Record label delays iTunes Australia launch

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Typical money hungry music labels screwing the public for more money!



Thanks to appletalk.com.au for the story....



View article here

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    idunnoidunno Posts: 645member
    So does that mean that this label has also held up the release of iTMS for the other four stores that were supposed to get it the same day as us?



    Would make you feel kinda powerful to piss off so many people at once.



    iDunno
  • Reply 2 of 9
    AppleInsiderAppleInsider Posts: 58,723administrator
    An unsigned agreement with one major record company has halted the launch of Apple's iTunes music download service in Australia.



    A source told The Courier-Mail yesterday Apple had planned to launch an Australian version of its iTunes music store last Thursday, but the launch was thwarted by one unnamed major record company that refused to sign an agreement in time.



    "The hurdle reportedly forced Apple to cancel radio advertisements ordered for the date, and it is expected to delay iTunes's launch by days, or possibly weeks, as song and album prices and payments are negotiated with the holdout label," the publication said.



    For a short time last week, several eager iTunes users were able to forced their way into a work-in-progress version of the Australian iTunes store; some even managed to create an account with their credit cards, but later saw these accounts terminated by Apple.



    According to several members of AppleTalk, an Australian-based Macintosh news and community website, the average price of a tune was listed at $1.69 Australian. Meanwhile, album prices varied from $11.35 to $16.99.



    The iTunes Music Store Australia was expected to headline a new wave of music stores that were to be announced on April 28th, the two year anniversary of the service launch. Other locations planned for the same launch include Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Norwary, Denmark, and very likely New Zealand.



    Apple reportedly declined to comment on the issue.
  • Reply 3 of 9
    plasmoplasmo Posts: 13member
    Arrrghhhhhhhhh.



    I will never support record labels, I will support the artists by buying from them direct or the next best thing, iTunes.
  • Reply 4 of 9
    ct77ct77 Posts: 49member
    Apple is doing the right thing.



    I went through the same pain waiting for iTMS in Canada.



    However, I am happy Apple held out to get the same agreement with all the labels here in Canada.



    Having the same price, and usage rights, for all tracks in the store is a huge must, for me personally, at least.
  • Reply 5 of 9
    benjamin_rbenjamin_r Posts: 265member
    I agree... Im glad Apple wants to have a fully stocked and "consistent" iTMS for Australia..



    What I dont agree on is these Money-hungry labels holding out on a public that wants to support legal downloads.... Do they think holding out on Apple and in turn holding up the store is going to make people think "Hey, keep this up guys, we love having to wait for something that should have been here a long time ago"...



    NO... People are going to start to say "Screw you and your label, we are going to download this stuff for free"



    It angers me!
  • Reply 6 of 9
    wgauvinwgauvin Posts: 100member
    My bet it's Sony-BMG, they've been screwing the Australian Music industry after Sony bought BMG and have left artist without a label.
  • Reply 7 of 9
    crazychestercrazychester Posts: 1,339member
    I'm not sure I buy this story. Not that I have trouble believing a record company isn't behind this. But something doesn't ring true. While I'm sure there's no love lost between the labels, they seem to have figured out that presenting a unified front enhances their position. Why would one of them suddenly decide to play the maverick?



    If Apple's been negotiating with each label in isolation, I struggle to imagine how they managed to get any online music store off the ground, let alone maintain their unified pricing policy.



    Given how difficult and lengthy this deal has been, why would Apple kick into launch mode when one of the majors still hadn't signed on the dotted line?



    Apple Minion: Steve we've got agreement from all the labels except one.

    Steve: Cool. Even though it's taken years of negotiations with those music industry arseholes to get this far, I see no reason why we shouldn't just assume the one holding out will sign up any tick of the clock. OK we'll launch on the 28th. Web monkeys ready the site. Publicity and marketing see to it that strategically placed radio advertisements are booked, prepare the press releases and so on. You know the drill. Let's see we'll be needing some hype. Somebody get onto Russell Crowe and ask him to blab the launch details to the Australian media. Tell him we'll feature his stupid rock band on the main page on launch day. What's that? He doesn't have a lot of credibility? And skepticism among Australian music buyers about iTMS is at an all time high because of all the false rumours? Hmm. Is there an Australian edition of Time magazine? You don't think that would convince them? Wow, those poor Aussies really are cynical and jaded, aren't they? In that case, you better leave that well known backdoor into the site wide open, let a few of the faithful find their way in and run amok for a while, then slam it shut. That should do it. Somebody monitor how much free publicity it generates. I'd like a report on my desk first thing Monday morning.



    Nope. Can't see it, I'm afraid. Did the label give assurances they would sign? Why would Apple believe them when all the evidence suggests the recording industry is run by a bunch of lying, cheating scumbags who'd sell their own grandmothers for a line of cocaine.



    How about delinquent label believes it can force Apple to charge a different price for their songs? No, they're out of touch with reality but they're not that delusional.



    What about the labels colluding to force Apple's hand? At the last minute, the unsigned label backs out and demands a higher price. Apple freaks because they're in so deep and buckle under the pressure. For starters, there'd have to be a contractual clause guaranteeing them all equal slices of the action or it wouldn't work. Then either Steve would have to fail to realize he was being scammed (extremely unlikely) or he'd have to agree to let himself be scammed (snowflake's chance in hell).



    And finally, the question that defies all rational explanation:

    Since when are commercial deals of this magnitude settled at the eleventh hour?
  • Reply 8 of 9
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Very simple: Delay until your own online solution is ready to go and launch it days before you agree to Apple's iTMS. Apple is then left getting their unified price but this company undercuts them days beforehand.



    The long delays are their way of giving their own in-house devs time to provide a comparable solution to Apple's.



    Realistically :: they don't have one, but they sure as well try.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by crazychester

    I'm not sure I buy this story. Not that I have trouble believing a record company isn't behind this. But something doesn't ring true. While I'm sure there's no love lost between the labels, they seem to have figured out that presenting a unified front enhances their position. Why would one of them suddenly decide to play the maverick?



    If Apple's been negotiating with each label in isolation, I struggle to imagine how they managed to get any online music store off the ground, let alone maintain their unified pricing policy.



    Given how difficult and lengthy this deal has been, why would Apple kick into launch mode when one of the majors still hadn't signed on the dotted line?



    Apple Minion: Steve we've got agreement from all the labels except one.

    Steve: Cool. Even though it's taken years of negotiations with those music industry arseholes to get this far, I see no reason why we shouldn't just assume the one holding out will sign up any tick of the clock. OK we'll launch on the 28th. Web monkeys ready the site. Publicity and marketing see to it that strategically placed radio advertisements are booked, prepare the press releases and so on. You know the drill. Let's see we'll be needing some hype. Somebody get onto Russell Crowe and ask him to blab the launch details to the Australian media. Tell him we'll feature his stupid rock band on the main page on launch day. What's that? He doesn't have a lot of credibility? And skepticism among Australian music buyers about iTMS is at an all time high because of all the false rumours? Hmm. Is there an Australian edition of Time magazine? You don't think that would convince them? Wow, those poor Aussies really are cynical and jaded, aren't they? In that case, you better leave that well known backdoor into the site wide open, let a few of the faithful find their way in and run amok for a while, then slam it shut. That should do it. Somebody monitor how much free publicity it generates. I'd like a report on my desk first thing Monday morning.



    Nope. Can't see it, I'm afraid. Did the label give assurances they would sign? Why would Apple believe them when all the evidence suggests the recording industry is run by a bunch of lying, cheating scumbags who'd sell their own grandmothers for a line of cocaine.



    How about delinquent label believes it can force Apple to charge a different price for their songs? No, they're out of touch with reality but they're not that delusional.



    What about the labels colluding to force Apple's hand? At the last minute, the unsigned label backs out and demands a higher price. Apple freaks because they're in so deep and buckle under the pressure. For starters, there'd have to be a contractual clause guaranteeing them all equal slices of the action or it wouldn't work. Then either Steve would have to fail to realize he was being scammed (extremely unlikely) or he'd have to agree to let himself be scammed (snowflake's chance in hell).



    And finally, the question that defies all rational explanation:

    Since when are commercial deals of this magnitude settled at the eleventh hour?




  • Reply 9 of 9
    crazychestercrazychester Posts: 1,339member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mdriftmeyer

    Very simple: Delay until your own online solution is ready to go and launch it days before you agree to Apple's iTMS. Apple is then left getting their unified price but this company undercuts them days beforehand.



    The long delays are their way of giving their own in-house devs time to provide a comparable solution to Apple's.



    Realistically :: they don't have one, but they sure as well try.




    Hmm, interesting. A slant I hadn't considered although, now you mention it, I recall hearing that this was something the labels were plotting (ie. launching their own services).



    Have to think this through a bit because, if you're right, what the label hopes to achieve isn't entirely obvious. Aren't they wasting their time unless they can provide the sort of extensive catalogue that iTMS does? Are you saying the majors would do a deal with each other to sell each others stuff through their own stores?



    It would seem to be complete lunacy for say EMI to have a store that only sold their releases. There's been ample evidence this is not what the public wants. Plus there's the whole lack of an mp3 player thing that I would have thought they realised by now was part of the key to Apple's online music store success over others.



    Maybe I'm missing something.
Sign In or Register to comment.