You start off by shipping them 5 CDs. They keep one for their library (and to rip and encode tracks and scan the artwork for their web store).
In addition to the $40 iTunes setup fee (per album), you have to pay them a $35 setup fee (I forget whether that is per album or not).
So if you didn't "really" have a CD but you want to sell the contents on iTunes and CD Baby, you can burn a few copies yourself and slap a label on it.
... which is why Derek was sure to point that out in the info he sent out to the artists. CD Baby is not going to supply Apple with all of its catalog. If you're a CD Baby artist, you'll have to sign up for putting your stuff on iTunes.
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.
I've been thinking about this, and it seems to me that Apple could sell an x86 version of OS X and just make the price high enough to compensate for the fact that they're not making any cash off the hardware. That's effectively what Microsoft does (albeit at a much larger scale).
The comment about not taking on Microsoft directly is a more compelling reason. However, they could quietly maintain a x86 port until they have an idiot-proof migration path and pull the rug out from under MS when they're not looking.
Peng Ong was most definitely NOT one of the original designers of ClearCase. He was, however, heavily influenced by ClearCase when he set out to create TeamSite.
IWOV actually had to change the way they do things in order to not infringe on some of Rational's patents (for example their MVFS patent for a virtual filesystem that tracks build artifacts). I believe that the whole workspace/staging area/edition structure may have evolved from having to avoid stepping on Rational's toes.
In any case, the engineers at IWOV know that the core of TeamSite is very similar to any other version control system and that it's just optimized for web content control and delivery.
IMHO, there's nothing patentable about TeamSite. It's pretty useful and all, but not worthy of a patent.
Slashdot Mirror
You start off by shipping them 5 CDs. They keep one for their library (and to rip and encode tracks and scan the artwork for their web store).
In addition to the $40 iTunes setup fee (per album), you have to pay them a $35 setup fee (I forget whether that is per album or not).
So if you didn't "really" have a CD but you want to sell the contents on iTunes and CD Baby, you can burn a few copies yourself and slap a label on it.
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.
I've been thinking about this, and it seems to me that Apple could sell an x86 version of OS X and just make the price high enough to compensate for the fact that they're not making any cash off the hardware. That's effectively what Microsoft does (albeit at a much larger scale).
The comment about not taking on Microsoft directly is a more compelling reason. However, they could quietly maintain a x86 port until they have an idiot-proof migration path and pull the rug out from under MS when they're not looking.
(Shhh.... don't tell billg)
Well, gee, he's got a brand new hole in his roof that he'd probably like to fix before it rains or something.
Give the guy a break.
IWOV actually had to change the way they do things in order to not infringe on some of Rational's patents (for example their MVFS patent for a virtual filesystem that tracks build artifacts). I believe that the whole workspace/staging area/edition structure may have evolved from having to avoid stepping on Rational's toes.
In any case, the engineers at IWOV know that the core of TeamSite is very similar to any other version control system and that it's just optimized for web content control and delivery.
IMHO, there's nothing patentable about TeamSite. It's pretty useful and all, but not worthy of a patent.