No it is the other way around. The labels keep the retailers from selling them BELOW a certain price. Best Buy caught a lot of flack from the labels a while back for selling cd's below MSRP. Producers have absolutely nothing to do with the retail price of a CD. Nothing.
The retailers do however have to ability in contracts to prevent the labels from selling music online at a cheaper price than you can buy it in the store. So for the price per song to be cheaper online the price of cds is going to have to fall, which is a good thing.
If Apple does pull this off, I'm afraid they wouldn't decrease the price of a store bought CD because high CD prices drive up the demand for cheaper online sales.
Instead of, like MS typically does with such things, going their own way with DRM, they'll likely go with a standard everyone can agree on. That standard would also be, if Apple history holds up, non-detrimental to the user.
Look at Rip.Mix.Burn. Apple is saying "We trust the user," instead of the industries knee-jerk panic attack of "Apple is promoting piracy! Whaaaaaa!"
I think what you're saying is actually contra to the facts, I don't think you can show a case where this is actually true with media/software that Apple controls.
Let me give you a real example of Apple's control.
Older versions of QuickTime were able to save and edit movies, for free. Now to get that functionality you have to buy a QT Pro licence. If you bought a Pro licence for 5.0 or earlier, congratulations, you now have the opportunity to pay again.
Apple has even put in place a scheme via its QT distribution whereby it's difficult (perhaps even impossible) to download the movie sources by-passing the control mechanisms in QT.
Apple doesn't even own these movies and trailers, if you go to the sites directly they often have zipped or stuffed versions for download - but Apple is excercising control in order to sell more Pro licences.
That's the benevolence you're backing.
If Apple has control of Universal they'll have even more reason to enforce a strict DRM, not less.
If there's one thing that could kill the deal, this would probably be it. \
I was going to write a good post supporting a purchase of Universal Music and give good reasons as to why Apple would most likely succeed after doing so, but I'm too tired right now. Maybe later.
Um...the artist doesn't get $16.88 in royalties. Actually with royalties and marketing included it's still under $3. THAT is what is wrong with the music business.
How about cost of production in the first place, distribution costs, profit for the record company, profit for the retailer and distributor, costs of all those crappy bands they put money into and never sell a thing (if you've ever worked in design producing record sleeves/CD covers you get to feel this is about 90% of the records ever released), sales taxes...
It's easy to say you can make a CD for a few cents, but actually getting to the point where you've got something worthwhile to press and distribute is another matter.
$1.10 includes everything I said including distribution. They OWN the cart and horse. From printing to shipping. The shipping rates we get are SICK! SIIICK! Also includes labor at the manufacturing plant. Trust me, if the labels controlled costs a bit instead of say paying a bunch of washed up execs too much money than there is no reason why the artist and record companies could not be very happy while also selling at $9.98 or $11.98. The artists are for it trust me. More volume means better chart position means more people buying their music means more seats filled at live shows which is where the majority of the money in the music biz is made.
I just spent $19.53 to have 8 CDs shipped to me. At $1 per song that would have let me purchase 19 more songs over the 49 songs I would have already have.
This can and I think will work. I don't mind buying music online. I just want
Really, you don't want packaging, and jewel cases?
Funny, because the record companies seem to have a pretty good track record of showing that fancy packaging actually sells stock.
Clive,
Not always. I think the near future will have me move to SACD and DVD Audio for discs. The quality is better and I'm ready to take that leap. For Albums not available in a Hi Rez format I probably wouldn't purchase a CD unless it had 3 or more songs I really like.
I've been saying for years that consumers eventually will not care about the packaging. Even today my CD's sit in their Tower Case and I find myself listening to songs on my computer. Access is what people want. To be able to queue up songs and playback instantly. So be able to have your MP3 Server dynamically create playlist based on user defined criteria.
CD's are passing...built in copy protection will render having a CD as a backup a moot point. Most people don't know but AAC supports 5.1 audio as well. Soon you could see multichannel audio downloads as well. There's alot of potential here.
The Home Run that needs to be hit is not the music but a DRM scheme that's offers enough consideration for both Content Provider and Consumer. That's the Holy Grail...get that right and you unlock the key to downloadable Music and Video files.
I've been saying for years that consumers eventually will not care about the packaging. Even today my CD's sit in their Tower Case and I find myself listening to songs on my computer. Access is what people want. To be able to queue up songs and playback instantly. So be able to have your MP3 Server dynamically create playlist based on user defined criteria.
Interesting that you should mention this because TiVo desktop allows this (or so I hear). Very interesting indeed....
On another note, I don't listen to cds anymore. They get ripped to my computer, then I either burn an mp3 disc full of songs or they go to my ipod. I rarely use an original cd more than once. I'd kill to be able just to buy my music online and have it in good quality. Of the 1400+ songs on my computer, 99% of them I bought the cds for. And I have a ton of cds I haven't encoded.
I've been thinking about this. Universal is a HUGE company. Apple is a large company. My thought goes: If Apple buys Universal the resulting company, call it Apple Music Group and Electronics, would cosist of two different parts. One very very large company, ex Universal, and one smaller company, ex Apple Computer. This would make the computer business the smaller portion of the company, and also the least profitable.
If, say, 4-5 years down the line, the new company, Apple Music Group and Electronics (or whatever its called), gets into serious financial difficulties. What will the company do to get hold of fast cash, if it needs it ?
You put your least profitable part out for sale (Like Vivendi is right now), or abandons it (Newton anyone ?). If the Unversal-Apple revenue ratio doesn't improve, whos to say that the Apple Music Group and Electronics wont just loose interest in former Apple Computer alltogether.
Why would Jobs do that you say ? Well, maybe he looses interest in Apple Computer if he has a $4 billion dollar record company to control.
On the other hand, just simply buying universal and doing nothing, would give Apple Music Group and Electronics an instant $500 million revenue. Its easy to imagine Jobs being able to increase that amount. Also, giving Apple Computer the oportunity to dig into that money for research every year, might give very promising results.
I would think that a $6 billion investment is worth it if it can earn you $0.5 billion a year doing nothing with it (just keeping it as it is, staff and all)...
Not always. I think the near future will have me move to SACD and DVD Audio for discs. The quality is better and I'm ready to take that leap. For Albums not available in a Hi Rez format I probably wouldn't purchase a CD unless it had 3 or more songs I really like.
I've been saying for years that consumers eventually will not care about the packaging. Even today my CD's sit in their Tower Case and I find myself listening to songs on my computer. Access is what people want. To be able to queue up songs and playback instantly. So be able to have your MP3 Server dynamically create playlist based on user defined criteria.
I'm not sure what you're saying you're willing to buy? SACD or DVD audio? Those things are going to be higher res than CD and consequently larger file sizes.
From my perspective if I want to listen to crappy sounding music I can listen to FM for free all day long. But if I'm going to pay for it I want the quality to be at least as good as CD. Every MP3 I've ever heard sounds like crap - and that's just on on my Mac's speakers - I hate to think what it sounds like on a decent hifi at volume.
Do people want packaging? I think it depends on how "poor" they feel at the time - if CDs with packaging are seen to be a bit of a luxury, then people will still buy them.
Again, my own perspective on this is that I would rather pay for a few good quality CDs than disks full of poor quality digital.
An audio CD is 650MB of data, to get that level of data down means lossy compression - I'm not interested in that loss.
What I think would be very cool is if Apple just changed their name to Apple. I know they kind of did this a few years ago but I mean completly get rid of the Computer Inc. tag.
Much like Sony. They are a record label, movie studio, etc etc and a computer company...
What I think would be very cool is if Apple just changed their name to Apple. I know they kind of did this a few years ago but I mean completly get rid of the Computer Inc. tag.
Much like Sony. They are a record label, movie studio, etc etc and a computer company...
Apple is a computer company first. Sony has never been that, and never will be. You can't compare Sony and Apple in this regard. I don't know anything about making grafted symbiotic relationships like what's been rumored work, so I can't really comment. To me it seems like a mistake unless Universal Records really is a profitable venture. But if it was, why does Vivendi want to get rid of it so eagerly?
I will have to see how Apple implements DRM. Fair Use is going to be the dealbreaker here.
I don't see Apple's computer going up in flames. Macintosh has a very loyal base.
The potential here is tantalizing. Keep in mind Steve would be at the helm of the largest Music Company, one of the hottest Movie companies Pixar and the highest profile computer company Apple.
Worst case scenario Apple buys the farm...best case scenario
profits from Music fuel profits which in turn boost the marketshare of Apple. Pixar is purchased by Apple. Apple now trully offers the whole widget<licking chops>
Apple is a computer company first. Sony has never been that, and never will be. You can't compare Sony and Apple in this regard. I don't know anything about making grafted symbiotic relationships like what's been rumored work, so I can't really comment. To me it seems like a mistake unless Universal Records really is a profitable venture. But if it was, why does Vivendi want to get rid of it so eagerly?
I was not comparing the two. But Sony does in fact manufacture computers and digital still and video cameras, I think they have some what of a grasp on how computers operate.
But this is about Apple and not Sony.
Changing their name to just Apple will not limit their public perception to just computers and peripherals, if in fact they do buy Universal.
What I think would be very cool is if Apple just changed their name to Apple. I know they kind of did this a few years ago but I mean completly get rid of the Computer Inc. tag.
Comments
Originally posted by Bodhi
Anyone care to translate?
Must be talking about his breast size.
Originally posted by Bodhi
No it is the other way around. The labels keep the retailers from selling them BELOW a certain price. Best Buy caught a lot of flack from the labels a while back for selling cd's below MSRP. Producers have absolutely nothing to do with the retail price of a CD. Nothing.
The retailers do however have to ability in contracts to prevent the labels from selling music online at a cheaper price than you can buy it in the store. So for the price per song to be cheaper online the price of cds is going to have to fall, which is a good thing.
Originally posted by rentedmule
Instead of, like MS typically does with such things, going their own way with DRM, they'll likely go with a standard everyone can agree on. That standard would also be, if Apple history holds up, non-detrimental to the user.
Look at Rip.Mix.Burn. Apple is saying "We trust the user," instead of the industries knee-jerk panic attack of "Apple is promoting piracy! Whaaaaaa!"
I think what you're saying is actually contra to the facts, I don't think you can show a case where this is actually true with media/software that Apple controls.
Let me give you a real example of Apple's control.
Older versions of QuickTime were able to save and edit movies, for free. Now to get that functionality you have to buy a QT Pro licence. If you bought a Pro licence for 5.0 or earlier, congratulations, you now have the opportunity to pay again.
Apple has even put in place a scheme via its QT distribution whereby it's difficult (perhaps even impossible) to download the movie sources by-passing the control mechanisms in QT.
Apple doesn't even own these movies and trailers, if you go to the sites directly they often have zipped or stuffed versions for download - but Apple is excercising control in order to sell more Pro licences.
That's the benevolence you're backing.
If Apple has control of Universal they'll have even more reason to enforce a strict DRM, not less.
I was going to write a good post supporting a purchase of Universal Music and give good reasons as to why Apple would most likely succeed after doing so, but I'm too tired right now. Maybe later.
Originally posted by Bodhi
$1.10 (roughly, give or take some cents)
Um...the artist doesn't get $16.88 in royalties. Actually with royalties and marketing included it's still under $3. THAT is what is wrong with the music business.
How about cost of production in the first place, distribution costs, profit for the record company, profit for the retailer and distributor, costs of all those crappy bands they put money into and never sell a thing (if you've ever worked in design producing record sleeves/CD covers you get to feel this is about 90% of the records ever released), sales taxes...
It's easy to say you can make a CD for a few cents, but actually getting to the point where you've got something worthwhile to press and distribute is another matter.
I just spent $19.53 to have 8 CDs shipped to me. At $1 per song that would have let me purchase 19 more songs over the 49 songs I would have already have.
This can and I think will work. I don't mind buying music online. I just want
1. Selection
2. Portability
3. Features(fast downloads, lyrics, pics, Tags)
I look forward to seeing how this plays out.
Originally posted by Bodhi
...$9.98 or $11.98.
You've just gone from a CD being $3 up to $12 in one swift move - the logic of doing that without some cost justification, defies my mind.
You state the costs of CDs are high because, er, the costs of production are basically high (execs can't control the costs).
I don't see the way out of that unless someone goes bust.
Originally posted by hmurchison
This can and I think will work. I don't mind buying music online. I just want
Really, you don't want packaging, and jewel cases?
Funny, because the record companies seem to have a pretty good track record of showing that fancy packaging actually sells stock.
Originally posted by Clive
Really, you don't want packaging, and jewel cases?
Funny, because the record companies seem to have a pretty good track record of showing that fancy packaging actually sells stock.
Clive,
Not always. I think the near future will have me move to SACD and DVD Audio for discs. The quality is better and I'm ready to take that leap. For Albums not available in a Hi Rez format I probably wouldn't purchase a CD unless it had 3 or more songs I really like.
I've been saying for years that consumers eventually will not care about the packaging. Even today my CD's sit in their Tower Case and I find myself listening to songs on my computer. Access is what people want. To be able to queue up songs and playback instantly. So be able to have your MP3 Server dynamically create playlist based on user defined criteria.
CD's are passing...built in copy protection will render having a CD as a backup a moot point. Most people don't know but AAC supports 5.1 audio as well. Soon you could see multichannel audio downloads as well. There's alot of potential here.
The Home Run that needs to be hit is not the music but a DRM scheme that's offers enough consideration for both Content Provider and Consumer. That's the Holy Grail...get that right and you unlock the key to downloadable Music and Video files.
I've been saying for years that consumers eventually will not care about the packaging. Even today my CD's sit in their Tower Case and I find myself listening to songs on my computer. Access is what people want. To be able to queue up songs and playback instantly. So be able to have your MP3 Server dynamically create playlist based on user defined criteria.
Interesting that you should mention this because TiVo desktop allows this (or so I hear). Very interesting indeed....
On another note, I don't listen to cds anymore. They get ripped to my computer, then I either burn an mp3 disc full of songs or they go to my ipod. I rarely use an original cd more than once. I'd kill to be able just to buy my music online and have it in good quality. Of the 1400+ songs on my computer, 99% of them I bought the cds for. And I have a ton of cds I haven't encoded.
But maybe that's cause I'm a designer and I like stuff like that.
Maybe they can move away from those awful plastic crack-easy cases that everyone uses!
If, say, 4-5 years down the line, the new company, Apple Music Group and Electronics (or whatever its called), gets into serious financial difficulties. What will the company do to get hold of fast cash, if it needs it ?
You put your least profitable part out for sale (Like Vivendi is right now), or abandons it (Newton anyone ?). If the Unversal-Apple revenue ratio doesn't improve, whos to say that the Apple Music Group and Electronics wont just loose interest in former Apple Computer alltogether.
Why would Jobs do that you say ? Well, maybe he looses interest in Apple Computer if he has a $4 billion dollar record company to control.
On the other hand, just simply buying universal and doing nothing, would give Apple Music Group and Electronics an instant $500 million revenue. Its easy to imagine Jobs being able to increase that amount. Also, giving Apple Computer the oportunity to dig into that money for research every year, might give very promising results.
I would think that a $6 billion investment is worth it if it can earn you $0.5 billion a year doing nothing with it (just keeping it as it is, staff and all)...
Just some thoughts...
.:BoeManE:.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Clive,
Not always. I think the near future will have me move to SACD and DVD Audio for discs. The quality is better and I'm ready to take that leap. For Albums not available in a Hi Rez format I probably wouldn't purchase a CD unless it had 3 or more songs I really like.
I've been saying for years that consumers eventually will not care about the packaging. Even today my CD's sit in their Tower Case and I find myself listening to songs on my computer. Access is what people want. To be able to queue up songs and playback instantly. So be able to have your MP3 Server dynamically create playlist based on user defined criteria.
I'm not sure what you're saying you're willing to buy? SACD or DVD audio? Those things are going to be higher res than CD and consequently larger file sizes.
From my perspective if I want to listen to crappy sounding music I can listen to FM for free all day long. But if I'm going to pay for it I want the quality to be at least as good as CD. Every MP3 I've ever heard sounds like crap - and that's just on on my Mac's speakers - I hate to think what it sounds like on a decent hifi at volume.
Do people want packaging? I think it depends on how "poor" they feel at the time - if CDs with packaging are seen to be a bit of a luxury, then people will still buy them.
Again, my own perspective on this is that I would rather pay for a few good quality CDs than disks full of poor quality digital.
An audio CD is 650MB of data, to get that level of data down means lossy compression - I'm not interested in that loss.
Much like Sony. They are a record label, movie studio, etc etc and a computer company...
Originally posted by Jared
What I think would be very cool is if Apple just changed their name to Apple. I know they kind of did this a few years ago but I mean completly get rid of the Computer Inc. tag.
Much like Sony. They are a record label, movie studio, etc etc and a computer company...
Apple is a computer company first. Sony has never been that, and never will be. You can't compare Sony and Apple in this regard. I don't know anything about making grafted symbiotic relationships like what's been rumored work, so I can't really comment. To me it seems like a mistake unless Universal Records really is a profitable venture. But if it was, why does Vivendi want to get rid of it so eagerly?
I don't see Apple's computer going up in flames. Macintosh has a very loyal base.
The potential here is tantalizing. Keep in mind Steve would be at the helm of the largest Music Company, one of the hottest Movie companies Pixar and the highest profile computer company Apple.
Worst case scenario Apple buys the farm...best case scenario
profits from Music fuel profits which in turn boost the marketshare of Apple. Pixar is purchased by Apple. Apple now trully offers the whole widget<licking chops>
Originally posted by Eugene
Apple is a computer company first. Sony has never been that, and never will be. You can't compare Sony and Apple in this regard. I don't know anything about making grafted symbiotic relationships like what's been rumored work, so I can't really comment. To me it seems like a mistake unless Universal Records really is a profitable venture. But if it was, why does Vivendi want to get rid of it so eagerly?
I was not comparing the two. But Sony does in fact manufacture computers and digital still and video cameras, I think they have some what of a grasp on how computers operate.
But this is about Apple and not Sony.
Changing their name to just Apple will not limit their public perception to just computers and peripherals, if in fact they do buy Universal.
Originally posted by Jared
What I think would be very cool is if Apple just changed their name to Apple. I know they kind of did this a few years ago but I mean completly get rid of the Computer Inc. tag.
I think they already did that, not just kind of.