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."
DRM free?
HAH. don't hold your breath... and it _will_ be more expensive than iTunes, and it _will_ be more DRM-crippling than iTunes.
Yeah, competition's great.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
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 already has the option of going DRM-free with iTunes, and they haven't taken the bait. Anyway, they don't have an exclusive contract with iTunes. Your whole post makes no sense.
Username taken, please choose another one.
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?
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."
Guess who wins? EMI.
If Universal thinks that people will buy from another online source than iTunes, let them try. That's competition. EMI felt differently, and will win and grab a larger market share. Honestly I've never paid any attention to which labels musicians signed with before. But now it'll becoming blindingly obvious who's in what camp.
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.
"BTW, Magnatune with Amarok is far better deal then iTunes. Just in case somebody is interested. "
There IS the issue of just how large their respective inventories are: I believe iTunes wins there.
Hey, there are many sources of cheap, independent music. I use them. I like them. But to say that 500 albums at 5 bucks each represents "a far better deal" requires some suspension of reality.
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.
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.
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.
No. Look where people go for their downloads. Especially, look at which store people buy DRM'ed tracks from.
If they want to keep the DRM, good look trying to sell it on anything other than iTunes with Fairplay. They'd be excluding themselves from the biggest market.
If they're prepared to sell DRM-free, and want more than Apple's $1.29, they're screwed too, cause customers don't like being fucked by price hikes.
The fact is that by breaking their relations with the biggest distributor of downloadable music, they're only screwing themselves.
Well, remember back when CD's came out...there really was no way to rip them...hell, not many people had a harddrive big enough to hold all a CD's data. At that time, a CD was a safe, one use medium...you could record off it to cassette, but, that was lossy and they didn't care that much about it.
Then...came larger harddrives, cd burners and cd drives on computers...and compression techs (mp3, etc). Well, what was once 'secure' to do consumer's hardware limitations, wasn't any more.
The music companies hate that...and with digital music and DRM, are trying to close that hole. They'd fix the CD's to be read only if there were only some way they could...trust me. They're gonna be happy to get rid of CD's if ONLY they can lock the users down in a way they screwed up on and didn't do with CD's.
They do not want to repeat the non-DRM mistakes they made with CD's.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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?