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 don't know which was faster, the information about the iTunes store on the CDBaby site being pulled or the obligatory post about how slow it is to copy files on an 8600/300.
Here
Perhaps the record labels had a problem with the streaming, and so Apple pulled it - expecting that someone would just hack their code to bring it back.
What with all the fuss about internet radio and royalty fees, it's not too far fetched that the record companies didn't like people legitimately streaming the songs they had legitimately purchased.
IIRC, Tivo & others have similar hidden features that the masses are unaware of that would probably annoy the TV companies if it were publicised.
I saw a similar story yesterday on a popular community-driven geek news website.
You should check it out sometime!
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
All the details have been pulled and the following remark inserted:
"And yes, sorry, there used to be more details here. I didn't realize yesterday's presentation was supposed to be confidential. When I found out, I pulled the details. Honest mistake."
Religion and science are both 90% crap..but that doesn't negate the other 10%.
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.
As always, good old MacSurfer toi the rescue with a link to the Gnutella News story.
Lots of interesting details; it looks like Apple is being fair and genuinely trying to help out independent artists as much as possible.
While the CD Baby page has not been taken down, its been neutered - all relevant info has been removed and I think its obvious why.
Apple only gets about 6-12 months to have their innovations be innovations before someone else copies them.. putting out the info now, instead of in the 90ish days when the details will all be public, only gives MS and Real a head-start on their idea copying.
I'm perfectly willing to wait and see.... tho other sources have already noted that Apple has mentioned a iTMS Compression tool to allow Indie's the ability to compress their own music on their own machines to make their music ready for sale on the iTMS.
and if that's true.. that kicks fscking ass.
Go Apple, you guys r0x0r.(note: i'm not bashing their copying of Apple's ideas, i'm only stating fact)
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
One interesting note I remember from reading it: No independant artists. You have to come in through one of the independant labels. Apple pays the label. The label pays you.
Boom Shanka
I got an invitation to go to Apple's office for a presentation/meeting today (June 5, 2003) about how to get independent artists into the iTunes Music Store. There were about 150 people there, representatives from the best independent record labels and music services, in this invitation-only conference room. Steve Jobs came out and started a two and a half hour presentation/seminar/Q&A about iTunes and the benefits of independent labels making their music available there. I type fast and had my laptop, so I wrote down all the major points of their presentation as they went.
NOTE: I've skipped the super-basic introduction to iTunes and what it does, because that can be found so many other places. This is the stuff that I felt was most important to musicians:
The basics
* The basics of iTunes Music Store are covered in many places, so if you haven't used iTunes Music store yet, read these links first:
* Apple's iTunes Music Store website.
* Great video showing the service.
* NOTE: iTunes is not a website! It can only be accessed from the iTunes software run on Mac OS X (now) and Windows (by the end of the year.)
* I highly suggest trying it for yourself. If you don't have a Mac, use a friend's. Enter your credit card info and actually buy a song. Tell it to store your info for future purchases. Buy a few more songs with the one-click system. I'm serious. You should try it yourself to really experience how amazingly cool it is.
* They're using a DRM called Fairplay to make sure you can't put these songs on the internet and have them play on another player.
Current Stats:
* There are 6-7 million copies of iTunes in use.
* 3.5 million songs sold so far. Selling about 500,000 songs a week now.
* More than 75% of songs have sold at least once. There is a wide breadth in purchasing. This is not only fueled by hits.
* 45% of all songs have been bought as an album. In other words: don't worry about the death of the album format. 45% of people prefer to buy as an album anyway, even though they always have the option to only buy per-song.
* 90% of sales are 1-click downloads. (1-click is where customer has credit card stored on file, so that as soon as they click a song title, it starts downloading and their credit card is automatically charged.)
* 10 previews (free 30 second listen) for every purchase. Meaning: 10 listens per buy.
Price of music on iTunes
* Songs must be 99 cents each.
* Full albums are recommended to be $9.99 or lower.
* Album price must be less than or equal to the sum of their tracks. So if you have a 5-song album, it can't be more than $4.95 to buy the full-length album.
* Apple strongly recommends going even lower than $9.99. They'd like to see that price drop to make the full-album purchase even more desirable.
* Only exception: if a song is over 7 minutes long, they won't offer it as a separate download. It will be available as part of the album only.
* There is no cost to put your music on iTunes.
* There will be no up-front advance from Apple.
* Details on the wholesale price to the label will be mailed to us, later.
Sales report to SoundScan
* Apple is reporting all iTunes sales to SoundScan!
* SoundScan measures per-song not per-album.
* So if someone buys your whole album, each track on the album is reported as a song sale.
* SoundScan requested to do it that way. It was their idea, not Apple's.
About positioning and getting attention on iTunes
* Apple has hired an editorial staff with backgrounds in music to decide what gets featured.
* Editorial team makes decisions every day as to what goes where.
* Big labels don't get preferential treatment.
* "We pick music we like, and we think everyone else is going to like."
* "We've had a lot of people offer money", but A
shame on us / for all we have done / and all we ever were / just zeroes and ones
Cd Baby reports on itunes meeting re: indy music.
Posted by leflaw on June 6, 2003 at 7:44 AM EDT
Apple iTunes + independent music
I got an invitation to go to Apple's office for a presentation/meeting today (June 5, 2003) about how to get independent artists into the iTunes Music Store. There were about 150 people there, representatives from the best independent record labels and music services, in this invitation-only conference room. Steve Jobs came out and started a two and a half hour presentation/seminar/Q&A about iTunes and the benefits of independent labels making their music available there. I type fast and had my laptop, so I wrote down all the major points of their presentation as they went.
NOTE: I've skipped the super-basic introduction to iTunes and what it does, because that can be found so many other places. This is the stuff that I felt was most important to musicians:
The basics
* The basics of iTunes Music Store are covered in many places, so if you haven't used iTunes Music store yet, read these links first:
* Apple's iTunes Music Store website.
* Great video showing the service.
* NOTE: iTunes is not a website! It can only be accessed from the iTunes software run on Mac OS X (now) and Windows (by the end of the year.)
* I highly suggest trying it for yourself. If you don't have a Mac, use a friend's. Enter your credit card info and actually buy a song. Tell it to store your info for future purchases. Buy a few more songs with the one-click system. I'm serious. You should try it yourself to really experience how amazingly cool it is.
* They're using a DRM called Fairplay to make sure you can't put these songs on the internet and have them play on another player.
Current Stats:
* There are 6-7 million copies of iTunes in use.
* 3.5 million songs sold so far. Selling about 500,000 songs a week now.
* More than 75% of songs have sold at least once. There is a wide breadth in purchasing. This is not only fueled by hits.
* 45% of all songs have been bought as an album. In other words: don't worry about the death of the album format. 45% of people prefer to buy as an album anyway, even though they always have the option to only buy per-song.
* 90% of sales are 1-click downloads. (1-click is where customer has credit card stored on file, so that as soon as they click a song title, it starts downloading and their credit card is automatically charged.)
* 10 previews (free 30 second listen) for every purchase. Meaning: 10 listens per buy.
Price of music on iTunes
* Songs must be 99 cents each.
* Full albums are recommended to be $9.99 or lower.
* Album price must be less than or equal to the sum of their tracks. So if you have a 5-song album, it can't be more than $4.95 to buy the full-length album.
* Apple strongly recommends going even lower than $9.99. They'd like to see that price drop to make the full-album purchase even more desirable.
* Only exception: if a song is over 7 minutes long, they won't offer it as a separate download. It will be available as part of the album only.
* There is no cost to put your music on iTunes.
* There will be no up-front advance from Apple.
* Details on the wholesale price to the label will be mailed to us, later.
Sales report to SoundScan
* Apple is reporting all iTunes sales to SoundScan!
* SoundScan measures per-song not per-album.
* So if someone buys your whole album, each track on the album is reported as a song sale.
* SoundScan requested to do it that way. It was their idea, not Apple's.
About positioning and getting attention on iTunes
* Apple has hired an editorial staff with backgrounds in music to decide what gets featured.
* Editorial team makes decisions every day as to what goes where.
* Big labels don't get preferential treatment.
* "We pick music we like, and we think everyone else is going to like."
* "We've had a lot of people offer money", but Apple refuses money, and has no plan to ev
Shamelessly copied and pasted from MacSlash:
Derek Sivers, president of CD Baby and Hostbaby, attended yesterday's meeting between Apple representatives and about 150 indie label produces and executives and has posted his notes online from the meeting. Some of the highlights include a link to the fairplay website, which apple has said it's using for DRM, and the fact that Apple reports iTunes Music Store sales to SoundScan. Apple also told producers that they would not sell ad space to record labels and that all store content is done by Apple editors. Additionally, Apple promised to treat the indie labels the same as the big five, with the "same treatment, all-around."
--Sig? Uh, it's in my other pants.
Man, I hope CD Baby works out a licensing deal where CD's from CD Baby's catalog are also sold on iTMS. I plan on selling an album through them this summer and I would love for it to be available in iTunes as well.
(a little OT)
Thanks to companies like Apple, the smaller labels will really reap the benefits of getting their music out there without heavy tampering to 'prevent' piracy.
I work for a music publication, and it's interesting to see which companies ignore the 'threat' of piracy, and which ones try to fight it.
For example, the new Cradle of Filth arrived with a hand-signed number on the CD, and a b/w CD case with a skull and cross bones on it, warning me (the music critic) that "this disc is watermark protected" whatever that means.
Meanwhile, the new Type O Negative arrived with a 10 second commericial attached (i.e. spliced into) each song ("Your listening to the new Type O Negative, in stores next month"). 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!
One of the things I've been wondering is, if an indie label wants to make their own songs available without DRM, will Apple let them do so on the iTunes Music Store, or is DRM absolutely required? What if the band wants to sell unrestricted AAC files? What about MP3?
Of course I expect most of them to want the DRM, but some may not.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
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.
Middle English chek, from Middle French eschec
Seems to suggest that "check" is the correct modern spelling and that people writing "cheque" are just weird, or "chiefly British."
Besides, incorrect spelling is one of the cornerstones of Slashdot, like incorrect grammer. (How many people will catch that, I wonder?) Complaining about it is so passé.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Interesting that they pulled the "details" because they seem to have been reminded that they were confidential (see note at bottom of page). Do we see the shadow of the Long Arm of Apple or a case of sudden recall?
It doesn't look that way. It looks like the author misunderstood the purpose of the meeting according to this.
I also believe a mirror of the original text on CD baby lives here.
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.
-
According to a post in the MacRumors forums from CDBaby the details were pulled and here's why:
--------------
It wasn't wrath or lawyers that asked me to pull it. It was a friend of mine that works there.
I sincerely didn't know yesterday's presentation was supposed to be confidential. In fact I thought it was like an indie-music press conference.
Nobody's mad, though. Honest mistake.
Sorry guys!
--
Derek Sivers, CD Baby
http://www.cdbaby.com
--------------
But.... here it is anyhow...
I got an invitation to go to Apple's office for a presentation/meeting today (June 5, 2003) about how to get independent artists into the iTunes Music Store. There were about 150 people there, representatives from the best independent record labels and music services, in this invitation-only conference room. Steve Jobs came out and started a two and a half hour presentation/seminar/Q&A about iTunes and the benefits of independent labels making their music available there. I type fast and had my laptop, so I wrote down all the major points of their presentation as they went.
NOTE: I've skipped the super-basic introduction to iTunes and what it does, because that can be found so many other places. This is the stuff that I felt was most important to musicians:
The basics
* The basics of iTunes Music Store are covered in many places, so if you haven't used iTunes Music store yet, read these links first:
* Apple's iTunes Music Store website.
* Great video showing the service.
* NOTE: iTunes is not a website! It can only be accessed from the iTunes software run on Mac OS X (now) and Windows (by the end of the year.)
* I highly suggest trying it for yourself. If you don't have a Mac, use a friend's. Enter your credit card info and actually buy a song. Tell it to store your info for future purchases. Buy a few more songs with the one-click system. I'm serious. You should try it yourself to really experience how amazingly cool it is.
* They're using a DRM called Fairplay to make sure you can't put these songs on the internet and have them play on another player.
Current Stats:
* There are 6-7 million copies of iTunes in use.
* 3.5 million songs sold so far. Selling about 500,000 songs a week now.
* More than 75% of songs have sold at least once. There is a wide breadth in purchasing. This is not only fueled by hits.
* 45% of all songs have been bought as an album. In other words: don't worry about the death of the album format. 45% of people prefer to buy as an album anyway, even though they always have the option to only buy per-song.
* 90% of sales are 1-click downloads. (1-click is where customer has credit card stored on file, so that as soon as they click a song title, it starts downloading and their credit card is automatically charged.)
* 10 previews (free 30 second listen) for every purchase. Meaning: 10 listens per buy.
Price of music on iTunes
* Songs must be 99 cents each.
* Full albums are recommended to be $9.99 or lower.
* Album price must be less than or equal to the sum of their tracks. So if you have a 5-song album, it can't be more than $4.95 to buy the full-length album.
* Apple strongly recommends going even lower than $9.99. They'd like to see that price drop to make the full-album purchase even more desirable.
* Only exception: if a song is over 7 minutes long, they won't offer it as a separate download. It will be available as part of the album only.
* There is no cost to put your music on iTunes.
* There will be no up-front advance from Apple.
* Details on the wholesale price to the label will be mailed to us, later.
Sales report to SoundScan
* Apple is reporting all iTunes sales to SoundScan!
* SoundScan measures per-song not per-album.
* So if someone buys your whole album, each track on the album is reported as a song sale.
* SoundScan requested to do it that way. It was their idea
Found this on the macnn boards:
Sorry - I took the details down from that page. It wasn't wrath or lawyers that asked me to pull it. It was a friend of mine that works there. I sincerely didn't know yesterday's presentation was supposed to be confidential. In fact I thought it was like an indie-music press conference. Nobody's mad, though. Honest mistake. Sorry guys!
-- Derek Sivers, CD Baby http://www.cdbaby.com
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!
The "What Jobs taketh away.." article refers to Andromeda, a $35 web-based file streaming program.
There is a free GPL'd alternative, ZINA (Zina Is Not Andromeda) as well as other solutions. A search of freshmeat.net for "jukebox" will reveal even more...
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Okay I take the bait:
You are running an OS that was written 13 years before you bought your Mac and was updated with more and more features, meaning in many cases unoptimized bloat. I am guessing you are running MacOS 9, and this does not have many of the low-level features of a modern OS. The multi-tasking used by the OS is cooperative, so if one process hogs the CPU no other app gets a chance. Other things to take into account is that the OS has virtual memory (the OS doesn't differentiate between what is real and what isn't, when allocating memory) and not swap space, so this can also affect performance if you are trying to do a lot at once.
Windows NT on the other hand had a lot of new code and was essentially a new OS and was written with many of the modern features you would expect from an OS. I am not so sure Windows 95/98 would be performing as well on this machine. One thing you don't say is how much memory you have on that PC, since memory make a LOT of differnce.
MacOS X is the Apple's new OS and has plenty of modern facilities, which should make it fly. The problem is the eye candy and all the other GUI stuff which adds an extra load to the CPU. The OS is improving and is getting faster. In theory if MacOS X had the same GUI as MacOS 9 (in other words one which requires less processing), I am sure that you find it running fast ion the 8600.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
The difference between check and cheque is the same between color and colour, humor and humour, authorize and authorise. The spelling is different especially on differnt sides of the Atlantic. If the person writing the article is American, it's not wrong.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's my prediction that they'll start seeing album sales drop rapidly as people finish "switching" their music collection to the new format. Once you've got all your old vinyl in AAC, you'll probably not want to risk the $10 on a new, untested album.
DataSquid.net, a little about me.
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. It doesn't seem to make any sense. Are these numbers legit or is Apple cooking the books?
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.
It also states at the bottom of the page, that CDBaby would be interested in working with independent musicians to get them a spot on iTMS.
I'm sure CDBaby would like some sort of cut, but they do this with their CD sales already, so they've already worked out the contract issues.
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'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.
...whoever comes along with a 35 cent version of a similar service using another format [vorbis.com] and a better bitrate?
Going broke on the difference between the 35 cent retail and the 65 cents label royalty per track is a fairly predictable first consequence, one would think
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'.
Why did they do this? They're just going to piss off classical music and techno/trance fans. I have many songs I love that are well over 7 minutes.
"Check" (the noun) in this instance is an incorrect spelling of the word that has become so ubiquitous it is now considered an alternate spelling. For Americans, it is becoming the only recognized correct spelling.
"Seems to suggest that "check" is the correct modern spelling and that people writing "cheque" are just weird, or "chiefly British"
Case in point (your link to Merriam-Webster is an American dictionary). Along with the weird "cheifly British" folk you can also include Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, South Africans, etc... almost the entire English-speaking world outside the US.
Actually, I have a number of albums (yes, vinyl) that I haven't replaced with the CD version. When iTMS was up, those were the first I looked for. I've taken "ripped" some of the vinyl to mp3 or ogg but considering what my time is worth iTMS is much cheaper.
Most of my vinyl is available as CD but now I doubt that I'll ever buy it as that. I can buy the AAC's from iTMS and then burn a CD from my playlist (which I have done). The sound -- while admittedly not CD quality -- is better than my ears are and I have yet to find any sonic imperfections. And, it's better than the quality of my albums no matter what. (Yes, I took very good care of my albums but you pick up hiss and scratches no matter how careful you are!)
I've also purchased new music that I have neither the CD or album for. It was a quick, simple, and inexpensive way to get the music and I got to sample it first. I doubt I'll buy many more pre-recorded CDs now that I have this option.
My point is, yes it is an economical solution for replacing pre-owned music in some formats. For people like me, it's an easy way to "switch" my music collection to a digital format.
"There is no spoon." - Neo
"Spoooon!" - The Tick
Does anyone know if Apple is pushing for an exclusive right to distribute/sell these tunes online or if they're content being one of many distributors? This is the sort of things that worries me when the really big guys start playing in this field, locking up the market.
I'm a huge fan of EMusic, another online service for downloading licensed (and DRM free!) music. Unlimited (with reason) downloads for $10/$15 a month is a better deal for me than $.99 a song. They have a great catalog even if they don't carry the 'major' labels, but I'd hate to see their catalog decrease if labels had to drop them to distribute via iTunes.
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.
The music companies and Microsoft are pretty much unwilling to let go of DRM. Microsoft builds DRM they way they do because that's what music companies thin they want. And then the music companies use that DRM because it's there.
And meanwhile Apple cleans up on all of the online music business because they are the only ones trying to build something the customer will want to use instead of the music companies. So even though another company could come along and undercut Apple (like RealMedia is trying to do) they always present some aspect to their system that screws things up and makes the service unappealing to consumers.
Also, the secret spice in Apple's store is that it's not web based and uses a custom interface. So you get not only easy searching and purchasing, but management of your songs all at once. Kind of the way IE came into being as the dominant web browser, it was just there with the OS... and the player you use for music has more music waiting to be bought and enjoyed right there.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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
One of the things that MS has going against it is that such deals are predicated on trust. The labels have to trust the technology vendor not going to screw them. Putting aside the jihad of whether or not it is deserved, MS has a well established reputation for shady and illegal business practices. Why would you ever do business with a company like that if you don't have to?
There's a great value added benefit to dealing with a technology company that is headed by an entertainment company CEO (Steve Jobs, of course, runs his own movie studio called Pixar). As long as Steve continues in his post, Apple will continue to be able to extract a few pennies extra in profit versus any deal MS will be able to make.
Exactly the point. If us lowly mac users everybody shits on can generate this much talk (and this much real profit for record labels), just think what'll happen when iTunes for PC hits the market.
I'd also love to see iTunes on setup top boxes. God, the thought of a big white multimedia box with a few hundred gigs of space and a high def display, digital output and a friendly engraved apple gets me all excited about my sound system again.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Actually, a quote earlier indicated that Apple didn't want to deal with 200 lawyers. That, as much as anything, explains why they are channeling things through labels and partners.
It also mean fewer checks that need to be cut every month, fewer reports to be generated, etc.
Obviously, if they wanted to deal with CD Baby (who does all the essential services of a label, but will work for anyone for $35 plus $4/album), they aren't trying to shut people out.
Spelling check "cheque" is different from what the average person expects. It is, therefore, wrong.
Simple rule: "Check" is a verb. "Cheque" is a noun referring to a bank note used for transferring currenecy to another person or corporation.
It's correct in every English speaking country outside the USA, and is therefore correct. Check is wrong here.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
I think Entomology, I think "the study of big talking trees." But maybe that's just me.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
As for the paradox, the quote from the article says that you can't insist that your album be sold album-only. However, I assume that in the case of an album with over-7-minute songs only, it would be sold as album-only.
This is a good thing, though, when you think about it... We're all pissed at the big labels for their game of one or two singles and tons of filler and then insisting we buy the whole album. Steve stepped up and said no, you can not make an album to be sold album-only (although, you could simply make all the songs really long... but the labels aren't going to do that - they still want radio airplay, which means shorter songs). The no-album-only sales simply prevents 'filler' albums.
-T
This is insightful?! Ok, so he was right up to the "too expensive part". But those of you who think that Apple's are too expensive, should go check out the price of iBooks. Starting at $999 for a loaded packge including DVD/CD Burner combo, firewire, a *really* nice keyboard, OSX, a high powered 3D card, and of course iTunes itself.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The article was written by a guy at CD Baby. CD Baby's pitch is that they are a online music store will sell anyones album and even issue the artist a UPC for their album if they want one, all for a reasonably low setup fee and per-copy fee.
He was invited to this invitation-only meeting, where Apple was pitching their indie-contract to indie lables. Obviously, Apple thinks that CD Baby would qualify as a "label" or a "partner", and act as a gateway for Apple.
If that's the case, then anybody who submits their album to CD Baby could potentially ask for it to be sent on to iTunes. Anybody. Of course, there may be a higher setup fee for that, as its more work for CD Baby.
He didn't see a contract, so it's unclear how much money the "labels" are getting per song or album sold. CD Baby's current model is the artist sets the album retail price, and CD Baby takes a fixed cut per copy sold for their share of the retail price. I imagine in this case, of the $0.99/song, Apple will take a cut, and then CD Baby will take a cut, but who can tell how big those cuts will be?
The really cool, really good thing Derek is doing is that he is providing an early path for everyone to get their music onto iTunes.
I totally understand Apple's position on this. They don't want to get swamped by tens of thousands of indie labels seeking individual contracts for their music. A lot of artists these days are self-publishing, and Apple doesn't have the ability to deal with each of them individually.
The big question in my mind is how CD Baby is going to be able to afford to submit their artists' materials to iTunes. Will they charge an up-front setup fee? Will they snag a commission on each song sold? It all remains to be seen.
My guess is that they'll charge a few bucks to encode your songs into the iTunes format and submit them, and then take $0.05 to $0.10 per song sold to help with processing checks and such.
I guess we'll all just have to wait a few months for this all to get sorted out.
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.
Unfortunately, as much as I wish it were otherwise, a lot of the people saying "Macs are more expensive" are actually right. Yes, Apple's laptops are price-competetive, but their desktops really aren't, especially when you're looking at speed.
Case in point: it sure would be nice if I could play Unreal Tournament 2003. My 700MHz eMac will sort of attempt to run it, but at the lowest settings it's too slow to be playable. I'm told this is largely due to the video card (32MB GeForce2 MX) rather than the processor, although I don't really know.
A 1GHz eMac with a 32MB Radeon 7500 is $999.
A 1GHz iMac with a 32MB GeForce4 MX is $1799.
A 1GHz PowerMac with 64MB GeForce4 MX is $1499 (plus monitor).
A dual 1.25GHz PowerMac with a 64MB Radeon 9000 Pro is $1999 (plus monitor).
Would the $1499 PowerMac be fast enough to make me happy playing that game? Maybe, I'm not sure. I bet the $999 eMac wouldn't be. I can build a 2.4GHz Athlon system with a nice video card for a hell of a lot less than that, even if you add the cost of Windows.
Of course this has nothing to do with iTunes, which works beautifully.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Apple Computer, the newest music distribution company? Let's not forget that with Apple's newly acquired library of music they will (if they haven't already) be financially encouraged to join those who want everlasting copyright power. So, as someone should remind the /. audience who is quick to react to shiny new objects and services, don't be so quick to get warm fuzzies when you think of Apple Computer. There is a more important bargain with society that still needs to be addressed anytime we're talking about matters of copyright.
Digital Citizen
I know this is way off topic but for $799 plus tax and S&H Apple selling overstock/returned/refurbished iBooks (G3/CD/20GB/700MHz/128k) for $799. I just ordered one for my grand parents.
There are other models too - with combo drive and faster processors. Take a look at The Apple Store and click the link on the lower left bottom of the page to "Special Deals: great prices on limited offers".
It's a good way to get a Mac without blowing a lot of money and if you like it, eBay the one you bought and your Wintel/Linux box and get a more expensive new Mac.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.