Slashdot Mirror
Universal Refuses To Renew On iTunes
UnknowingFool writes "It appears for the moment that Universal will not renew its long term contract with Apple for content on the iTunes store. While the details are not known about the exact nature of the dispute, many speculate that it has to do with Apple's stance on fixed pricing and Apple's refusal to license their DRM. The worse case scenario may include Universal pulling its entire catalog from iTunes. Both sides stand to lose out with 1/3 of of new releases coming from Universal and an estimated 15% of Universal's sales coming from digital downloads. Apple's market share is about 75% of digital downloads, and digital downloads are growing while CD sales are shrinking."
of the effects. Here's what I mean
Exibit 1> "Both sides stand to lose out with 1/3 of of new releases coming from Universal" "and an estimated 15% of Universal's sales coming from digital downloads." An orange
Could they not have found a better statistic like, % of Universals sales, and % of Apple's sales of Universal films out the total number of films, cos the way it is here, it is the number of titles Apple releases of Universal, they aren't necessarily as popular as other new releases.
Now maybe others will follow Universal's lead. Then Apple will finally crumble! WOOHOOO!
Aren't they also the only company exclusively backing the doomed HD-DVD format? Stupid businesses make stupid decisions.
empty posturing. What does Universal lose by signing a short-term contract instead of a long-term one? Probably nothing. What do they gain? Marginally more credibility in the back-and-forth threats between Apple and the record companies. Wake me up when they explicitly threaten to cancel their contract and remove their media from iTunes if an express list of demands is not met. Until then, it means nothing. And even then, they'll likely return to the bargaining table before pulling the plug. Both sides know where their interests lie, and neither wants to pull the plug.
My long-term prediction? More of the status quo. Both sides are winning, and there is no external stimulus that seems like it might upset the equilibrium that has developed. Apple doesn't want to lose a third of its collection, and Universal doesn't want to be tied to the misfits and rejects that compose the rest of the playing field.
The most likely answer is that Universal, whose bean counters are not dumb enough to drop fully 15% of their sales to spite Apple, is simply making noises to negotiate a better deal.
The other possibility is that Bill Gates, in utter desperation because the Zune is such a piece of crap, has offered to pay Universal for exclusive content for the Zune. I would seriously not put it past Bill G and Steve B to do something like this. It would be a really bad day for Apple if this did happen, because it would make the Zune more popular and the iPod less popular.
Of course, it could backfire heavily against both Microsoft and Universal if Zune sales don't grow significantly.
Unsigned Band with break-out potential: "So, we sign with you...and our record won't be up for sale on iTunes?"
Universal A/R dude/dudette: "Yep, that's right."
Unsigned Band with break-out potential: "So any unit sales revenue we see from you will be from Wal-Mart and Best Buy sales, nothing else?"
Universal A/R dude/dudette: "Uh huh."
Unsigned Band with break-out potential: "Losers. Next!"
Universal (unlike many other vendors) probably recognizes the market for non-DRM music is huge while at the same time DRM sales are widely being rebelled against. While there is still room for the debate to be resolved, hopefully it's a further push away from DRM.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Let's see: Universal is unhappy with Jobs' position on pricing and want to have their OWN Digital-Consumer-Disablement crippled service with higher prices than Apple and, since Apple won't license the DCD, it will have to be incompatible with the iPod, which is as close to a player monopoly as you can get without the Feds landing on you with an army of antitrust lawyers.
They think this is good for them HOW?
Uhh... Universal has deals with others. This doesn't change that. This makes LESS options, not more. It certainly isn't a positive for DRM-free music, where iTunes leads the charge, as far as major labels go, since signing the EMI deal. Universal definitely wants DRM.
Universal wants to be able to up prices where it thinks it can get more money. Apple isn't letting them do that. How do you see it as a positive that they're going to go to someone who does?
-Daniel
How do you figure? They aren't going to go to a non-DRM store - they're on lots of stores, all of which are DRM. And Apple's iTunes Music Store already offers them the option of not having DRM. They explicitly rejected it. They want DRM.
-Daniel
I don't really see this as a big deal for Apple. They're [allegedly] not making much money off of music sales on iTunes. It may help bolster the popularity of the service, but does anyone really believe that all of the existing iPod owners are going to abandon ship should Universal decide to pull out completely?
There are two likely scenarios should Vivendi/Universal drop iTunes:
1) They switch to a competing DRM format with no compatibility with iPods: Users download content from peer-to-peer services / rip CDs and continue to use their players.
2) They switch to a competing store with non-DRM tracks: Users buy tracks and copy them to the iPods. Or, if the prices are much more than they are now, see #1
I'm posting this comment from my Nintendo DS, using the text browser in dslinux.
Hold on, Hold on. The iPod is NOT a prosecutable monopoly. It's a natural Monopoly. Which is to say, it arises because that just what consumers are buying. There is not illegal about that at all. It is 100% legit. It is only illegal to use a monopoly in one area to force a monopoly in another. Like Microsoft using their Monopoly in Operating Systems to shut Corel out of the market for Office Suites. Like Microsoft using their Monopolies in Operating Systems and Office Suites to secure a Monopoly in the Browser Market. That's illegal. iPod/iTunes is not, despite complaints by overzealous European prosecutors. There are LOTS of (legal even) ways to get music onto an iPod. Buying CDs for one. Plenty of Musicians are distributing music themselves in MP3 or FLAC (which can't be played on an iPod Shame on you Apple! But FLAC can be converted to other formats that can be played on an iPod). iTunes Music Store "Lock-in" in pretty poor to be honest. The vast majority of iPod users are not filling up their iPods on ITMS purchases.
And yet you sell all your CD's at $16.99 regardless of that fact now, don't you?
At the same time, Mr. Jobs has refused the industry's calls for Apple to license its proprietary copy restriction software to other manufacturers. Music executives want the software to be shared so that services other than iTunes can sell music that can be played on the iPod, and so that other devices can play songs bought from iTunes.
Another load of crap. iPods can play music from any other DRM-free music seller. This joker wants you to believe iPods only play iTMS music, which is a lie. And iPod owners would likely buy music from other sources if: 1) It didn't have yet another, incompatible, version of DRM; 2) It was priced right; 3) It was the music they wanted to hear; 4) It had a nice interface to easily purchase and load said music onto their iPod. The record companies themselves are the ones to blame here.
You know, It's the DRM, stupid!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Wow, time warp. I haven't seen a Mac 8600 or a 486/66 in about a decade. Where are you, in a barn next to a Model T and a steam tractor?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Losing 15% of your income is a lot of money when you are that big. That's about the point that shareholders want to hear about cost-cutting measures to regain what they have lost--namely downsizing and such. For Apple, it would be a blow, but it would also not be nearly as bad because they still have so many content providers to work with.
If Apple and Universal cannot come to an agreement, Apple should bide its time, wait for them to weaken and strike. Buy out their catalog for a cool few billion dollars in cash and license it exclusively through the ITMS.
Like I needed one more reason to download all my music via bittorrent from my favorite trackers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
But some music executives have been chafing at the flat rate
Well, Universal, here's *my* new flat rate for any of your artists.
$0.00
I call it the Interwebs Discount.
Happy now?
And there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is so appropriate. Both parties here are just trying to get more money out of the other.
Truly hilarious.
The problem with music DRM, from the music distributor perspective, is that it's too closely tied to player vendors. There's the iPod and the Zume, and in both cases the player manufacturer takes a cut of the revenue. UMG, reasonably enough, wants to cut the player manufacturer out of the revenue stream.
Microsoft has orphaned "PlaysForSure", which, for a while, looked like an option. Or at least Microsoft tried. WalMart went with PlaysForSure, and they might insist that Microsoft keep supporting it.
What really matters is what WalMart does. If the music industry doesn't come up with a good solution, Bentonville may dictate one. Their site currently says The Apple iPod and Microsoft Zune digital media players do not currently support protected WMA-format files, and will not play Wal-Mart Music Downloads. Walmart.com has a large selection of WMA-/DRM-compatible digital music players available at great prices.
WalMart, remember, sells online music at $0.88/song, below Apple and Microsoft. And they're not going to raise their prices.
Clearly Microsoft' hand has to be behind this one.
A music company is only in the business to sell music. Period. The only reason why a music company would be interested in making sure a distributor could support multiple devices (such as Apple's iTunes opening it's DRM technology so you can play iTunes bought music on a Zune) would be because the volume of music being sold through that distributor didn't justify the administrative overhead of dealing with Apple. As Apple is in third place, this isn't the case.
The only other issue I can think of is Apple's insistence upon fixed pricing--and if companies like Universal don't like that, they could always delay the rollout on iTunes until after CD sales have hit. So the problem is solvable under the current contract regime--and it would also help music stores, by causing people to go through music stores for the monster breakout hits.
No; there is no rational reason why Universal would make the noise they're making--unless they're trying to figure out how to crack the nut of breaking Apple's monopoly for their Redmond masters...
Unsigned Band with break-out potential: "So any unit sales revenue we see from you will be from Wal-Mart and Best Buy sales, nothing else?"
Universal A/R dude/dudette: "No, of course not. You will never see sales revenue because we will cook the books so that you never see a penny. But you are othewise correct - the unit sales revenue you will never see will only come from Wal-Mart and Best Buy."
Unsigned Band with break-out potential: "Where do we sign?"
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Not to mention, Universal wants money from each iPod sold, just like they get from the Zune, (and they've been asking for that since before the Zune deal was announced). For some reason, they think that they deserve that, even though they didn't design the electronics, or the UI, and iPods are not sold with any Universal Music on them, and don't in any way require Universal Music to function correctly.
It was never a sane business model. The value of most CDs is their novelty and hype potential, not the music inside, which is mostly pointless goop for easily-distracted people. They're not going to make a killing any longer, since the means of distribution have now surpassed the means of production. Universal and Apple fighting over a miniscule advantage in a collapsing industry is a sure sign that the entertainment industry has no clue where to go now that its product is no longer scarce by the nature of its distribution.
technical writing / development
sad, but true. since Bronfman bought 'em (well, most, somehow the original owner always seems to maintain a significant position in the business that disgusted them these days,) universal music has been a pox. snarling and cheering on the RIAA attacks, moaning about wanting a fee from the music player industry, wanting to charge a premium for the songs from the latest manufactured limited-time "band."
it may or may not be noteworthy to consider that Bronfman had the Seagrams liquor business almost whole, and sold out of that proven profit generator because it wasn't cool enough for him. of course, the sin business remains constant, because you got to sin to be saved... while the whole foundation shift under the entertainment industry should have told any credible analyst that the old business models were invalid.
in short, universal is a tantrum a day looking for a place to attract attention, and today's foot-stomper is iTunes. they're running away from the proven viable moneymaker that roiled the industry. I assume they'll resort to the old-time business juicer of re-issuing back CDs with new jackets, and costing two bucks more than last year.
which will be a complete laugher.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Will my tunes I bought from that label quit working once the agreement ends? I certainly hope not!
I truly doubt Universal intends on going a non-DRM route. This among the stupidest record companies out there. And thats saying something. Its either an extortion attempt for higher prices from Apple or they are being offered ALOT of money to go Zune only or some such nonsense.
Sounds most likely to me like they want to raise prices and Apple won't let them UNLESS they drop the DRM, like EMI. Especially with the iPhone success and the upcoming widescreen ipods I can't imagine Apple would ever back down.
I'd also imagine the Universal artists would rebel about not having their music available for the device they'll all be carrying... So I have no doubt this will be resolved with all music intact at least, or even better they can be convinced to go DRM free to get their extra bucks....
Universal Exec's must be wearing tinfoil hats, cuz they are killing a current and future revenue steam. But don't worry the CEO is probably good for an extra 300 million in Stock Options and Bonuses for this one, even if they do lose money on it.
Woot!!! (Score:0) cuz i am a Anonymous Coward...
The porn industry chose HD-DVD over blue ray. Ask Betamax if the porn industry has any pull with that sort of thing.
Great, two big companies fighting over their middleman territory. The artist who creates the product and the user who purchases it are just collateral damage.
instead of coopting mapster, you buried it. what, you thought it was going to stay dead?
so some tech compnay reinvented it, instead of a music distribution company
oops
guess what? YOU could have controlled 75% of music downloads. instead, you have to kiss up to steve jobs. didn't have to be that way. the only reason it is that way, is because of your shortsighted stupidity on the future of the internet and music
oh well, you fucked up, you lose. deal with it
and your little game of brinkmanship here can only make steve-o smile. he knows he's the new focal point of power, not you. you will do what he says when push comes to shove, not visa versa. you stand to lose far more than him, and you know it
you could have kept your throne, but you blindered, and lost it. welcome to the slow process of extinction, music industry morons
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How exactly do you envisage the locked OS model fall to bits with the launch of Leopard?
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
architectieir@janus.palacecommunity.com
You do know that they can sell non-DRM files through iTunes right now, right? I think there might have been one or two articles about it somewhere.
As far as iTunes users not buying many songs, wasn't there just an article about iTunes being the 3rd largest seller of music just a couple of weeks ago?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think it's from a troll-bot that uses a search engine without parsing any dates.
A quick stroll down memory lane (thanks Google) yields one date of "November 25, 1998 at 08:25 am" That's nearly 9 years (which is like 2^9 in computer years) but even in 1998 these were old, old systems.
See: http://www.kottke.org/98/11/my-mac-sucks
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras
How long was this post in the message buffer? The 8600/300 came out in 1997! Maybe if you used comparable systems, you'd have an argument.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
It is much more likly an attempt by Universal to rescue DRM. If we can bluff the contract until we convince Apple to licence thier DRM to other players we can force the DRM issue out of this ipod/no-ipod issue.
That might be enougth to force a single DRM standard breaking the whole I dont want DRMed music because I want to play my music on any device.
I cant see it working entirly but i can see universal trying it as a attempt to not be pulled down the EMI no-drm path.
I'm actually thrilled about this development as it derails itunes music store as a complete entertainment solution - which it seemed like apple was heading towards with appletv and everything.
I'm in the overwhelming minority of slashdot people who actually thinks that drm is a good thing, however, I hate the idea of it being tied to platforms.
I'd like a DRM system that is independent of content creators, distributors or hardware manufacturers.
"Universal wants money from each iPod sold, just like they get from the Zune"
:-).
Well see - Microsoft could do this because they knew they wouldn't have to give Universal any money.
MS need to give money to people just to jump on their bandwagon, because the service wasn't popular, and they needed to give the labels a reason to join their service. iTunes on the other hand is extremely popular, and doesn't need to make stupid deals like giving away a percentage of iPod profits to music companies. Universal is already getting a percentage of the music sales they get from iTunes, and that is all they should get.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
But those European prosecutors are upholding the laws of their own country, not US law. It is quite possible that what is legal in the US is illegal in the country of those `overzealous prosecutors'.
Ahh... don't feed the troll. He copies and pastes the same crap every other month and I've seen this one multiple times.
Most of the stuff on
How the iPod became the dominant MP3 player isn't really the point.
The point is, Universal want an alternative online market, they don't like the one provided by iTunes. Unless they're prepared to drop DRM as a requirement and have whoever sells their music sell it as straight unencumbered MP3s (or something else the iPod can easily be persuaded to play), they're essentially cutting off online sales from most of the portable MP3 players out there. Why?
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if they are trolling for a new agreement - one which suits them better.
I think Apple should demand money from Universal for each CD purchased. After all, chances are that it's going to end up on an iPod anyway.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Oh, if only Apple would license their cross-platform DRM! I know this will be modded as off-topic BUT I wish Apple would license its DRM to the BBC! That way, the BEEB would have an easy way of distributing their content in a non-Windows environment and still satisfy their perceived DRM need. It still would not make a native Linux method of playing BBC content, but it is pretty easy to get iTunes (for example) to run under wine. So, though it is not a perfect solution, at least it would be better than what the BEEB is doing now
So, go ahead, mod me off-topic, but I am hoping to at least also get to be modded as interesting as well.
...the music industry's preference to shoot itself in the head continues!
All opinions presented here aren't mine.
You're right. Who would have ever thought we'd see the day when in this balance an electronics company became stronger than an entertainment company? I certainly didn't think it would happen in my lifetime.
Companies much bigger than Apple caved in to the MPAA on region encoding, encryption, etc.
Jobs is a clever, clever man.
Lies about crimes
Or buys a radio station, or two... seriously, there's enough local stations out there that Apple could pick up a few, then, use their radio network to leverage iTunes. Sure, Universal might bail, but, within a few years, top Universal Artists would wind up on the bottom of the hit parade. In the very least, Apple could sponsor up and coming talent out there with better deals, like more money for the artist, or at least, more creative control. I'd be willing to bet that more acts would sign with Apple who has the market of the future, versus Universal, who has a bunch of CD stores on their way to going belly up.
What Apple has done is create the Windows of Music. You either play on that platform, or die.
This is my sig.
What a shitty deal -- "We get money from every Zune sold!"
That's like what -- a buck fifty total now?
I'm ready for a Music Industry Apocalypse. Like Chicago in 1909, let it burn to the ground. It will be rebuilt with more ethics in mind rather than selfish greed.
and don't in any way require Universal Music to function correctly
OTOH...
I think that Universal will eventually knuckle under. Universal obviously controls a lot of cross-marketing and traditional distribution but they have completely lost control of the more basic business of producing music. In other words, they have a lock on soundtracks and whatever passes through HMV but they have to deal in a world where artists are increasingly saying "I can't afford to pay these guys everything I make so they can alienate my fans for me". A de facto no-iTunes clause would be a huge entry on the "no fscking way" side.
If the Apple iPod is not a "prosecutable monopoly" because it's a natural monopoly, nor is Microsoft Windows. Both arose to their dominant position because people just bought them. Your argument is either a defense of Microsoft, or a completely bullshit fallacy.
By the way, I think the fact that WordPerfect generally sucked was what shut Corel out of the Office Suite market >
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
The money that has been made, and that is being made, comes from the structures agreed upon in the nineteen-twenties and thirties and immediately warped by nascent recording companies to exploit the new broadcasters and the artists; by controlling the means of production.
But I fear Bronfman, the Younger" is screwing with his grandad's legacy ("Seagram's Distilleries" made "Old Man Bronfman" all that money during the prohibition era,) and it means the Bronfman dynasty is starting to ebb.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Yup you are correct but!!!! Apple could jsut tell the EU to go FARK themselves. guess what...people would grey market the ipods in. Heck i got several Asian suppliers/customers who are begging me to get them iPhones. I tell them they wont work over there...they dont care. They want them. sorta like making booze illegal...it doesnt work... PEOPLE WILL DO WHAT THEY WANT!!! You can not legislate peoples behavior. The ipod is the dominant music player because PEOPLE LIKE IT BETTER THAN EVERYTHING ELSE COMBINED!!!..... Good luck with that...but Apple really does hold all the cards on this one.
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
Well, since modded down to troll, Heaven knows why, with some trepidation one asks, how is it going to be stopped? It will be out there as a retail copy, it will not be an upgrade. It will boot and install in a macintel. Don't you think that in ten minutes there will be posted some hack on how to run it on any old similar spec Intel box? Or if not, how is it going to be prevented?
Yes, I know that non-DRM stuff is sold on iTunes. Of course it is. That's not the point. The point is the coding. Once you have bought your non DRM iTune, you can't play it on another box. My prediction is, the Universal thing is the beginning of the end of this, and within a year, it will be over one way or another.
Why this legitimate opinion should be labelled a troll by the resident fatwa issuers, Heaven knows. But there you go.
Universal needs Apple more than they need them. Here's why.
So now no more iTunes sales for:
* Baby Boy Da Prince
* Bee Gees
* Drake Bell
* Black Child
* Brandon
* Big Tuck
* Big Tymers
* Blak Jak
* Bloodhound Gang
* Mutya Buena
* Vanessa Carlton
* Jamie Cullum
* Domination
* Down AKA Kilo
* Dispatch
* Drake Bell
* Godsmack
* Gotan Project
* Chris Gotti
* Pat Green
* Harry O.
* Heavy D.
* Infinite Mass
* Ja Rule
* Elton John
* Jack Johnson
* JoJo
* Juvenile
* Jordan Flynn
* Kaiser Chiefs
* Brie Larson
* Murphy Lee
* Lindsay Lohan
* Lloyd
* Damian Marley
* Stephen Marley
* Mika
* Mushroomhead
* Mystic
* Natalie
* Pharoahe Monch
* Prince
* Rakim
* Rammstein
* Scissor Sisters
* Strive Roots
* Sunland
The rest are here.
I'm not a fan of iTunes and have never bought anything off them, but Universals reasons for ditching them can only be nefarious. Okay so Prince isn't going to care, and Elton probably won't either. But if anyone knows the other artists it might pay to tell them what their label has done and that now might be a good time to think about their future with Universal.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Apple should give Universal a cut of each ipod/iphone sold - as long as Universal gives Apple a cut for every CD sold. That would be fair.
There is no security when liberty is sacrificed.
Fine. I'll just buy whoever's signed on to EMI.
The digital music player industry is anything BUT a natural monopoly. A natural monopoly does not "arise because that's what consumers are buying." All monopolies arise that way quite obviously. A natural monopoly occurs in an industry where the change in social benefit from entry is negative -- that is, industry-wide profits would become negative with more than 1 entrant into the industry and the industry would self-select itself back to 1 firm.
Learn your economic terminology before spouting off like an idiot. Digital music players are a consumer good that would benefit all if there were more available. The iPod has strong market share because it is easiest to use, but that HARDLY makes it a natural monopoly. It's more like a vertical monopoly (think Rockefeller's vertical oil holdings) where Apple controls the hardware, the software, and the distribution. Now they just need the content and the gov't can go anti-trust on'em.
Seriously, if you're going to use economic terms, atleast look them up first. Hell, even Wikipedia has a decent entry on it.
If I can't purchase a song off of iTunes, I ain't buyin' it. Convenience trumps everything, especially when 90% of most CD content blows. Buh-bye, Universal. I'll take my dollars elsewhere.
i know.... old joke.
Steve Jobs is one of the most stubborn, recalcitrant people on the planet.
With the state of Apple's sales what are the chances of the Steve caving? Less than -1.
As someone who is working with UMGD I know the reason why this fell through and it has nothing to do with DRM at all.
Bring on the popcorn, this could be fun to watch..
Insert
I've bought more music (and spent more money) on eMusic in the last 6 months than I did in the previous 5 years before I was on eMusic.
I've bought more music on vinyl records than all of the digital music I've ever bought, and that's how is will continute to be for me for as long as I can help it.
No song is worth 99 cents.
This is the one "good thing" about digital music. I hated paying up to $20 or so for just a few songs on an album I liked. Vinyl does have the equilent, 45s, but not all songs were released on 45s and they cost more than $2.
FalconShould there be a Law?
maximise profits?
No. Companies, whether corporations, proprietorships, or partnerships, have the responsibility to do what the owners want as long as it doesn't break the law. In the case of partnerships and proprietorships it's usually the owner(s) who run the business. Corporations on the other hand have the responsibility to fulfill the requirements of the charter the corporation has been given as well. And since the first corporate charters were granted, to amoung others the Dutch East India Company and the British East India companies one of thise requirements for that the corporation had to serve the common or public good.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Rather than duplicate the post, I'll just link to it:
Why Apple's DRM is good for consumers
Bottom line: the more DRM is a problem, the less likely it is to spread. Apple's DRM is like a billion sterilized fruit flies in the DRM ecosystem.
Not really. Apple sells you the iPod. Apple offers you a service on iTunes. If you have an iPod, you can load music onto it any way you like it. My wife has an iPod and she has no idea that there's the iTunes store, for she just rips her CDs and puts them onto the iPod as to any other MP3 player. There are numerous other MP3 players out there and people buy them but more of them buy the iPod than any other kind because they like it better. Indeed, the iTunes service is only for iPods (I think, don't know but I assume so) but you can use any other service (and there are many) to get MP3-s which will happily play on any player, including
the iPod.
Now Windows is a different thing. MS used its market share to force OEMs to include Windows on every piece of HW they sold. MS writes applications that use features of the OS that only MS is aware and MS does everything in its power to keep the format of every file or packet closed and obscured so that no other player on the market could come up with an application that could access MS application related data.
The iPod was not the first MP3 player and became a market leader because people like it better than the others. If you can come up with a player which is actually more user friendly than the iPod, Apple can't stop you to gain market share. As long as people can convert their iTunes downloads to a vanilla MP3 (as far as I know, you can), you can also use the iTunes service for any player you can come up with. It seems that as of now, people like the iPod more than any of the other ~50-100 models on the market. So iPod is a natural monopoly.
Now if you come up with a new OS + office package + browser + whatnot you can not make it read MS documents for the document formats are MS secrets, you can't just plug it onto an MS network for some packet formats are MS secrets and if you reverse engineer everything and you can do it all, then MS will blow the crap out of you with IP lawsuits and threaten the OEMs to not getting the MS licence any more if they sell your stuff. That is where the monopoly becomes unnatural and where the DoJ finds the defendent guilty of illegal business paractices, coersion etc. and when some higher powers kick the backside of the DoJ for harassing such a fine American businesses...
Microsoft has been taking active (and often illegal) steps to enforce its dominant position, Apple simply made a product that people like.
U2 is signed by Universal. Bono is a good friend with Steve Jobs. I believe they did the U2/iPod commercials for free (although they certainly got paid for the ipod sales). iTMS has had a lot of cross promotions with various musicians (celebrity play lists, exclusive tracks, early released tracks, hyping concert tours, etc). Would Universal musicians revolt? Some might not be impressed.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Excuse me, but my exact words were "*close* to a monopoly." Over 70% of the market counts as "close." The only saving grace is that (so far) Apple hasn't abused the power the studio-insisted-upon DCD gave them over the future of the music market. Steve Jobs just let them go forth and hang themselves with their own greed.
Legally.
Clearly Universal is now making up the 15% they'll lose from digital sales from the new cash cow of this decade, litigation!
Especially now that some universities are bending over backwards to help the RIAA knife their students for cash.
Here's a question - we know that Apple dominates the licensed internet music sales business. If iTunes can't sell Universal music, will iPod owners everywhere resort to unlicensed MP3 downloads to make up the missing iTunes catalog items?
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Unsigned band who sees their first major-label contract as their shot at the big time and all their dreams come true: "Where do we sign? We brought our peeeens!"
This is only true if the band doesn't know much. The only thing, other than sucking the blood of entertainers, major labels are "good" for is marketing. However the internet makes it easier for new musicans to breakout. Digital recording is easy and doesn't take much hardware, relatively to analogue at least, and a band can use the computers in the public library or net cafe to create their own pages and profiles on MySpace or upload music to Magnatunes or any other of a number of cheap or Creative Commons websites. While more effort may be needed for a band to get their music out, than having a major label do it, it's easier than it ever has been for musicans to break out. And instead of the label keeping most of the money, the band gets to keep most of it this way.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You magnificent bastard! I salute your execution of satire so subtle in its construction that almost everyone--myself included there for a minute--missed it entirely.
Bravo!
A natural monopoly occurs in an industry where the change in social benefit from entry is negative -- that is, industry-wide profits would become negative with more than 1 entrant into the industry and the industry would self-select itself back to 1 firm.
There are other natural monopolies such as the ones the cablecos, Telcos, and powercos enjoy. Broadcasters, radio and tv, are others. I realize they aren't monopolies naturally, they are because governemnt makes it so, however naturally there's only so many who can use the Right of Way in a given location. And usually that right of way is only approved of for one provider for each service offered.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I try not to say this very often but you sir are either a shill or a truly stupid sack of shit. I would like you to go back and actually READ what the PP said. I will give you a hint. He did not say that Microsoft Windows was not a natural monopoly nor did he say that MS should have been (or was) prosecuted for having that monopoly. I'll give you another hint: Microsoft was charged and found guilty (on several occasions) of illegally using their monopoly in one market to create an artificial monopoly in another. For example, if Apple deliberately used iTunes to modify Media Player so that it would play MP3s poorly, that would be illegal. It would also be supremely ironic as MS introduced that exact defect into early versions of WMP in order to try to leverage their OS monopoly to make MP3 look bad and create an artificial market for WMA.
ps: As for WP vs word, it is clear that you are not an author, para-legal or tech writer but one still has to ask: what do you like best the random corruption or the paperclip?
No, the iTunes service isn't just for iPods. You don't even need a portable player to use iTunes or to listen to it's music. You can use your Mac or Windows PC to listen to the music. But if you want to you can make cds of your iTunes songs. These cds can then be played in any cd player.
FalconShould there be a Law?
fine.
I read the above, then I read your tagline, "Linux: a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time." What gets me is that Apple doesn't have a version, that I have heard of, of iTunes for Linux. Because OSX is built on BSD I'd think it wouldn't take much effort to port iTunes to Linux.
FalconShould there be a Law?
As ATi learned, he has absolutely no problem with damaging his company in the short term if he thinks it will strengthen its position in the long term.
Though I don't have an opinion on whether Steve Jobs is doing this, I do prefer a company executive that looks, years down the road, to the future instead of to this or the next quarter. That's a shortsightedness it seems too many corporations have now.
FalconShould there be a Law?
DOS versions of Wordperfect didn't suck. They were very good actually. Now, did the Windows versions of Wordperfect suck because Corel was inferior, or because Microsoft wouldn't document their Operating System APIs to make a level playing field? Remember: "DOS isn't Done till Lotus won't Run!"
True, but arguably irrelevant for the reasons sogoodsofarsowhat (662830) cites. If that is the law there, then it is quite foolish. Natural Monopolies just sometimes result from consumers having free choice. Should you limit the amount Coca-Cola Corporation is allowed to produce just because people prefer it to Pepsi, and thereby force them to buy Pepsi or something else instead(Which is not to say there might not be good reasons to limit Soda companies, health among them)? Trying to fight a natural monopoly requires Soviet Russia Style policies, with restriction of freedom and trade embargoes.
WTF!!! Why is this marked TROLL when another poster says exactly the same thing and gets "interesting" If your gonna call me a troll - than have the backbone to say why!
There is no security when liberty is sacrificed.
Or so one would think. Universal is owned by Vivendi, which also owns Blizzard. As much as I'd love to profit off of Universal's demise, you can't bet against Blizzard.
This whole line of thinking is silly. iPod is not a monopoly to begin with and faces stiff competition from other music players ranging from digital media players to your dad's CD player to your granddad's cassette player to great grandpa's Vinyl. iPod is successful, but last I looked CD players sitll outsell MP3 players by a few orders of magnitude.
All the winners of best recordings of the year in BBC Music Magazine were readily available in emusic as non DRMed files.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"If that is the law there, then it is quite foolish."
Because any laws that still put consumer rights above those of corporations are quite foolish due to the fact that the US legal system doesn't, and as the US keeps telling everybody, its legal system is by far the best in the entire world.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Personally, I don't care if each and every one of these huge media companies bites the bullet, preferably taking their "artists" with them.
There are at least two viable operating systems for a consumer PC which are not Windows. (Mac OS X and whatever the version before that was. Sorry, Ubuntu, I love you but far too many of your FAQs include the forbidden words "Then, open a terminal and..."). These OSes have the key software you need for business and home use: email clients, browsers, Microsoft Office*. Customers. Aren't. Buying. Them. Sure, customers might not be buying them because Microsoft gets all the software, all of the mindshare, and all of the workplace use. However, Apple has a sweet interlock thing going on themselves with the "If you use either the best music download service OR the best MP3 player, you are locked into our upgrade treadmill for life. If you don't use our music service, you can forget about legal downloads of the majority of music available to American consumers because only we have the market power to force all to sell at our store. Care to join the cult?" thing.
Disclaimer: Desktop is Windows, server is Ubuntu, music library iTunes/iPod and a quirky little Sony service which I use to get Sony Japan stuff that is not available on iTunes (yeah, sucks to be Apple when the other megacorp is rich enough to say "Piss off, we have our own ecosystem to worry about vertical integrations with".)
* Microsoft Office is not in a category by itself just because Microsoft starved out all their competitors. Its in a category by itself because its just far and away superior to the competitors, even when the competitors cost $200 less. I use OpenOffice on my home computer because I was too cheap to pony up for a copy of Office for my once-monthly non-work-related wordprocessing or budget simulation and, crikey, Word/Excel beats Writer/Calc so much it isn't funny.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
No, that was not what I said. A natural Monopoly arises because of consumer choice. If company A just makes the product that consumers prefer, how does it enhance consumer choice to force consumers to buy company B's product? If the European prosecutors were taking the stance that DRM itself was illegal, because it was anti-consumer, that would be fine. They could simply require that it be removed from ALL products sold in the European Union. But they aren't. They're going after Apple, whose DRM is actually the least restrictive.
I agree with, well... most of what you said there. However, you comment that if you come up with a new OS + Office + Browser + so on that you can't use Microsoft Office formats or they attack you with lawsuits... well, the same would occur if you made an MP3 player and reverse engineered the FairPlay DRM to allow your device to play that too. I know, the iTunes store isn't really a monopoly, but it's the closest analogy there is considering it's the #3 music store in the world (second only to Best Buy and Walmart I think it was).
Now you might say that iTunes does in fact allow you to convert to MP3 (an open, non-DRMed format) - I could respond that Microsoft Office does in fact allow you to convert to RTF (an open, licensing-free format).
It's a better analogy than you might originally think - and I think I might have accidentally convinced myself that MS Office isn't a monopoly either.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
The "right of way" for infrastructure use is enforcing the monopoly. In this case, the providers are not building the infrastructure, only using it -- therefore, it is no longer a natural monopoly situation and should be open to competition. They are not directly maintaining the infrastructure, but rather paying taxes on their income that does maintain that infrastructure. Since that's the case, no matter how many companies enter, the single shared infrastructure would be maintained and costs would be minimized with profit rates approaching the risk-free new money rate. The government is effectively providing an unfair monopoly in this situation, and is not looking out for consumer interests.
While I generally support a freemarket, in cases like this where a right of way for cables or whatever are needed I prefer a local group own it. That group may be the city or county government, or it may be a coop, or even a nonprofit the locals own. Whoever owns it then allows anyone who wants to to provide any services it is capable of, broadband access, cable tv, phone service, or anything else that comes down the road. A project like this is currently underway in northeastern Utah to provide a A Broadband Utopia. What they built could provide net speeds of 50Mbs to 100Mbs. A household could have two hdtv channels at once, or someone could simply provide phone service.
As for radio, TV, and such -- that is hardly a monopoly (outside of the Clear Channel case anyways) because you can have 20ish stations which provides plenty of competition... The FCC in this case isn't enforcing a monopoly so much as protecting the rights of a broadcaster to the frequency they have paid for.
Yea, if you think so try to start your own radio or tv station. Without megabucks you won't be able to buy a license, if you can get an open frequency. Current technology isn't that expensive and allows a lot of stations to use the spectrum, however the FCC uses rules for broadcasting made in 1934 when the FCC was created. A lot more stations can be setup in the same spectrum today than the technology avaiable then allowed. However the mass media doesn't want the rules to be changed so more stations can broadcast, more stations mean more competition which they don't like. Start a Pirate radio station and watch how quickly licensed radio stations in the area sick the FCC on you even when you aren't interfering with thier signal.
the original poster should look up economic terms before throwing them about.
That was my point as well when I replied to you.
FalconShould there be a Law?
" If the European prosecutors were taking the stance that DRM itself was illegal, because it was anti-consumer, that would be fine. They could simply require that it be removed from ALL products sold in the European Union. But they aren't. They're going after Apple, whose DRM is actually the least restrictive."
It's not "European prosecutors", but the Norwegian consumer protection ombudsman, and they're going after Apple because they don't license their DRM to other manufacturers, so the issue is lock-in, not how restrictive the DRM itself is. And before you do the standard US poster thing of stating that it's legal to copy Apple's DRM files to a CD, the fact of the matter is that not everything that's legal for people in the US is legal everywhere else (and vice-versa)..
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
I really don't understand this. Almost all the CDs sold in the last 20 years had no form of DRM
Ah, but back then, it wasn't technically possible for a consumer to make a perfect copy (i.e. digital) of a CD, distribute it worldwide very easily with each recipient being able to make another perfect copy and distribute that.
The industry killed DAT (Digital Audio Tape) as well, for that very reason. DAT would enable perfect copies of CDs to be made in place of using casettes. DAT tapes ended up being used in data centers for machine backups.