Thanks for the blog link Dick Applebaum,
This is a subset of the proposal I espoused in another thread. Indeed, Apple must become a conduit of "contents" directly coming from artists, developers, writers and other creators. The NC Facility and other similar facilities rumored to be established in other countries are key to this goal, and so do the other components of the Apple Ecosystem already in place.
The key in my proposal is the curation (albeit more loose with general principles and guidelines) to ensure a minimum standard and encourage quality work.
Apple should spend some of its $65 billion reserve to buy innovative small startup companies to create the applications to enable the ecosystem required and integrate it to the Apple Ecosystem. However, Apple should not waste its resources buying existing or traditional labels or conduits -- Netflix, Movie Studios, cable company, etc. -- as some have suggested in other threads. This may saddle Apple with "management" and physical resources that are not germane to the focus of the company. The strategy not to own these studios and companies may avert any monopoly concerns in case the Apple-centric content conduit becomes very successful.
The important outcomes of this proposal are:
1. Apple will be less dependent on current traditional sources of creation, and thus, would have greater bargaining power.
2. Creators would have alternatives and more freedom to decide how their creations should reach their target audience.
3. By default, these creators may become consumers of Apple products, if they are not already long time consumers. And, since some if not many of these creators may become famous, their use of Apple products would be more effective advertising to their followers.
What are the pitfalls you saw? One thing that I see is that the process of "creation" is not an assembly-line. There might be periods of productivity and its reverse -- what is called "artist block" or "bust". This is one reason why I espouse that Apple should not be wasting its resources acquiring such companies or content creators.
In regard the Final Cut Pro, there is a more recent review that I bookmarked. It is written by someone who hobnobs with the Board of Directors of Apple, who happened to be in the presentation, apart from the major brains behind the project. It is supposed to be well-received. including a standing ovation after the presentation and the price has been drastically reduced to $299 or thereabouts. It is beyond me though, but to my knowledge did not integrate the Aperture features espouse by the author in the blog link you cited. One thing that the reviewer imparted is that the FCP presentation was demonstration of the direction and ideas that Apple were integrating in the revised FCP to gather feedback from the core users. There might still be revisions between then until its final release, this summer.
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Again, I think you're on to something.
It may be difficult, but not impossible, to offer an Indie
portal as well as a Label
I believe that Apple is best suited to do this and the have the chutzpah to carry it off.
In another thread I referred to a blog that discussed the new FCP (FCPX) and how the author had a vision for selling content (videos, images, talent) on the iTunes store.
Here is the blog:Final Cut Studio - Upgrade Predictions and Ideas!
Again, this is mostly about FCP-- but it discusses an Apple Content Store -- and there are many interesting thoughts about it. It is rather a long thread -- but a very good read.
I have an unsigned friend who is about ready to publish her 1st CD, and through her and her managers I understand a bit about the Industry -- and its pitfalls.
As I read the blog, i felt as I was seeing the future of content distribution
revealed before my eyes.
Below is a sample: