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?
Could this be a step towards one record lable that won't be total asses about copyright and ripping your songs to mp3 format?
;)
well, that or suddenly all Universal CD's will come out looking way better than every other CD on the market, but only have songs a few years old.
So will Apple Computer have to pay off Apple Records again?
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
lots of people. remember when their stock took a hit a year or so ago and people were wondering what the fate of apple would be? then also remember that news came out they had over 12 billion in cash assets. yeah apple is a huge company. they may not have market share yet in the OS world but they are a very very large company. make no mistake.
According to Apple's financial reports, they had 4.4 billion dollars in cash reserves. Vivendi, who currently own Universal, has somewhere between 6 and 7 billion dollars of debt, so I don't think Apple is going to be able to pay part cash, part stock. Vivendi is just looking to get out.
What I'm waiting to see is how this interacts with Apple's new music service which supposedly debuts next month. Nice catalog of music to choose from.
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.
Their accountants, I'd assume.
Some anonymous Google translation doesn't do this justice. This is Big. Very big. Changing the way the world does business big.
Adapt or die, as Lessig says.
Wow.
(Not logged in due to copyright infringement, and fear of being called a Karma Whore...)
-----
Apple Reportedly in Talks to Buy Universal Music
A deal could yield up to $6 billion for parent firm Vivendi and make tech maverick Steve Jobs the most powerful figure in the record business.
By Chuck Philips
Times Staff Writer
April 11, 2003
In a pairing that would alter the architecture of the music business, Apple Computer Inc. is in talks with Vivendi Universal to buy Universal Music Group, the world's largest record company, for as much as $6 billion, sources said.
Such a seemingly unlikely combination would instantly make technology guru Steve Jobs, Apple's co-founder and chief executive, the most powerful player in the record industry.
Universal, which reaps about $6 billion in sales annually from artists such as 50 Cent, Shania Twain, U2 and Luciano Pavarotti, would be controlled by a maverick who revolutionized the computer market and coined the mantra "rip, mix, burn," which many in the music business read as an invitation to electronic piracy.
The discussions, a closely held secret for several months, could founder over unresolved issues. Apple hasn't made a formal bid but may offer $5 billion to $6 billion for the music company before Vivendi's April 29 board meeting, according to the sources.
Jobs and other Apple representatives declined to comment, as did representatives of Universal Music Group and Vivendi Universal.
The Cupertino, Calif.-based computer maker's surprise play for Universal Music could alter the dynamics of the bidding for Vivendi's entertainment assets. The French giant, in a move to reduce debt, seeks to raise $7 billion this year by selling assets that probably would include some or all of its Universal film, television, theme park and music units.
Investor Marvin Davis has offered about $13 billion for 65% of the entertainment assets and has been the only known bidder to express serious interest in the music company. A separate sale of the music operation would appear to work in favor of Liberty Media Corp. and others that are focused on the company's other entertainment properties.
Jobs' pursuit of Universal comes at a time when Apple, with less than 3% of the desktop computing market, has been struggling to find its next wave of growth and the music industry has been buckling beneath the pressure of online piracy and falling sales.
Defying conventional wisdom, Jobs apparently is betting that music is finally on the verge of becoming a profitable presence on the Internet. Apple has been quietly testing a service that some music business insiders believe could pave the way for widespread online distribution of songs.
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.
The computer maker, known for its iMac desktop computer and other high-profile products, posted an $8-million loss on sales of $1.47 billion for its fiscal first quarter ended Dec. 28 -- marking the company's first back-to-back quarterly losses since Jobs returned to the CEO post in 1997. Apple has annual sales of about $5.74 billion and had about $4.4 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments as of Dec. 28.
Jobs, who also is chairman of Pixar Animation Studios, helped found Apple in 1976, then stepped down as its chief nine years later to launch Next Inc. He returned to Apple when it acquired Next.
Universal Music Group, which saw operating profit slide 23% to $510 million last year, dominates the industry in 63 territori
Apple's new slogan will be "Rip, Mix, Burn.. Except anything by Universal Music."
Trolling is a art,
...remember that Apple has been planning its own online music-buying service for a while now, having announced it just last month. Obviously this is a BIG step towards making that successful for themselves.
It would take a couple days and many pages to write up the details about why this could happen. Expect that they won't take Universal lock, stock and all the debt -- this will be done in a nasty way which screws a lot of creditors. Universal may be split into the more profitable bits and left with the debt-ridden bits, which would then be spun off and left to file Chapter 11 and later dissolved.
Just 'cause they're "cool" and not MS doesn't make Apple stupid in business. They've survived this long...
Could this be a step towards one record lable that won't be total asses about copyright and ripping your songs to mp3 format?
From the *one* company that has a controls an entire consumer hardware platform? Hell, no. If this isn't a hoax somehow, it'd be a play toward building a media playback system that the media companies will go for. And one *hell* of a lucrative positioning, if it works.
"Apple-compatible" audio. They have a portable player and the desktop already in place, and then they just need a home theater system. Apple is the sole company in the world that could build an entire *working* DRM system. MS doesn't have the hardware control.
Damn, in retrospect, Jobs actually had a cohesive plan these last few years. Who woulda thunk?
May we never see th
Unless of course, they're looking to PROVE that the other record labels are full of sh*t, by building a new buisness model that will be successful. This way they get a boat load of artists and music that they can use to prove their point.
The Record industry is dying not because people don't want music, but because the old means of production and consumption are dying. If Apple can figure out a new means that the average person likes and uses, then they'll make a BOATLOAD of cash. The record industry made a lot of money in the past, because it worked. It doesn't any more. That doesn't mean it's broken and can never come back. Heck, if anyone can come up with a good solution, Apple is it.
- Sighuh?
Maybe Vivendi will throw Blizzard in for free
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
Who knew Apple even had that kind of cash?
um... anyone who's been paying attention. Apple's been pretty consistently reporting profit for years now, and remarkably little of that has gone out of the company.
Money goes in, but doesn't come out - simple math that one. They're sitting on some huge cash reserves.
Perhaps this is a sign of the shape of things to come from Cupertino? providing the 'spokes' to their own 'digital hub' might be the next phase of the company's revival... anyway it looks like good news for all (Mac-heads and non-Mac-heads) on the DRM front if Apple get their (affirmedly anti-DRM) mitts on a major record label.
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.
seems like just the guy to perhaps "think different" and turn around (and hopefully improve) another industry that "everyone _knows_ is dying".
Anyone remember his name? I think it was Steve something-or-other...
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
The Washington Post Story Your karma whoring friend... --T
http://www.theMediaBunker.com
I think it fits well into the Digital Hub. Apple would be ensuring that they aren't excluded from a future digital world dominated by MS formats.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
Hence why their cash reserves make up most of their stock price. It's ridiculous. Apple is the bastard child of stocks, with a ridiculously low price-to-earnings/price-to-assets ratio because nobody actually invests in it but fanatics, while some people do pump-and-dump (they let others pump; they only dump) around MacWorlds.
---- My Design, Code, Ruby on Rails blog: http://www.slash7.com/
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!
But I like Apple and don't like Universal, won't this simply create a contradiction in the universe that will require the universe to implode and be replaced by a more confusing one?
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
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!"
There is so much conflict of interest inside Sony right now... and its really held back Sony's electronics division, specifically its walkman/mp3 players which are all crippled by copyright protection mechanisms.
The Civil War Inside SonyDoes Apple really want to get itself in the same situation? I feel that Apple's relative unemcubrance is what allow it to dethrown Sony as the maker of the coolest portable music device you can buy.
We have Internet music distribution that emulates radio and we have Internet music distribution that emulates retail. It would make sense for the record companies to combine them both, based on the way that radio and offline retail have traditionally worked together. In this model, you listen to the radio, hear something you like, go to the store and buy it. The radio is free but you buy the CD to play whenever you want to. So what might work is for record companies to allow anyone to stream their music free, if so long as the streamcasters link each track to the record company's one-click purchasing mechanism. A mutually beneficial arrangement and (possibly) happy listeners.
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
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)
1) Apple announces iTools account holders immediately gain access to 5 Universal songs per month. Access to more will require a nominal fee.
2) With the release of their fifth film, Pixar announces their deal with Disney has been fulfilled and they have formed a new alliance with Apple as the distributor for future releases. Soundtracks will be available on Universal Records.
3) In a surprise move, Dell acquires Apple Records, only to discover afterwards that the entire Beatles catalog is owned by Michael Jackson. Begins ad campaign with interns explaining why Wings was better.
4) Bill Gates announces new behind-the-ear implant that will allow streaming music directly into a persons brain. Sharp-eyed consumers discover Terms-Of-Service includes clause allowing device to record thoughts that immediately become his property.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
There's a bug in the MP3 VBR playback. Basically, the iPod requires your MP3 to have a Xing header on it, not the newer Fraunhoffer VBR header. My encoder produces VBRs with Fraunhoffer headers not Xing, so I always have to post-process them. The bug manifests itself if you pause, fast forward or rewind - doing so causes the iPod to lose the correct track length and it usually cuts the track off early.
Fortunately, another Slashdotter pointed me to the (Windows-based) solution - a utility that adds a Xing header. It can be had from here, in the Downloads section.
Cheers,
Ian
Let the actual music-store sales of CDs fade into oblivion where it belongs as it is grotesquely undercut by Apple's new music distribution service, which operates with only bandwidth as an expense - no worries about costly shipping, manufacturing and logistics.
The music distribution service has hooks into Apple's already attractive personal solutions (iTunes, iPod, .mac) making these products even more attractive to customers.
Universal benefits because it is first to jump on board and has a premier business relationship with Apple's new killer service, giving it a (slight) advantage over other labels who may have to pay a slightly higher premium to use the first ever legal on-line music distribution system that is effective and "just works".
If Apple/Universal does this properly (by playing the right cards at the right time), they will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Rather than adding actual features music fans might find compelling enough to switch all their probably-already-ripped digital music to .ogg, they imitated rather than innovated. It's a fine quality audio compression format, but there's nothing interesting whatsoever about "Ogg" other than legal patent ideology, and that's simply not interesting whatsoever to 99.99% of the music-listening public.
What's there to innovate? It's an audio codec. It sounds better at lower bitrates than mp3. What more do you need? What features are you talking about? The music-listening public doesn't care about features, they just want their songs, and they want to be able to burn them to CD, play them on their portable digital music players, they want to pay as little as possible for it, etc.
--Drunk as in Beer
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.
I think Steve Jobs already Kazaa'd all of their songs to his iBook and decided it was easier to buy the company than it would be to deal with a lawsuit brought by 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'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.
And you are arguably light years behind on your psychiatric medication.
I use Linux on the desktop at work and OSX at home. Other than supporting a better web browser (Galeon), Linux is a pale shadow of OSX in every single way when it comes to usability and GUI integration.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
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? ;)
When the Macintosh II came out with greatly expanded sound capabilities built in (not as an add-on MIDI card), Apple performed one of the most famous corporate "jokes" of all time, naming one of the new, high-quality system alert sounds "Sosumi" (Pronounced "So, sue me"). I don't think Apple Records (if they are even still around) ever took them up on it.
I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
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.
So, will Apple support Ogg?
Actually I don't really care, I don't have any Apple products. I'm just trying to recover from a karma dip from my "MS really isn't that bad!" thread a couple of days ago.
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*
Then it would go nowhere.
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
Nah... He`ll licence to èm, or sell a player. Macintosh is Blaupunkt -- Winders is Realistic. Linux is the custom kit with Denon studio turntables, and a separate component for everything.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Stores do NOT make that much per single CD. Never have, never will. When I worked in an independently-owned record store, we paid as much as $12.50 per copy of that chart-topping release. New releases rarely dropped much below $10 each. New releases were never more than $1-2 above our cost to stay competitive, and we could only afford another $1 on the bigger release margins. To continue in business (which ultimately didn't happen) we needed the extra money you think we would get. Selling tons of copies of Britney and N Sync and the like only made us $2 a copy. That's not much, whether looking short or long term. The most money we made on a single-CD album was those Sound Savers/etc that you see for $8-11 in stores. Those cost us, on average, $7.49 and we'd mark them up to $11.99. I logged countless hours on the phones with distributors, one-stops, importers, and the like trying to find best prices every time some release was expected to be huge. I spent a year being the purchase agent for a record store; I'm aware of what the business is like. Just because you worked retail somewhere doesn't make you an expert, please don't spout like you are.
The music industry is generally agreed to be in deep trouble. Their real problem isn't piracy - it's video. The music industry used to have their own channel - record stores. They now share their channel with Hollywood, since most stores that sell CDs now also sell DVDs, and even video games. A DVD looks just like an audio CD, and DVD players will play both. Yet the DVD has far more production value, more play time, and often costs less. Not unexpectedly, movie DVD sales are growing, music video sales are up, and audio CD sales are down. Total sales of "entertainment delivered on circular recording media" are way up. But the music industry's share of that market is down. (New figures on this were in yesterday's Wall Street Journal.)
The music industry has been in defensive mode for years now, frantically trying to keep retail prices up in the face of this competition. Few if any new ideas have emerged from the music industry in years. Their cash-cow genres have been mined out - rock, rap, house, classical, and country all peaked a long time ago. Broadcasting companies now have more clout than record companies. Congress is tired of all the RIAA's whining. The industry is sick.
Jobs can shake this up quite a bit. Especially since he can buy Universal at a bargain price, which means he can undercut the competition at retail. He's brighter than the current management in the music business. (That's not hard. The film industry has smart people, but top management in music is generally agreed to be dumb.) He might be able to find a way to pull the industry out of the tank. The Jobs "reality distortion field", an ongoing pain in the computer industry, would be an asset in the music industry.
Here's a free clue - if it has "Vegas" in the title, it's not high-end...
You see, the problem with that is that a $700 PC with $400 software is not high-end. That hardly even counts as middle of the road. I'd say that's actually closer to upper low-end. Absolutely no one in their right mind would use a rig like that for professional video production. That would probably suffice if you wanted to put a show on public access.
Final Cut Pro actually has become an industry standard. You'd be surprised how much stuff on TV nowadays is put together using some DV cameras and a G4.