or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple pushing higher-margin, DVD-length video downloads
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple pushing higher-margin, DVD-length video downloads

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
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."
post #2 of 29
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.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #3 of 29
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?
post #4 of 29
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.
post #5 of 29
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!
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #6 of 29
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...
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #7 of 29
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).
post #8 of 29
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.
post #9 of 29
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.
post #10 of 29
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
"There's no time like the present, and the only present you'll never get, is time." - Me
Reply
"There's no time like the present, and the only present you'll never get, is time." - Me
Reply
post #11 of 29
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.
post #12 of 29
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.
post #13 of 29
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.
post #14 of 29
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.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #15 of 29
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.
post #16 of 29
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.
post #17 of 29
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.
post #18 of 29
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.
post #19 of 29
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.
post #20 of 29
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.
post #21 of 29
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.
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by Robin Hood
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.

It has always been difficult when dealing with personal contracts. When industries mature, things usually get better. It's almost a natural law.

But, royalty payments are fixed by bodies out of the control of the companies, or artists. After the negotiations are over, it's out of the hands of the industry. ASCAP, and others make sure that artists get their due.

What most people don't understand about the system, is that there are a lot of people involved. They all have to get paid. The artists are just one more cog in the machine.

It isn't fair. It isn't unfair. The artists can't exist without the industry, and the industry can't exist without the artists.

If an artist gets an advance payment of $20,000, because (s)he is an unknown, but is thought to have a chance of doing fairly well, that's in addition to all the money that artist is getting in the practical sense as well.

Recording studio time, at several thousand dollars per day (or hour, in the best studios!). Payment to the studio musicians, if any. Payment to the producer. Payment to the arranger. Agent, manager. Clothing for costumes, and events, hotel rooms for the intro tour. Airfare, limo's. People to ensure that they get where they are supposed to go (intact!!!). Advertising. The pressing of the albums. Sending the albums to the radio stations, tv shows, and other venues. Plus, of course, the costs of the companies expenses as well.

After 6 months, or so, if the albums fail to sell, as will most likely happen, the company is out a million dollars or so, possibly much more. Should the act pay that back, including the advance, which has likely been spent?

The artist (and I use that lightly), gets paid after a certain number of albums get sold. Not before. Why? Because the company must get paid for the money it has put out. Otherwise, no company.

More often than not, the income from sales are less than the money invested in the act. The few acts that are at the top of the pyramid must make up for those losses. They don't like it, of course. After all, this is a cutthroat business. No matter what any artist may say, they never want to help pay for new artists coming up. Those new artists push them off the charts, so, why should they?

But, it's the system that provides the money to finance those new acts.

One might like to talk about indie acts, but they are but a small fraction of music sold. Anyway, the same system is in place for the indie companies. Just on a much smaller, poorly financed, scale.

The only real difference is that the sales are smaller, and the money is less.

Don't think that the name "indie" means anything other than what it does: Independents - i.e., small record companies. If anything, they are much sleazier than their larger counterparts.

True independent artists have to depend on low paying jobs in small clubs, constantly traveling in third class settings. don't believe otherwise. They have no money for promotion. They live for the day when a large record company will find them, and give them a contract. They may whine later, but if they get it, they count their blessings every night.
post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It isn't fair. It isn't unfair. The artists can't exist without the industry, and the industry can't exist without the artists.

I don't disagree with you, but that's a little like saying the slave cannot exist without the master, and the master cannot exist without the slave. It might be true, but don't expect me to like it.

I think my point stands: one of the reasons things got fairer (read: old deals were like slavery for a lot of people), is because it is more realistic today for an artist to make it without a big record deal. There are independent artists who, through the current system and by doing their own promotion, are making a pretty okay living. And of course anybody would like to be picked up by a big record company if the money is right, I never questioned that. I also don't question that record companies will always be around, but they are becoming more irrelevant (relative).
post #24 of 29
Sorry, but that still doesn't justify pointing people to AllOfMP3, regardless of whether you also pointed to an indy site.
post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by Robin Hood
I don't disagree with you, but that's a little like saying the slave cannot exist without the master, and the master cannot exist without the slave. It might be true, but don't expect me to like it.

I think my point stands: one of the reasons things got fairer (read: old deals were like slavery for a lot of people), is because it is more realistic today for an artist to make it without a big record deal. There are independent artists who, through the current system and by doing their own promotion, are making a pretty okay living. And of course anybody would like to be picked up by a big record company if the money is right, I never questioned that. I also don't question that record companies will always be around, but they are becoming more irrelevant (relative).

Your term "slavery" is extreme to the extreme. I'm sorry, but you don't know this industry at all if you say that. Artists have been very well taken care of over the decades by the entertainment indusrty. Most don't make it, as I've said. But you are not reading what I've posted, or you simply don't care to believe it. In that case, I suggest that you do some real research of your own, rather than just stating things that aren'y true.

As I've said also, there is always going to be a sleazy part of every business, this one included. But that doesn't mean that the industry is sleazy itself.

One can throw words around to justify one's actions (yes, I know you've bought music), but, a desire to believe something to justify them is meaningless.
post #26 of 29
I said some, not all. And if you were not aware of that, it is you who does not know the industry very well. I also said that in general, artists are treated pretty fairly today.
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Sorry, but that still doesn't justify pointing people to AllOfMP3, regardless of whether you also pointed to an indy site.

Thank you. You'll have a point once record companies stop insisting that Apple and other online stores must insert DRM into music bought legally. Tag it if you want, but please don't get in my way while I am trying to listen to content that I paid for.

If you want to pirate something, DRM won't stop you. If it's convenient, however, and the price is right, it isn't worth trying to pirate an inferior quality file when you could be buying tracks for cents from iTunes, or 10 bucks for an album.

And don't even get me started about DVD region codes... I keep throwing money at them, and they keep throwing up roadblocks. It's starting to make the buying experience a real pain. So far I've continued to pay, and in addition to about $1000 I've bought in DRM-encumbered music, I've spent thousands over the last few years on CD's and DVD's. But with every move they make that makes it harder for me to enjoy my legally purchased content, the more I am starting to think they don't care about or even want my business.
post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by Robin Hood
I said some, not all. And if you were not aware of that, it is you who does not know the industry very well. I also said that in general, artists are treated pretty fairly today.

That response is like saying "No, you".
post #29 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
That response is like saying "No, you".

Glad to be of service; I was simply setting the record straight (no pun intended).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple pushing higher-margin, DVD-length video downloads