So do you consider the years long iPhone exclusivity with AT&T a 'D' move?
I think if you're releasing a brand new device, it's a good idea to release it on only one network to start, until you get all the bugs out. But the exclusivity shouldn't have lasted as long as it did. There's no technical reason behind these music deals, it's not like they're testing some new file format or something.
I think if you're releasing a brand new device, it's a good idea to release it on only one network to start, until you get all the bugs out. But the exclusivity shouldn't have lasted as long as it did. There's no technical reason behind these music deals, it's not like they're testing some new file format or something.
"Technical reason"? The deal was what the deal was. No network wanted to take a risk on the iPhone initially because Apple drove a hard bargain.
He's right though. You're getting upset at him and accusing him, but he's talking about market trends and is dead on. You may care about the full album, but consumers at large no longer seem to. Sure, there's always going to be that niche market just like there are still people that go out and buy vinyl, but that is not the market at large and big companies like Apple have to know that and move accordingly.
That's where the iTunes LP could have been brilliant. They could brought back the album art, use higher quality tracks (perhaps even lossless), exclusive album tracks, and videos, images, album notes, etc.
One thing I used to do when I bought a new album was read the notes cover to cover as I listened to it. If I could do the same thing but in a digital form — and without it being some separate PDF that feels out of place — it might have pushed me to start buying albums again.
That's what I thought iTunes LP was supposed To do.
How about this Apple, drop the name "iTunes LP" and mandate that every record
Label upload album booklets/notes for
all album sold on iTunes.
When a consumer purchases a full album only then will they be able to download the notdd into their iDevice.
Also ASCAP/BMI etc should sue the shit out of every person pirating music and enforce the law.
That's what I thought iTunes LP was supposed To do.
How about this Apple, drop the name "iTunes LP" and mandate that every record
Label upload album booklets/notes for
all album sold on iTunes.
When a consumer purchases a full album only then will they be able to download the notdd into their iDevice.
Also ASCAP/BMI etc should sue the shit out of every person pirating music and enforce the law.
There's no way labels would be willing to absorb all of those costs. The majority of bands are money losers as far as music sales go. As is often the case in entertainment, huge successes are a rarity because there is way too much competition.
There's no way labels would be willing to absorb all of those costs. The majority of bands are money losers as far as music sales go. As is often the case in entertainment, huge successes are a rarity because there is way too much competition.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that and I think it's clear that the presumed cost-benefit analysis was unfavorable, but I know that Jay-Z has expressed issues with per-track model and Beyoncé released an exclusive album — not track — to iTunes Store earlier this year with great excess, that if Apple has a better system in place that would have made for a perfect delivery system for full albums, especially when artists and labels want to get customers to buy full albums. Still, it's a chicken-egg situation with few albums that would even be in a position to make this viable so my hopes and dreams may never come to pass.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that and I think it's clear that the presumed cost-benefit analysis was unfavorable, but I know that Jay-Z has expressed issues with per-track model and Beyoncé released an exclusive album — not track — to iTunes Store earlier this year with great excess, that if Apple has a better system in place that would have made for a perfect delivery system for full albums, especially when artists and labels want to get customers to buy full albums. Still, it's a chicken-egg situation with few albums that would even be in a position to make this viable so my hopes and dreams may never come to pass.
Even with the trashy music she's been releasing under her husband's direction, Beyoncé still manages to sell well. I personally think he's been destructive to her career.
I have yet to hear anything from Iovine that makes me go 'ah, this is why Apple wanted him'.
If they make back the money they spent on Beats with the headphones, they got Iovine and Dre and a streaming service for free. Iovine wanted to plug Apple's music hole:
He obviously has contacts, can get exclusives from top artists and knows the music scene. He'll add value to iTunes and the headphones will pay for it. Beats won't rest at its current iteration, they'll update and improve the products over time.
Sadly it is 2014 and no one cares about 40-ish minutes of music from one artist when there are a million said artists begging for our ears and our eyeballs. Said million artists are also BEGGING us to stop listening to other artists so we can also find time to slot them in as well.
Why did you like the liner notes and photos in the LP back in the day? There was no Twitter, no Instagram, no other way to feel closer to an artist.
You sound proud of the fact that you can't be bothered with long forms of musical expression. Do you find movie trailers to be similarly superior to their 120-minute counterparts?
There ARE many artists out there (music and otherwise) who have something to say within the context of a larger-than-3.5-minute sound bite. There always will be. And some of them are worth the time investment. Regretful that you don't get that.
And where did you get the idea that everyone wants to feel closer to an artist? And that current social media actually achieves that?
By all means, in this age of continuous distraction, enjoy your endless empty hors-d'oeuveres of singles, Twitters and Instagrams. Pass up that more-satisfying meal.
I never said anything about being proud. Reality is reality. There need be no ego involved. Sadly I don't find many mainstream movies worth the time in this day and age so sure many of their trailers might be better. Most stories worth telling need too much cut out to hit 90-120 minutes and longer forms in shorter chunks (think better drama serials) are doing the job better in my opinion. However I'd bet a season of Walking Dead cost less than the butchered version of Into the Woods I had to endure on Christmas day.
It doesn't matter if there are many artists out there who have something longer to say in a 3.5 minutes long sound bite. The point is if they want 40 minutes of time they have to compete for those eyeballs like everyone else and since many other artists are happy to take 3.5 minutes it becomes one artist being better than 10 other talented artist to demand they not receive the limited time for eyeballs and ears we all have available and demanding their time. To do that they'd be more than a good hook or beat and be that to millions not just a few.
Not everyone needs to feel closer to an artist. The point is what now acts in place of LP liner notes.
The artist plays for an audience. As my favorite quote from Fame (1980) reminds us...
You're going to play all by yourself?
That's not music Martelli, that's masturbation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Long post
The reason fewer and fewer people are willing to buy music is because there is less and less new music worth buying these days.
I give you Nicki Minaj.
Quantity doesn't equal quality.
Just because music is popular doesn't mean it is low quality or high quality. It means it is popular. There is more high quality music being made than every before. Don't kid yourself about that past and think different. It also doesn't mean there is less music worth buying, just that the music is competing with other forms of media. The Beatles didn't have to worry about competing against The Last of Us on PS4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PScooter63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzypaws
He's right though.
He's correct re: market trends, but the inflammatory choice of words overwhelms that (which is what I was responding to).
Don't be such a grouch. People get locked into their mode of right without giving much thought to why it even is what it is overall. I was just pointing out that the LP came from technology, not because a bunch of amazing artists just had 40 minutes of great music to knock us out with. Different technology has led to different artists producing different solutions. You may not like them but that is why people get old. Your time is limited. Your brain has to unlearn before it can relearn and the brains that don't have to unlearn end up better, faster and fresher. It happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost
Early? Iovine seems to have been hanging about for years.
I miss Steve Jobs's approach, when Apple would just launch something, no preview or musing, just wham bam thank you Ma'am.
There's just something about Jimmy Iovine that rubs me the wrong way. Like a snake oil salesman. When he and Eddy Cue attended the re/code conference they gave no vision at all to the future of music. All we got from Iovine was how everyone else sucks and Apple only designs headphones to test the headphone jacks on their phones. I have yet to hear anything from Iovine that makes me go 'ah, this is why Apple wanted him'.
It does make me wonder if it really was all about the profitable headphone business. Though I'm sure Jony Ive cringes anytime he sees the below products (that he's now inherited). I'll bet all my Apple stock that none of Apple's designers are rocking Beats headphones.
He co-founded two companies. He worked with a bunch of successful artists and he's been doing it. Ive started working at Apple in 1992 and designed the original iMac which included colors like Flower Power and Blue Dalmatian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I have yet to hear anything from Iovine that makes me go 'ah, this is why Apple wanted him'.
If they make back the money they spent on Beats with the headphones, they got Iovine and Dre and a streaming service for free. Iovine wanted to plug Apple's music hole:
He obviously has contacts, can get exclusives from top artists and knows the music scene. He'll add value to iTunes and the headphones will pay for it. Beats won't rest at its current iteration, they'll update and improve the products over time.
Exactly. Plus Beats is huge with kids and teens. Apple hasn't made a product that has appealed to anyone before they can get an iPhone in quite a while. Beats can be a path to get them back to being Apple customers.
Comments
So do you consider the years long iPhone exclusivity with AT&T a 'D' move?
I think if you're releasing a brand new device, it's a good idea to release it on only one network to start, until you get all the bugs out. But the exclusivity shouldn't have lasted as long as it did. There's no technical reason behind these music deals, it's not like they're testing some new file format or something.
Was it a dirty tactic when AC/DC signed an exclusive with Walmart for their album? Retailers do this all of the time. It's a competitive world.
I noticed AC/DC aren't on Spotify, there are only tribute bands like before they signed with iTunes.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Variation
"Technical reason"? The deal was what the deal was. No network wanted to take a risk on the iPhone initially because Apple drove a hard bargain.
I also agree. Well stated.
That's what I thought iTunes LP was supposed To do.
How about this Apple, drop the name "iTunes LP" and mandate that every record
Label upload album booklets/notes for
all album sold on iTunes.
When a consumer purchases a full album only then will they be able to download the notdd into their iDevice.
Also ASCAP/BMI etc should sue the shit out of every person pirating music and enforce the law.
There's no way labels would be willing to absorb all of those costs. The majority of bands are money losers as far as music sales go. As is often the case in entertainment, huge successes are a rarity because there is way too much competition.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that and I think it's clear that the presumed cost-benefit analysis was unfavorable, but I know that Jay-Z has expressed issues with per-track model and Beyoncé released an exclusive album — not track — to iTunes Store earlier this year with great excess, that if Apple has a better system in place that would have made for a perfect delivery system for full albums, especially when artists and labels want to get customers to buy full albums. Still, it's a chicken-egg situation with few albums that would even be in a position to make this viable so my hopes and dreams may never come to pass.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that and I think it's clear that the presumed cost-benefit analysis was unfavorable, but I know that Jay-Z has expressed issues with per-track model and Beyoncé released an exclusive album — not track — to iTunes Store earlier this year with great excess, that if Apple has a better system in place that would have made for a perfect delivery system for full albums, especially when artists and labels want to get customers to buy full albums. Still, it's a chicken-egg situation with few albums that would even be in a position to make this viable so my hopes and dreams may never come to pass.
Even with the trashy music she's been releasing under her husband's direction, Beyoncé still manages to sell well. I personally think he's been destructive to her career.
If they make back the money they spent on Beats with the headphones, they got Iovine and Dre and a streaming service for free. Iovine wanted to plug Apple's music hole:
http://www.macrumors.com/2014/12/03/jimmy-iovine-on-apple-acquisition/
He obviously has contacts, can get exclusives from top artists and knows the music scene. He'll add value to iTunes and the headphones will pay for it. Beats won't rest at its current iteration, they'll update and improve the products over time.
Sadly it is 2014 and no one cares about 40-ish minutes of music from one artist when there are a million said artists begging for our ears and our eyeballs. Said million artists are also BEGGING us to stop listening to other artists so we can also find time to slot them in as well.
Why did you like the liner notes and photos in the LP back in the day? There was no Twitter, no Instagram, no other way to feel closer to an artist.
You sound proud of the fact that you can't be bothered with long forms of musical expression. Do you find movie trailers to be similarly superior to their 120-minute counterparts?
There ARE many artists out there (music and otherwise) who have something to say within the context of a larger-than-3.5-minute sound bite. There always will be. And some of them are worth the time investment. Regretful that you don't get that.
And where did you get the idea that everyone wants to feel closer to an artist? And that current social media actually achieves that?
By all means, in this age of continuous distraction, enjoy your endless empty hors-d'oeuveres of singles, Twitters and Instagrams. Pass up that more-satisfying meal.
I never said anything about being proud. Reality is reality. There need be no ego involved. Sadly I don't find many mainstream movies worth the time in this day and age so sure many of their trailers might be better. Most stories worth telling need too much cut out to hit 90-120 minutes and longer forms in shorter chunks (think better drama serials) are doing the job better in my opinion. However I'd bet a season of Walking Dead cost less than the butchered version of Into the Woods I had to endure on Christmas day.
It doesn't matter if there are many artists out there who have something longer to say in a 3.5 minutes long sound bite. The point is if they want 40 minutes of time they have to compete for those eyeballs like everyone else and since many other artists are happy to take 3.5 minutes it becomes one artist being better than 10 other talented artist to demand they not receive the limited time for eyeballs and ears we all have available and demanding their time. To do that they'd be more than a good hook or beat and be that to millions not just a few.
Not everyone needs to feel closer to an artist. The point is what now acts in place of LP liner notes.
The artist plays for an audience. As my favorite quote from Fame (1980) reminds us...
You're going to play all by yourself?
That's not music Martelli, that's masturbation.
The reason fewer and fewer people are willing to buy music is because there is less and less new music worth buying these days.
I give you Nicki Minaj.
Quantity doesn't equal quality.
Just because music is popular doesn't mean it is low quality or high quality. It means it is popular. There is more high quality music being made than every before. Don't kid yourself about that past and think different. It also doesn't mean there is less music worth buying, just that the music is competing with other forms of media. The Beatles didn't have to worry about competing against The Last of Us on PS4.
He's right though.
He's correct re: market trends, but the inflammatory choice of words overwhelms that (which is what I was responding to).
Don't be such a grouch. People get locked into their mode of right without giving much thought to why it even is what it is overall. I was just pointing out that the LP came from technology, not because a bunch of amazing artists just had 40 minutes of great music to knock us out with. Different technology has led to different artists producing different solutions. You may not like them but that is why people get old. Your time is limited. Your brain has to unlearn before it can relearn and the brains that don't have to unlearn end up better, faster and fresher. It happens.
Early? Iovine seems to have been hanging about for years.
I miss Steve Jobs's approach, when Apple would just launch something, no preview or musing, just wham bam thank you Ma'am.
There's just something about Jimmy Iovine that rubs me the wrong way. Like a snake oil salesman. When he and Eddy Cue attended the re/code conference they gave no vision at all to the future of music. All we got from Iovine was how everyone else sucks and Apple only designs headphones to test the headphone jacks on their phones. I have yet to hear anything from Iovine that makes me go 'ah, this is why Apple wanted him'.
It does make me wonder if it really was all about the profitable headphone business. Though I'm sure Jony Ive cringes anytime he sees the below products (that he's now inherited). I'll bet all my Apple stock that none of Apple's designers are rocking Beats headphones.
He co-founded two companies. He worked with a bunch of successful artists and he's been doing it. Ive started working at Apple in 1992 and designed the original iMac which included colors like Flower Power and Blue Dalmatian.
I have yet to hear anything from Iovine that makes me go 'ah, this is why Apple wanted him'.
If they make back the money they spent on Beats with the headphones, they got Iovine and Dre and a streaming service for free. Iovine wanted to plug Apple's music hole:
http://www.macrumors.com/2014/12/03/jimmy-iovine-on-apple-acquisition/
He obviously has contacts, can get exclusives from top artists and knows the music scene. He'll add value to iTunes and the headphones will pay for it. Beats won't rest at its current iteration, they'll update and improve the products over time.
Exactly. Plus Beats is huge with kids and teens. Apple hasn't made a product that has appealed to anyone before they can get an iPhone in quite a while. Beats can be a path to get them back to being Apple customers.