Slashdot Mirror
iTunes Indie Meeting Notes
BWJones writes "The CD baby! site contains notes taken from the indie music meeting recently held at Apple. Interesting statistics revealed were that there are about 500k songs/week being downloaded from the iTunes Music store and that 45% of songs are being purchased as albums. Other interesting items of note are that Apple is treating everyone as equvalents in that all labels receive equal treatment with the same deal, the same agreements and you work with the same team of people. What's more is that Apple cuts a check EVERY MONTH which is huge for the smaller labels." Wired has another story about iTunes which notes that what Jobs taketh away, the community is bringing back.
I think that Apple's setting itself up as an honest broker of web services in order to try to stay out of Apple Record's crosshairs. If Apple starts preferring one store above another, one label above another, it can be more realistically be claimed to be in the business and thus afoul of its previous corporate commitments. If what they're doing is just providing a deal for the labels to have their content distributed on Apple's web services platform, it's much more arguable that they're in the music business at all.
They say that 45% of the songs are purchased as albums as if itâ(TM)s a great accomplishment, but doesnâ(TM)t that mean that very few transactions are actually albums? For example, if there were about 10 songs per CD, then doesnâ(TM)t that mean that about 5% of all transactions are for an album. Or, in other words, only one out of every 20 purchases is for an album? Personally, I donâ(TM)t find this surprising, but I donâ(TM)t think that itâ(TM)s anything to be too excited over.
Keeping honest people honest and not worrying about pirates seems to be their strategy.
I'm actually a little suprised at the heavy handedness Apple has shown with preventing the LAN streaming of mp3's all together. Apple has always been one to promote innovation, well usually unless they think its a threat. But the issue with preventing the iTunes streaming may have something to do with these new deals with the music labels, Apple may have it's hands tied and has pressure on it by the labels, who knows.
[Pauses to put on troll feeding gloves]
Man, that is a slow computer - you were transfering that same file on that same computer a week ago when you posted. And then a week before that!
That's AMAZINGLY slow... or maybe you are... I dunno but I wish I could get paid "freelance" for sitting and constantly transfering a 17MB file back and forth - regardless of how long it might take...
HA! Like you have a job!
What was that one
What is it with people wanting to make a good thing unavailable? The streaming capability of iTunes seemed pretty sweet to me. But, of course, some jackasses had to figure out the way to use that capability to further steal music. Why? What the fuck is your problem? Are you a kleptomaniac? An anarchist? You just hate other people and don't want them to enjoy things? You're not cool. You're a retard. You are the reason that good things get taken away. Dude, cut it the fuck out. You're no different than the jackass that first took a hair dryer into a shower.
Go ahead, flame away. Mod me down. I have the karma to burn.
-
but the article said that in 20 years Apple has never sold an icon to a desktop in their operating system. This may be true but if you install OS X you will be asked to sign up for an Earthlink account. To me that sounds like advertising sold to Earthlink to place their company ahead of others. Just a thought.
___ Shout Central - Crushes your nuts!
>>I'm currently a PC user myself, and going to stay that way unless Apple caters more to DIY types - yeah right.
If you're talking hardware, well, pretty much everybody uses serial or USB connections to fiddle with the machine these days--wirewrapping PCI cards just isn't practical now.
If you're talking software, well there's nothing to stop you from hacking in OS X. After all, you're talking FreeBSD utilities, the Darwin kernel, etc.
Seems like Apples are more conducive to DIY than a PC these days.
I don't think Apple would even want to distribute songs over iTunes in a not DRM fashion. I imagine they're making a per purchase profit, so by allowing someone to download a totally unsecure file means they could lose revenue. Like the previous reply'er said, if they want to release a non-DRM track, then they can do it on thier own time, money, and bandwidth.
Th
The problem is with the HFS file system. It uses B-trees which were optimized for small drives. Past 500 MB, every offset requires multiple multiplications (the PPC doesn't have native multiplication instruction). Furthermore, the new file has to be allocated block-by-block --- no preallocation like in windows 2k, or even win95.
So you set up your own privately-held corporation to record your own music. This is quite legal in most countries. Then Apple pays your corporation, and your corporation pays you a pittance. (This will help convince your government's tax agencies that it's a real recording company. ;-) And only your "profits" are taxed.
...
I think I'll go register as a corporation this afternoon
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Honestly, I'll bet this is just stage 2 in terms of getting content onboard. They're really still in the middle of stage 1 with the major labels, as much of their more obscure content has yet to be added. In stage 2, they get 100+ of the bigger indie labels onboard. Once that's all going smoothly, they can attack stage 3, getting the smaller indies. After lessons learned from all of this, maybe they can start thinking about dealing with small time artists directly. Maybe.
In any case, baby steps. And they've got a lot of other shit going on too -- iTunes for Windows and getting the labels onboard for that (whole different ballgame), international store and all the licensing issues, etc. This is a big, big job but so far Apple is doing everything right. Let's see where this thing is in another year or so. It won't happen overnight.
It's truely amazing how Apple has managed to hit the nail on the head while the RIAA keeps swinging away futily. The RIAA keeps trying the closed fist approach to stoping mp3 piracy. Shut down as many services as possible. Sue everyone. Badmouth music fans. Unfortunately, any scholar of the internet can tell you that the more somebody tries to force out a popular service, the more the community will fight back with new sites, programs, hacks, etc.
So Apple has come along with the open hand approach. They aren't insulting the music fans. They aren't insulting the technologically advanced community. They're co-existing. Download what you want. Hell, burn it if you want. Get the entire CD cheaper than it will cost you at any store. You can still love your music, download what you want, keep it, and support the musicians. And hell, now they're even saying they aren't playing favorites. IF you're telling me that the RIAA aligned groups get the same cashflow program as small indie labels, then I'm buying.
We've been waiting awhile for a new "music delivery model" that pundits have been pushing for. I'm not saying Apple has the whole thing nailed down. But they're soooo close. They figured out the key of existing without being a slap in the face to the people they want to use their service. And now the RIAA has their tail tucked between their legs, trying to figure out why a bunch of hippies at Apple figured out something their teams of lawyers and PR consultants couldn't: Don't insult your customer.
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
I don't think (m)any people are "switching" their music collection to AAC files they've bought at the Apple Music store. The article said itself that the most popular (profitable) tracks are new releases and exclusive tracks, not available on CD (and I'm assuming not on vinyl either). The Apple Music Store is NOT the economical way of getting music you already own into a new format. I don't think we're going to see any rapid drop off sales anytime soon, especially before they get the windows version of iTunes out.
You do realize of course, that forming a corporation will make doing your taxes (relatively simple), into a horrific nightmare?
Why is this so hard to believe?
.99 cents a month on a song. Take into account that occaisionally a record gets bought which would decrease the 1 in 6 number even further.
Assume Apple has 3 million OS X computers with iTunes installed. I'm guessing that number is larger, but lets go with that.
They are averaging 500k songs a month. That means 1 in 6 users is willing to spend
The reason the iTMS is doing so well is that it's very easy to get into, and very non-binding. You don't need a monthly contract, there's almost no barrier to entry, you just pick up a $.99 song and you're done, with no hassle. You come back, or you don't, but because your information is all ready to go, and the store is built into your player, it is very easy....tempting even, to return and get another song for just $.99 later on.
Also, this caters to impulse buying big time. If I hear a song that's good on my way home from work, I can fight traffic and get to the CD store and plop down $12-$15, or I can wait til I get home, get the song I liked, and preview the other songs to make sure it's worthwhile.
Honestly, maybe its hard to believe how easy it is to get lured in until you've actually used the service and seen how easy it is to use, but 1 in 6 buying a song a month seems very believable to me, and I bet it goes up once the selection gets a little bit deeper.
-SC
You're missing the point here. The meeting wasn't about sales figures or proprietary information. The important thing is that this shows Apple is now actively courting independent artists for iTMS, and apparently giving them the same deal that the big 5 labels get. As much as this can be feasibly done, at any rate: iTMS should not be a free-for-all where anyone with a garage band can upload songs in the hope that they take off. Probably Apple's preference for having a (independent) label represent artists rather than the artists upload the songs themselves is to ensure a manageable level of both quality and responsibility.
The interesting part was "When asked if artists with their own label would be eligible, the iTunes guys had an odd answer, saying that this was invitation-only and they want to deal with those of us in the room." This is not a No, but neither is it a Yes. Do they mean to see how things go and keep options open for welcoming Artist-Labels in the future? They have to walk a tightrope between satisfying the big labels and giving maximum access to the independents.
In any event, this shows Apple is attempting to include independent artists in the iTMS, and at least trying to be fair about it. If this really takes off, it could substantially change the position of the independent artist in the recording industry.
This CD will NOT get press in our publication, since it's hard to get into a CD when every 3-4 minutes some recorded message comes on; nice job, record executives. Way to prevent piracy!
it should get in your magazine.. mention it that you threw it in the trash because of that and if they want you to actually review it then send you something that is listen-able.
you actually have the power to get these nut-heads attention... but being silent is not the way to do it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I wonder how the math works for the music industry. Are they afraid that they're going to start losing money from individual songs sold direct at .99 each, or would they prefer to sell a full album at 9.99 each, full of filler that most people don't want? It could be a whole new market for them, or at least restoring the old market that was lost when people stopped buying 45 RPMs. There never was a successor to that format that caught on, although clearly there is a demand for being able to purchase the 'hit singles'.
I really wish they would offer that. I've released DRM free music and would love to do so through the iTunes store. I hate DRM myself, and I don't want to inflict it on fans.
I think a lot of artists are open to this idea. It is the one advantage that I have over the big players: I'm not a greedy bastard. I make music for fun, and I'd be happy if just the people who wanted to pay for it did.
I'm trying to figure out what the big deal is.
Apple makes a freely available "QuickTime Streaming Server". Download it, install it. And stream your music through it. Its not that hard. Anyone with quicktime can then connect and listen to the music stream. Its not like apple really "forced fed anyone shit."
They just made it slightly harder for the RIAA to hold them accountable.
I just don't see how Apple is having millions of downloads and sales every month from software that isn't on _that_ many computers.
Or maybe, just maybe, everything you hear about Apple's market share is skewed against them by the analysts' methods. Comparing new sales each quarter doesn't factor in the installed base.
Good rebut but it *was* bait. That guy posts the same thing on every Mac article.
They're offering a deal to indie lables. The text doesn't say much new about the tech. What it talks about is the deal. This gives two groups time to react before the deal is signed. The big 5 can complain and try to improve their deals (they don't want competion, their power will be seen in the banner ads.) Competitors (MS, Real) can try to out-bid them for "Exclusive" deals. i.e. MS will pay them more if they don't sell on iTMS.
90 days would have all the indies onboard with the offers set. Now they might lose a few labels.
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
Hmm, 6-7 million iTunes 4 users and you don't know how they could sell 500,000 $0.99 songs per week? That doesn't seem that unreasonable to me -- I don't buy much music (maybe 5 CD's per year), but I've already purchased 94 songs from iTunes, as of today (maybe 40% of those were full album purchases).
To me, iTunes is like the 7-11 -- CONVENIENT. I have two sons (aged 2 and 4) and a full-time job, so I don't often have time to go wandering around a store browsing for music usually not able to find what I want. I can count half a dozen purchases (maybe half of all the 94 songs) since I started buying music from iTunes that I never would've bought if I didn't have access to iTunes -- I'm stuck at home with the sick kids because my wife has to work, I'm watching a music awards show or music video at 8pm on a weeknight, I see during lunch at work that a hot new artist just released a new album I can get without leaving work, and on and on and on...
I think this is just a revolution of convenience that the music industry needed very badly. Or maybe this is just proof that the Mac market IS actually viable -- you know some people will just refuse to like or accept THAT!
I don't know which was faster, the information about the iTunes store on the CDBaby site being pulled
Well, that was a surprise. I did not think that any of the information was proprietary or "secret", thus my submission of the story. I guess someone must have objected which is unfortunate because the story made Apple look like a real good guy for the smaller indie labels.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
There is, presumably, a difference between the artists website and the website of the record label: for example, http://fischerspooner.com is different from http://www.hollywoodandvine.com .
The meeting was between apple and independent record labels, in case you missed it.
So sorry, no conspiracy for you today.
~mindlace
It's still a brand new service. So open up iTunes, go to the music store and click "Requests and Feedback" link and tell them you'd like a gift feature.
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
Most of the music you can buy from iTMS is already on the P2P networks. Given the choice between some Spyware-laden P2P software trying to hit 20 different hosts until one lets me download, then finding the song mangled or cut short, all the while having the RIAA breathing down my neck, and simply paying 99 cents for a high-quality copy, I'll gladly pay the 99 cents.
Yes, it's sad when people have ethics and (somewhat redundant) a sense of morality. I believe strongly that you should be allowed to steal anything you want. "Nice car! Mine now!".
The NY Times has an editorial that seems relevant to this entire discussion. Their take is that the RIAA has shot itself in the foot so many times and that Apple's iTMS is a feasible solution to the woes of the contemporary music economy. I can't agree more. Especially relevant is their pointing out that Apple's independence from the interests of the big corporations is critical. I think the policy that Apple is reportedly pursuing demonstrates their ability to be an independent, while remaining practical and responsible to all parties (artists and consumers). I would like to also add that the Slashdot community, as a community of vocal critics, needs to be careful not to jump to conclusions. Face it, corporations are here to stay. We therefore need to temper our responses to favor responsible corporations that demonstrate positive contributions to society. This means that we cannot call them 'evil' when they try to keep secrets for business purposes or cover their backs legally. The Register article that criticizes their lack of beta testing of iSync is a good example of positive criticism. However, tearing apart Apple when they modify a product such as iTunes to protect themselves from prosecution is out of line. Would we have them wait until it becomes a legal issue and the RIAA shuts down their participation in iTMS due to breach of contract? This doesn't help anyone. Instead, we should look upon the RIAA, in the case of iTMS, as being a base from which Apple can expand offerings to benefit the little guys. We should have patience and speak with the big picture in mind.
The URL for the article is http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/07/opinion/07SAT4.h tml
It requires registration, so here's the article:
__Downloading Music Over the Internet Without Feeling Like a Criminal__
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Hardly a week goes by without another salvo in the music wars, which have been going on now for years. And week by week the shape of the struggle seems to change.
What set it all off was the emergence in 1999 of Napster, the file-swapping brainstorm that allowed computer users to download free music files. Napster was enormously destabilizing. It undermined the economic logic of $17.99 CD's by making the physical object itself, the CD in its jewel case, irrelevant. The recording industry knew exactly what to make of Napster, calling it theft, plain and simple. Recording artists had a harder time. Many musicians agreed that file swapping was a form of theft, but many of them also argued that their recording contracts were a form of theft, too. At the very least, file swapping became the perfect industry excuse for the prolonged downturn in CD sales, whether it was the real cause or not.
Since then, there have been calls for copy-protected CD's and for government intervention. The recording industry has been fighting for its life with the zeal of desperation and ineptitude. It brought a farcical suit, since dropped, for billions of dollars against four file-swapping students, and it has sought to snoop on private computers. Reports say that it has also planned to hack its way into the machines of file swappers.
The industry knows that its future depends on somehow making music files available for purchase and downloading over the Internet. And yet every pay-per-play music downloading service the recording industry has sanctioned has been notable mainly for clumsiness, proprietary paranoia and a condescending attitude toward its customers.
It's clear what computer-literate music lovers really want: a simple, elegant interface; a broad catalog of music; quick, high-quality downloading; and an approach that doesn't treat the consumer like a criminal wearing a house-arrest shackle. The new Apple music service, the iTunes Music Store, should point the way, especially when it or similar services spread to the Windows platform.
It's ironic that Apple should have introduced the first really successful commercial Inter