People who can afford the top of the line can never understand why someone would want something that's cheaper.
Good point
IMO it would be a big mistake to get rid of Apple's most accessible product. The iBook is cheap, light, performs reasonably well, and has a great form factor. All of the recent switchers I know have bought one. It's also great for educational use.
Why does Joe Average user need spanned display support? DVI output? Backlit keyboards? Huge wads of RAM? None of those things are necessary for the typical user, who types in Word, surfs the net, and listens to MP3s. Don't make them pay for it.
The cheapest PowerBook you can get right now (12" combo drive) is $1599. This is not a good price point for education (or for switchers).
Now, if you want to make PowerBooks available at a lower price, that's a fine idea. But you will end up stripping out some of the features that currently make them 'Power' books. Of course, I could care less what Apple calls their low-cost portable line, as long as they make em cheap and sell em by the truck load.
Let's consider that if many years ago someone had suggested that Steve would be buying a special effects software house and wind up producing movies that would blow Disney off the map, everyone here would have laughed heartily.
Probably, but on the other hand Pixar is almost 100% content. They don't really do anything else, so there's no conflict. (Although Renderman did bubble back up recently.)
The difference between Steve owning Pixar and Apple owning Pixar is significant. Steve is just a guy with a lot of money. Apple is a vendor of content creation solutions. You don't want to compete with your market if you can help it. Steve isn't; Apple would be.
Quote:
I don't think that buying a label to secure Apples software an hardware is that far fetched.
There is no lack of content. The weak spot is distribution, and that's where Apple is showing the way. Even if Apple did start or buy a label, their net contribution to the overall market would be tiny, and if they kept their roster exclusive they'd just annoy both artists and customers - artists want distribution (and iTMS currently represents a miniscule percentage of overall sales), and customers were annoyed by having to go to each label's music store to find their favorite artists before iTMS. By and large, consumers don't care about labels. They care about artists. Any imposition of the label into the purchasing process will just drive people away. This is not just a prediction. It's something that's already happened.
Quote:
I agree that Apple's lead here is not secure long-term. There are different ways of addressing this, but Apple needs to get themselves locked to the content somehow or to outposition MS, which is far from a reasonable strategy. I wouldn't discount this line of thinking at all. In fact, I haven't really seen anyone look forward realistically at the future of the iPod until this.
Nothing is secure long term, so you don't worry about that. The more you lock yourself into some forecast, the less able you are to react to the market (see Apple's late entry into music), and if Apple can't react to the new, burgeoning and rapidly evolving market for online music then they'll lose their lead.
They've already outpositioned MS, which is currently flailing around and introducing a great deal of noise and confusion into the market and seasoning it with FUD. Apple is ahead. They just have to stay ahead.
There seem to be a lot of messages about Apple not getting into content because it would "freak out" other content companies, that content needs to remain separate from everything else, etc.
The response to that is, of course, Sony. Sony creates content. Sony distributes content. Sony has content playback devices. And somehow other companies aren't too concerned.
I would wager that Apple isn't interested in becoming Sony. They just need enough specific, highly creative, and EXCLUSIVE content so that they can't be dismissed. Garageband may help, but not soon enough.
At any rate, Apple buying Apple Records won't cause any of the big names to lose any sleep.
Consumer electronics vendors and content creators have been at loggerheads for decades now, ever since the reel to reel tape. You might recall a landmark Supreme Court case, Sony vs. Universal, over the legality of the VCR. Now, it's true that Sony bought its way into Hollywood to try to turn this antagonism into a smoothly functioning vertical market. It's also true that, instead, they created two factions under the same tent that have been reenacting Sony vs. Universal ever since. The two are separated by a lot more than just the world's largest ocean. I've read recently that Sony Japan has been nursing the idea of bailing out of Hollywood altogether and going back to its roots.
But Apple isn't so much a consumer electronics company (obvious exception: the iPod). What it is is a provider of solutions for content creation. It's true that Sony offers a lot of hardware for content creation as well, but Apple is much smaller, just now breaking into video in a big way, and much more dependent on the content creation market; they, unlike Sony, can't afford to piss off the content professionals without very serious consequences.
While they're still getting people on board, they can't turn around and say, "oh, by the way, we're going to try to run you out of business." I can see Apple cutting a deal with Apple Records, and making a deal that buries the hatchet permanently - and maybe iTMS will get a Beatles exclusive for a while. That's the only reason I can see for Apple buying Apple Records. I don't see it as given that Apple Records will sell itself, either.
But Apple isn't so much a consumer electronics company (obvious exception: the iPod). What it is is a provider of solutions for content creation. It's true that Sony offers a lot of hardware for content creation as well, but Apple is much smaller, just now breaking into video in a big way, and much more dependent on the content creation market; they, unlike Sony, can't afford to piss off the content professionals without very serious consequences.
Like what? What "serious consequences"? How would any of it "piss off the content proffessionals"? All it would be doing is giving Apple a small amount of selective but highly desired content.
And, to that point, Sony is an excellent example. Apple isn't currently in the content creation business. Sony wasn't in the content creation business. Apple's going to purchase a relatively small amount of content. Sony purchased a HUGE amount of content. No one wet their bed when Sony did it. Why would they if Apple chose to do it? Regardless of the relationship between Sony Pictures, Sony Music, and Sony Japan today, the point is that no one had a big problem with it back when the details were uncertain.
Sony set the stage that will let this be a big *yawn* for the big labels today.
Any analysis of the situation is going to have to go into specifics. General statements like, ?I think it might piss off so and so and would have serious consequences? are not enough. WHY would it piss them off? What would the possible consequences be?
To put another way, Apple?s going to lose the iPod and iTMS if they don?t do something. What do they have to lose?
Like what? What "serious consequences"? How would any of it "piss off the content proffessionals"?
Apple's professional market is content creation. You know, publishing, Photoshop, DV, music... This is so true that people who know nothing else about Macs know that they're "good for graphics". If you go to Berklee College of Music, it's Macs wall to wall. Ditto any major recording studio. There are Macs in Electronic Arts doing all the 2D art and graphics and layout for all those PC-only game titles. Right now Apple is virtually synonymous with content creation. The only exceptions are markets that they're currently trying to get into - so this is becoming more true, not less.
Content creation is a huge, huge chunk of Apple's sales. Far more than Sony's stake, at least relative to the sizes of the companies. Apple's purchases of Logic, Shake, and what became Final Cut Pro show that they want to be even more deeply involved in content creation.
I don't offer specifics about what the consequences are because they're impossible to know. But if Sony pisses off video professionals, they lose a few high-end camera sales. If Apple does, they lose the market they've gained a foothold in, and that they want to be in, and all of a sudden they're back to where they were in '97. Their situation is not analogous to Sony's in any way that I can see.
Quote:
All it would be doing is giving Apple a small amount of selective but highly desired content.
Initially. But if they're going to run an actual label, like some people are talking about, and give it favored access to iTMS, like some people are talking about, then the industry has a problem. The Big 5 have a delicately balanced system supporting their perilously inefficient business models. They don't want it disturbed. Now, I'd love to see that system shaken up, but Apple can do that merely by giving the smaller, better-run labels an even shot at distribution (always the bugbear of smaller labels). They're already doing that.
If it begins and ends at Apple buying Apple Records and putting Beatles stuff online, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with Apple becoming an active record label. I don't think they want to go there.
Quote:
Apple's going to purchase a relatively small amount of content. Sony purchased a HUGE amount of content. No one wet their bed when Sony did it.
Sony wasn't in the content creation market when they did, so they weren't competing with their customers.
Also, Sony's purchase has not done at all well for them. Something else Apple needs to consider. They don't need to bring a war in-house, especially not one that's older than they are.
Quote:
Sony set the stage that will let this be a big *yawn* for the big labels today.
No, because the labels all use Macs and Logic to make music, and to design the packaging for their product. The movie studios didn't all use Sonys to make movies. That's the huge, crucial difference.
Just noticed that you were from Penn State is all. Doesn't mean anything more than that.
Yeah, one of the top ten research institutions in the world, also responsible for producing a man named Jeff Raskin, one of the lead engineers on the original Macintosh team--so there is an Apple history and presence at Penn State still. There are also many, many Mac labs considering the 43,000 students on campus.
Also, I have an iPod and use the iTMS. Napster allows for streaming and pay downloading, **** it if I'm gonna put coin in Roxio's pocket.
Content creation is a huge, huge chunk of Apple's sales. Far more than Sony's stake, at least relative to the sizes of the companies. Apple's purchases of Logic, Shake, and what became Final Cut Pro show that they want to be even more deeply involved in content creation.
No, because the labels all use Macs and Logic to make music, and to design the packaging for their product. The movie studios didn't all use Sonys to make movies. That's the huge, crucial difference. [/B]
Yeah, I think we've learned by now that these emotional reponses don't actually exist in companies. Apple works with MS and MS with Apple because it's profitable to do so. IBM and AMD work together because it's profitable to do so. Ford and GM work together because it's profitable to do so.
So long as Apple doesn't impact the financials of the labels or limit their ability to operate, they really won't care. If Apple-the-hardware-and-software-company doesn't disturb the labels, they won't drop them due to Apple-the-content-creator.
Now, if Apple buys a label and only offers content in AAC and doesn't restrict/tax the ability of other labels to offer in AAC or impede their ability to offer in WMP or anything else, why on earth should they care? Yeah, they might be annoyed that Apple's decision keeps them in AAC when they might prefer WMP only, but that could happen even without Apple being involved. What'll *really* piss off the other labels is if Apple really dicks with the contract/distribution system, but that's them being pissed off with a label breaking ranks, not a label being in with a tech company. That, I believe, is a real possibility, BTW, but really has nothing to do with Apple-the-hardware-and-software-company.
Apple is not getting into content creation. It does not benefit their core model, at all. If Apple buys Apple records ( by kidnapping and brainwashing Paul, Ringo, Yoko and the Harrison estate) AND if they offer exclusive content for the Beatles recordings this will offer them no benefit whatsoever - besides the royalties from the records played on radio.
And let me say again - they happen to have the same name is all. Beyond that and the legal issues it has created, there is NO relationship between Apple computer and Apple records, and the latter is privately owned.
And let me say this: If Apple does buy exclusive Beatles content and make it only available on iTunes and banned from Radio ( or whatever "exclusive" means) they will succeed in annoying everybody else on other platforms, and have proven themselves a corporate monopoly in other people's eyes. If they do have 70% of the music download market and they abuse that position they will earn the respect of no one - and Beatles fans are not going to flock to buying a mac or using iTunes, but will launch a campaign against Apple.
What for instance - if this happens - will Apple do about the aging Beatles demographics who want to replace their vinyl or lost Beatles CD's with new versions. Is Apple going to get into the CD printing and distribution business - this is what labels do, right? Or will Apple just stop producing hard copies of Beatles records and urge the 60 years olds to get on a computer, for chrissakes.
This is all made up nonsense. It will never happen.
asdasd is absolutely on the button. This Apple 'production company' schtik is nonsense and goes against every business strategy that Steve believes in. The last thing Apple will ever do is create a 'conglomerate'. Read Tom Peters; he and Steve are buddies.
[edit: Sorry to anyone reading: I'm using OW5, and I keep forgetting that it really hates text fields, so I had to submit this mid-composition in order to switch browsers. -Amorph]
Quote:
Originally posted by johnsonwax
Yeah, I think we've learned by now that these emotional reponses don't actually exist in companies.
1) I love the pretense that money turns human beings into objective robots. That transformation is, if anything, miraculous when it does happen.
2) It's not an emotional reaction. If you have a supplier:customer relationship between two customers, and the supplier suddenly becomes a competitor, then the customer can no longer assume that the supplier will be committed to supplying their best stuff. We're already seeing this with Apple: Logic is shipping with internal frameworks to work around holes in CoreAudio that are preventing other companies from shipping their flagship audio software. It's not going over well.
3) I've seen exactly this happen in other industries. Remo lost lots of accounts as a drumhead supplier when they rolled out their own drums. In fact, businesses actually sprang into existence to fill the gap. It's flatly obvious that it's unwise to depend on a competitor for the materials and equipment you need in order to maintain a competitive edge.
Quote:
Apple works with MS and MS with Apple because it's profitable to do so. IBM and AMD work together because it's profitable to do so. Ford and GM work together because it's profitable to do so.
Apple, IBM and MS entered into the agreements they have knowing already that they were working with competitors. Ford and GM entered into their agreements knowing for decades that they were competitors.
Those examples have even less relevance to Apple-as-publisher than Sony does. Apple as publisher changes the fundamental relationship between Apple itself and its bedrock professional market.
Quote:
So long as Apple doesn't impact the financials of the labels or limit their ability to operate, they really won't care. If Apple-the-hardware-and-software-company doesn't disturb the labels, they won't drop them due to Apple-the-content-creator.
Right, and all of a sudden there's a big if there, isn't there? Adobe's been talking this line for a while now. Now, you or I could argue that they're wrong, but development cancelled and goodwill lost because of fear rather than fact is still development cancelled and goodwill lost.
If Apple stays where they are now, there is no if. Apple only impacts the financials of the labels positively, enhances their ability to operate, etc. The relationship is completely unambiguous as it stands.
Quote:
Now, if Apple buys a label and only offers content in AAC and doesn't restrict/tax the ability of other labels to offer in AAC or impede their ability to offer in WMP or anything else, why on earth should they care?
If you had any idea what insane lengths record companies went to to railroad artists and control markets, you might think twice before asking that. The big 5 are not known for being reasonable.
That said, you know why the content companies have kept MS at arm's length? Because they don't trust MS. Why? Because MS is too aggressive and too competitive. They don't consider MS a reliable partner. They do consider Apple reliable, however, because Apple has for years done nothing but supply them with the best stuff available to create and publish content.
Quote:
What'll *really* piss off the other labels is if Apple really dicks with the contract/distribution system, but that's them being pissed off with a label breaking ranks, not a label being in with a tech company. That, I believe, is a real possibility, BTW, but really has nothing to do with Apple-the-hardware-and-software-company.
Apple is already "dicking with" the contractual and distribution systems, but they can do this because they've earned the trust of the label heads. If they lose that trust, they lose a lot of the power they have to get the contractual and distribution agreements that have powered iTMS' success up to this point.
Look at people like Brad Sucks. I visit his sight once or twice a week to see if he's released anything new. Now he's on iTunes. It has started already. I'd love to hear what kind of deal, if any, he's made with Apple and the revenue made from the download of his iTunes.
The fact that he is on iTunes floored me. The revolution has begun. I think your post my be the most significant in this thread.
Right, and all of a sudden there's a big if there, isn't there? Adobe's been talking this line for a while now. Now, you or I could argue that they're wrong, but development cancelled and goodwill lost because of fear rather than fact is still development cancelled and goodwill lost.
If Apple stays where they are now, there is no if. Apple only impacts the financials of the labels positively, enhances their ability to operate, etc. The relationship is completely unambiguous as it stands.
Well, I'm not suggesting that it can't go poorly - it most certainly can. I think it's clear that if Apple does get into this situation, they need to do it rather carefully. Does that mean that they cannot do it at all? I don't think so.
Overall I'm skeptical that Apple will get into this business, but given that Apple's CEO is the head of one of the more respected content companies out there, I don't think it can be dismissed too quickly.
Comments
Originally posted by Algol
I realize that the iBook is rather popular so maybe cutting it would be bad idea; however, I have never really understood it.
People who can afford the top of the line can never understand why someone would want something that's cheaper.
Originally posted by KeilwerthReborn
People who can afford the top of the line can never understand why someone would want something that's cheaper.
Good point
IMO it would be a big mistake to get rid of Apple's most accessible product. The iBook is cheap, light, performs reasonably well, and has a great form factor. All of the recent switchers I know have bought one. It's also great for educational use.
Why does Joe Average user need spanned display support? DVI output? Backlit keyboards? Huge wads of RAM? None of those things are necessary for the typical user, who types in Word, surfs the net, and listens to MP3s. Don't make them pay for it.
The cheapest PowerBook you can get right now (12" combo drive) is $1599. This is not a good price point for education (or for switchers).
Now, if you want to make PowerBooks available at a lower price, that's a fine idea. But you will end up stripping out some of the features that currently make them 'Power' books. Of course, I could care less what Apple calls their low-cost portable line, as long as they make em cheap and sell em by the truck load.
Originally posted by johnsonwax
Agreed.
Let's consider that if many years ago someone had suggested that Steve would be buying a special effects software house and wind up producing movies that would blow Disney off the map, everyone here would have laughed heartily.
Probably, but on the other hand Pixar is almost 100% content. They don't really do anything else, so there's no conflict. (Although Renderman did bubble back up recently.)
The difference between Steve owning Pixar and Apple owning Pixar is significant. Steve is just a guy with a lot of money. Apple is a vendor of content creation solutions. You don't want to compete with your market if you can help it. Steve isn't; Apple would be.
I don't think that buying a label to secure Apples software an hardware is that far fetched.
There is no lack of content. The weak spot is distribution, and that's where Apple is showing the way. Even if Apple did start or buy a label, their net contribution to the overall market would be tiny, and if they kept their roster exclusive they'd just annoy both artists and customers - artists want distribution (and iTMS currently represents a miniscule percentage of overall sales), and customers were annoyed by having to go to each label's music store to find their favorite artists before iTMS. By and large, consumers don't care about labels. They care about artists. Any imposition of the label into the purchasing process will just drive people away. This is not just a prediction. It's something that's already happened.
I agree that Apple's lead here is not secure long-term. There are different ways of addressing this, but Apple needs to get themselves locked to the content somehow or to outposition MS, which is far from a reasonable strategy. I wouldn't discount this line of thinking at all. In fact, I haven't really seen anyone look forward realistically at the future of the iPod until this.
Nothing is secure long term, so you don't worry about that. The more you lock yourself into some forecast, the less able you are to react to the market (see Apple's late entry into music), and if Apple can't react to the new, burgeoning and rapidly evolving market for online music then they'll lose their lead.
They've already outpositioned MS, which is currently flailing around and introducing a great deal of noise and confusion into the market and seasoning it with FUD. Apple is ahead. They just have to stay ahead.
The response to that is, of course, Sony. Sony creates content. Sony distributes content. Sony has content playback devices. And somehow other companies aren't too concerned.
I would wager that Apple isn't interested in becoming Sony. They just need enough specific, highly creative, and EXCLUSIVE content so that they can't be dismissed. Garageband may help, but not soon enough.
At any rate, Apple buying Apple Records won't cause any of the big names to lose any sleep.
Consumer electronics vendors and content creators have been at loggerheads for decades now, ever since the reel to reel tape. You might recall a landmark Supreme Court case, Sony vs. Universal, over the legality of the VCR. Now, it's true that Sony bought its way into Hollywood to try to turn this antagonism into a smoothly functioning vertical market. It's also true that, instead, they created two factions under the same tent that have been reenacting Sony vs. Universal ever since. The two are separated by a lot more than just the world's largest ocean. I've read recently that Sony Japan has been nursing the idea of bailing out of Hollywood altogether and going back to its roots.
But Apple isn't so much a consumer electronics company (obvious exception: the iPod). What it is is a provider of solutions for content creation. It's true that Sony offers a lot of hardware for content creation as well, but Apple is much smaller, just now breaking into video in a big way, and much more dependent on the content creation market; they, unlike Sony, can't afford to piss off the content professionals without very serious consequences.
While they're still getting people on board, they can't turn around and say, "oh, by the way, we're going to try to run you out of business." I can see Apple cutting a deal with Apple Records, and making a deal that buries the hatchet permanently - and maybe iTMS will get a Beatles exclusive for a while. That's the only reason I can see for Apple buying Apple Records. I don't see it as given that Apple Records will sell itself, either.
Originally posted by Amorph
Sony is a pretty bad example.
But Apple isn't so much a consumer electronics company (obvious exception: the iPod). What it is is a provider of solutions for content creation. It's true that Sony offers a lot of hardware for content creation as well, but Apple is much smaller, just now breaking into video in a big way, and much more dependent on the content creation market; they, unlike Sony, can't afford to piss off the content professionals without very serious consequences.
Like what? What "serious consequences"? How would any of it "piss off the content proffessionals"? All it would be doing is giving Apple a small amount of selective but highly desired content.
And, to that point, Sony is an excellent example. Apple isn't currently in the content creation business. Sony wasn't in the content creation business. Apple's going to purchase a relatively small amount of content. Sony purchased a HUGE amount of content. No one wet their bed when Sony did it. Why would they if Apple chose to do it? Regardless of the relationship between Sony Pictures, Sony Music, and Sony Japan today, the point is that no one had a big problem with it back when the details were uncertain.
Sony set the stage that will let this be a big *yawn* for the big labels today.
To put another way, Apple?s going to lose the iPod and iTMS if they don?t do something. What do they have to lose?
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Faeylyn's posts are getting more and more ordinary and seemingly off the mark.
How do you like Napster?
Originally posted by Faeylyn
Like what? What "serious consequences"? How would any of it "piss off the content proffessionals"?
Apple's professional market is content creation. You know, publishing, Photoshop, DV, music... This is so true that people who know nothing else about Macs know that they're "good for graphics". If you go to Berklee College of Music, it's Macs wall to wall. Ditto any major recording studio. There are Macs in Electronic Arts doing all the 2D art and graphics and layout for all those PC-only game titles. Right now Apple is virtually synonymous with content creation. The only exceptions are markets that they're currently trying to get into - so this is becoming more true, not less.
Content creation is a huge, huge chunk of Apple's sales. Far more than Sony's stake, at least relative to the sizes of the companies. Apple's purchases of Logic, Shake, and what became Final Cut Pro show that they want to be even more deeply involved in content creation.
I don't offer specifics about what the consequences are because they're impossible to know. But if Sony pisses off video professionals, they lose a few high-end camera sales. If Apple does, they lose the market they've gained a foothold in, and that they want to be in, and all of a sudden they're back to where they were in '97. Their situation is not analogous to Sony's in any way that I can see.
All it would be doing is giving Apple a small amount of selective but highly desired content.
Initially. But if they're going to run an actual label, like some people are talking about, and give it favored access to iTMS, like some people are talking about, then the industry has a problem. The Big 5 have a delicately balanced system supporting their perilously inefficient business models. They don't want it disturbed. Now, I'd love to see that system shaken up, but Apple can do that merely by giving the smaller, better-run labels an even shot at distribution (always the bugbear of smaller labels). They're already doing that.
If it begins and ends at Apple buying Apple Records and putting Beatles stuff online, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with Apple becoming an active record label. I don't think they want to go there.
Apple's going to purchase a relatively small amount of content. Sony purchased a HUGE amount of content. No one wet their bed when Sony did it.
Sony wasn't in the content creation market when they did, so they weren't competing with their customers.
Also, Sony's purchase has not done at all well for them. Something else Apple needs to consider. They don't need to bring a war in-house, especially not one that's older than they are.
Sony set the stage that will let this be a big *yawn* for the big labels today.
No, because the labels all use Macs and Logic to make music, and to design the packaging for their product. The movie studios didn't all use Sonys to make movies. That's the huge, crucial difference.
Originally posted by Faeylyn
How do you like Napster?
What does that even mean?
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
What does that even mean?
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,61093,00.html
Just noticed that you were from Penn State is all. Doesn't mean anything more than that.
Originally posted by Faeylyn
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,61093,00.html
Just noticed that you were from Penn State is all. Doesn't mean anything more than that.
Yeah, one of the top ten research institutions in the world, also responsible for producing a man named Jeff Raskin, one of the lead engineers on the original Macintosh team--so there is an Apple history and presence at Penn State still. There are also many, many Mac labs considering the 43,000 students on campus.
Also, I have an iPod and use the iTMS. Napster allows for streaming and pay downloading, **** it if I'm gonna put coin in Roxio's pocket.
Originally posted by Amorph
Content creation is a huge, huge chunk of Apple's sales. Far more than Sony's stake, at least relative to the sizes of the companies. Apple's purchases of Logic, Shake, and what became Final Cut Pro show that they want to be even more deeply involved in content creation.
No, because the labels all use Macs and Logic to make music, and to design the packaging for their product. The movie studios didn't all use Sonys to make movies. That's the huge, crucial difference. [/B]
Yeah, I think we've learned by now that these emotional reponses don't actually exist in companies. Apple works with MS and MS with Apple because it's profitable to do so. IBM and AMD work together because it's profitable to do so. Ford and GM work together because it's profitable to do so.
So long as Apple doesn't impact the financials of the labels or limit their ability to operate, they really won't care. If Apple-the-hardware-and-software-company doesn't disturb the labels, they won't drop them due to Apple-the-content-creator.
Now, if Apple buys a label and only offers content in AAC and doesn't restrict/tax the ability of other labels to offer in AAC or impede their ability to offer in WMP or anything else, why on earth should they care? Yeah, they might be annoyed that Apple's decision keeps them in AAC when they might prefer WMP only, but that could happen even without Apple being involved. What'll *really* piss off the other labels is if Apple really dicks with the contract/distribution system, but that's them being pissed off with a label breaking ranks, not a label being in with a tech company. That, I believe, is a real possibility, BTW, but really has nothing to do with Apple-the-hardware-and-software-company.
Apple is not getting into content creation. It does not benefit their core model, at all. If Apple buys Apple records ( by kidnapping and brainwashing Paul, Ringo, Yoko and the Harrison estate) AND if they offer exclusive content for the Beatles recordings this will offer them no benefit whatsoever - besides the royalties from the records played on radio.
And let me say again - they happen to have the same name is all. Beyond that and the legal issues it has created, there is NO relationship between Apple computer and Apple records, and the latter is privately owned.
And let me say this: If Apple does buy exclusive Beatles content and make it only available on iTunes and banned from Radio ( or whatever "exclusive" means) they will succeed in annoying everybody else on other platforms, and have proven themselves a corporate monopoly in other people's eyes. If they do have 70% of the music download market and they abuse that position they will earn the respect of no one - and Beatles fans are not going to flock to buying a mac or using iTunes, but will launch a campaign against Apple.
What for instance - if this happens - will Apple do about the aging Beatles demographics who want to replace their vinyl or lost Beatles CD's with new versions. Is Apple going to get into the CD printing and distribution business - this is what labels do, right? Or will Apple just stop producing hard copies of Beatles records and urge the 60 years olds to get on a computer, for chrissakes.
This is all made up nonsense. It will never happen.
Originally posted by johnsonwax
Yeah, I think we've learned by now that these emotional reponses don't actually exist in companies.
1)
2) It's not an emotional reaction. If you have a supplier:customer relationship between two customers, and the supplier suddenly becomes a competitor, then the customer can no longer assume that the supplier will be committed to supplying their best stuff. We're already seeing this with Apple: Logic is shipping with internal frameworks to work around holes in CoreAudio that are preventing other companies from shipping their flagship audio software. It's not going over well.
3) I've seen exactly this happen in other industries. Remo lost lots of accounts as a drumhead supplier when they rolled out their own drums. In fact, businesses actually sprang into existence to fill the gap. It's flatly obvious that it's unwise to depend on a competitor for the materials and equipment you need in order to maintain a competitive edge.
Apple works with MS and MS with Apple because it's profitable to do so. IBM and AMD work together because it's profitable to do so. Ford and GM work together because it's profitable to do so.
Apple, IBM and MS entered into the agreements they have knowing already that they were working with competitors. Ford and GM entered into their agreements knowing for decades that they were competitors.
Those examples have even less relevance to Apple-as-publisher than Sony does. Apple as publisher changes the fundamental relationship between Apple itself and its bedrock professional market.
So long as Apple doesn't impact the financials of the labels or limit their ability to operate, they really won't care. If Apple-the-hardware-and-software-company doesn't disturb the labels, they won't drop them due to Apple-the-content-creator.
Right, and all of a sudden there's a big if there, isn't there? Adobe's been talking this line for a while now. Now, you or I could argue that they're wrong, but development cancelled and goodwill lost because of fear rather than fact is still development cancelled and goodwill lost.
If Apple stays where they are now, there is no if. Apple only impacts the financials of the labels positively, enhances their ability to operate, etc. The relationship is completely unambiguous as it stands.
Now, if Apple buys a label and only offers content in AAC and doesn't restrict/tax the ability of other labels to offer in AAC or impede their ability to offer in WMP or anything else, why on earth should they care?
If you had any idea what insane lengths record companies went to to railroad artists and control markets, you might think twice before asking that. The big 5 are not known for being reasonable.
That said, you know why the content companies have kept MS at arm's length? Because they don't trust MS. Why? Because MS is too aggressive and too competitive. They don't consider MS a reliable partner. They do consider Apple reliable, however, because Apple has for years done nothing but supply them with the best stuff available to create and publish content.
What'll *really* piss off the other labels is if Apple really dicks with the contract/distribution system, but that's them being pissed off with a label breaking ranks, not a label being in with a tech company. That, I believe, is a real possibility, BTW, but really has nothing to do with Apple-the-hardware-and-software-company.
Apple is already "dicking with" the contractual and distribution systems, but they can do this because they've earned the trust of the label heads. If they lose that trust, they lose a lot of the power they have to get the contractual and distribution agreements that have powered iTMS' success up to this point.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
...
Look at people like Brad Sucks. I visit his sight once or twice a week to see if he's released anything new. Now he's on iTunes. It has started already. I'd love to hear what kind of deal, if any, he's made with Apple and the revenue made from the download of his iTunes.
The fact that he is on iTunes floored me. The revolution has begun. I think your post my be the most significant in this thread.
Originally posted by rickag
The fact that he is on iTunes floored me. The revolution has begun. I think your post my be the most significant in this thread.
Looks like he got there the same way my band did:
Brad Sucks on CD Baby.
8)
Originally posted by Amorph
Right, and all of a sudden there's a big if there, isn't there? Adobe's been talking this line for a while now. Now, you or I could argue that they're wrong, but development cancelled and goodwill lost because of fear rather than fact is still development cancelled and goodwill lost.
If Apple stays where they are now, there is no if. Apple only impacts the financials of the labels positively, enhances their ability to operate, etc. The relationship is completely unambiguous as it stands.
Well, I'm not suggesting that it can't go poorly - it most certainly can. I think it's clear that if Apple does get into this situation, they need to do it rather carefully. Does that mean that they cannot do it at all? I don't think so.
Overall I'm skeptical that Apple will get into this business, but given that Apple's CEO is the head of one of the more respected content companies out there, I don't think it can be dismissed too quickly.