Apple pushing higher-margin, DVD-length video downloads

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Apple Computer is exploring new ways to market and sell higher-margin videos bundles through its iTunes Music Store and have recently started to experiment with DVD-length music video downloads.



In a first, iTunes is selling all the clips from Tori Amos' "Fade to Red" -- a 21-song music video collection released on DVD via Rhino Entertainment -- as individual downloads for $1.99 each or as a complete package for $24.99, notes Billboard.



While the iTunes Music Store has been steadily selling one-off music videos for $1.99 apiece since late last year, the Tori Amos offer is reportedly part of a larger video bundling push by Apple that includes iTunes-only "video albums" and "vingles." The former usually includes six to seven videos from an artist that have not been released as physical collections, while the later is a bundled offer of a video and its corresponding audio single.



The video collection trend on iTunes will continue to grow, according to Eddie Cue, Apple's Vice President of Applications. Cue says some of the most exciting opportunities involve products that have no equivalent in the physical world. "We are taking advantage of the medium," he said. "This is the stuff that you can only do in digital music."



Cue notes that vingles, which take advantage of demand for hit songs by selling the video and a music download together for $1.99, could play an increasing role in Apple's digital music business.



"Over time there is no reason why we can't have a vingle for every video," He said. "Not every song has a video, but every video has a song."
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    you know, the more i think about it, the more i realize that apple has actually snuck a video subscription service under our noses and no one has even blinked. namely, while you can always shunt the videos onto offline media for "backup" purposes, you can't burn it to DRM-free universal playback format. in other words, unless i am mistaken, you must ALWAYS have an authoriz-able computer with iTunes installed to access your purchased videos. while i am sure that apple and quicktime/itunes will be around for many years to come, will they continue on indefinitely?



    apple really needs to find a way to allow either idvd or imovie to burn videos to common playback media like their itunes music tracks can be burned to regular ol' cd's. mind you, i've already purchased some videos knowing this issue full-well, and i'll accept the loss of a few bucks if it comes to that, but i just can't shake this nagging feeling that i'm not getting true "ownership."



    edit: by the way, before someone nails me too bad, at least this "subscription" service is pretty cheap. $2 for the life of iTunes/Apple. pretty good deal.
  • Reply 2 of 28
    When you buy a DVD, you'll ALWAYS need to have a DVD Player to watch the movie. What if DVD's go the way of the Laserdisc? You still have ownership of your dvd.



    Ok, maybe that's a bad example since you'll still have your existing dvd player to use.... hmmmm..... I guess if Apple goes out of business you'd still be able to play the music on the already authorized machine, you just wouldn't be able to authorize NEW machines. And maybe Apple would provide a way for you to remove the DRM on the music you've bought.



    Maybe we'll find out if Apple pulls out of France. What will all the existing French customers do?
  • Reply 3 of 28
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DeaPeaJay

    Maybe we'll find out if Apple pulls out of France. What will all the existing French customers do?



    http://music.podshow.com + http://www.allofmp3.com



    DRM-free indy music and DRM-free music. Beats iTMS any day.
  • Reply 4 of 28
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Robin Hood

    http://music.podshow.com + http://www.allofmp3.com



    DRM-free indy music and DRM-free music. Beats iTMS any day.




    No offence but this hippy idea is a lot of bxxxx!



    What about all the artists I actually like. Also by the way I can't see the 'Cash' popping up in podshow anytime soon!



    I'm sure the hippy past of those artists artist giving you a t-shirt with every song you bought, would dissappear pretty soon if they became famous!



    Aslo if apple said to any of those artists that they would feature them on iTunes front page, they'd jump at the chance.



    I don't get why people get so upset about DRM. I mean if you buy some songs you can burn them to a CD, and do what you would normally do.



    If I tunes was not around every song I would have bought on it, would have to be replaced by a full album, and I'd be down alot more cash. Besides that I you buy a single in the shops you usually get 2 or three songs thrown in that you don't want and your're subsequently chareged for. Shisshhh!



    If you don't like it, then don't use it. It's that simple!
  • Reply 5 of 28
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DeaPeaJay

    Ok, maybe that's a bad example since you'll still have your existing dvd player to use.... hmmmm..... I guess if Apple goes out of business you'd still be able to play the music on the already authorized machine, you just wouldn't be able to authorize NEW machines. And maybe Apple would provide a way for you to remove the DRM on the music you've bought.



    well, yeah, the physical format has a chance of dying (8-track, anyone?), but less so because it's so "solid-state." so we feel a bit more comfortable because it's so tangible. as far as authorization goes, does iTunes "phone home" for its authorization, or can it be run without an internet connection? if so, is the authorization written into a file that could be backed up and maintained offline just in case? hmmm...
  • Reply 6 of 28
    You seem to have a serious personal issues with indy music. More and more "mainstream" artists are signing up with the Podsafe Music Network, and there is a surprising amount of really high quality music coming out, without the record companies being involved. Things are happening, and the Podsafe Music Network is going places.



    Will Britney Spears sign up with the Podsafe Music Network tomorrow? No, she won't. But you can buy her DRM-free from allofmp3.com.



    I'd like to end this post by saying I have absolutely no problem paying for music or other material. In fact, so far I have spent about $1000 on DRM-encombered music and audiobooks. But it is really starting to piss me off: suddenly I can't authenticate more computers, or it won't play on my Nokia phone (even though the phone supports AAC files), it won't let me burn an MP3 CD for my car, I can't listen to an audiobook until the download completes, and so on. It's just a gigantic pain in the butt. DRM fucking sucks ass (the kindest way I can put it, forgive my French).
  • Reply 7 of 28
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Robin Hood

    Will Britney Spears sign up with the Podsafe Music Network tomorrow? No, she won't. But you can buy her DRM-free from allofmp3.com.



    Regardless of whether AllOfMP3 is legal or not, which appears to be an eternal debate, it is most certainly immoral. You are essentially paying AllOfMP3 a hosting/bandwidth fee, and in addition, you're saying "fuck you" to the artist.
  • Reply 8 of 28
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Robin Hood

    You seem to have a serious personal issues with indy music. More and more "mainstream" artists are signing up with the Podsafe Music Network, and there is a surprising amount of really high quality music coming out, without the record companies being involved. Things are happening, and the Podsafe Music Network is going places.



    Will Britney Spears sign up with the Podsafe Music Network tomorrow? No, she won't. But you can buy her DRM-free from allofmp3.com.



    I'd like to end this post by saying I have absolutely no problem paying for music or other material. In fact, so far I have spent about $1000 on DRM-encombered music and audiobooks. But it is really starting to piss me off: suddenly I can't authenticate more computers, or it won't play on my Nokia phone (even though the phone supports AAC files), it won't let me burn an MP3 CD for my car, I can't listen to an audiobook until the download completes, and so on. It's just a gigantic pain in the butt. DRM fucking sucks ass (the kindest way I can put it, forgive my French).




    You'll never find more that a very small fraction of the almost 3 million songs on iTunes on something like Podsafe. It ain't gonna happen.



    If some people can manage to convince themselves that they really really prefer what is available, then fine for them. But most people won't agree.



    allofmp3.com is a questionable site, and you know it. In addition, what is the likelihood of these musicians getting royalties from sites like that? Pretty much zero. They aren't authorized to sell the music in the first place.



    Some indi music is nice. But if it ever becomes popular, it stops being indie.
  • Reply 9 of 28
    jimzipjimzip Posts: 446member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Robin Hood

    http://music.podshow.com + http://www.allofmp3.com



    DRM-free indy music and DRM-free music. Beats iTMS any day.




    From 'allofmp3.com':

    "Dowload an album in just 3 munitues"

    I just can't help but think this isn't the best option for buying online..



    Jimzip
  • Reply 10 of 28
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    Regardless of whether AllOfMP3 is legal or not, which appears to be an eternal debate, it is most certainly immoral. You are essentially paying AllOfMP3 a hosting/bandwidth fee, and in addition, you're saying "fuck you" to the artist.



    Agreed, though that wouldn't be a balanced statement without at least mentioning that the major record labels have also been saying "fuck you" to artists for as long as they have existed, so giving them money might also be immoral.
  • Reply 11 of 28
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Robin Hood

    Agreed, though that wouldn't be a balanced statement without at least mentioning that the major record labels have also been saying "fuck you" to artists for as long as they have existed, so giving them money might also be immoral.



    That's the kind of excuse people who don't want to pay for music, give.



    The record companies pay for the recording sessions, publicity, tours, and royalties.



    As most acts lose money for the companies, the costs are high. Just as in publishing, the few very successful acts must pay for the failures. There is no other way around it.



    The reason why indie acts rarely sell more than a handful of albums is because there is little money behind them. Almost no one knows who they are.



    Some people think that if they could just get rid of the recording companies, all would be well. That's very naive. Most recording studios are supported by the money large recording companies are willing to pay. Once that goes, so do the studios.



    Most of us are not interested in just listening to music recorded in someone's basement. A great many excellent studio musicians would be out of that well paying work.



    It would also be almost impossible for an act, no matter how good they may be, to get much more than a local, or small following.



    And don't ever think that musicians have no interest in becoming famous, and making vast amounts of money. They do.
  • Reply 12 of 28
    I fail to see how bundling 21 video clips for 24.99--that would otherwise cost $41.79 if purchased separate--constitutes "pushing higher margin." Anything headline to grab attention I guess.
  • Reply 13 of 28
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Quote:

    The video collection trend on iTunes will continue to grow, according to Eddie Cue, Apple's Vice President of Applications. Cue says some of the most exciting opportunities involve products that have no equivalent in the physical world. "We are taking advantage of the medium," he said. "This is the stuff that you can only do in digital music."





    Eddie this is just bullshiza. There's nothing you have on iTunes that I cannot do on physical media. iTunes is nothing more than a collection of data on a server versus polycarbonate disk.
  • Reply 14 of 28
    melgross, just because somebody may not be Britney Spears, does not mean they're recording in a basement. Believe it or not, there are many "indie" and unsigned artists who have recorded albums in professional recording studios. Indie does not mean poor quality music recorded in your mother's basement, not that that doesn't exist. There are also artists who may only have sold 10,000 records, but kept all of the profits, thus making more than if they had signed and sold 150,000 (which would have been a gigantic failure).



    And as far as my argument, you know it's true, that's why you're not even trying to refute it: big record companies have been fucking artists over for a very, very long time. And I am not in any way trying to justify piracy, just stating a fact. As I have said, I have personally paid about $1000 for DRM encumbered music and audiobooks. But this DRM bullshit has to stop. It's killing music.
  • Reply 15 of 28
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by nmcphers

    I fail to see how bundling 21 video clips for 24.99--that would otherwise cost $41.79 if purchased separate--constitutes "pushing higher margin." Anything headline to grab attention I guess.



    Because, many people will buy the package who might not have bought more than a couple otherwise. when many people think they are getting a bargin, they will take advantage of it.
  • Reply 16 of 28
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Eddie this is just bullshiza. There's nothing you have on iTunes that I cannot do on physical media. iTunes is nothing more than a collection of data on a server versus polycarbonate disk.



    I think what he means that it isn't being OFFERED to the public on physical media in that way.
  • Reply 17 of 28
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Robin Hood

    melgross, just because somebody may not be Britney Spears, does not mean they're recording in a basement. Believe it or not, there are many "indie" and unsigned artists who have recorded albums in professional recording studios. Indie does not mean poor quality music recorded in your mother's basement, not that that doesn't exist. There are also artists who may only have sold 10,000 records, but kept all of the profits, thus making more than if they had signed and sold 150,000 (which would have been a gigantic failure).



    And as far as my argument, you know it's true, that's why you're not even trying to refute it: big record companies have been fucking artists over for a very, very long time. And I am not in any way trying to justify piracy, just stating a fact. As I have said, I have personally paid about $1000 for DRM encumbered music and audiobooks. But this DRM bullshit has to stop. It's killing music.




    Yes, I know that it doesn't mean that, all the time. But it does mean it far more often than you are indicating. There are small recording studios as well. They just aren't as well equipped. I've done mixdowns.



    But the indie scene is poorly financed as a whole. Indie labels, of which there are many (and most indie artists are with indie labels), take the same amount from the musicians as the big labels do.



    There is no such thing, except for a very small number of musicians, of musicians taking all of their profits, unless you mean that they have to self-finance all of their own endeavors. In which case they have all of the expenses as well. They are unlikely to do much better on their own. On the other hand, they give up most chances of selling to far greater audiences, thus making even more money, while not taking the financial risks themselves.



    Stop with the "you know it's true", because you don't know what the finances are. Just because people complain that they don't get what they want, doesn't mean that the industry, as a whole, is screwing everybody, no matter how popular that scenario may be.



    That doesn't mean that some people haven't been screwed by some other people. That's life, unfortunately. Nothing is perfect.



    What about all of the acts that don't fulfill their part of the contract? That happens often as well. Artists are contracted to do albums that never come out, etc.



    I have people in the music industry. Composers (cousins), as well as others. They think that things are pretty fair. Though no one ever thinks they are getting as much as they would like.



    It's the same for any job. Are you entirely happy about what you earn? Are the benefits where you think they should be? What about a pension?



    There's too much oversimplification over these issues.
  • Reply 18 of 28
    You know, I agree that things are relatively fair -- today. However, the big record labels make a lot by leveraging their back catalogues, and many of those contracts certainly were not fair, because at the time, options were so limited that you'd sign literally anything. I think you know that. Furthermore, one of the reasons things are fairer today is because with advances in technology, artists now have options other than big record labels. As a result, record labels have have to be reasonably fair, else they risk losing artists going a different way.



    I think we are closer than you might think.



    Edit: I think it is safe to assume that new technology has, at least to some degree, hurt the likes of BMG, but it has probably helped artists get a fairer deal by giving them more options and leverage when negotiating contracts. That does not mean there is room for every artist to make it big.
  • Reply 19 of 28
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Robin Hood

    Agreed, though that wouldn't be a balanced statement without at least mentioning that the major record labels have also been saying "fuck you" to artists for as long as they have existed, so giving them money might also be immoral.



    So paying ¢3 per download and essentially giving artists 0.000000041912 cents at best isn't any worse than paying ¢99 per download and giving artists, on average, about 10 cents? I think it is.
  • Reply 20 of 28
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    So paying ¢3 per download and essentially giving artists 0.000000041912 cents at best isn't any worse than paying ¢99 per download and giving artists, on average, about 10 cents? I think it is.



    I am not saying it is better or worse, simply that all is not well with how the big record companies are compensating artists either. Specifically read my last post about that. Old deals were like slavery for a lot of people.
Sign In or Register to comment.