or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Universal unwilling to renew annual iTunes contract - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Universal unwilling to renew annual iTunes contract - report - Page 2

post #41 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDreamworx View Post

Universal has now chosen to refuse to sell its product in a specific marketplace that is growing.
This is wrong, both for the artists and shareholders - unless of course they can offer proof that sales will increase once they pull out of iTunes... but I didn't think so...

Universal hasn't actually refused to sell its product on iTunes; it has just taken a step in that direction. HUGE distinction.
post #42 of 58
Oh, who will flinch first. Universal indicated that they would be aggressive in their re-negotiations. The problem for Apple is that whatever deal they cut with Universal they'll have to cut with the other labels, that means bad news for the consumer and a confusing pricing scheme as well. I don't think Apple is going to fold. So, will Universal suffer by not being available on iTunes, or will Apple suffer for not having the labels on the iTMS? It will be interesting.
post #43 of 58
Folks - the point of this is that universal is not RENEWING their EXISTING contract. They want to renegotiate it, so they are not giving away so much. There is NO risk of them actually shutting Apple out, they just want new terms. And frankly they should want new terms - right now Apple is way too favored for any producer that hopes to spread its music far and wide. Don't worry - this is an inflammatory news item but in a week or two it will disappear behind a happy press release from both parties. I really can't believe how easily everyone feel for this...
post #44 of 58
Time to say hello to iTunes Music Publishing
post #45 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by southerndoc View Post

I refuse to buy CD's anymore. If it isn't available on iTunes, I simply do not buy it.

So when Universal pulls their artists from iTunes, I hope every iTunes user joins me in refusing to buy Universal products.

If they increase the price of their products without DRM-free music, then I will also refuse to buy their songs unless they mail me a free CD.

The recording industry thinks they are above the law, and they're like the mafia trying to extort money out of people. It's time we make a stand against them.

I feel the same way. If it isn't on iTunes I don't buy it. And $1.29 is as high as I'm willing to go, but it better be DRM free and the higher quality or no dice.
Aluminum Macbook: 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD, Nvidia 9400M.
Reply
Aluminum Macbook: 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD, Nvidia 9400M.
Reply
post #46 of 58
Wow, Vivendi is really on a roll with bad decisions in recent years. NBC, the network they still have a minority stake in, is dead last in the ratings. HD DVD, the next generation DVD format they picked, is falling badly behind Blu-ray. And now this. Can they do anything right?
post #47 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by AISI View Post

They think that enough music fans will buy a blockbuster hit for, say, $1.50. Universal may lose some sales but the price increase could more than make up the difference, like 300,000 people buying at $1.5 instead of 400,000 people buying at $0.99. Tadaaa! Revenue and profits increase of almost 15 percent.

Unless they -- or you -- know the demand elasticities with a fair degree of precision, this is, at best a completely hypothetical statement.

And, I can reasonably predict that they (you) have no clue as to how the quantities will change when price goes from a dollar to $1.50. (In fact, it could decline, if it encourages piracy).
post #48 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Wow, Vivendi is really on a roll with bad decisions in recent years. NBC, the network they still have a minority stake in, is dead last in the ratings. ..... Can they do anything right?

Well, they sold a majority stake in Universal (which resulted in their minority stake)...... and they threw out Jean-Marie Messier (the CEO who originally bought Universal).
post #49 of 58
Quote:
And frankly they should want new terms - right now Apple is way too favored for any producer that hopes to spread its music far and wide.

This makes no sense.

How exactly does the current Vivendi contractual terms with Apple/iTMS prevent its music from reaching the widest possible audience?
post #50 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Unless they -- or you -- know the demand elasticities with a fair degree of precision, this is, at best a completely hypothetical statement.

Of course it's hypothetical, I just made the numbers up as an example. But the music industry has been pressuring Apple to introduce variable pricing for a long time (2 yr old article).
post #51 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by AISI View Post

Of course it's hypothetical, I just made the numbers up as an example. But the music industry has been pressuring Apple to introduce variable pricing for a long time (2 yr old article).

My problem with your claim was, [QUOTE]"They think that enough music fans will buy a blockbuster hit for, say...[unquote].

Not "they probably think...." or "they likely think......" or "they must think..." or "What the hell are they thinking: Enough music fans....?" etc., etc.

Your sense of certitude didn't seem warranted, that's all.
post #52 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARW3 View Post

This makes no sense.

How exactly does the current Vivendi contractual terms with Apple/iTMS prevent its music from reaching the widest possible audience?

Because (duh) Apple's Itunes store will not sell 66% of all music forever going forward. So at some point Universal is going to need a contract that allows them to do things like give an exclusive new album to someone else for a week before iTunes gets it. Right now, iTunes gets EVERYTHING first. That's a ridiculous clause and it will go away for all the labels at some point, guaranteed.
post #53 of 58
Is Universal acting like the tantrum-throwing toddler in the middle of the check-out line?

funny image: http://www.nobosh.com/Article/Univer...th-iTunes/672/
post #54 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by syklee26 View Post

in the mean time, Limewire just released 4.0.

Yeah, stealing music is a good counterpoint to thieving labels.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino View Post

They're used to making $16 on something that costs $1 to manufacture. Outside of pasta at Wolfgang Puck's, no industry can survive making that sort of added value.

Please don't be this stupid. $1 a disc is the marginal cost of the product. That does not cover the other expenses of developing and promoting the music, or the retailer mark-up to cover the expense of operating a brick & mortar store. An OS X update DVD + box + manual probably costs less than $10 to manufacture per unit, are you going to argue that you should get it for $20?


Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Unless they -- or you -- know the demand elasticities with a fair degree of precision, this is, at best a completely hypothetical statement.

And, I can reasonably predict that they (you) have no clue as to how the quantities will change when price goes from a dollar to $1.50. (In fact, it could decline, if it encourages piracy).

Without allowing for some experimentation, there is no way to know. I think Apple's dogmatism about one price for every song, regardless of the song, is silly.
post #55 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottiB View Post

The current contract is 12 months. What does Universal want, six months? Three? Might as well just keep negotiating year round.

12 months as long-term is relative - just ask at&t. Five years isn't long enough.

iTunes used to have multi-year agreements, it seems silly to have them be annual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by josephwinters View Post

this is kind of scary. I am a big supporter of the music side of the store, downloading songs on a daily basis. The EMI deal, great... but if other songs go up in price from .99, I am going to stop buying.

The only way I can agree with a price jump is if DRM is completely wiped off of the songs. Even then, $1.29 really sucks, but what can I do?

You know, the iTunes+ songs are still available at the $.99 price point, but it's the same old bitrate and with the weak DRM.
post #56 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinney57 View Post

The word is Bazaar by the way (Iranian)



You're right it is, unless it's not...given some of the music out there maybe bizarre is a more appropriate spelling.
"Too much of a good thing is great." Mae West
Reply
"Too much of a good thing is great." Mae West
Reply
post #57 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

iTunes used to have multi-year agreements, it seems silly to have them be annual.

It previously was 2-year with a one year extension which ended this year. Universal rejected a new two-year agreement and is now going month-to-month.

http://www.reuters.com/article/compa...31519620070702

It may work in Universal's favor to loosen Apple's grip.

Sony re-upped, but I don't know if it's one or two years.
post #58 of 58
Apple's retaliation could be a refusal to feature music from any label not under contract. While certainly no death blow to the label, it would deny them of a marketing channel that I suspect is very effective.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Universal unwilling to renew annual iTunes contract - report