Slashdot Mirror
Jobs Resists Music Industry Pressure
Drew writes "Steve Jobs is opposed to raising the price of online music sales, calling the music industry greedy, and
implying that price increases will bring about more piracy." From the article: "It may not seem like it, but it has been more than two years since the launch of the iTunes Music Store, and that alone has the music industry brimming with hopes for price-adjustments. They also don't buy Jobs' argument that a price increase will result in more piracy, but probably not for the reasons we might assume. I've long been of the conviction that piracy is not nearly as large of a problem as the RIAA makes it out to be." Also covered at Macworld.
Apple should partner w/ Google and the recently announced Google Wi-Fi service. Two power houses, major distribution and mind share, not to mention the pile of cash they're both sitting on. Oh and they'd be getting free advertisements w/ 2-3 combined posts per day here on /.
And exactly what would be the incentive for them to release newly remastered recordings if they can't recoup the costs (let alone make any profit).
iTunes on the other hand has to pay record producers rather than buy a one-off $10 CD. Those record producers have to spend large amounts of money on studios, recording equipment, engineers, and, well, artists too. And Steve Jobs can't just "borrow" money from the local convenience store if he runs into problems.
I'm sure there's stuff to learn from AllOfMP3 as there is any music service. Sources of funding, and hence pricing decisions, however, are not one of them.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I think the whole music industry needs a shaking up, and a Apple + Apple thing could be the key. Music, done right. Supporting the artists who make the music.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
"I'm still waiting for the day that iTunes hosts *FREE* albums."
.99 each.
/ viewAlbum?playlistId=18294623
While not free, I've noticed several albums in iTunes that were around under a dollar...which is wierd when you realize that each song bought individually were
For instance:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa
This is $0.49 (I bought it a couple weeks ago thinking it was a mistake). Not a bad deal, considering someone has to pay for the bandwidth and storage fees.
I have a friend that sells exclusively through the iTMS these days (after getting dropped from his lable) and he mentioned that while you *HAVE* to charge $0.99 per song, you can charge what ever you want per the album (i.e., make the album $300 while the individual songs might only come to $9.99 if bought seperately).
Why not encourage people to use this loophole. Put up a lot of album only songs that are within the $1 range for the entire set. I'd be glad to drop that kind of money on unknowns...
Well, it is - but not really. The issue is about control.
Right now, the RIAA can pretty much dictate terms to a new artist. You want to get into Wherehouse Music stores, Borders and the rest? Then you're going to have to sign a label with us. Sure, you won't get much money, but we're providing this big service for you, right? So you have to take the terms we give you!
Now along comes the music stores, and the RIAA is hoping for the same thing. Between Napster and WalMart Music and MSN Music (whenever that opens) and Rhapsody and iTunes, if you want your music on their, you're going to have to go through the RIAA who will do the cheerleading, spend the money on advertising, and make you a star!
Except there's a problem; only iTunes is being used. Oh, sure, there's *some* people using Napster like my Dad (until he got a free Shuffle at a CIO conference and switched to Apple, then all of his music to MP3 format from WMV by reripping the CDs and now he's just buying music from the iTunes store) - but far and away, iTunes is the #1 player, not with monopoly power, but certainly with a huge level of influence.
Which means that, as more people have portable MP3 players and less have CD players, the shift of power goes from "If you want your music in 5000 stores across the United States and worldwide markets, you have to talk to a big record label", to "Want your music on the iTunes store? Sure - it costs this much, and we get X amount of every CD sold". Apple, for example, could charge people $100 - $200 to get a new band onto the iTunes store (currently, I'm not sure how their deals with Indie bands are), and give them 50% of the profit per song sold after that point. A new band could pretty cheaply get their music distributed across the nation without having a single major publisher help them out - and if they get popular, they can, like the Lascivious Biddies, do their own thing and be profitable, and if they get famous, then even better.
Which scares the RIAA major publishers to death. As with any major shift in technology (sheet music to player pianos, player pianos to radio, radio to cassette, cassette to CD), sometimes the old winners vanish and are replaced with the new winners. In this case, the RIAA members are hoping to have the same situation as they have now in the future: several online stores that carry their music, with the RIAA as the gatekeepers for getting new artists in.
But if iTunes is practically the only game in town - a situation that Jobs is helping along with the DRM only working with iPods, and there's nothing on the horizon that's going to replace iPods for the next 2 - 4 years (barring some incredible technological advancement), that puts Apple in a huge position in power. RIAA members can huff and puff about taking their ball and going home and not being on the iTunes store anymore if Jobs doesn't do what they want.
Except they don't dare. Remember when the iTunes Music Store finally opened up in Japan just a few months ago? You had artists who's publishers weren't putting them onto the iTunes store doing an end-around and doing it themselves. Granted, most artists aren't technologically savvy, but how long would it take for Artist X to hear his label is pulling him off the iTunes store (and all of those iPod potential sales) before they get pissed and threaten to change labels or some such? Maybe one or two isn't a problem - but it could add up.
So the RIAA is hoping by jacking up the price they can make online music unpopular enough that CD's will be more popular for awhile, until a good iPod competitor can kick Jobs off the top of the heap and make the market more even and they can keep playing the game.
Granted, this is all my opinion, so I could be wrong. Either way, I'll probably work to listen to Podcasts (which is where I'm hearing new music from thanks to shows like "Coverville" (which got me turned onto a new Tori Amos CD I didn't know I wanted, a Will Shatner singing "Common People" that kicks ass, and a few other tracks), "Insomnia Radio", and a few others), or just support artists directly (like buying songs from thier website instead of a store).
John Hummel
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I don't think you got the point at all.
It's not about the cost of his house. Its respect for his taste.
I don't have a problem with Bill Gates having a mansion - its that I think his mansion is tacky.
I also respect Steve Jobs for being able to save Apple when everyone counted him and Apple as both being irrelevant to our industry. I respect him for the fact that he has great taste and an intolerance for poor quality.
I am not under any illusions that Steve Jobs is a "nice guy", or "morally better" than anyone else. I don't personally know him and I'm not entitled to an opinion about it.
And I'm not saying that I don't also respect Bill Gates for his philanthropy.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score