is the future. I am inclined to defer to their judgment. If they are right and if Apple can score this deal before Sony can sort out its internal disputes. Soon Apple may take Sony's place in the market. They are already selling more music players than Sony.
cogito ergo oro
People who have tried the service, expected to debut by the end of April, say it makes downloading and purchasing music as simple and nontechnical as buying a book from Amazon.com. It allows users to buy and download songs to their computers with a single click and to transfer the music automatically to their portable MP3 players.
I remember joking with a friend about how Apple was the only company to license Amazon's "1-Click" (patent gripes go in another thread) -- as it's a rare person indeed who can afford to impulse-buy Apple products. But now it all makes sense.
I just know that this is what they were thinking when they licensed 1-Click. In Amazon's case, it it works because they sell everything, and it helps squash competitors. In Apple's case, it will work for completely different reasons -- because it will be cheap enough for impulse buying, nearly instant delivery, and if this deal works out, they'll be selling their own products (Universal Music), via their own products (Macs), to play on their own products (iTunes and the iPod).
I bet they'll find a way to tie it into Rendevous somehow, too. So that, perhaps, you'll be able to listen to music you purchased on one computer on another, whilst preserving the DRM which will most likely be included.
-dr.badass
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.