or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple threatens to shutter iTunes over proposed royalty hikes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple threatens to shutter iTunes over proposed royalty hikes - Page 2

post #41 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

What countries? Can you post links to such stats?

I know they're higher in canada and Italy, right off the top of my head. But there also isn't any .99 barrier in those countries either, as it was never an option to charge under 1 dollar in their currencies.
post #42 of 81
I see that some people already get the Apple kind of idea about this, y'know how Apple says something, we come to a conclusion one way and Apple had a third option ready?

If Apple was forced to play its hand they wouldn't close the iTunes store, they would delegate it. putting the load on each artist and record label in the store. You setup your own servers (we'll show you how), upload your own music (continuing to follow our rules) and in return you get to reach billions by being privileged to use the iTunes branding and store face (while the actual "store" in legal terms belongs to you). It makes the process grass roots and takes Apple almost completely out of the picture eliminating the fee or making the uploaders handle it.
"Picasso had a saying, 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we've always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
Reply
"Picasso had a saying, 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we've always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
Reply
post #43 of 81
Do wall all need a reminder that:

Greed Can and May Kill The Goose That Laid The Golden Egg.
post #44 of 81
Anyone notice the coincidence in timing with the Wal-Mart DRM server shut-down? (Not that WM had a huge market share)
post #45 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by FJRabon View Post

This is a little disengenuous. There are probably a million guys out there doing the electronica "background" thing that would have no qualms about licensing their music out. Moby just had a very large amount of talent and luck. There is no "magic key" to making it in the music business. You have to be extraordinarily talented, be in the right place at the right time and mostly just get a few key people to like you.

Wouldn't the "magic key" be "being in the right place at the right time"?
I know some musicians who are excellent, and they're always moving and looking for the opportunity to be in the right place at the right time.
Not an easy thing to do, especially when they end up in the right place and cannot get an opportunity to talk to who they were hoping to talk to.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #46 of 81
This problem could be solved to everyone's satisfaction if the artists simply forgot about record companies and physical sales and dealed directly with Apple. Everyone has home studios these days anyway.

50c to the artist. 49c to Apple.

Artist only has to sell 1/5 the volume of tracks to make the same profit. Apple makes money.
post #47 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeronPrometheus View Post

I see that some people already get the Apple kind of idea about this, y'know how Apple says something, we come to a conclusion one way and Apple had a third option ready?

If Apple was forced to play its hand they wouldn't close the iTunes store, they would delegate it. putting the load on each artist and record label in the store. You setup your own servers (we'll show you how), upload your own music (continuing to follow our rules) and in return you get to reach billions by being privileged to use the iTunes branding and store face (while the actual "store" in legal terms belongs to you). It makes the process grass roots and takes Apple almost completely out of the picture eliminating the fee or making the uploaders handle it.

I think this is a nice idea, but unfortunately I don't think this will happen either. We have to remember that one of the purposes of these record labels are the market the artists' works. This is how they get exposure. Asking every artist to set up their own server would imply they would need to purchase their own hardware (if not done already for music creation), have access to high bandwidth internet (should their song suddenly become popular as have a few on the iTunes store, it would lead to a much greater outlay by artists; possibly discouraging them from promoting their content on the iTunes Music store. Record companies can get away with this because they have such infrastructure in place whereby they can collaborate with artists to make broadcast quality content and send it to retailers e.g. iTMS.

Also, the chances are that the artists have signed contracts with the recording companies by which they cannot directly work with retailers for a given period of time. (Whether they choose to follow this after the contract time is elapsed remains to be seen). This means no matter what, they can't immediately work with Apple to distribute directly without violating contract and thus upsetting the record companies.

I have my doubts as to the shut down of the iTMS. Especially in the US (although I am in the UK so this shouldn't make a difference). The reason being, like what was said earlier there is heavy iPhone integration with the iTunes store. Also, Apple generates millions of dollars in revenue from the iTunes Music store and shutting it down is like shooting yourself in the proverbial foot so to speak. Judging by the stance Apple has taken and knowing that Steve Jobs likes to be very hands on in all aspects of the company may have said to release this statement because they want to shock the regulators of the industry, the RIAA (or the other bodies I'm not familiar with) to say; look we're fed up with being bossed around, we're big now and if we shut down, there goes your income. period. Apple as far as I can recall is one of the biggest retailers of music in the US, they now have the clout to say these sorts of things and people will take notice. What it sounds like is Steve Jobs wants to take the hardline because he knows the 99 cents per track is what drives iTunes sales so heavily. Pushing the prices up just because the recording industry wants more revenue will hurt total revenue. We have to remember iTunes isn't the only place to get music, we have CD's still as well as other retailers, not to mention other "methods" (hints at torrents & P2P). The reason that iTunes is doing so well is because songs are cheap. Period.
post #48 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by FJRabon View Post


2) You really don't understand what record labels provide? Recording studios are not cheap. Say what you will about home recording these days, but it still isn't close to matching a professional studio, with professional engineers and professional producers. The record company foots the bill up front for these things. The record companies market the albums, pitching and placing it on radio stations, etc. That's not cheap. Like I said, you can make the argument that record companies should go the way of the dinosaur, but its not because they're ripping artists off, that's an old wives tale, its because they're becoming less and less efficient at dealing with the state of the music industry today.

Just so everyone's clear on this, the record company more or less LOANS the money to the artist...the artist doesn't start making any money themselves until all of the fronted money has been paid back to the label. Granted, the label loses the money if the artist is a total bust and never makes the money...
post #49 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by FJRabon View Post

1) Record labels are many things, but making piles of cash is not one fo them. To the people who think that the record labels are a big scam, no, they are making next to nothing right now. You can make the argument that they're inefficient at what they do, especially in this day and age, they're not ripping artists off. Record labels absorb losses on artists far more often than they make profits. They're just hoping that they find that oen big gold mine artist that can support all the other artists who cost the label more than they make.

Many companies do not want to turn a profit, they'd rather pay themselves that money than pay it in taxes. I've owned a few companies and at the end of the fiscal year we'd always invest that money, pay it in bonuses or buy new computers so that, on paper, it looks like we made little to no money, and if we can show a loss we'd get tax returns. These are typical corporate loop-holes, almost every tax preparer recommends that, that's why McCains claim that America's corporations are required to pay 30% in taxes is total BS, I've never worked at or owned a company that payed more than 12% in taxes.

Record companies make a butt load of money and are notorious for ripping off their golden geese, just watch the Documentary for Richie Rich.

Having your music played on a radio station is a two-way street... many record labels own radio stations and radio stations make their money from commercials and not from record companies.

Concerts, T shirts, etc turn big profits. And now with the lack of printed material, plastic packaging, and the risk of large quantities of inventory being wasted, is over. With the internet there is no more stock control, only bandwidth which is sold per GB.

I don't buy your theory one bit...
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #50 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by coxnvox View Post

Just so everyone's clear on this, the record company more or less LOANS the money to the artist...the artist doesn't start making any money themselves until all of the fronted money has been paid back to the label. Granted, the label loses the money if the artist is a total bust and never makes the money...

I'd like to add that the intensive background checks, concert attendance and groupie researches that goes into a band before it's signed up is MASSIVE, virtually eliminating the possibility of a loss.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #51 of 81
People don't buy iPods because of the iTunes Music Store... they purchase content from the iTunes Music Store because they bought an iPod. It's not the other way around, never was, never will be.

Music for my iPod can NOW be purchased elsewhere, the need for the music section of iTMS is no longer relevant, since DRM is now going the way of the Dodo. The iTunes Music Store was originally created so iPod users had a place to buy digital music. At that time most popular digital music was only compatible with Windows and was subscription based.


The labels should eat up the cost increase to their artists, not Apple... they still need X amount of money to run the servers, pay for bandwidth, etc. It is after all in their best interest to do so, if Apple is threatening to pull the plug. Losing almost 2 billion songs a year in sales seems like a dumb move.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #52 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

...At that time most popular digital music was only compatible with Windows and was subscription based.

Correction:
At that time most popular digital music was shared/pirated through Napster and worked with Windows and Mac using the MP3 file format.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #53 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

It's a magical barrier.. the dollar mark. I believe they'll loose millions of spontaneous sales if they take it above the dollar mark. And this has nothing to do with logic, I mean really, what's the 5-10 cents gonna do for each and every one of us? Practically nothing. It's just psychologically more motivating to buy at 99 cents. If it needs to be done, it will be done, and over time customers will become used to it.

Btw, is this US only or is it world wide?

I think it matters far less when not using cash.
post #54 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by coxnvox View Post

Just so everyone's clear on this, the record company more or less LOANS the money to the artist...the artist doesn't start making any money themselves until all of the fronted money has been paid back to the label. Granted, the label loses the money if the artist is a total bust and never makes the money...

It should also be pointed out that a good majority of artists end up owing the record label money and the record label eventually has to write the loss off. It's not an actual loan and if the artists royalties haven't repaid the debt within some fixed amount of time, the artist no longer owes the record label any money.
post #55 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

I'd like to add that the intensive background checks, concert attendance and groupie researches that goes into a band before it's signed up is MASSIVE, virtually eliminating the possibility of a loss.

This is simply not true. Record companies lose lots of money all the time. Wilco, for one, cost their record label TONS of money. The band Whitestarr, despite having their own reality show, the front man being the son of a famous record exec and the front man dating mischa barton, has been a gigantic money pit. And these are just well known examples. Much more of a money drain are the tons of bands who you or I have never heard of,who got one advance, never came close to paying it back and then never made another record. Additionally, record labels lose a lot of money on concerts, because a record company can only recoup 50% of their money "loaned" on concerts.

Just like all of you, I'd love to believe that record companies are big evil empires that are sucking up all of the money from the poor, starving artists. The truth is they're nearly on the verge of bankruptcy, as they're institutionally ill-equipped to handle the change of the music business today.
post #56 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Many companies do not want to turn a profit, they'd rather pay themselves that money than pay it in taxes. I've owned a few companies and at the end of the fiscal year we'd always invest that money, pay it in bonuses or buy new computers so that, on paper, it looks like we made little to no money, and if we can show a loss we'd get tax returns. These are typical corporate loop-holes, almost every tax preparer recommends that, that's why McCains claim that America's corporations are required to pay 30% in taxes is total BS, I've never worked at or owned a company that payed more than 12% in taxes.

Record companies make a butt load of money and are notorious for ripping off their golden geese, just watch the Documentary for Richie Rich.

Having your music played on a radio station is a two-way street... many record labels own radio stations and radio stations make their money from commercials and not from record companies.

Concerts, T shirts, etc turn big profits. And now with the lack of printed material, plastic packaging, and the risk of large quantities of inventory being wasted, is over. With the internet there is no more stock control, only bandwidth which is sold per GB.

I don't buy your theory one bit...

Sure, if you're stupid a record company will rip you off. But that really just doesn't happen all that much anymore. In the golden age of the record industry, it almost was like free money. But now there are more artists out there. Record companies make lots of money when they have maybe 5 artists on each of the major labels that account for 75% of sales. That way they don't have to worry about if their artist will be a success. They controlled who was a success. Today, no matter how pervasive you think P!nk or The Jonas Brothers might be, it doesn't even touch what it was like in the days of motown, Elvis, etc. At that time one artist might in a given year represent 10% of all records sold. This year no artist even comes close to 1%. There aren't really any golden geese left. There are a lot of artists that lose money, a very few who make a lot of money (but nowhere near, in real terms, what the golden geese of years past made) and a lot who more or less break even for the record company. This amounts to a huge investment spread over a ton of artists, with basically the same return as when they made a relatively small investment. There are more independent labels that are just happy to be in the business, not making a profit, more artists owned labels (which are started for more creative freedom, not because its a money-making business, as the Grateful Dead can attest to).

If your theory is correct, then show me where the CEOs are being disproportionately compensated, show me where the company is growing in value. Big time record execs make a lot of money, but its not like they're raking in billions, like some people here seem to be thinking. Its basically in line with what every other CEO of a similarly sized company is making.
post #57 of 81
I didn't buy an iPod because of the music store. And if iTunes does close down I'll go back to stealing music so who gives a fuck.
post #58 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by FJRabon View Post

...If your theory is correct, then show me where the CEOs are being disproportionately compensated, show me where the company is growing in value...

Maaan, you think I have time for this? I'm just a blogger. Alright checkout the following links:
1-
2
3
4
5
6
7
**links were removed by large corporate conspirators**
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #59 of 81
The multimedia part of Apple's business- iPods, the iTunes music/movie store, AppleTV, and to some extent the iPhone- are an interconnected cash cow that they will never willingly shut down.

Worst case scenario is that you'll see the $0.99 price go away. Hopefully the DRM will go with it.
post #60 of 81
Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but it's not in Apple's personality to try to squish the creative effort in a product, such as cramp a long overdue hike in songwriter/artist royalties. Alternatively, Apple may be indirectly using this as a device to apply pressure to the record labels themselves. Consider the 3 roles of a record label:

1. Create product
2. Promote
3. Distribute

The digital music revolution has more or less nuked and rebuilt #3, while making #1 1000% easier than it used to be. Promotion remains the black magic it always was. Apple has positioned itself as a digital distributor.

Now with CD sales dropping like crazy, Apple is in a power position to say "no" to record labels because you can't get the genie back in the bottle - people will just pirate MP3s instead of buying CDs, not out of criminality but convenience. Ok, to the point...

the point is...

Apple says "nuh uh" to raising prices. Label ponders how it's going to sell music without a ubiquitous distribution channel like iTunes, and in that pondering considers (angrily) eating the cost.

I'd prefer this reality to the one where Apple says "nah, just keep eating dirt Artist" with all due respect to the real psychological effect of $0.99 a track. Sticking it to the already suffering labels isn't exactly kind, but they made their own bed.
post #61 of 81
I'm really disappointed that Apple is taking this stance. Of all people, I thought Jobs would be standing up for the artists. I wonder how likely it is that artists will want to show up for Steve's keynotes now.
NW '98
"Everything works, in theory..."
Reply
NW '98
"Everything works, in theory..."
Reply
post #62 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I think it matters far less when not using cash.

True, true.
It'll probably be like with the stock market. It'll take a shock when prices are changed, then it'll come back right up.

They could always introduce "iTunes Credits", a song is 1 credits, a movie is 10 credits etc. Then the "pricing" would be the same all around the world. And they could change the cost of the credits over time... Oh, I don't even know why I'm writing this crap! I'D HATE IT
post #63 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrogusto View Post

Yeah, Apple should just start dealing directly with the artists. Maybe they can start by giving the artists the raise they want, and then say, "By the way, if you want 70 cents instead of 15, let's talk. The record companies offer very little value, and Apple could offer so much more.
And yes, Mr. Israelite, you make nothing from the sale of an iPod just like you make nothing when somebody downloads the songs for free from the Internet, so keep that in mind.

First of all, you have to understand the difference between Copyright and Royalty. Copyright is paid to the copyright owner of the track (songwriter/publicist), via collecting societies like SESAC,BMI and ASCAP. Royalty is paid from the label to the artist/performer of the track. So the label pays royalty to the artist from their share of 70 cents minus copyright and VAT. The artist royalty varies a lot, but it's usually between 25-30% for a major label well known artist.
post #64 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by federmoose View Post

apple pays the record companies, not the artists. if the artists demand more from the record company, then the record company demands more of apple, then apple demands more of us.

That's not true.

Apple does pay the record companies, but they also put a certain percentage of the money into the common digital download fund, which is then redistributed via the publishing body to individual artists who are registered depending on how many they've sold.

The fee that is being spoken of in this article is the same as the 7 cent fee placed on blank media like CD-Rs, blank cassettes, etc., and is designed to make materials which are heavily used in the copyright infringement (including mp3s) pay back the people who own the copyrights to a small degree. Basically, it beefs up songwriters' royalties a bit to (mildly) counteract the effect blank CD-Rs, MP3s, etc have on folks' copyrights.
post #65 of 81
That is nasty and bad.

The people who actually come up with the 'product' in the first place ought to get paid properly, especially off something with such little overhead compared to printing and distribution of physical recordings.

Bad Apple, Bad!

Bad MAFIAA, Bad! ( mafiaa.org )
post #66 of 81
incentive huh? i did not get an iPod for iTunes. in fact, i've never even touched iTunes yet still own various iPods since 2nd gen.
post #67 of 81
I wouldn't blame this on Apple, the record labels are intentionally trying to put Apple at a disadvantage by leaving them with high DRM restrictions and giving their competition little to no DRM restrictions at the same price. SJ has always been a supporter of DRM free music.

What's even more disappointing is the Movie industry, they want Apple to fail with iTunes. Now the movie industry is capable of making more money from downloads than from franchises like Blockbusters who buy a couple of copies and rent them at whatever price they please. In Washington RedBox rents out the latest releases for $1 and the Movie industry can say or do nothing because once you buy the DVD you can legally rent it. Yet for that same movie iTunes is forced to only sell it for $14, or if they decide to offer it for rent it costs $3 to $4.

For the Movie industry they should have much higher profit margin to rent and sell online than from brick and mortar stores.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #68 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by cprail View Post

BS... the iTunes store is the core of Apple's commercial strategy.

So????

ITunes is Apple's interface and syncing engine to the iPod and iPhone, but anyone who wants to load music independently without the hassles or DRM or at a higher 44.1 Khz resolution - can do so without resorting to buying music from iTunes by using iTunes as a tool as opposed to purchasing from the store...

So Apple can still offer iTunes as a tool and stop selling music through it.....

Greed will kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Music Labels should be the targets for more royalties not Apple.
post #69 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitewing98 View Post

I'm really disappointed that Apple is taking this stance. Of all people, I thought Jobs would be standing up for the artists. I wonder how likely it is that artists will want to show up for Steve's keynotes now.

YES! You nailed it...it smacks of utter hypocrisy for Apple to be all buddy-buddy with these artists, then stab them in the back for wanting to be properly compensated.
I hope all the artists will take note that Apple is NOT on their side.
post #70 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

People don't buy iPods because of the iTunes Music Store... they purchase content from the iTunes Music Store because they bought an iPod. It's not the other way around, never was, never will be.

Music for my iPod can NOW be purchased elsewhere, the need for the music section of iTMS is no longer relevant, since DRM is now going the way of the Dodo. The iTunes Music Store was originally created so iPod users had a place to buy digital music. At that time most popular digital music was only compatible with Windows and was subscription based.


The labels should eat up the cost increase to their artists, not Apple... they still need X amount of money to run the servers, pay for bandwidth, etc. It is after all in their best interest to do so, if Apple is threatening to pull the plug. Losing almost 2 billion songs a year in sales seems like a dumb move.

I agree. While it would be painful, not so much financially, but in Public Relations, I suspect Jobs and Apple are serious about pulling the plug on iTumes Music store.

By the way, out of the reported 30¢ Apple gets, I thought most of it went to the company whose provides the servers the music is on and at one time it was projected that Apple actually only got ~4¢ on each song sold.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #71 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by coxnvox View Post

YES! You nailed it...it smacks of utter hypocrisy for Apple to be all buddy-buddy with these artists, then stab them in the back for wanting to be properly compensated.
I hope all the artists will take note that Apple is NOT on their side.

Buddy-buddy? It's business, not friendship. There was nothing altruistic about Jack Johnson being there and it's not a coincidence that Jack Johnson was chosen for the presentation and he just happened to be the highest selling artist on iTS.

Apple can easily find someone to play a single song for the presentation or one that will allow Apple to use their music in their commercials. If Apple is losing money at the iTS to a point that the value added service is hurting its bottom line then there is no reason to keep it operational. Link to Amazon instead with their 256kbps and 89¢ songs with no DRM where Apple can get the billions per year in per song advertising from within iTS.

Besides that, Apple is constantly butting heads with the record companies yet their commercials aren't just using unsigned Indie bands. Jack Johnson is with Universal records.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #72 of 81
This whole thing sounds like a bluff. Artists SHOULD get more of a cut, but it should probably come out of the record company's share instead of passing it along. Record labels are dinosaurs, horribly inefficient and out of touch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FJRabon View Post

Wilco, for one, cost their record label TONS of money.

Source?

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot sold 590,000 copies. If the record company can't make money on that, they're doing something wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Why can't they all be more flexible.
Sales below 1,000 songs get 15%
Sales below 100,000 songs get 10%
Sales below 1,000,000 songs get 5%
Have some kind of a scale at least so everyone benefits.Can't they all just grow up!

Interesting idea, but I see some problems.

If albums that sell less cost more, it means the seller either needs to charge more for those, or make less of a profit on them.

That would discourage sales of those songs that aren't selling well already, and it might even be enough incentive for sellers to not even carry the smaller sellers at all.
post #73 of 81
Yeah i think i saw Kayne begging for change, he is so poor....

Not to bring politics into this but the government can't decide how to fix the economy, but cant pass or try to pass a stupid law for music artist. HMMMM someone needs to readjust priorities....
post #74 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by FJRabon View Post

The truth is they're nearly on the verge of bankruptcy, as they're institutionally ill-equipped to handle the change of the music business today.

Can you provide actual figures for this? I can't find current figures, but in the past, when they say they are losing money, they say that all the people copying their stuff equate to a certain amount of money per copy and try to spin this into a tangible loss. They were still making considerable profits, even record profits, at the same time they say piracy is "killing" them.
post #75 of 81
I have a really hard time believing they would shut it down. Didn't Steve just say on September 9th they were now #1 music provider? Correct me if I'm wrong,
post #76 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

This whole thing sounds like a bluff. Artists SHOULD get more of a cut, but it should probably come out of the record company's share instead of passing it along. Record labels are dinosaurs, horribly inefficient and out of touch.



Source?

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot sold 590,000 copies. If the record company can't make money on that, they're doing something wrong.



Interesting idea, but I see some problems.

If albums that sell less cost more, it means the seller either needs to charge more for those, or make less of a profit on them.

That would discourage sales of those songs that aren't selling well already, and it might even be enough incentive for sellers to not even carry the smaller sellers at all.

You are probably right,but they want to introduce a 15% across the board rate.I just thought that if they new they could pay less in royalties for the bigger sales then everyone would be making more money except the few artists who are already(usually)making a lot.The artists who only sell a few will get more,helping them.Kind of a Robin Hood approach.It might possibly be the case that some artists in that lower bracket are pushed harder just to get them making more sales in the lower royalties bracket.
I really don't know,but an all or nothing approach seems like a step backwards.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #77 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by neondiet View Post

You need to read that article again: it's the National Music Publishers' Association who are asking for the increase, not the Record Labels. Frankly I don't see how Apple are even involved in this. If it's the Record Label's responsibility to pay the artists, then surely that's a contract between them. Why should Apple get dragged into it?

Whatever happens, Apple can't afford to close iTMS. It's now an institution, and is the grease on the wheels of the iPod & iPhone sales. They'd never regain the same status if iTMS went away. And turning it off will be commercial suicide for their iPod & iPhone business.

What's the betting that MicroSoft would make Zune hay if Apple dropped the ball now.

-----

You need to read the article again, this time for comprehension. If the NMP raises royalties, and Record companies are not willing to eat the cost by paying more to artists, they'll have to raise the price to offset the royalty increase..
post #78 of 81
Apple needs the artists or they wouldn't have a store. Commercial artists need record labels and get their money from live shows, but there are a lot of independant people (let's say dance producers) who have their own label. Weirdly enough, there aren't a lot of these on itunes. For dance, itunes is a huge disappointment. Also the DRM sucks, after a couple of computer exchanges a lot of music is 'dissappeared'.

The itunes store is good for old music, but they have so much more to do.
Even then, the artists have to make a much bigger effort to produce a tune.

Apple wants to make it seem like the music is free, 99c isn't much already, and then they want most part of the money while they just had to import the tune and give it names. The artist has nothing to say about it, and that's where it's wrong. Apple needs the artists and a little respect is advisable. They want to make money money money on someone elses commitment.
It is no basis for a relationship & it's just wrong.

Also, most studios work with apple computers so they already made profit of the artists.
Something must change.
Shit Happens
Reply
Shit Happens
Reply
post #79 of 81
The record labels take 61 cents out of 70, and they refuse a royalty increase and want Apple to eat it?

Give me a break.

Apple's nuclear option has become a possibility as their market share increases. But it needs to be accompanied by a change in the business model -- Apple themselves should become a record label. It would help if the online distributors can come up with a united stance on this matter.

Think about it. The recording industry and the RIAA completely bypassed for new artists (and for any existing ones that can get out of their contracts).
post #80 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by echosonic View Post

HELLO!! A voice of reason!

First of all, if Apple ate 15 of their alleged 30 cent profit per song, do any of you actually think they will be taking a loss? The iTunes store is a server farm somewhere in Cupertino that generates residual income in the billions for the price of a monthly electric bill in the thousands.


that is Apple's point. they aren't making 30 cents in profit. more like maybe 5 cents, perhaps less. because they have to pay 70 cents per download to have the song available. then there's servers etc.

with the way things are going right now, if the artists are to receive more money, the other side is likely to demand more from apple for the right to sell the songs and Apple doesn't want to raise costs to us --the buyer. so it is possible that they will end up operating at a loss.

now some folks will say 'who gives an F, they are making bank on computer sales, let that fund the store'. but that's not good business. so they have basically said if it comes to that, they will consider killing off the store.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple threatens to shutter iTunes over proposed royalty hikes