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."

16 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. Excellent by Amomynos+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is great news, one problem with online music services always seems to be that they have only records of the big ones.

  2. Death to Big Labels by Deton8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Done properly, this kind of move by Apple could eventually kill the big record labels by removing their need to exist. Bands could get their product to market without the absurd overhead imposed upon them by the big labels. You all know the scam -- the big label "advances" the band a seductively huge blob of cash, then leeches it all back in fees and charges, to where the band become their indentured servants.

    1. Re:Death to Big Labels by baka_boy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bands don't get salaries from the big labels -- just as the parent post stated, the usual arrangement is for the label to advance the band a certain amount on signing, and then deduct royalties that would be owed them from that initial amount. In order to start collecting any money after that first payment, a band usually has to go gold within their first two albums released on the contract.

      Even worse, most of the promotional and support services you talk about are actaully paid for by the band, again out of their future royalties. Many groups actually end up *owing* the label money after their first album and tour, which only further binds them to the label's "artistic direction" for them.

      The only thing you get from a major label by signing with them is a temporary invitation to ride their distribution network to promote your work. Artists pay their own way, and lose all rights to their work in the process. Of course, that's often better than the alternative, since independent groups and labels have effectively no leverage with radio stations and major venue owners, esp. given the current trend of media consolidation

      You just have to look at the likely outcome from this week's news about the new FCC relaxation of ownership rules for a chilling view of where we're going. I don't think that Apple is going to turn things around overnight, but any arrangement which gives the indies more opportunity to reach a paying audience is fine by me.

    2. Re:Death to Big Labels by Gaijinator · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Dinosaurs were big and dominated the earth and THEY DIED OUT.

      That analogy doesn't fit very well. Dinosaurs were cold-blooded carnivores*... oh wait.

      * (Yes, I know some dinosaurs were also wussy Vegans.)

      --
      "For success, it is essential you have Thunderball Fists." "I can have such a thing?" "That's right. Thunderball Fists."
    3. Re:Death to Big Labels by kincade · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If Apple were to go one step further and provide free genre-based streamed music channels they could easily mix in independent artists. The artists gain free exposure to a potentially huge market, and Apple would increase sales in areas that would usually be low. It's very tedious and time consuming to wade through pages of free samples attempting to find tracks you like. Having them streamed with some easy method of selecting 'favorites' would be an enormous benefit to the process. Personally I have purchased several CDs based on songs I've heard via Shoutcast streams, and would consider using Apple's service if this type of free sampling mechanism were available -- provided they release Win software in a reasonable amount of time, and work on lowering that $.99 price where practical..

  3. It's not enough by sparkes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ;-)

  4. Much more attractive that indielabel inclusion... by Noodlenose · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...is the prospect of a deal between Apple and Amazon.com that was mentioned.

    The synergetic effects would be impressive for both companies, as Apple would have their products available on the biggest online retailer on earth and would benefit from amazons itunes link up. Amazon would get exposure to the big - spending Apple users.

    Clever..

  5. Finally! Now to see... by Chroneos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...which labels show up on iTMS, I'm hoping to not only see spinART and Rough Trade, but also smaller labels like Mezzotint who seem to have most of their old catalog out of print aside from vinyl and cassette. I've been saying since its debut, iTMS can be a vehicle for low budget labels to get digital media out with less cost than a run of discs.

    --
    ------------ Ben Chroneos
  6. iTMS a killer app? by klmth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Apple needs to run to stay ahead by mblase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Think Different, Think Nirvana by IIEFreeMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to this article from The Register, Apple is giving 65 cents out of the 99 cents to the music industry so effectively they look already thin on margin.

  9. It IS a race by chia_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  10. Maybe not by doormat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  11. Re:That makes me wonder... by Ja-Ja-Jamin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. :-)

  12. Sharpshooters everywhere... by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm amazed at the tone of so many comments in this thread. Apple has the balls to go out and do something nobody else has been able to do with nearly as much success. Yet even as Apple adds more artists and focuses more attention on indie labels, people are predicting their demise.

    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
  13. Re:Two obstacles: subscriptions and licenses by frightenedmonkey · · Score: 5, Informative
    I went and dug around on the site, and the FAQ states pretty explicitly that you have to already be paying their subscription fee to buy tracks to download. Stated explicitly:
    8. Do I have to be subscribed to the All Access subscription plan to burn CDs? Yes. Only subscribers to the RHAPSODY All Access subscription plan at $9.95 per month, will get the ability to burn tracks for an additional fee per track, on a pay-as-you-go basis.
    Plus, what you can buy to burn is a limited subset of what they have available to listen to. Overall, it doesn't sound like a good deal to me. Think about how much you'd have to download to beat Apple's price, you break even at about 50 tracks a month ((50 * $.79) + $10 = $49.5; 50 * $.99 = $49.5), that's a lot of music I'm not going to buy every month. I mean, if you had a bunch of songs you wanted to buy (more than 50), and you could sign up for only a month (I couldn't find a minimum subscription time limitation, but I didn't look particularly hard), then maybe it would be a good thing to use, but it seems like a big hassle to me. They also offer a $4.95/month plan that only allows you access to the streaming library. But, still, I take CDs I burn into my car, to friend's -- a lot of places where I'm not going to listen to music through my computer, so it's not right for me. Obviously, there'll be some people who'll be satisfied by Real's service, but I'm betting that most will be like me. I guess Apple is, too.