Slashdot Mirror
Apple Wooing Smaller Labels
kalel666 writes "Apple has a big event planned for Thursday in Cupertino with hundreds of representatives from smaller indie music labels."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
This is great news, one problem with online music services always seems to be that they have only records of the big ones.
This makes me very happy, more music to buy from Apple!
How many times have you bought a CD just because of one track that was worth having? You no longer need to do this. This is exactly what I've been looking for. The ability to do this has been around for several years but it takes a good company like Apple to stick thier nose on the line and do it.
This is how it should be.
http://www.xpurple.com
I'm pleased to see that they are aiming to provide a better cross section of music rather than just focusing on the big labels. My taste in music wouldn't be satisfied with just the majors, and I suspect a fair chunk of the /. readership would be the same.
The only problem I can see is that this doesn't go far enough. Independent labels are a good thing, but it seems they are only targeting the larger ones. When they get to the stage where the smallest labels and individual artists can coexist in the service with the majors, I'd be tempted to give it a go. I can't see the RIAA being too happy about coexisting with what is effectively the competition, though.
Instead of paying EMI et al for the right to listen to a song I get to pay Apple.
;-)
Indie companies are still going to get ripped off they just get ripped of by an electronic distributor instead of an offline one.
Bands will still get very little cash for their effort.
Every band (or at least every indie label) should have their own website and take micropayments from customers direct. If you only had to pay a few pence for the rights to listen to a track you could share with your friends and if they like it they can go a pay for it as well.
One of the big reasons for piracy is the cost of tracks and how the cash is distributed. Micropayments with the vast majority going to the artists would eleviate these problems.
If any bands are willing to give this a try, get in touch I can help you get up and running for minimal cost
blog and junk
As a non-apple user not living in the US, it will take a long time for me to get my grubby paws on the iTMS. If it was available in my neck of the woods, I wouldn't even think twice about buying a powerbook just to get at the music store.
The concept of small payments for songs will change the way people buy music. P2P apps have conditioned users to search for one song at a time for several years now, and paying a reasonable fee for a song isn't such an alien thought anymore at all. When Apple releases their x86-compatible client, together with a global release, the labels will have to face the music.
Online distribution will make distribution a non-issue, putting the indie labels on equal footing with the major players. The only advantage for signing on a major label will be the marketing machinery, and if iTMS would incorporate a net radio, even that would be a questionable advantage. Think about it: hearing indie songs on the net and actually being able to buy the single on the spot with one click will bring independents to the forefront.
Microsoft and AOL/Time Warner are running fast to get their own online Apple-like music store up and running, now that Apple's has been the success it has been -- doubly so since Apple's planning a Windows version of iTunes and the music store by the end of the year. Microsoft could probably beat them to market with a shoddy music store without even sweating.
So Apple needs to get ahead and stay ahead. To do that, ease-of-use isn't enough (or Apple would have the 95% user share, not Microsoft) -- they need to have the biggest, most comprehensive, most searchable library of online music anywhere. Consumers won't get iTunes if Microsoft's store is already installed, but they will get it if iTunes offers three times more songs.
I think that once Apple gets a large number of indie labels in the store, the rest will eventually come on their own. That, plus a $100 iPod of any size, will be all they'll need to stay ahead of the competition for some time to come.
I don't think that indie labels are likely to request a bigger cut than the big labels. With smaller overhead and fewer artists to bring to the table, asking for more money than Universal would be much like giving Apple the finger.
The same percentage may give them better margins than they are used to receiving with conventional sales. Also, Apple needs to make some money at this, or it loses its viability, even if it is also a form of advertising.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Not all the good music is on small or indie labels. A very substantial majority of all the music is still owned by the big labels and is still not available anywhere. Putting that stuff online would probably make bigger waves than going after "Wisconson Pete's Record Hut" label.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
If iTunes sales for small labels are going too well, they might abandon eMusic, which would be a shame, since I like it better to d/l as many mp3s as I like for $10/month than paying $.99 per DRM-protected track. (Yes, Apple's DRM is pretty much acceptable, but no DRM is even better, and if you're downloading a substantial number of tracks each month, $10/month is better than $.99 per track.)
No, one big reason for piracy is people don't like to pay for stuff. Cash distribution is a small reason for piracy.
I consider myself an average consumer. I probably average about 3 CDs a month. With the apple store, I can go to one spot and get a lot of good music with few restrictions and reasonable prices. And now, there will even be indie music.
However, I should give this up in favor of a plan that would involve me visting 20-30 web sites a month and entering my credit card information on web sites with God knows what security holes.
I am sympathetic to the plight of the indie artist, but an average consumer is not going to put in the kind of work you are suggesting. And with the apple store, they at least have a chance to make money on volume
That's what you pay up front for the little deck of cards itself, right? For the 10 gig version?
As gets said a million times whenever someone hints at Mac OS X getting ported to other machines, Apple's a hardware manufacturer. They think of the iLife suite of programs as a "loss leader" that encourages people to buy their hardware. In a lot of ways the new iTunes store is a way to encourage iPod sales -- and whether they would see it the other way around is a big question mark.
Maybe you're right, though. The iTunes for Windows thing does seem to break that model -- they'll be selling software (on the cheap?) to get people hooked on their content service, is the idea. Maybe music is really as completely different a direction and business model as you're saying...
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The Apple spokesman said it right with there is no timetable yet for when the songs could be added. "It's quality over quantity at this point,"
How many times have we seen Microsoft scramble to put up just ANY product that mimicks Apple or any other company, no matter how shoddy it was, and then use their deep pockets and name to further advance it. Windows 3.1 was hideous but they had to put SOMETHING out there against Apple and then keep revising it until it got better and people thought it was actually a good, innovative product. Same with the WinCE-powered handhelds. Palm was doing fine (ok, it was a portable OS going against Palm's organizing OS, but stick with me here) and then MS introduced WinCE which wasn't that hot either but after a few revisions it's turning out to be ok. Microsoft simply doesn't want to be left out and they're racing ahead with AOL/Time Warner now to ensure that doesn't happen.
Including indie labels is a brilliant move on Apple's part. Just think of the demographic of most Mac buyers anyway. Slightly creative, free-thinking, willing to pay a bit more for quality. It's the Mac owner that knows who is on these indie labels already.
And let's not forget Jobs and his pull in the entertainment industry. People there WANT to do business with him, from the artist level all the way up to managment. I just hope enough strategic alliances can be made so that a solid foundation can be built and not be torn away by a shoddy imitation with lots of money.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
One of the reasons Apple (I think) is doing so well is that the DEM isnt draconian. With MS/AOLTW/whoever, they have no vertical integration. How do I take a DRM'd WMP or Real Media clip and put it on a portable device like an iPod. Any iTMS competitor needs the following..
1. The ability to get the same DRM terms as Apple (own the song, burn to CD, etc).
2. Have a way to listen to it away from the computer (burn to CD, iPod like device, etc).
3. Same $1/track price.
4. Large selection.
Leaving out any of these items will doom the company to failure.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Umm... If you looked into how the music distribution system REALLY works you'd see that there are LOTS of things that typically are offered. Walk into any store that sells music. You see the display on the end caps? (the end of the aisles). The record labels typically PAY to have space on the end cap - many times they pay with free merchandise. i.e. We'll give you, Mr. Retailer, 1000 free CDs of each artist you feature on the end cap for x period of time. Or, we'll provide you, Mr. Retailer, with X dollars for "marketing" if you'll feature artist X prominently in your weekly circular. The same thing applies online. "Review my artist, feature my artist on the home page, feature my artinst on the "what's new" page, your newsletter, etc...." in return we'll give you reduced commission for X number days/downloads, etc. :-)
Maybe so. RealNetworks announced their (listen.com-hybrid) service last week, at 79 cents a track. Also -- oops -- $10 a month subscription. It's amazing how the competition doesn't seem to recognize that subscription fees are the obstacle. Apple's buck-a-song is just so easy to get your head around. We want to pay for songs, not to belong to some Columbia records club with monthly dues. The iTunes interface is fine, but it's the per-song-only thing that sells it over the alternatives.
The other big bar to get over for other services is the licensing agreements. It sure looks like Steve Jobs used his name to get through obstacles that held everyone else up. It's kind of a race, too -- if someone else can get those same deals before the Windows version of iTunes comes out, maybe they can stake out the market share to avoid Apple's winning the new, bigger market of 'doze users. We'll see.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Apple radio with a mix of everything they have access to? That'd be the coolest shit ever. Too bad I used up my mod points.
WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
The trick would be to provide content partnering with mp3.com, so that any fool with a computer and a guitar could stream off of iTunes and collect a royalty, including ME!
stuff |
I know a significant part of the 99 cents a song goes to process the credit card transaction. Why doesn't Apple offer people a discount to prepay larger amounts? Say, pay $50 at once, and get to download 60 songs at your leisure?
For example, let's say that it costs Apple $.20 + 3% of the transaction for each purchase (I'm sure someone can correct me with more exact figures.) So, if I download sixty individual songs, Apple has paid $13.80 in credit card fees on $59.40 in revenue. They now have $45.60 to put towards licensing, other expenses, etc for those sixty downloads.
Now let's see if I paid $50 upfront and got to download sixty songs. Apple only pays $1.70 in credit card charges, and has $48.30 to put towards the other expenses for those sixty downloads. In addition to saving $2.70, Apple also just generated some goodwill on my end because I appreciate getting ten extra songs on the deal.
Multiply that relatively significant savings by the huge volume that iTunes generates (even more when it's released for Windows [and hopefully Linux]), and Apple could definitely help pad that margin a little.
- Neil Wehneman
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
I definitely like the idea here, and I'll most certainly use it. But I think what isn't being mentioned is that indie music fans are inherently diehard about their music. They like that they don't generally see their bands on MTV. They like that the shows are in small, smoky bars. And many of them, myself included, like the idea of being in their town's local indie music store, flipping through wooden crates to find the gems they'd heard about from friends but not had a chance to listen to yet. Buying the cd, and reading the liner notes as it spins for the first time. And for the most diehard, buying the vinyl. I'm all for techno-progress, especially in the archaically defined entertainment industry. But don't expect the addition of these smaller labels to produce the kind of numbers for apple that the launch with the big 5 did.
Apple picked $0.99 because it's a critical price point in the minds of consumers. It's as high as you can get and be less than a dollar, and $1.00 is already considered a pittance by most consumers -- especially those used to $15 CDs.
On the average, most consumers won't differentiate between $0.89 and $0.99, any more than they'd shop at a different store to pay $11.89 instead of $11.99. Even $0.75 isn't such an improvement over $0.99 psychologically speaking -- a competitor would have to go as low as $0.50, or close to it, to take customers from Apple on price alone.
Besides, we're selling bits here, not products. "Razor-thin margins" don't actually exist with virtual merchandise. Apple's had a nationwide network for distributing media quickly for some time now -- specifically, for QuickTime movie trailers -- and *that* was for zero profits. All they can do with this store is make money.
As we all know, Apple currently has the largest online music store and they will be releasing a version of iTunes for Windows in the near future. We also know that Microsoft will be coming out with their own music store in the near future. It's not enough for Apple to get there first on Windows, or have the better store, or the better selection, or better rights management. Sheeple care fuckall about rights management (though this could make for a lovely wakeup call if handled improperly). Apple needs to get far ahead of Microsoft and stay there. In order to do this, yes, they need the better store, the wider selection, more freedom with the songs. But they need to make sure that Microsoft won't be selling songs for $0.49/each with a $5/mo fee or something. RealNetworks's new store will flop not because of the lack of rights, but because the price isn't low enough to counteract the lack of rights. So Apple needs Microsoft to screw up, or at least not abuse their monopoly power.
The other thing Apple needs to do, and this is crucial, is to make iTunes on Windows NOT SUCK. Who here has QuickTime on Windows? Who hates it? Who would like it a heck of a lot better if it weren't so slow and buggy? Yep. Most of us. If iTunes for Windows isn't substantially better than QuickTime, and for that matter even Windows Media Player, Apple doesn't stand a chance in the long run.
This is true, three million sold in the first month. It must be noted, however, that Apple had their "wildest dreams" pegged at one million in the first month. Demand may have dropped off from that first two weeks, but it is still far in excess of what they hoped for.
This fits the classic pattern of Apple prophesy: "Sure, the Apple product is great, but we know that sooner or later Microsoft (or someone else) will come out with something that's 75% as good. So why bother with the Apple version? Besides, how could Apple possibly make money on this. Poor Apple, they're doomed!"
Every time Apple has tried something new, the prevailing sentiment has been, "that's wonderful, but it'll never keep Apple alive." Somehow they've managed to stay alive for quite a long time, and they've got a pretty loyal customer base. Maybe Apple management isn't so stupid after all.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Some bands may choose to cater to that core audience and "stay small" - but I doubt many would turn down the chance at a major tour if one of their "indie releases" suddenly turned into a popular download.
I personally have zero use for iTunes - I don't have a Mac and even if i did I'm not gonna pay a dollar a goddamn track for RIAA label downloads locked into a DRM'd format. But if Apple can sign a bunch of bands and release them in a more consumer friendly format (ie >256kbps MP3) then I'd be all over that. What would really rock is if they'd sign some of the international artists and DJs I've grown attached to but who get little to no respect in the US - like Garmarna, Linda, NOME, Oceania, Juno Reactor, Natacha Atlas, Digiweed, etc. If I could pay a buck a track to download HQ tracks from artists I like and I knew with some certainty the artists were getting a significant benefit from my purchase, my opinion of iTunes would change dramatically - and likely would for many, many others as well.
Where do I sign up?
I have been using iTMS and I am quite pleased with it, but there is more that they could do and *should* do. Ultimately, the huge and useful role that labels play is getting the music exposed to people. People don't want to pay the labels any money because they don't think that they are doing anything. This just isn't true. How am I supposed to know to buy a song unless I've heard it a couple of times. A huge amount of work and money goes into putting on concerts and radio play and store placement.
1. When It comes down to it, a 30 second clip just isn't enough to sell me on a song. In the old model, one hit song could be the catalyst for selling a number of other good songs on the album (although it is often the case that one hit song sells a number of crappy ones). If this model becomes more popular, then each song will need to be marketed individually. That requires a lot of effort. Apple could help by providing radio stations based on it's catalog.
2. I think it could really take advantage of other people providing some level of predistribution. I could certainly see myself going through web sites that provided editorial content that reflected my own personal tastes. If people could get a small bit of the cut for pointing me to good music, they would be more inclined to put some effort into it. (This is similar to what amazon does now, but I don't think that books lend themselves as well to this sort of activity).
3. I don't think they should necessarily follow the Amazon system of rating things - which has devolved into pretty much a one or five star rating system that is mostly useless. I do like reading people's comments, though. Still, finding a central source for advice that I trust vs weeding out the person I trust from a list of unknowns is less than effective.
4. It is still unclear to me how I get to keep this music going forward. I don't plan on buying another computer for another year, but what about then? How do I move it? I still use my linux box alot and can imagine there is a point where I will use it exclusively in the future. I still paid for the music, I want to take it with me.
sean
I've said it before, the DUMBEST thing the RIAA did was go after streaming music. On a certain level I can see why the feared it because they figured someone would rip the streams and keep the music. But, until broadband comes about most folks are going to listen to low bandwidth streams anyway. Also, they could make a tiered system where streams under 56K are royalty free (and thus prefered by internet broadcasters).
This was free friggin advertisement for their product, and one that they didn't need to kiss big radio's ass (and pay them lots of money) to get their product on the air. The perfect medium to push their not so big artists to a broader audience.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Funny, I don't see $10 albums as a rip-off, nor $0.99 singles. Since it took less than a month for the iTunes store to sell more music than all the other services combined, perhaps the other services that you're stuck with on Windows right now just suck?
You have to take into account that their bandwidth for the iTunes store is probably being run along the same pipes as .mac and probably the rest of their to be rolled out web services infrastructure.
The more services they roll out (and they will be rolling out more) that have different usage patterns, the less bandwidth will cost for each one as the peaks will not usually be additive and you'll have to overbuy less for each service than if they were run by different companies.
Even if you're able to pay for a single song on Real without subscribing, you have to pay per song you download to CD!
That means that if you want to keep a song, you have to burn it to CD, then rip it, then manually enter the track information - all to just keep the song in your library, and all at whatever bitrate Real supports (not sure if they are good or bad in this area).
With the Apple service, I can buy a song and I really own the electronic copy of the song to start with - complete with ID3 style information and cover art.
To summarize, with Real you are paying for a single physical copy that is difficult to manage electronically. With Apple you are paying for a digital copy with all of the benefits implied by owning a digital copy, including being able to make many different mix CD's and keeping information about the song with the song.
People constantly discount the workflow, if you will, of music ownership - that's why Apple's store is so popular. It finally achieves some of the promise of digital music distribution that has been so obvious for so long.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You realize, that Mac users have access to everything else as well, but we aren't limited to it.
A user-friendly, economically viable alternative, actively supported by both the industry (in the widest sense -- by this I mean the indies as well as the RIAA goons) and consumers should be a welcome thing, regardless of platform.
(We should also assume that, not being a Mac user, you haven't used the Apple Music Store -- so your satisfaction with the existing services should be taken on spec, as it were.)
I think it is a good idea and a sign of things to
/,s meta-moderation to prevent abuse people will be able to trust the suggestions.
come. Signing up Indie labels is a good first
start, but it could go so much further.
Technology and the internet have made it so that
anyone can create and publish their own "content"
using comodity hardware and software.
I would like to see iTMS deal with individual
artists. If they are paying 65cent per song to
the labels then the artists should have a
choice. Either sign up to a label for a bit of
cash up front to produce your record and end up
owing the label money and having no rights to the
content you have created, or deal directly with
iTMS.
Suppose they charge $50 to include your
track in their catalogue, I think there has to be
some barrier to entry. $50 covers converting the
track to AAC, including it in the database,
sampling 30secs for a preview and inputting the
infomation / label notes / artwork etc.
If I had any talent I could make my own music,
sample, edit record and master with a PC in my
bedroom/studio, then upload it to apples server.
I have then placed my music on an open market on
a level playing field with the major labels
offerings.
Linking by genres, similar artists
etc. will allow people to find my music by
chance, the 30 second preview allows people to assess its quality. If the like it they download
it and I get 30-65cents per download.
If they include the features like amazons user
rating, with
A system like amazons sales rank will show the
most popular tracks in a genre. The most downloaded, the most sampled. the most searched for etc. If they can provide the bandwidth of Google to support the databases it could become so useful.
Imagine if they could sample all the music. A
"You humm it I'll find it" system could be
introduced, find any existing music with a melody you just thought up.
Of course if just anyone can be listed it places
a burden on Apple data storage capacity, but I'd
imagine a system where if no one downloaded a
track in a two month period you would have to pay again to have it remain in the database. They don't want to store 3Mb of the sound of someone farting, that no one ever downloads
The only problem I see in a system like this
would be plagerism (sp?). Someone could download
a track, upload it as their own and then reap the rewards of someone elses work. There would have to be a system in place to counteract this.
Prevent dupes as it were.
If the system becomes really popular perhaps
comercial radios would pay apple to play the top
rated tunes. "Here's something that 100,000
people downloaded last week" The artists would
only benefit from such exposure.
Ideally the artist would also have a choice about the DRM system as well. Should I sell unprotected songs at 69cents each or protected songs at 99cents?
If all this could be implemented it would just
show the RIAA and the major labels how irrelevent they really are. What would you get by signing up to a label? Money upfront, production, promotion, distribution, and access to the market. Apple can provide the promotion, distribution, and access
to the market for you and you the artist retain
the rights to your work. There are less middlemen so you can also reap a greater return on your sales. Start with $50 up front and if you do well you can pay for all the equipment, expertise etc. that you need to produce a professional quality product.
Yes you are removing one monopoly at the expense
of creating another, but one founded on a much
fairer basis with one degree of separation
between the producer and the consumer.
Yes all this can be done, and there are similar systems already, MP3.com etc. but I think that the difference here is that the store will have all the content from the major labels as well. That will get people to come and browse, look around and find similar music from independants that they might like.
"Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
With the Real service, I am not really paying for music.
And thus we see one of the biggest flaws in every music service but Apple's, is that nobody really knows what it is or what it's for. With Apple, it's completely straightforward -- the iTunes Music Store knows that it's a music store, and knows that tracks are $1, albums are $10, and that's that.
Real's service seems to not know what it wants to be. Is it a subscription streaming service? Is it a radio station? Is it a music store? I have to pay more to burn it to CD? I can only burn certain songs to CD? Why?
Why should Apple care at all about EMusic? It's subscription, Apple's store is per-song. They can co-exist pretty well. If you get tired of a monthly fee, you can always turn to the Apple Store, and if you like some stuff that's not on EMusic while you're subscribing you can still buy stuff from the Apple store.
Probably a good split would be really small bands on EMusic, and then large to small bands on the Apple store.
Apple is not Microsoft, they do not crush people just for the hell of it or demand utter domination in a market space.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
However, be wary. I like pretty much everybody else on slashdot is cheering for Apple for actually managing to do something incredibly right in an age where everything else seems so incredibly wrong.
But it is imporant to realize that Apple is still a company, and a publicly held one at that. While it's nice to think that Apple and Steve are in this for the "people", the reality is that they are trying to make a profit just as badly as Microsoft. They just so happen to realize at this juncture that the most profitable course of action is to go against what everybody else has been blasted for, listen to what your customers are saying.....and provide them with this service. Trust me...if you've read some of Steve's ideas for convergence of media and where it's heading in the future......and replaced Apple with M$....you'd be fucking terrified.
But for now, Apple seems to be the good guy for now....so until they do otherwise....GO APPLE!
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!