Apple criticized over iTunes LP development costs

[AppleInsider]

Critics are lambasting Apple over its new iTunes LP format, charging that the company has priced indies out of the game by charging a production fee of $10,000 to develop the interactive titles. Content authors are likely to view the fees as absurdly low, however.

A report by Gizmodo cited Brian McKinney of Chocolate Lab Records, a small label representing three albums and an EP from four artists. McKinney said he expressed interest in creating iTunes LP versions of his acts' work, but was shot down by an iTunes representative discussing the subject with his distributor at the Independent Online Distribution Alliance.

IODA is a group in San Francisco which helps indie acts get distributed through online sites including iTunes and Amazon as well as through mobile carrier stores such as operated by Sprint, Nokia, and Verizon. The iTunes rep reportedly said that Apple was charging a $10,000 production fee to develop the new interactive digital album titles, that there were only a dozen iTunes LP works being offered right now, and that the company wasn't even offering the treatment to the broader indie market.

Gizmodo described the development costs as "ridiculous, prohibitive fees" and charged that Apple was catering only to the acts "that iTunes needs to keep happy to be a viable music store, not the ones that might actually make something artistically interesting."

There's an app for that

At the same time however, Apple already has a platform that it has opened wide to indie labels of all stripes: the iPhone App Store. Any artist can build a custom app delivering whatever artistically interesting content they can imagine into existence, and can even set a small price for it in order to cover their expenses, or perhaps even turn a profit.

If they lack the skills and resources to develop or commission an iPhone app in order to reach the installed base of Apple's 50 million mobile users, there's always the web. Anyone with a book on HTML and Apple's free iPhone development guidelines can build their own mobile-savvy website targeting Apple's vast and growing base of web-enabled iPod and iPhone users, and promote their site via MySpace or FaceBook without Apple's involvement at all.

If anything, it appears that Apple's represented policy on iTunes LP production is a response to criticisms of the App Store. Despite leading the world in mobile applications with a library now approaching 90,000 apps (even as the company also dumps hundreds of shovelware apps at a time in its efforts to cull scandalous developers from its ranks), the App Store is often derided for accommodating "flashlight and fart apps" of little value.

Conversely, Apple was also roundly criticized for originally blocking apps that fell in the fart category, in its attempts to set a professional tone for its new mobile software store. It's really hard to imagine any possible strategy that the company could have pursued to avoid vitriolic castigation from its usual critics, so the unbuttoned disgust being expressed over the iTunes LP issue isn't really a surprise.

Apple's iTunes LP strategy

The fact that Apple uses open, web standards to build its new iTunes LP titles, and the fact that they are currently only viewable within iTunes 9 on a Mac or PC, along with the expectation that these digital albums are being targeted at a new tablet form factor product in the pipeline as well as the HDTV resolution of Apple TV, all serve as indicators that iTunes LP is a work in progress that is still unfolding as a strategy.

Until Apple unveils Apple TV 3.0 support for the new albums (and their nearly identical iTunes Extra interactive bonus content packages for digital movies) and ships the new tablet that is expected to serve as an interactive browser for all kinds of digital content, including new media magazines and newspapers, this is still something that's brewing in Apple's labs.

With only a dozen titles currently available, Apple likely doesn't want the new format associated with music the mainstream market doesn't care about. Having to manage quality assurance for a thousand self-made indie titles would distract Apple's iTunes group from being able to promote the stature of huge pop acts it currently has in its iTunes LP roster: Norah Jones, the Doors, Perl Jam, Mika, Grateful Dead, and of course Steve Jobs' favorite: Bob Dylan.



A look at the movies available with iTunes Extras also shows some discrimination: Iron Man, Batman Begins, Wizard of Oz, Da Vinci Code, Quantum of Solace and of course Steve Jobs' favorite: Pixar's WallE (below). That's not to say Apple has exceptionally lofty standards; they also gave the Extras treatment to Talladega Nights and some movie with Matthew McConaughey in it.



But clearly, Apple wants to debut iTunes LP and Extras with as much class as possible. The company now has the stature to do just that, after being forced to endure a more humble entry into TV programming just four years ago with one partner (Disney/ABC) and a library of only five series, one of which was "That's So Raven," not likely a favorite of Steve Jobs.

Ten Thousand is Cheap

As for the production costs associated with iTunes LP titles, if the $10,000 figure cited is true, it's hard to imagine how Apple is cranking these out for so little. Authoring any sort of interactive content is expensive. Try to some hire expert designers in Silicon Valley do do your website for $10,000 and you might get laughed at derisively. iTunes LP, as AppleInsider was among the first to report, is essentially a self-contained web application.

What's the alternative? For indies wanting to author a Blu-Ray disc, they'll first have to come up with around $3,500 to print their content to disc by a service bureau in 1000-disc quantities, plus per-title fee of $1,585 to license the use of Blu-Ray's non-negotiably mandatory AACS DRM. You can also buy a $3,000 BR burner and try burning your own discs, but BR-RW currently doesn't work reliably across the BR players in existence and the media is still so expensive that duplication costs about as much as outsourcing it to pros.

But wait, that's all just fees associated with duplication and licensing. If you actually want to author interactive Blu-Ray content, it'll cost you around $40,000 to obtain just the authoring software needed to create the content yourself. If you want pros to develop it for you, you'll probably need a well-funded label that thinks you have a big hit.

Of course, these fees are helping to create the dismal market for Blu-Ray. One can also author DVDs for cheaper, or develop Flash or other custom apps or web sites that add some extra bonus content to standard CDs. But it has always been fantastically expensive to author content.

Many efforts over the years to launch a format for authored content have never really taken off, from Apple's early attempts to promote QuickTime content on CD-ROMs to CD+Graphics, Mega-LD, Video CD, Philips/3DO CDi, Commodore's CDTV, Super Audio CD, DVD-Audio, and Sony's PSP UMDs.

If Apple can develop a viable format using open standards that users will pay for, or will at least encourage them to buy digital downloads containing interactive bonus content at a faster clip than they already are, then the $10,000 it costs to develop the titles will really be an exceptionally cheap onramp for the labels and studios who are still somewhat hesitant about merging into the digital highway.

Frosting for iTunes' cake

Complaining about an authoring production fee that has got to be among the lowest in the industry is on par with the outrage some expressed when they found out that App Store developers would need to pay $99 for a software signing certificate and would need to buy a Mac to use the iPhone's development tools.

At the same time, once Apple fully engages its iTunes LP plans, it's likely that the company will rely on third parties to actually develop the titles. It has a library of six billion songs and thousands of movies; even if LP/Extras treatment is applied very selectively, that's an awful lot of potential authoring for one company to take on.

Apple's choice of using web standards to build the content, rather than building it as a proprietary app in the model of iPhone software, indicates that wants to set the development bar on iTunes bonus content low enough to attract the broad and deep talent that already exists among the world's web developers.

Additionally, since these bonus content packages are just a secondary file that Apple distributes upon the purchase of a standard movie or album of tracks, with no mandatory DRM like Blu-Ray nor any special technology licensing nor any SDK requirements like those related to iPhone apps, there's no reason that third parties can't develop their own material and distribute it independently of iTunes. All that's required is some simple documentation of Apple's TuneKit features for interactively playing music or video in iTunes from the self contained web applications.

Given that the bonus content all created in JavaScript and largely self-documented, it's puzzling why there's not yet an online repository for users and indies interested in creating their own bonus content. After all, Apple is clearly signaling here that it wants to create an open interactive content format that will add value to its already non-profit/self-sustaining efforts to deliver music and video in iTunes for Mac, iPod, and iPhone users. [ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=12024)

[justflybob]

I know I'm dating myself, but I do so long for the days when an aspiring young singer/songwriter could work the local clubs with an acoustic set 2 or 3 times a week to keep from starving, then sell an occasional song or two to someone famous to record.

All in all, it was a pretty nice way to live. One that doesn't seem to work too well in todays marketplace.

[jinjo235]

Let's say you take the LP idea over to a no-name freelance graphic designer/developer. Guess what...they'll charge you by the hour. In order to perfect it, make it visually appealing, really allow the artist to portray themselves and reach millions and millions of iTunes users they know they could charge you for it. An we are talking about a no name developer. Interactive applications, customer covers and interfaces and hosting is all, I believe iTunes has every right to charge 10K!

[wizard69]

Honestly if a few bands would try his they would instantly stand head and shoulders above the rest. Other wise they end up looking like a bunch of over drugged whiners with an inflated sense of entitlement.

I just find this sort of commenting strange to hear from an indie label. Isn't the whole idea of going indie to avoid the structure of the big record companies and to basically row your own boat? It isn't like they half to program a main frame to solve weather forecast, thought they might just do better that the current forecasts.

Besides as has been pointed out the cost really isn't that bad. I suspect that the content creation is still a lot faster than doing a full scale web site, (not that I have info to base that on). At least is looks like Apple ought to have a handy IDE to slap these out fast.


Dave

[newbee]

I got the distinct impression that iTunes LPs were a concession to the major labels to allow albums instead of singles to be pushed. I think SJ was happy with things the way they were, except for drm resrictions ... am I wrong?

[spliff monkey]

Given that the bonus content all created in JavaScript and largely self-documented, it's puzzling why there's not yet an online repository for users and indies interested in creating their own bonus content. After all, Apple is clearly signaling here that it wants to create an open interactive content format that will add value to its already non-profit/self-sustaining efforts to deliver music and video in iTunes for Mac, iPod, and iPhone users. [ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=12024)

$10,000 to develop may be "cheap" but it will definitely kill incentive for most developers to create an itunes LP. This is disappointing news but I would assume this will be a temporary policy. If Apple is the only developer for the format how many LP's are ever going to get made? imagine if Apple charged $10k for every App on the store; there would be far fewer Apps that's for sure.

[dreyfus2]

I would think that this is only a temporary thing, as Apple has not put all cards on the table yet. Once everything is in place (tablet, ebook reading software, and a big enough amount of existing content using "LP", "Extras", etc.), there will be a software tool that will allow content creators to prep these things themselves. Apple certainly does not want to get into the content creation business and they should not.

Labels/artists have to make a simple business decision: how much more can I charge for the bonus content and how likely is it for that additional revenue to exceed the upfront cost. I can't afford a prime time TV ad for my company, but I do not really see this as discrimination. Making such a ridiculous claim would maybe give me some free airtime? Well, this only works when whining about Apple, it does not really scale down to less attractive outfits.

I bought 5 iTunes LPs so far and the format is ingenious, a major step format for digital distribution. Now support the Apple TV and at least transfer lyrics and compatible content to the iPhone/iPod to make it truly useful.

[Dlux]

It's not entirely clear from the article: is the $10K an optional cost if you want Apple to author the content for you, or is required even if you put everything together yourself?

Can an indie artist record their own music, produce their own iTunes LP content (presumably for a lot less than $10K) and submit it all to Apple for inclusion on the iTunes Store, without incurring this $10K fee? If so, what are they complaining about? If not, then I agree that the iTunes Store policy sets too high a hurdle for this particular product.

[Dlux]

Remember "Video Killed the Radio Star"? This is like "iPod Killed the LP Star"!
Digital booklets are a joke. Apple is trying to resurrect a dead art form I guess because they helped kill it in the first place.

Don't you have other forums somewhere to share your wisdom? Why do keep posting here?

[Chocolate Lab]

Hi - guilty party here.

I don't have the time to respond to all these comments, but let me address a couple things.

1. Yes, I have 3 albums and 1 EP out in the <1 year we've been operating. That doesn't account for upcoming releases - at least two of which are announced on our site.

2. The point of going "indie" is not to avoid the structure of big record companies. We'd love to be a big record company some day. Doesn't mean we won't still row our own boat.

3. $10,000 is too much money. And who says anyone would have to pay a freelance developer/designer. Perhaps I am a designer and could do it for free. Perhaps not. Doesn't matter because I don't have a choice.

4. The only concern I have is now. iTunes may offer a feature allowing me to make an iTunes LP from my G1 phone in 2 days. But they haven't announced it that I'm aware of.

5. There may be an iPhone App, but why do I care. I have a G1 and I'll keep buying Android until iPhones are available from someone besides AT&T.

Lastly, I'm happy to sell our music on iTunes. It's a nice way to sell music but that doesn't mean I'm going to drink the Cool-Aid. Go ahead and blast away at me for trying to do the best job I can with the options available to me.

Cheers,
Brian

[Chocolate Lab]

It's not entirely clear from the article: is the $10K an optional cost if you want Apple to author the content for you, or is required even if you put everything together yourself?

Can an indie artist record their own music, produce their own iTunes LP content (presumably for a lot less than $10K) and submit it all to Apple for inclusion on the iTunes Store, without incurring this $10K fee? If so, what are they complaining about? If not, then I agree that the iTunes Store policy sets too high a hurdle for this particular product.

What I was told is no. You are not able to produce your own content and as of now it's only available to major labels.

[echosonic]

Honestly if a few bands would try his they would instantly stand head and shoulders above the rest. Other wise they end up looking like a bunch of over drugged whiners with an inflated sense of entitlement.

I just find this sort of commenting strange to hear from an indie label. Isn't the whole idea of going indie to avoid the structure of the big record companies and to basically row your own boat? It isn't like they half to program a main frame to solve weather forecast, thought they might just do better that the current forecasts.
Dave

It's akin to an indy band finally getting the ability to make indy records, in indy studios, with indy producers, and then suddenly demanding that they be given the same marketing, post-production and promotional machine of a major label.

Frankly, if you aren't selling enough records as an indy to afford this type of produciton, then YOU PROBABLY DONT NEED IT. Whiners to be certain.

[echosonic]

I would think that this is only a temporary thing, as Apple has not put all cards on the table yet. Once everything is in place (tablet, ebook reading software, and a big enough amount of existing content using "LP", "Extras", etc.), there will be a software tool that will allow content creators to prep these things themselves. Apple certainly does not want to get into the content creation business and they should not

Bingo. iLP, new in iLife '10.

Apple lets these wankers pay for the dev costs and they create another hit app.

[solipsism]

I got the distinct impression that iTunes LPs were a concession to the major labels to allow albums instead of singles to be pushed. I think SJ was happy with things the way they were, except for drm resrictions ... am I wrong?

I didn't get that impression at all. I think this was Apple's idea and I think it's just the tip of the iceberg of what is to come. One of the main drawbacks of digital media doesn't seem to be the quality, which appears to be "good enough" for most people, especially those still using DVD, but the lack of rich interactive content one get with optical media. iTunes LP made me think a tablet and revamped AppleTV are true and will offer digital media in ways that we can't imagine.

PS: I would have expected ALAC to have used with iTunes LP if it was just for music and just for a small selection of music.

[echosonic]

1. Yes, I have 3 albums and 1 EP out in the <1 year we've been operating. That doesn't account for upcoming releases - at least two of which are announced on our site.

2. The point of going "indie" is not to avoid the structure of big record companies. We'd love to be a big record company some day. Doesn't mean we won't still row our own boat.

3. $10,000 is too much money. And who says anyone would have to pay a freelance developer/designer. Perhaps I am a designer and could do it for free. Perhaps not. Doesn't matter because I don't have a choice.

4. The only concern I have is now. iTunes may offer a feature allowing me to make an iTunes LP from my G1 phone in 2 days. But they haven't announced it that I'm aware of.

5. There may be an iPhone App, but why do I care. I have a G1 and I'll keep buying Android until iPhones are available from someone besides AT&T.

1. Are they all available on iTunes? If so, how much did it cost you to put them there (where they are available to the world)?

2. Then what is the point of "going indy?" I'd like to know why you "went indy" when you could put out your own records on iTunes from your living room without any label support whatsoever.

3. $10,000 isn't "too much", its just "too much for you". Its too much for me also, honestly, but it isn't like its something we're entitled to, is it?

4. They'll likely not say anything until its ready. that's their style.

5. That's your freedom of choice. I'd leave ATT if I had a choice, but my desire for my phone to be Apple outweighs my hatred for ATT...for now.

[bigmike]

"if you aren't selling enough records as an indy to afford this type of production, then YOU PROBABLY DONT NEED IT" --- I agree somewhat on this. Even though some peeps know (interactive) designers who won't charge the price of a small car.

Plus Apple isn't going to make it mandatory to spend $10k for indie bands. That would turn away tons of music and some profits for Apple.

Only if Apple wants to be the Walmart (please NO!) of selling online tunes then it'll get worse.

There's still a lot to iron out. Time will tell.

Anyway it should be the MUSIC that matters, not flashy graphics. But Apple should let anyone put in liner notes, production credits, etc in a standard text field (not just a digital booklet). Basic info that is missing right now.

[Dlux]

What I was told is no. You are not able to produce your own content and as of now it's only available to major labels.

Assuming that's the case, I wonder if this is a temporary state of affairs while Apple sorts everything out. In the long run I hope that indie artists can indeed roll their own at their own level of investment and still get their material sold on the iTunes Store.

One hypothetical argument to be made for Apple is they don't want a flood of randomly-produced interactive content with UI bugs and obscene easter-eggs hidden inside and a general QA nightmare of poor coding. But then they should come out and make that clear, and establish which demographic they want to cater to.

I think the best of all worlds would be if anyone can sell their music via iTunes but then offer their interactive/LP material separately, either on their own web site or 3rd-party commerce site, or, if they prefer, let Apple sell it and pay the $10K. But then, regardless of where that material comes from, the end user could merge it all in their iTunes client (much like we can now paste our own album art or lyrics onto CD-ripped tracks). This, of course, assuming RIAA isn't involved somewhere and threatens to sue anything that moves.

[spliff monkey]

Honestly if a few bands would try his they would instantly stand head and shoulders above the rest. Other wise they end up looking like a bunch of over drugged whiners with an inflated sense of entitlement.

Dave

Over drugged whiners; inflated sense of entitlement? That's not fair. There are many indie artists on Itunes who use services like CD baby to get their stuff distributed while bypassing traditional channels. Not only is it less expensive but it's allot easier to put your own money into a project rather than relying on labels and distributors pick up the tab. Major labels and distributors raise the cost making ROI a much more daunting task.

Indie doesn't imply that you don't want to sell your stuff on Itunes or Rhapsody; it means simply "I don't want this label and this distributor to jack up the cost of selling this album so they can take their cut". Even if the major release sells 3x as many albums, by the time everyone takes their cut the artist ends up making about as much money as an indie release. (barring the stadium artists)

I have clients that are already very interested in developing in the LP format and the fee will definitely turn some of them off. I'm certain that that an LP can be developed for far less than 10K especially if your just talking about the LP itself. I downloaded the mayhem comic and it looked like a pretty straight forward multimedia build-out.

Apple is not going to include producing the content (artwork, audio, video) for the LP, so add that on top of the development cost and the 10K fee for Apple to "compile" it? (I'm a little fuzzy on what they are changing for) you're talking about a very pricey project that "indies" can't afford.

That said, I'm sure this won't last or the LP will be a flop which would be too bad because people like the idea of not limiting their product to just an Iphone or tablet App. Mobile devices may be "the future" but there are still allot of desktops and laptops out there and it would be better to not ignore that segment.

[Chocolate Lab]

1. Are they all available on iTunes? If so, how much did it cost you to put them there (where they are available to the world)?

2. Then what is the point of "going indy?" I'd like to know why you "went indy" when you could put out your own records on iTunes from your living room without any label support whatsoever.

3. $10,000 isn't "too much", its just "too much for you". Its too much for me also, honestly, but it isn't like its something we're entitled to, is it?

4. They'll likely not say anything until its ready. that's their style.

5. That's your freedom of choice. I'd leave ATT if I had a choice, but my desire for my phone to be Apple outweighs my hatred for ATT...for now.

Yes. All of our albums are on iTunes as well as a number of other online retailers such as Amazon and eMusic. In most cases we have CDs being sold online and in stores.

I'm not sure what the point of "going indie" is. That phrase really makes no sense to me. We are a record label, not a band. Therefor it's our job to support our acts. We started this label to release music that we believe in and to have fun. Would I love to make enough money to be able to spend $10k on a whim like this? Sure. Being indie just means you're not major - i.e. Warner, EMI, Sony or Universal. We are just one of tens of thousands of indie labels vying for a slice of the pie.

[Chocolate Lab]

From Wikipedia:

Record companies and music publishers that are not under the control of the big four are generally considered to be independent (indie), even if they are large corporations with complex structures. Some prefer to use the term indie label to refer to only those independent labels that adhere to an arbitrary, ill-defined criteria of corporate structure and size, and some consider an indie label to be almost any label that releases non-mainstream music, regardless of its corporate structure.

[Dlux]

I think the best of all worlds would be if anyone can sell their music via iTunes but then offer their interactive/LP material separately, either on their own web site or 3rd-party commerce site, or, if they prefer, let Apple sell it and pay the $10K. But then, regardless of where that material comes from, the end user could merge it all in their iTunes client (much like we can now paste our own album art or lyrics onto CD-ripped tracks). This, of course, assuming RIAA isn't involved somewhere and threatens to sue anything that moves.

Now that I've written that, I realize a potential problem. If the 'bonus material' (for lack of a better all-inclusive term) is distributed separately, then that also means it can be ripped-off separately and thrown into the torrents. And in this case there won't be the threat of the RIAAs and ASCAPs to protect the content producer (or, in reality, to protect their own stake in it.) I don't know how the iTunes Store policy and structure might prevent this (maybe with a watermark?), but things are never as simple as they seem at first. My own speculation included.

[cmf2]

I think all Apple is trying to do right now is test the waters with this concept. The high cost of entry serves to limit the concept to some of the top selling bands for now and ensures high quality LP's. A limited number of LP's creates a sense of value to the consumer, and the artists featured might entice customers to check these LP's out.

If Apple can create this sense of added value and generate consumer interest, they will most certainly lower the barriers to entry over time, but Apple probably believes that the launch period of this program is a critical factor in its long term success and thus wants almost complete control over the content (for now).

[DJRumpy]

Seems to me this will force artists into a label in any case, be that Indie or otherwise, as they will most likely not have $10,000 to seed their LP.

I would have been a better idea if they made this more accessible to the common artist where they could forgo a traditional Label altogether.

[c4rlob]

Any indie labels worried about the cost of iTunes LP production should stop worrying about such "gloss" and stick to what they're supposed to do best –*Music.

[the cool gut]

$10,000 to develop may be "cheap" but it will definitely kill incentive for most developers to create an itunes LP. This is disappointing news but I would assume this will be a temporary policy. If Apple is the only developer for the format how many LP's are ever going to get made? imagine if Apple charged $10k for every App on the store; there would be far fewer Apps that's for sure.

That is not a good analogy. It would be more like Apple charging you $10 000 to build your app and you just provide the images etc. Not a bad deal really - when you consider how slick these things look. They are even better than most websites these bands have.

[Dlux]

Seems to me this will force artists into a label in any case, be that Indie or otherwise, as they will most likely not have $10,000 to see their LP.

I would have been a better idea if they made this more accessible to the common artist where they could forgo a traditional Label altogether.

There's no obligation for anyone to produce in the iTunes LP format. Artists are still free to sell just music, on whatever label they want, indie or otherwise.

[DJRumpy]

There's no obligation for anyone to produce in the iTunes LP format. Artists are still free to sell just music, on whatever label they want, indie or otherwise.

That's not the point. It would have been a great venue for new artists to get their music out there given the popularity of iTunes.

[Chocolate Lab]

Assuming that's the case, I wonder if this is a temporary state of affairs while Apple sorts everything out. In the long run I hope that indie artists can indeed roll their own at their own level of investment and still get their material sold on the iTunes Store.

One hypothetical argument to be made for Apple is they don't want a flood of randomly-produced interactive content with UI bugs and obscene easter-eggs hidden inside and a general QA nightmare of poor coding. But then they should come out and make that clear, and establish which demographic they want to cater to.

I think the best of all worlds would be if anyone can sell their music via iTunes but then offer their interactive/LP material separately, either on their own web site or 3rd-party commerce site, or, if they prefer, let Apple sell it and pay the $10K. But then, regardless of where that material comes from, the end user could merge it all in their iTunes client (much like we can now paste our own album art or lyrics onto CD-ripped tracks). This, of course, assuming RIAA isn't involved somewhere and threatens to sue anything that moves.

They don't edit or qualify the music they release, so I'm not sure why the LP content would be any different. But I do agree, to a point, that bugginess is always an issue.

[flowney]

These file formats are basically a gzipped web site with the suffix changed to ,itlp or .ite. Inside, it's just HTML, CSS, Javascript, images and perhaps even a few video clips.

A template for iWeb or RapidWeaver would make it possible for any creative person to develop one of these files. These are not, or should not be, barriers to entry.

So, what if I develop such a file? How do I get Apple to make it available along with a selection of music that I've recorded? That's the potential barrier. Has anyone seen any publicly accessible description of how to ask Apple to include an .itlp file with your application?

The iTunes Extras file will also be of interest to podcasters who want to include interactive materials with their linear audio or video podcast.

[AznZOFIA111]

I'm only imagining that iTunes LP will be available for viewing on the iPod touch and iPhone sometime within the next few years...

On another note, why hasn't anyone noted the terrible grammar on this particular article?
Someone ran out of coffee, methinks:lol:

[physguy]

Hi - guilty party here.

I don't have the time to respond to all these comments, but let me address a couple things.

1. Yes, I have 3 albums and 1 EP out in the <1 year we've been operating. That doesn't account for upcoming releases - at least two of which are announced on our site.

2. The point of going "indie" is not to avoid the structure of big record companies. We'd love to be a big record company some day. Doesn't mean we won't still row our own boat.

3. $10,000 is too much money. And who says anyone would have to pay a freelance developer/designer. Perhaps I am a designer and could do it for free. Perhaps not. Doesn't matter because I don't have a choice.

4. The only concern I have is now. iTunes may offer a feature allowing me to make an iTunes LP from my G1 phone in 2 days. But they haven't announced it that I'm aware of.

5. There may be an iPhone App, but why do I care. I have a G1 and I'll keep buying Android until iPhones are available from someone besides AT&T.

Lastly, I'm happy to sell our music on iTunes. It's a nice way to sell music but that doesn't mean I'm going to drink the Cool-Aid. Go ahead and blast away at me for trying to do the best job I can with the options available to me.

Cheers,
Brian
Since you've gone to this trouble to respond it would be interesting to hear why 'its too much'.

Possible reasons

1) The incremental sales from the exposure of this format won't generate > $10,000 in additional profit.

2) I can get the same result with the same increase in sales elsewhere for less.

Just saying its too much because you think it is, or if they did it differently you would do it cheaper, it not a valid reason.

I'm genuinely interested because, its seems to me , that the value added is the key. If your reason is (1) above and you're correct in general, then Apple has really wasted its time in creating this format in the first place. If its (2) then Apple will eventually lower the price. If another then???

Can you tell us which it is IYO?

[Chocolate Lab]

These file formats are basically a gzipped web site with the suffix changed to ,itlp or .ite. Inside, it's just HTML, CSS, Javascript, images and perhaps even a few video clips.

A template for iWeb or RapidWeaver would make it possible for any creative person to develop one of these files. These are not, or should not be, barriers to entry.

So, what if I develop such a file? How do I get Apple to make it available along with a selection of music that I've recorded? That's the potential barrier. Has anyone seen any publicly accessible description of how to ask Apple to include an .itlp file with your application?

The iTunes Extras file will also be of interest to podcasters who want to include interactive materials with their linear audio or video podcast.

The barrier is Apple/iTunes. My entire point was that these are just glorified websites and that given a chance to create one myself I would have enjoyed offering it as bonus content to anyone interested. We're being told that Apple is deciding who can have them (major labels only) and at what price ($10,000 is what I was told).

[Chocolate Lab]

Since you've gone to this trouble to respond it would be interesting to hear why 'its too much'.

Possible reasons

1) The incremental sales from the exposure of this format won't generate > $10,000 in additional profit.

2) I can get the same result with the same increase in sales elsewhere for less.

Just saying its too much because you think it is, or if they did it differently you would do it cheaper, it not a valid reason.

I'm genuinely interested because, its seems to me , that the value added is the key. If your reason is (1) above and you're correct in general, then Apple has really wasted its time in creating this format in the first place. If its (2) then Apple will eventually lower the price. If another then???

Can you tell us which it is IYO?

It's not too much for a major label who hemorrhages money in attempts to promote artists with the hope of having a successful album. Anyone can tell you that a major label loses money on 9 out of 10 albums and that that one profitable album pays for the rest of the loses. That's just how majors work.

It's too much for us because why would we want to pay $10,000 (assuming we had $10,000 for one aspect of marketing/production) to have an in-house design team create our LP. But that's not the point either - the point is that we're not being given the option in the first place.

I don't know what the value added would be. I'm shocked that anyone is paying an extra $10 per album to get a couple videos and extras in the first place. My initial goal in pursuing information on LP creation was to release two albums as a "box set/special edition" and at the price of one album and include the LP format as a bonus. That's the only way I could justify the extra cost to the end user. I don't even know who gets to keep the extra $10, to be honest.

[SpamSandwich]

Don't you have other forums somewhere to share your wisdom? Why do keep posting here?

Even if you beat him like a red-headed stepchild he'd still love the attention.

[SpamSandwich]

Now that I've written that, I realize a potential problem. If the 'bonus material' (for lack of a better all-inclusive term) is distributed separately, then that also means it can be ripped-off separately and thrown into the torrents. And in this case there won't be the threat of the RIAAs and ASCAPs to protect the content producer (or, in reality, to protect their own stake in it.) I don't know how the iTunes Store policy and structure might prevent this (maybe with a watermark?), but things are never as simple as they seem at first. My own speculation included.

It's usually considered bad form to reply to your own post. Just edit your original post to include the new information, or make a new post.

[Chocolate Lab]

It's akin to an indy band finally getting the ability to make indy records, in indy studios, with indy producers, and then suddenly demanding that they be given the same marketing, post-production and promotional machine of a major label.

Frankly, if you aren't selling enough records as an indy to afford this type of produciton, then YOU PROBABLY DONT NEED IT. Whiners to be certain.

You are wrong and I don't take you seriously. But you should know that we're all just people. Sometimes we sign with or work at a major label and sometimes we don't. And I don't think it's whining to want to attempt to provide an equal product to someone else's should you choose to try. If nobody buys it and you spent the money then so be it. But just saying you can't isn't right.

This reminds me of Plessy v. Ferguson...

[David Stevenson]

I would think that this is only a temporary thing, as Apple has not put all cards on the table yet. Once everything is in place (tablet, ebook reading software, and a big enough amount of existing content using "LP", "Extras", etc.), there will be a software tool that will allow content creators to prep these things themselves. Apple certainly does not want to get into the content creation business and they should not.


Just to amplify this point: Apple traditionally "eats its own dog food" before releasing development tools into the wild. Think how many iPhone apps they developed internally before the SDK was released (and how long it took--two+ years at least). So how to get content to shake down the dev process? The answer so far from Apple: approach some labels with bonus content already on the shelf, get some honest money (peanuts to every party concerned), and put them on iTunes for the labels to recoup their peanuts (and Apple to test/refine/extend the concept and test the market).

And now the bonus question: how many native apps were available at iPhone launch vs how many LPs were available at its launch?

[physguy]

It's not too much for a major label who hemorrhages money in attempts to promote artists with the hope of having a successful album. Anyone can tell you that a major label loses money on 9 out of 10 albums and that that one profitable album pays for the rest of the loses. That's just how majors work.

It's too much for us because why would we want to pay $10,000 (assuming we had $10,000 for one aspect of marketing/production) to have an in-house design team create our LP. But that's not the point either - the point is that we're not being given the option in the first place.

I don't know what the value added would be. I'm shocked that anyone is paying an extra $10 per album to get a couple videos and extras in the first place. My initial goal in pursuing information on LP creation was to release two albums as a "box set/special edition" and at the price of one album and include the LP format as a bonus. That's the only way I could justify the extra cost to the end user. I don't even know who gets to keep the extra $10, to be honest.

Thanks for the response. Basically you believe my item (1)

1) The incremental sales from the exposure of this format won't generate > $10,000 in additional profit.

If this is true then the format will fail. Given Apple's boder-line obsessive approach to market research, I actually doubt this is the case and, for most releases, the exposure from this format will more than justify the $10,000. I have to agree with the conclusion 'It's NOT overpriced' but it is certainly true its not have value to everyone. Only time will actually tell.

[timgriff84]

I see why Apple should be able to do whatever they want in this instance as it's there store and there isn't anything that says a store must sell a product.

However it turns into a bit of an issue with the monopoly Apple's developing over online music sales. It's sort of like them using the fact that most people buy from them to be able to add an extra feature that's based on existing open technology and then demand there the only people that can product for it. At the same time then also decide which suppliers they will do it for. i.e. the ones that will be most profitable.

It's sort of like if Google was to decide they were going to start a server business and then ranked all the sites hosted by them over any other site. As most people use Google to search it would mean website owners would be forced to have their site with Google even if was going to cost more.

Tough situation for Apple. On one hand they only want quality to keep there service at the best, but to do that you end up using a monopoly on a market to unfairly control it. Then again overall there still going to make a load of money whatever they do.

[nagromme]

Let's say you take the LP idea over to a no-name freelance graphic designer/developer. Guess what...they'll charge you by the hour. In order to perfect it, make it visually appealing, really allow the artist to portray themselves and reach millions and millions of iTunes users they know they could charge you for it. An we are talking about a no name developer. Interactive applications, customer covers and interfaces and hosting is all, I believe iTunes has every right to charge 10K!

Agreed. I'm a no-name interactive developer and I'd easily charge 10k+.

It's a lot of skilled, creative work. If an artist can't pay for that, then obviously that's that. They can sell music instead :)

What's amazing here is that Apple is charging so LITTLE. They're the big pros, yet charging what I would working out of a garage!*

* I don't even have a garage :( So... living room.

[Dlux]

It's usually considered bad form to reply to your own post. Just edit your original post to include the new information, or make a new post.
Which is what I would normally do. But in this case I wanted to expound on a previous thought while still preserving it online to invoke discussion. I didn't have the thought in the followup post until after I considered what I had written previously.

[fxgeek]

|I don't know where you're getting the figure of $3,000 for a Blu-Ray burner. They can be bought for as little as $200 now. I also don't really understand why you're comparing blu-ray to iTunes LP considering one is a high definition delivery format for video content and the other is an interactive music album. iTunes extras doesn't even compare to Blu-Ray as it's only standard definition so I don't know why people keep making these completely un-necessary arguments to try and justify apple's new formats. They can both co-exist you know. This isn't highlander, there can be more than one.

Anyway, Gizmodo are talking out their collective rear ends as usual. $10,000 for developing an iTunes LP would be the lower end of the spectrum in terms of price for developing that kind of content. As a designer who has regurlarly worked on DVD authoring and interactive media, I can say that for a fact. From what I've seen of iTunes LP I would charge in and around that just for doing the visuals, yet alone the authoring. If that's all Apple are charging that's a steal for what the result is.

[sprockkets]

AACS is mandatory, even if you don't care about it? At least with DVDs you didn't have to encrypt your stuff.

That just blows.

[elroth]

Thank you, ChocolateLab, for your comments. On these forums we sometimes debate ideas of which we haven't a clue, we just speculate and try to sound smart. It's good to hear from people like you who are facing the issues in the real world.

[al_bundy]

It's not too much for a major label who hemorrhages money in attempts to promote artists with the hope of having a successful album. Anyone can tell you that a major label loses money on 9 out of 10 albums and that that one profitable album pays for the rest of the loses. That's just how majors work.

It's too much for us because why would we want to pay $10,000 (assuming we had $10,000 for one aspect of marketing/production) to have an in-house design team create our LP. But that's not the point either - the point is that we're not being given the option in the first place.

I don't know what the value added would be. I'm shocked that anyone is paying an extra $10 per album to get a couple videos and extras in the first place. My initial goal in pursuing information on LP creation was to release two albums as a "box set/special edition" and at the price of one album and include the LP format as a bonus. That's the only way I could justify the extra cost to the end user. I don't even know who gets to keep the extra $10, to be honest.

it was originally the major record companies that came up with digital LP idea and Apple is just developing their own version of it. there will be another version coming out soon from the "other" category.

Apple might not offer it to indie labels because they may be under contract with the major record companies with this

[str1f3]

I have to disagree with this article which is rare since I enjoy Prince's posts. iTunes LP is not some special feature that most people may even want. $10,000 is simply too much to pay and much of the best music that has come out over the last 15 years were indie artists. When only certain artists get this "honor" it is more about the artist and less about the music. Who is to say where this line is drawn. By this premise albums like "Exile from Guyville" or "For Emma, Forever Ago" could not have an iTunes LP upon it's initial release.


I keep thinking to the "Think Different" ads. The most influential people were not those in the mainstream but the people who think outside the box.

[charlituna]

The fact that Apple uses open, web standards to build its new iTunes LP titles, and the fact that they are currently only viewable within iTunes 9 on a Mac or PC, along with the expectation that these digital albums are being targeted at a new tablet form factor product in the pipeline as well as the HDTV resolution of Apple TV, all serve as indicators that iTunes LP is a work in progress that is still unfolding as a strategy.


this would seem to be to be the key statement. this (and the Extras feature) are a test. see if there is interest, work out the kinks etc. if you watch the keynote, Jobs even indicates that the labels and artists will be making these things themselves. which actually makes me wonder if the price mentioned was actually a sign up to get all the tools and not an album by album cost. Once the project is deemed viable.

and yeah I know, someone is going to say that an Apple Rep says. well guess what, it wouldn't be the first time an Apple Rep got something wrong. An Apple Rep assured me that I would have no problems with my Epson printer when I updated to Snow Leopard but oops, I sure did have problems. cause Epson had not written an SL driver yet. And I've had other Apple Reps make similar mistakes. Point being that just cause someone is an Apple Rep doesn't mean they can't misunderstand or poorly state infomation.

What I was told is no. You are not able to produce your own content and as of now it's only available to major labels.

note the part I put in bold. this whole experiment is only about 6 weeks old if that. now in 6 months if they are saying 'you aren't old enough to play in this sandbox' then you've got something to gripe about.

[JeffDM]

Don't you have other forums somewhere to share your wisdom? Why do keep posting here?

I realize you may hate teckstud and all, but it seems to me he has a point. They could have included a PDF of CD booklet with the digital album purchase from the get go, but they almost never have done that.

I'm not seeing a way to preview this LP system either, it would seem to be in their best interest to give the buyer a better idea of what they're getting for the extra $4-$5.

|I don't know where you're getting the figure of $3,000 for a Blu-Ray burner. They can be bought for as little as $200 now. I also don't really understand why you're comparing blu-ray to iTunes LP considering one is a high definition delivery format for video content and the other is an interactive music album.

I agree. But as for the burner, maybe they meant a BD duplicator? I'm pretty sure BD duplicators are cheaper than that now, I thought I saw one for half that price, and it included a printer setup for printing a design onto the disc. I don't understand the article's bit about BD-RW (ReWritable). If you're distributing media for sale, you're writing to BD-RE (REcordable, i.e. write once).

note the part I put in bold. this whole experiment is only about 6 weeks old if that. now in 6 months if they are saying 'you aren't old enough to play in this sandbox' then you've got something to gripe about.

If they're serious about making a decent splash, it would seem they would have started out with more than ten albums.

[lamewing]

The line is blurring between Apple and Microsoft's tactics more and more these days.

Can I find a new underdog computer company? 8-)

[robert808]

It's my impression this is a proprietary format that can only be sold on the iTunes store. It seems to me Apple should have developed an open standard that would give a product that could be sold from any web site and loaded into iTunes just like any track. Then any company would be able to provide software for creation/playback of LPs and to repeat myself, be sold for instance, by Amazon.com, or as a download from anyone's web site. Given the dominance of iTunes this would entirely avoid any antitrust/monopoly implications.

Robert

[palegolas]

Maybe there will be an update/ overhaul to iWeb (to make it actually usable) that produces LP content.

[Brainless]

Let's say you take the LP idea over to a no-name freelance graphic designer/developer. Guess what...they'll charge you by the hour. In order to perfect it, make it visually appealing, really allow the artist to portray themselves and reach millions and millions of iTunes users they know they could charge you for it. An we are talking about a no name developer. Interactive applications, customer covers and interfaces and hosting is all, I believe iTunes has every right to charge 10K!

But they actually do some work for you. If you have some knowledge, you can create decent LP by yourself for $0.
Apple will charge $10000 just to let you in, doing exactly nothing for you. They just abuse their monopoly. Disgusting.

[Brainless]

Maybe there will be an update/ overhaul to iWeb (to make it actually usable) that produces LP content.

They wouldn't charge $10000 if they want to allow it for indies to develop it in next version of iWeb. Perhaps they change it after - surprise - they find out no one is interested in producing LP content.

[stonefree]

Aren't graphic designers/ web developers a dime a dozen? I'm having a pretty hard time believing that $10,000 is a perfectly reasonable fee for what is basically a glorified Flash movie that one or two guys could throw together in a week and make it look really good.

[Dick Applebaum]

this would seem to be to be the key statement. this (and the Extras feature) are a test. see if there is interest, work out the kinks etc. if you watch the keynote, Jobs even indicates that the labels and artists will be making these things themselves. which actually makes me wonder if the price mentioned was actually a sign up to get all the tools and not an album by album cost. Once the project is deemed viable.

and yeah I know, someone is going to say that an Apple Rep says. well guess what, it wouldn't be the first time an Apple Rep got something wrong. An Apple Rep assured me that I would have no problems with my Epson printer when I updated to Snow Leopard but oops, I sure did have problems. cause Epson had not written an SL driver yet. And I've had other Apple Reps make similar mistakes. Point being that just cause someone is an Apple Rep doesn't mean they can't misunderstand or poorly state infomation.



note the part I put in bold. this whole experiment is only about 6 weeks old if that. now in 6 months if they are saying 'you aren't old enough to play in this sandbox' then you've got something to gripe about.

First, I used to develop websites and am an iPhone developer. I even developed standalone desktop-resident and DVD-resident websites before apple invented widgets.

I looked at a couple of LP files and they are mainly HTML, CSS, and JavaScript-- common tools in the toolbag of web or widget developers. There is a proprietary framework that "plays" the content through iTunes.

I, briefly, considered reverse engineering the package to allow me to create an LP that played through Quicktime (bypassing iTunes).

However, what I am really interested in is the tools and the IDE that are used in creating an LP package (rather than the contents of the package, itself).

I am particularly interested in creating "LPs" of music videos and video podcasts.

In the LP announcement*, Steve Jobs said that:


...and the artists, themselves, can get involved in creating these things. We are giving all the tools to the labels and the artists, so that they can bring their creativity directly to the listeners.


The emphasis is Steve's.

So, it seems that these "tools" do exist in some form. They could be a single integrated LP IDE. More likely they are a group of existing tools cobbled together (GarageBand, iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, Preview, DashCode, iWeb).

Apple, certainly has software bits that can do all the things necessary to create an LP... but I suspect that there is no single, integrated tool-- yet!

But, I believe there will be a tool when Apple gets it together.

If I didn't know better, I'd say that iTunes LP is manna from heaven made specifically for Indie houses.


Dick



* The iTunes LP announcement:

http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?i=59936574&id=275834665



You can watch the whole thing, or just scrub in to:

07:40 where the discussion of iTunes begins
13:23 where Steve Jobs introduces iTunes LP
14:46 where Steve discusses the LP tools
19:21 where the iTunes store is demoed
21:45 where iTunes LP is demoed

*

[Dick Applebaum]

They wouldn't charge $10000 if they want to allow it for indies to develop it in next version of iWeb. Perhaps they change it after - surprise - they find out no one is interested in producing LP content.

Maybe Apple learned something from the app store, and they didn't want to be overwhelmed by the demand.

Or, maybe the "LP package" is still a work-in-process and Apple wants to work with a limited number of creatives to refine it.

Or, maybe the "tools" for creating LPs aren't up to Apple's standards for general release to the public, developers, artists.

In any case, Apple can control the situation by adding an arbitrarily-expensive "cover charge".

I believe Apple does not want to get into the LP content creation business. This "cover charge" is merely a way to bring some order to the process of: refining the package; defining the procedures; preparing the software; preparing the iTunes store; and preparing the creatives and developers.

Then, when it's "all together", Apple announces the "LP Creation Package" and removes the cover charge (admitting the general public).

*

[Abster2core]

Remember "Video Killed the Radio Star"? This is like "iPod Killed the LP Star"!
Digital booklets are a joke. Apple is trying to resurrect a dead art form I guess because they helped kill it in the first place.

Where can one find that green garbage bag when you need it most?

[Dick Applebaum]

Aren't graphic designers/ web developers a dime a dozen? I'm having a pretty hard time believing that $10,000 is a perfectly reasonable fee for what is basically a glorified Flash movie that one or two guys could throw together in a week and make it look really good.



Well, do you have all the pictures and video already shot, edited and in the can?

Or, do you need expensive/powerful software (and the training to use it), computers, cameras, lenses, videoCams, Lighting, studio time, etc., to prepare the LP content.

Any special effects, e.g. green screen, compositing, rotoscoping?

How long does it take to make .pngs of all the lyrics and textual content?


Even if all the video and pictures exist, it can take hours of editing to create a few minutes of content.

I have about $10,000 worth of software (Final Cut Studio, Photoshop, Canvas, special plugins and filters, etc).

I have $1,500 worth of VideoCam equipment that I use to take video of the grandkids (3) soccer games-- about 1 hour per game.

I have 7 Macs and 20 Terabytes of external hard disk (video files are quite big-- 1 hour of video is about 57 Gig).

When I get home I import and examine the footage looking for highlights (importing takes about 50 minutes per hour of video). This is a tedious process just locating the clips you want to use. Once you have the clips, you need to manipulate them into a acceptable presentation-- arranging, cutouts, compositing, adjusting color, size, cropping, freeze frame, slow motion, synch background music and sound effects.

It can easily take hours (or even days) to get everything just right for a 2-minute highlight,

So, no, I don't think $10,000 is unreasonable... if anything, it is much too low.

*

[ediedi]

Well, do you have all the pictures and video already shot, edited and in the can?

Or, do you need expensive/powerful software (and the training to use it), computers, cameras, lenses, videoCams, Lighting, studio time, etc., to prepare the LP content.

Any special effects, e.g. green screen, compositing, rotoscoping?

How long does it take to make .pngs of all the lyrics and textual content?


Even if all the video and pictures exist, it can take hours of editing to create a few minutes of content.

I have about $10,000 worth of software (Final Cut Studio, Photoshop, Canvas, special plugins and filters, etc).

I have $1,500 worth of VideoCam equipment that I use to take video of the grandkids (3) soccer games-- about 1 hour per game.

I have 7 Macs and 20 Terabytes of external hard disk (video files are quite big-- 1 hour of video is about 57 Gig).

When I get home I import and examine the footage looking for highlights (importing takes about 50 minutes per hour of video). This is a tedious process just locating the clips you want to use. Once you have the clips, you need to manipulate them into a acceptable presentation-- arranging, cutouts, compositing, adjusting color, size, cropping, freeze frame, slow motion, synch background music and sound effects.

It can easily take hours (or even days) to get everything just right for a 2-minute highlight,

So, no, I don't think $10,000 is unreasonable... if anything, it is much too low.

*

So, according to your logic, for each LP Apple buys 10.000 worth of equipment, and then throws it away, so that the next client is forced to pay another 10.000? Ha. I kid.

But seriously, if LPs are web-like, development costs should be very low. If I had a band, all I wanted to put in it would be cover art, lyrics, band bio and some extra photos.

[spliff monkey]

That is not a good analogy. It would be more like Apple charging you $10 000 to build your app and you just provide the images etc. Not a bad deal really - when you consider how slick these things look. They are even better than most websites these bands have.

So if it takes them months to approve an app how long do you think it will take them to build an LP? You have got to be kidding. apple would need thousands of builders. That's ridiculous. Especially when my team can build a presentation like this in about a week including generating the content. I doubt building every LP is Apple's plan.

[spliff monkey]

this would seem to be to be the key statement. this (and the Extras feature) are a test. see if there is interest, work out the kinks etc.

and yeah I know, someone is going to say that an Apple Rep says. well guess what, it wouldn't be the first time an Apple Rep got something wrong. this whole experiment is only about 6 weeks old if that. now in 6 months if they are saying 'you aren't old enough to play in this sandbox' then you've got something to gripe about.

Agreed. This is what I am thinking. It probably will change. The only thing that may prevent that from happening are the concessions to the major labels. Certainly when we are talking about delivering magazines or comics this policy can't hold true either. Unless they are looking at preventing indies in other mediums from selling on the ITMS as well but that just sounds like it would give people an opportunity to slam Apple some more.

[solipsism]

So… why don’t Indy artists just grab the HTML, CSS, JS templates and create their own iTunes LP-like content that will open up in a web browser free of charge? Why not just create a new file type (example: artist_name.olp for Open LP) that will do everything that iTunes LP will do but without requiring iTunes to work. It seems odd that Indy artists are upset that they can’t be more tied to iTunes.

[stonefree]

Well, do you have all the pictures and video already shot, edited and in the can?

Or, do you need expensive/powerful software (and the training to use it), computers, cameras, lenses, videoCams, Lighting, studio time, etc., to prepare the LP content.

Any special effects, e.g. green screen, compositing, rotoscoping?

How long does it take to make .pngs of all the lyrics and textual content?


Even if all the video and pictures exist, it can take hours of editing to create a few minutes of content.

I have about $10,000 worth of software (Final Cut Studio, Photoshop, Canvas, special plugins and filters, etc).

I have $1,500 worth of VideoCam equipment that I use to take video of the grandkids (3) soccer games-- about 1 hour per game.

I have 7 Macs and 20 Terabytes of external hard disk (video files are quite big-- 1 hour of video is about 57 Gig).

When I get home I import and examine the footage looking for highlights (importing takes about 50 minutes per hour of video). This is a tedious process just locating the clips you want to use. Once you have the clips, you need to manipulate them into a acceptable presentation-- arranging, cutouts, compositing, adjusting color, size, cropping, freeze frame, slow motion, synch background music and sound effects.

It can easily take hours (or even days) to get everything just right for a 2-minute highlight,

So, no, I don't think $10,000 is unreasonable... if anything, it is much too low.

*

Thanks for the reply. I can see the value in what you detailed, particularly with producing the video. Editing, less so, as video editors also seem to be in pretty high abundance, even many talented ones.

Nonetheless, I don't think Apple's package is including very much of what you described. Maybe converting text to pngs. You asked how long that takes. 15 minutes? I certainly don't think Apple will be sending a crew over to the band to film them. I seriously doubt there's much if any editing involved either. It seems a case of you send us the graphics, video, text and we assemble it.

I think Daniel was really stretching his reality distortion field for this article. Physical media like Blu Ray is not a valid comparison to, what I said before, is basically a glorified Flash movie. And saying the fee is necessary for quality control? Didn't he recently criticize MS for instituting a per app submission fee? If anything, the App store, not iTunes, needs a submission fee.

[Abster2core]

Well, do you have all the pictures and video already shot, edited and in the can?

Or, do you need expensive/powerful software (and the training to use it), computers, cameras, lenses, videoCams, Lighting, studio time, etc., to prepare the LP content.

Any special effects, e.g. green screen, compositing, rotoscoping?

How long does it take to make .pngs of all the lyrics and textual content?


Even if all the video and pictures exist, it can take hours of editing to create a few minutes of content.

I have about $10,000 worth of software (Final Cut Studio, Photoshop, Canvas, special plugins and filters, etc).

I have $1,500 worth of VideoCam equipment that I use to take video of the grandkids (3) soccer games-- about 1 hour per game.

I have 7 Macs and 20 Terabytes of external hard disk (video files are quite big-- 1 hour of video is about 57 Gig).

When I get home I import and examine the footage looking for highlights (importing takes about 50 minutes per hour of video). This is a tedious process just locating the clips you want to use. Once you have the clips, you need to manipulate them into a acceptable presentation-- arranging, cutouts, compositing, adjusting color, size, cropping, freeze frame, slow motion, synch background music and sound effects.

It can easily take hours (or even days) to get everything just right for a 2-minute highlight,

So, no, I don't think $10,000 is unreasonable... if anything, it is much too low.

*

And then there are client changes, legal concerns, copyrights, patents, logos, and more client changes, etc. And there are more persons involved and who won't do it for nothing.

[Abster2core]

Thanks for the reply. I can see the value in what you detailed, particularly with producing the video. Editing, less so, as video editors also seem to be in pretty high abundance, even many talented ones.

Nonetheless, I don't think Apple's package is including very much of what you described. Maybe converting text to pngs. You asked how long that takes. 15 minutes? I certainly don't think Apple will be sending a crew over to the band to film them. I seriously doubt there's much if any editing involved either. It seems a case of you send us the graphics, video, text and we assemble it.

I think Daniel was really stretching his reality distortion field for this article. Physical media like Blu Ray is not a valid comparison to, what I said before, is basically a glorified Flash movie. And saying the fee is necessary for quality control? Didn't he recently criticize MS for instituting a per app submission fee? If anything, the App store, not iTunes, needs a submission fee.

So what is holding you back? Or anybody else that is complaining?

[Dick Applebaum]

So, according to your logic, for each LP Apple buys 10.000 worth of equipment, and then throws it away, so that the next client is forced to pay another 10.000? Ha. I kid.

But seriously, if LPs are web-like, development costs should be very low. If I had a band, all I wanted to put in it would be cover art, lyrics, band bio and some extra photos.

I didn't make my point clearly enough.

Let me try this:

If Apple does, in fact, charge $10,000 per LP album to create the package.

If the necessary content (pictures, videos, lyrics, credits, background material for each song, etc.) already exists.

It takes creative skilled people, with talent, with training, with professional hardware and software, to put together a LP package.

I have an example where all the content is available and all the skill, hardware, software and training is already in place.

In my case, I am using about 14 seconds of game play to create 2 minutes of video (with audio background) to present a soccer highlight. This is roughly equivalent to 1 song in a 12-song LP album.

First, I get the content into a format I could manipulate (uploading from the camera).

Then I spent several hours reviewing the footage to see what I had-- jumping back and forth marking points of interest.

To do this I have to be knowledgeable about the game of soccer, the particular players, the position of people on and off screen. A good coach once told me that: "Goals don't win soccer games, Defense wins soccer games... provide a good defense and the goals will happen".

So, after identifying the clips and bits I can use, I put together a prototype of what looks good.

At this point I am several hours into the process.

Now, i see how it plays-- parts are too light/dark/blurry. They need to be corrected.

Then, I decide to insert a freeze frame here and another further down, with a slow-motion lead-in.

The freeze frame needs to be cropped or otherwise highlighted for emphasis.

This is an iterative process, going over things, adding, modifying, deleting.

For example my original 14-second sequence shows a sweeper getting the ball near center line, kicking it over everyone's heads and it bounces in front of the goal, where a teammate heads it into the net. I have a freeze frame of the kick, a slowmo of the ball bouncing and another freeze of the header. I need cropped and enlarged portraits to highlight the 2 players-- the kicker is easy, but all I have is the back of the header player. So, back to the original video to see if I can find a workable portrait of the second player, that won't look out of context.

I usually add a prolog, titles, some text panels explaining what is happening, and an epilog. This takes time selecting fonts that will look good at various resolutions, colors, fades, wipes, and entering the actual content.

On this particular project, it took about 8 hours to get to this point. Isolating individual action shots on a field of running players is tough!

Then, I wanted some upbeat background music-- I picked a segment of a song by trial and error, and found a match I liked after about 30 minutes.

Once this was done, the process of synching the video with the audio began. What I attempt to do here is match up points in the audio with key points in the video: a drumroll as a player approaches the ball then a rimshot or symbol clash at the point of impact. This is done by fiddling with the video, clipping/extending to match the audio.

This too, is iterative, and each time you need to review more and more of what you have done as the project nears completion.

On this particular project, I used Arlo Guthrie's St. Louis Tickle for the opening and main video, then Liberty Bell March (Monty Python Theme) for the trailer credits and short video of a Beckham midfield goal from 1996.

When I was happy, about 11 hours in, I uploaded the video to YouTube in HD format. After about 40 minutes, the video was available but the audio was disabled-- YouTube didn't accept the "Tickle" audio.

So, back to the drawing boards. I spent an hour trying various "acceptable" audio tracks, but couldn't find one I liked. So I redid the whole thing with the Monty Python track and just ignored the A/V synching.

After 12 hours of work, I had my 2:18 duration video "published".


I didn't use expensive software for this, Just iMovie, iTunes, iPhoto and Garageband.


The point is, it took someone:

1) who knew what he was doing
2) was familiar with the content and context

many hours to package a single video.

I wasn't concerned with the logistics and juxtaposition of multiple songs in an album. I wasn't concerned with HTML, CSS, or JavaScript to present a LP widget. I wasn't concerned with lyrics or background material.


Just doing the video is not an easy job.


In an earlier post I stated that I don't think Apple wants to get into the LP creation business. Rather, they are using the $10,000 as an entry fee or cover charge so they can control the process while they gain experience.

*

[Dick Applebaum]

so if it takes them months to approve an app how long do you think it will take them to build an lp? You have got to be kidding. Apple would need thousands of builders. That's ridiculous. Especially when my team can build a presentation like this in about a week including generating the content. I doubt building every lp is apple's plan.

+++ qft

[Dick Applebaum]

Thanks for the reply. I can see the value in what you detailed, particularly with producing the video. Editing, less so, as video editors also seem to be in pretty high abundance, even many talented ones.


That may be true, but unless the video editors are familiar with the artist and their work, it may take a lot of involvement by the artist working with the editor (as the dollar-sign odometer spins).

I think it is Apple's goal to have a tool where the artists can create (or at least storyboard) their LPs.


Nonetheless, I don't think Apple's package is including very much of what you described. Maybe converting text to pngs. You asked how long that takes. 15 minutes?



15 minutes of mechanical time... maybe, for each song. But then there's the selection of fonts colors transitions, backgrounds. This is an artistic process that probably takes several iterations to get right (even with a tool to automate the process).



I certainly don't think Apple will be sending a crew over to the band to film them. I seriously doubt there's much if any editing involved either. It seems a case of you send us the graphics, video, text and we assemble it.



I mostly agree with this! I believe Apple is working with a few flagship creatives to help define the Package, Process and Tools. I think that, ultimately, Apple wants to get complete LP packages from the creatives.



I think Daniel was really stretching his reality distortion field for this article. Physical media like Blu Ray is not a valid comparison to, what I said before, is basically a glorified Flash movie. And saying the fee is necessary for quality control? Didn't he recently criticize MS for instituting a per app submission fee? If anything, the App store, not iTunes, needs a submission fee.

Yeah, DED usually seems to have an underlying agenda, and sometimes manipulates facts to fit that agenda.

*

[stonefree]

So what is holding you back? Or anybody else that is complaining?


Holding me back from what? My only concern is Apple suppressing indie content.


And then there are client changes, legal concerns, copyrights, patents, logos, and more client changes, etc. And there are more persons involved and who won't do it for nothing.


Who said anything about all that? That's the label and artist's concerns. All Apple is doing is assembling finished content into a proprietary wrapper.

[spliff monkey]

In an earlier post I stated that I don't think Apple wants to get into the LP creation business. Rather, they are using the $10,000 as an entry fee or cover charge so they can control the process while they gain experience.

*

That is definitely the point of the fee. I can imagine that being flooded with thousands of LP's for approval is exactly what Apple doesn't want. They've have a hard of enough time approving the Apps. The fee is definitely a cost above and beyond actually producing the LP content which is my only gripe, but at the same time I think it's smart to encourage serious development.

With client fixes/ approvals/ changes/ re-edits I'm sure Apple and the producer would both rather that a finished product goes to Apple. They definitely do not "approve" or proof TV shows (there are many glitches on the ITMS) nor do they really "approve" or proof the music. The idea of approval really stems from the App store. Apple would be overextending themselves in this case so it seems evident that the current scheme is temporary and we'll be building our own LP's soon enough.

The fee itself is another matter, while it is understandable for a number of reasons, I think it could be smaller since I don't need Apple to build an HTML 5 presentation for me. That's just putting effort into the wrong place and it sounds like a nightmare.

Tough situation for Apple especially since they've already stated that they don't want to have multiple rules for every medium (music, movies/ TV, print, Apps) on the store.

It'll be interesting to see how they shape the process for print media, which is going to be particularly difficult given that the magazine has to be updated daily, weekly or monthly. It could get very expensive, but if the publishers were able to offset their print costs (which are also very expensive) a fee as in the LP scheme might be reasonable. Depends on your formula for ROI and how dedicate/ confident you are to electronic media delivery.

[brucep]

Remember "Video Killed the Radio Star"? This is like "iPod Killed the LP Star"!
Digital booklets are a joke. Apple is trying to resurrect a dead art form I guess because they helped kill it in the first place.

the peer to peer pirates killed it
apple saved it

[JeffDM]

With client fixes/ approvals/ changes/ re-edits I'm sure Apple and the producer would both rather that a finished product goes to Apple. They definitely do not "approve" or proof TV shows (there are many glitches on the ITMS) nor do they really "approve" or proof the music. The idea of approval really stems from the App store. Apple would be overextending themselves in this case so it seems evident that the current scheme is temporary and we'll be building our own LP's soon enough.

I think the difference might be that audio and video are linear media. It's not likely to misbehave, and it's likely to be to Apple's technical specs if they use Apple's encoders. iTunes LP and apps are interactive and there is interpreted or executed code in the product. Just a thought.

[Dick Applebaum]

It'll be interesting to see how they shape the process for print media, which is going to be particularly difficult given that the magazine has to be updated daily, weekly or monthly. It could get very expensive, but if the publishers were able to offset their print costs (which are also very expensive) a fee as in the LP scheme might be reasonable. Depends on your formula for ROI and how dedicate/ confident you are to electronic media delivery.

I think that Apple will handle print like podcasts, where each issue is an entity, unto itself... you don't update or replace existing issues, you just add the next issue. With podcasts, Apple already has the subscription mechanism in place for free content. For paid content, the payment mechanism is handled by the provider, not Apple. Apple provides search and access to the content. The content resides on the provider's servers.

Some of this could change for magazines, newsletters, newspapers, etc., but the pieces are already in place.

*

[Dick Applebaum]

That is definitely the point of the fee. I can imagine that being flooded with thousands of LP's for approval is exactly what Apple doesn't want. They've have a hard of enough time approving the Apps. The fee is definitely a cost above and beyond actually producing the LP content which is my only gripe, but at the same time I think it's smart to encourage serious development.


Since you have current experience, consider an LP, like Nora Jones-- where the artist came to you with:

1) audio, video and images of the target quality/resolution
2) all the textual material that needs to be converted to appropriate .png files
3) an overall idea/mockup/storyboard of what the album would contain and how the various components would interact,

What currently-available tools would you use?

How long would it take in elapsed time and man hours?

With just basic HTML, CSS and JavaScript?

With a LP IDE tool: with capabilities like like parts of DashCode, iMovie, iWeb, etc.; and some predefined templates?

What price range would you charge?


*

[Dick Applebaum]

Remember "Video Killed the Radio Star"? This is like "iPod Killed the LP Star"!
Digital booklets are a joke. Apple is trying to resurrect a dead art form I guess because they helped kill it in the first place.

the peer to peer pirates killed it
apple saved it

I would only add:

in spite of the labels

*

[Abster2core]

I agree. But as for the burner, maybe they meant a BD duplicator? I'm pretty sure BD duplicators are cheaper than that now, I thought I saw one for half that price, and it included a printer setup for printing a design onto the disc.

I would suggest rereading the article and even following the links, e.g., http://digitalcontentproducer.com/videoencodvd/revfeat/bluray_blues/

[Abster2core]

Aren't graphic designers/ web developers a dime a dozen? I'm having a pretty hard time believing that $10,000 is a perfectly reasonable fee for what is basically a glorified Flash movie that one or two guys could throw together in a week and make it look really good.

Perhaps you too should reread this article and in particular, "iTunes LP, as AppleInsider was among the first to report, is essentially a self-contained web application and the relatedlink…i.e.,


"A look at how iTunes LP and Extras work

Now look at how iTunes Extras are built: while distributed as a single file, the item is really a bundle (a folder that Mac OS X treats as a file) that amounts to a self-contained web site. It acts as a container for folders of standard PNG and JPEG graphics, AAC audio, and H.264 video content together with HTML and CSS presentation and JavaScript code.

Dig deeper into these files and you’ll see references to “TuneKit,” Apple’s internal name for a JavaScript framework fusing WebKit and iTunes as a way to deliver rich, interactive content. This extras project was originally called Cocktail." http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/09/14/new-itunes-lp-and-extras-built-using-tunekit-framework-aimed-at-apple-tv/

By the way, how much do you expect to pay for 80-100 hours to throw your amateur production together?

[realmike15]

for an indie label that's a strange complaint... it would be nice if Apple would let smaller artists develop their own LP designs over SDK and then submit for review via Apple. i do agree with the author, that $10,000 is not necessarily surprising, if Apple is really going to take the time and effort to do professional design of each LP they are handed.

[JeffDM]

I would suggest rereading the article and even following the links, e.g., http://digitalcontentproducer.com/videoencodvd/revfeat/bluray_blues/

Wow, I'm unaccustomed to an AI article having sufficient links. But I noticed something about the linked article:

Jun 1, 2008

A lot of those numbers regarding Blu-Ray costs are considerably different this year.

I haven't found a primera that's cheaper, but I did see a name brand BD publisher unit for $1500 at the NAB this year, I forget the exact details.

Though as a lot have noted, it's still not an apt comparison, off topic actually, the technology in iTunes LP is competing more with interactive PDFs, not Blu-Ray.

[Abster2core]

Wow, I'm unaccustomed to an AI article having sufficient links. But I noticed something about the linked article:



A lot of those numbers regarding Blu-Ray costs are considerably different this year.

I haven't found a primera that's cheaper, but I did see a name brand BD publisher unit for $1500 at the NAB this year, I forget the exact details.

Though as a lot have noted, it's still not an apt comparison, off topic actually, the technology in iTunes LP is competing more with interactive PDFs, not Blu-Ray.

Read the article carefully. It is not off topic. The author was simply outlining an alternative.

People are reading the article too quickly. Not checking out the links; that I have always done before I would take a statement for their word as posted here.

"If you produced the recordable discs inhouse, you could probably buy the media for about $1,200 to $1,500, but then you'd need to manually reproduce and print them, which means buying a Blu-ray printer/recorder, which starts at about $3,000 (see primera.com). It probably makes better economic sense to buy the printer/recorder and reproduce the discs yourself, but either way, you'd end up with 100 discs that wouldn't play reliably in the field."

I don't know about you, but sitting around swapping disks is expensive doing it one at a time and then verifying it for, what?

For the life of me, attempting to develop the level of creativity that Apple is exemplifying via some junior desktop publishing strategy is beyond me.

[JeffDM]

Read the article carefully. It is not off topic. The author was simply outlining an alternative.

Not a good alternative for this use, I doubt ever remotely intended for it, so what is the point? If you're doing an apples-and-oranges kinds of alternatives, and that we're apt to using sledgehammers to do a flyswatter's job, then maybe. If you're concerned about selecting the best tool for the job, Blu-Ray isn't really a valid alternative in this case. An interactive PDF is.

It's a pretty blazing blind spot in my opinion, it is completely ignoring the obvious applicable alternative vs. one that's a lot less obvious and probably even orthogonal to the task. I would even suggest that Blu-Ray was picked because it's more of a hot button-technology and DED can start citing exorbitant costs to make LP look good in comparison, when it's completely unnecessary to do so. Maybe the Blu-Ray section wouldn't be out of place if DED outlined a few more alternatives that are closer to what iTunes LP offers.

[Abster2core]

Not a good alternative for this use, I doubt ever remotely intended for it, so what is the point? If you're doing an apples-and-oranges kinds of alternatives, and that we're apt to using sledgehammers to do a flyswatter's job. If you're concerned about using the right tool for the right job, Blu-Ray isn't really a valid alternative in this case. An interactive PDF is. It's a pretty blazing blind spot in my opinion, it is completely ignoring the obvious applicable alternative vs. one that's a lot less obvious and probably even orthogonal to the task.

Read the article again. It is not suggesting that it is an alternative per se. It is only outliningg a scenario, that if you don't want to use Apple's LP and Extras that, "Authoring any sort of interactive content, which "…is essentially a self-contained web application," is expensive.

And thus the suggestion: "What's the alternative? For indies wanting to author a Blu-Ray disc…"

[JeffDM]

Read the article again. It is not suggesting that it is an alternative per se. It is only outliningg a scenario, that if you don't want to use Apple's LP and Extras that, "Authoring any sort of interactive content, which "…is essentially a self-contained web application," is expensive.

And thus the suggestion: "What's the alternative? For indies wanting to author a Blu-Ray disc…"

Shouldn't it say "What are the alternatives?" That would at least suggest that there are more than one, DED's wording would suggest there aren't others.

So you don't think there might be an odd selection bias in using a couple whole paragraphs for the least apt and most expensive alternative and glossing over or ignoring more appropriate alternatives to the task? That's part of the definition of propaganda.

In comparison, DVD and flash are barely mentioned in passing, and their expenses not outlined. And not even a mention of the one major technology that's most like iTunes LP, where you can download it as a single file/bundle and use it without requiring a web site, much like iTunes LP. I forgot about Adobe Air too, two pretty major alternatives that behave similarly to iTunes LP, not mentioned.

[Abster2core]

So you don't think there's an odd selection bias in using a couple whole paragraphs for the least apt and most expensive alternative and glossing over or ignoring more appropriate alternatives to the task? That's part of the definition of propaganda.

In comparison, DVD and flash are barely mentioned in passing, and their expenses not outlined. And not even a mention of the one major technology that's most like iTunes LP, where you can download it as a single file/bundle and use it without requiring a web site, much like iTunes LP. I forgot about Adobe Air too, two pretty major alternatives that behave similarly to iTunes LP, not mentioned.

Did you read the article?

"Of course, these fees are helping to create the dismal market for Blu-Ray. One can also author DVDs for cheaper, or develop Flash or other custom apps or web sites that add some extra bonus content to standard CDs. But it has always been fantastically expensive to author content.

Many efforts over the years to launch a format for authored content have never really taken off*, from Apple's early attempts to promote QuickTime content on CD-ROMs to CD+Graphics, Mega-LD, Video CD, Philips/3DO CDi, Commodore's CDTV, Super Audio CD, DVD-Audio, and Sony's PSP UMDs.

And it never will, especially with all the shit and worse the way most of it has been used out there right now or the way some want to use to dump on iTunes.

[JeffDM]

Did you read the article?

"Of course, these fees are helping to create the dismal market for Blu-Ray. One can also author DVDs for cheaper, or develop Flash or other custom apps or web sites that add some extra bonus content to standard CDs. But it has always been fantastically expensive to author content.

Many efforts over the years to launch a format for authored content have never really taken off*, from Apple's early attempts to promote QuickTime content on CD-ROMs to CD+Graphics, Mega-LD, Video CD, Philips/3DO CDi, Commodore's CDTV, Super Audio CD, DVD-Audio, and Sony's PSP UMDs.

And it never will, especially with all the shit and worse the way most of it has been used out there right now or the way some want to use to dump on iTunes.

Did you read what I wrote? I did say that the article mentions DVD and flash, which is why I said "they were barely mentioned in passing". You even quoted that part. Why go to so much detail about the least applicable modern format but barely mention the more applicable ones and completely omit the most similar ones? That's the elephant in the room that you're trying to get me to ignore.

I think it's odd that a bunch of other obsolete formats are mentioned, but not interactive PDF or Adobe Air, both of which are more comparable to iTunes LP than any of the other formats mentioned.

[Abster2core]

Did you read what I wrote? I did say that the article mentions DVD and flash, which is why I said "they were barely mentioned in passing". You even quoted that part. Why go to so much detail about the least applicable modern format but barely mention the more applicable ones and completely omit the most similar ones? That's the elephant in the room that you're trying to get me to ignore.

I think it's odd that a bunch of other obsolete formats are mentioned, but not interactive PDF or Adobe Air, both of which are more comparable to iTunes LP than any of the other formats mentioned.

It is not comparable at all, particulary, Extras>

[Dick Applebaum]

Did you read what I wrote? I did say that the article mentions DVD and flash, which is why I said "they were barely mentioned in passing". You even quoted that part. Why go to so much detail about the least applicable modern format but barely mention the more applicable ones and completely omit the most similar ones? That's the elephant in the room that you're trying to get me to ignore.

I think it's odd that a bunch of other obsolete formats are mentioned, but not interactive PDF or Adobe Air, both of which are more comparable to iTunes LP than any of the other formats mentioned.


For us illiratti: what you seem to be proposing is an alternative to the iTunes LP package, Correct?

A downloadable interactive PDF file?

I don't have experience with Interactive PDF (other than being able to annotate PDF files). How does Interactive PDF compare, strengths and weaknesses, with a desktop web site (which an iTunes LP, essentially, is)?

Can an interactive PDF be programmed and scripted? If so, what language is used? Is it proprietary or open?


A while back, for other purposes, I did create web applications (web sites, actually) that ran on the desktop or from CD/DVD (if the content was read-only). These included a web server, SQL database, web application programming system (PHP, ColdFusion, etc.), the application program, and the content, in a single package.

The web application programming languages, at the time, were much faster, and much more powerful than JavaScript. When run locally (CD/DVD or the desktop) they could even interface the CLI level to perform OS system functions.

This certainly could have been used with QuickTime to do what an iTunes LP package does, or imitate a DVD on the desktop. It would have been overkill, though.

But, if Interactive PDF, is open, powerful, easily programmed, easy to use... it should be considered by artists and developers to enhance the user experience.

Tell me more?

*

[techno]

Not to sound like Rush Limbaugh, but I hope LP fails.

I think it is Apple caving in to the Record labels as a way for them (labels) to gouge us some more. People like buying songs a-la-cart. Until the day when groups create true concept albums like the Who, Beatles, Pink Floyd and others did, then forget about it.

[DaveGee]

Okay

Something I haven't seen discussed is the issue of LP content and more precisly the potential copyright violations. Apple being the sole publisher & distributer of these LP containers could very well find themselves inundated with more legal battles then anyone in the history of the court system.

Digital rights can be a real PITA, lots of old but still successful albums might have print rights to photos of famous paintings / works of art, photos taken by famous photographers and a ton of other examples and might assume they have the rights to continue using said content but don't.

Could you imagine the liability Apple would be exposed to if it let the flood gates open and started openly accepting LPs from everyone?

[DocNo42]

I got the distinct impression that iTunes LPs were a concession to the major labels to allow albums instead of singles to be pushed. I think SJ was happy with things the way they were, except for drm resrictions ... am I wrong?

I don't know if it's a matter of being right or wrong, but I recall on several occasions Jobs was pining for Album art, liner notes, etc. Now he has them :)

Edit: And since when has Apple been content? That's part of their success.

[DocNo42]

The barrier is Apple/iTunes. My entire point was that these are just glorified websites and that given a chance to create one myself I would have enjoyed offering it as bonus content to anyone interested. We're being told that Apple is deciding who can have them (major labels only) and at what price ($10,000 is what I was told).

For goodness sake, they just released it! The amount of whining on this is unbelievable.

Your absolutely right - Apple will never change or adapt. Apple is known for releasing something and then just sticking with it forever.


:rolleyes:

[Mike Fix]

Create your own iTunes LP, and distribute it yourself on your own website.

It's going to take some work, but it's not impossible to make your own .itlp file.

You'll probably have to buy a few iTunes LPs and dig through lots of code to figure out how they work, but you will learn how to make your own.

Then use something like Google's digital delivery function of Google checkout.

You've then just eliminated 2 headaches... You can make your own iTunes LP...and you control your own distribution making all the money (subtracting credit card/google checkout fees)! Talk about putting the gun in the artist's holster.

Future Apple/Record label headache.. Fan made iTunes LPs...

[Dick Applebaum]

Not to sound like Rush Limbaugh, but I hope LP fails.

I think it is Apple caving in to the Record labels as a way for them (labels) to gouge us some more. People like buying songs a-la-cart. Until the day when groups create true concept albums like the Who, Beatles, Pink Floyd and others did, then forget about it.

After giving your comment lots of thought, I disagree on several points:

1) Apple is not caving to the labels (they have their own LP format/store). Rather, Apple is trying to enhance the user experience.

2) People do like buying songs a' la carte-- but they also like buying albums and compilations. How neat would it be to buy an LP, and get the outtakes, as well as the background history of the song in a cameo by the contributing artists...not to mention the lyrics (in several languages), karaoke arrangements, tour shorts, etc. Creatives have much, much more to market than just the audio of a song.

3) What you [presently] see with the iTunes LP is only an humble beginning... in its full flower, it will allow consumers to directly interact with creatives, and vice versa, without compromising the space of either.

4) Finally, there are ways that today's creatives could package performances of bygone artists who didn't have the world (and fans) at their interactive fingertips. Consider a well done LP of, say, Elvis, the Beatles, Jimmy Durante, Al Jolson, Jelly Roll Morton...

my $.02

*

P.S. It ain't just about music!

*

[JeffDM]

It is not comparable at all, particulary, Extras>

I don't know for sure what was left out, but audio, video, 3D objects and flash can be embedded into a PDF. Just a Google of "PDF embed video" shows some how-tos.

For us illiratti: what you seem to be proposing is an alternative to the iTunes LP package, Correct?

A downloadable interactive PDF file?

I don't have experience with Interactive PDF (other than being able to annotate PDF files). How does Interactive PDF compare, strengths and weaknesses, with a desktop web site (which an iTunes LP, essentially, is)?

Can an interactive PDF be programmed and scripted? If so, what language is used? Is it proprietary or open?

I really don't know the particulars, I am only tangentially involved in the content industry. But from what I've seen, they are valid alternatives.

[SlowButEffective]

"Perl" Jam. I get it!

[MacMyDay]

hey in this game of massive digital downloads and competitive artists, new artists need something to differentiate themselves. An LP takes the music to the next level. Adds value and more.

and $10k? I couldn't do it that cheap. I say these guys better kick their butts and sign up before apple realizes it's losing money and the rate goes higher!

[stonefree]

Did you read what I wrote? I did say that the article mentions DVD and flash, which is why I said "they were barely mentioned in passing". You even quoted that part. Why go to so much detail about the least applicable modern format but barely mention the more applicable ones and completely omit the most similar ones? That's the elephant in the room that you're trying to get me to ignore.

I think it's odd that a bunch of other obsolete formats are mentioned, but not interactive PDF or Adobe Air, both of which are more comparable to iTunes LP than any of the other formats mentioned.

Jeff, debate with Abster2Core is like arguing with a brick wall. Not worth your time.

[doug_jnr]

Create your own iTunes LP, and distribute it yourself on your own website.

It's going to take some work, but it's not impossible to make your own .itlp file.

You'll probably have to buy a few iTunes LPs and dig through lots of code to figure out how they work, but you will learn how to make your own.

Then use something like Google's digital delivery function of Google checkout.

You've then just eliminated 2 headaches... You can make your own iTunes LP...and you control your own distribution making all the money (subtracting credit card/google checkout fees)! Talk about putting the gun in the artist's holster.

Future Apple/Record label headache.. Fan made iTunes LPs...

Exactly....create your own...it's not THAT hard.
Just check out the Tuesday Spoils iTunes LP floating around.
Very professional looking iTunes LP.

[SpamSandwich]

Not to sound like Rush Limbaugh, but I hope LP fails.

I think it is Apple caving in to the Record labels as a way for them (labels) to gouge us some more. People like buying songs a-la-cart. Until the day when groups create true concept albums like the Who, Beatles, Pink Floyd and others did, then forget about it.

I hope it succeeds. The more options customers are given, the greater the likelihood of some kind of a sale... "Would you like fries with your burger?"... And the best thing, there's no additional landfill from these LPs.

[Chocolate Lab]

Okay

Something I haven't seen discussed is the issue of LP content and more precisly the potential copyright violations. Apple being the sole publisher & distributer of these LP containers could very well find themselves inundated with more legal battles then anyone in the history of the court system.

Digital rights can be a real PITA, lots of old but still successful albums might have print rights to photos of famous paintings / works of art, photos taken by famous photographers and a ton of other examples and might assume they have the rights to continue using said content but don't.

Could you imagine the liability Apple would be exposed to if it let the flood gates open and started openly accepting LPs from everyone?

I don't think this is true. Does Apple have liability for every sample that's illegally used and are they responsible for the mechanical royalties for every cover song? I don't have the answer, but I doubt it. There are some pretty long forms you have to sign when you submit your music. So, I don't think this is a good excuse.

[Chocolate Lab]

Exactly....create your own...it's not THAT hard.
Just check out the Tuesday Spoils iTunes LP floating around.
Very professional looking iTunes LP.

I have to disagree with you guys yet again. The sheer volume of people people using iTunes as their primary music player and the sheer amount of iTunes store traffic makes it so much more desirable than just hosting it on my own site.

Sure, I sell all our releases on our website for much less than iTunes, but I don't have the infrastructure, ease of use or trust that iTunes store comes with. I mean, who is going to trust our site to save their credit card information and let them buy with just a click and then receive an emailed invoice a week later like iTunes store does?

If Amazon had LPs then that'd be another story. ;)