Eh... they'll run it at a loss to support their other products if that happens.
Especially if competitors go above the $.99 mark.
HELLO!! A voice of reason!
First of all, if Apple ate 15 of their alleged 30 cent profit per song, do any of you actually think they will be taking a loss? The iTunes store is a server farm somewhere in Cupertino that generates residual income in the billions for the price of a monthly electric bill in the thousands.
Second, The iTunes Store is so completely intertwined into the iPod/iPhone business model, there is NO WAY they can shut its doors. NO EFFING WAY. Not gonna happen when they hold 85% of the market share.
With all due respect to Eddy Cue, even as a fanboy I recognize posturing when I hear it. This is froth. A bluff.
You'd have a better chance of seeing the Pope's balls than seeing the iTunes Store close down.
First of all, if Apple ate 15 of their alleged 30 cent profit per song, do any of you actually think they will be taking a loss? The iTunes store is a server farm somewhere in Cupertino that generates residual income in the billions for the price of a monthly electric bill in the thousands.
Second, The iTunes Store is so completely intertwined into the iPod/iPhone business model, there is NO WAY they can shut its doors. NO EFFING WAY. Not gonna happen when they hold 85% of the market share.
I think you underestimate the cost of the itunes store. it needs to be coded, it needs to be maintained, it needs to be upgraded, and then there's the hardware... which also needs to be maintained, upgraded, kept redundant, etc.. you may have been exaggerating to make a point, but in case you weren't there is a little more to the apple store than you think.
I agree that the itunes store is intertwined with its business model, but then apple would be relying on the ipods and iphones to cover the lost revenue (and plausibly lost profit) of the itunes store. they would probably do it, but they'd search for a new model, because that isn't a good way to run a business.
I find all of this to be rather hilarious. In an age were record companies are becoming less and less relevant, they ask for more. Haha. They're like squirrels hoarding nuts for the winter. I'm not saying that record companies are going away, just that their whole business model is getting rearranged. (Look at Radiohead, NIN, Moby and the momentum of Myspace) I would like to see Apple play hardball with these losers. Maybe cancel iTMS, and release iTunes 8.1 with increased compatibility with Limewire. And then throw a marketing campeign behind it for good measure. I'm not saying Apple will do this or even that they should. I would just like to see the impact it has on record sales.
No, this relates to the copyright holders, not the labels specifically. More often than not, it would refer to the musician(s), and also their publishing companies.
So Apple gets 29 cents to host albums and take care of transactions and run the iTunes store, sounds fair.
Record companies collect 70 cents for... uhmm... errr... i dunno... but pays artists for producing the music 9.1 cents per sale!!! Sounds like a total rip off to me, artists should cut the middle man, follow in the footsteps of Prince. But I think artists are trapped in a contract and think they have too much to lose if they complain.
Musicians, like actors are a dime a dozen and most of them will never make a lot of money... if they choose to compete in the same arena. If they specialize, however, they could do very well for themselves. Example: Moby licenses nearly all of his music for use in commercials, ads, etc. It amounts to background music.
I think you underestimate the cost of the itunes store. it needs to be coded, it needs to be maintained, it needs to be upgraded, and then there's the hardware... which also needs to be maintained, upgraded, kept redundant, etc.. you may have been exaggerating to make a point, but in case you weren't there is a little more to the apple store than you think.
I agree that the itunes store is intertwined with its business model, but then apple would be relying on the ipods and iphones to cover the lost revenue (and plausibly lost profit) of the itunes store. they would probably do it, but they'd search for a new model, because that isn't a good way to run a business.
I think Steve could afford to risk shutting off the music spigot, and he'd provide the phone numbers of the people to complain to. Things would go his way pretty fast.
1) Record labels are many things, but making piles of cash is not one fo them. To the people who think that the record labels are a big scam, no, they are making next to nothing right now. You can make the argument that they're inefficient at what they do, especially in this day and age, they're not ripping artists off. Record labels absorb losses on artists far more often than they make profits. They're just hoping that they find that oen big gold mine artist that can support all the other artists who cost the label more than they make.
2) You really don't understand what record labels provide? Recording studios are not cheap. Say what you will about home recording these days, but it still isn't close to matching a professional studio, with professional engineers and professional producers. The record company foots the bill up front for these things. The record companies market the albums, pitching and placing it on radio stations, etc. That's not cheap. Like I said, you can make the argument that record companies should go the way of the dinosaur, but its not because they're ripping artists off, that's an old wives tale, its because they're becoming less and less efficient at dealing with the state of the music industry today.
3) Its hard to say exactly how much is posturing. iTMS is NOT apple's core business. In a recession, they're not going to operate the store at a significant loss. I'm sorry folks. I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple sell off the iTMS's assets to somebody like Amazon. There are obviously a lot of valuable synergies there with the iPod and a directly linked music store and I'd be surprised to see those go away entirely. But I don't think this is necessarily posturing.
4) I found it kind of odd that nobody seems to question whether or not there is no price point where the iTMS could break even or operate at a profit. That seems to be the clearest avenue of attack. The studies that show $.99 as the magical barrier are a little old now. Apple might also cave in and allow record companies to restrict certain albums to "full CD only" downloads, which has been a major issue. Or they may even *gasp* charge different rates for different songs. If they did those things they might be able to get the record companies to eat a little more of the price increase. I for one would be okay with letting artists charge up to 1.50 for new hit singles but also only charging something like .50 for deep album tracks. The one price to rule them all approach seems kind of silly and it has to end EVENTUALLY.
5) Just when the tides were starting to turn in the fight against piracy, as the ratio of legitimately download to illegally downloaded tracks started to inch higher, the music industry is risking shooting itself in the foot here.
Yeah, Apple should just start dealing directly with the artists. Maybe they can start by giving the artists the raise they want, and then say, "By the way, if you want 70 cents instead of 15, let's talk. The record companies offer very little value, and Apple could offer so much more.
And yes, Mr. Israelite, you make nothing from the sale of an iPod just like you make nothing when somebody downloads the songs for free from the Internet, so keep that in mind.
Musicians, like actors are a dime a dozen and most of them will never make a lot of money... if they choose to compete in the same arena. If they specialize, however, they could do very well for themselves. Example: Moby licenses nearly all of his music for use in commercials, ads, etc. It amounts to background music.
This is a little disengenuous. There are probably a million guys out there doing the electronica "background" thing that would have no qualms about licensing their music out. Moby just had a very large amount of talent and luck. There is no "magic key" to making it in the music business. You have to be extraordinarily talented, be in the right place at the right time and mostly just get a few key people to like you.
This is highly conceivable. A partnership with either or both of these could also finally help get rid of DRM considering how little, if any, music is sold on Amazon with DRM.
I agree, tho, that the iTMS simply can't go away altogether. Apple owes its current status to iTMS, the iPod, and the iPhone.
snip
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
But if they did stop their own music store, that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be any music store within iTunes. Apple could get with Amazon, eMusic, et al. to offer a music store portal within the iTunes application. This would instantly and dramatically increase the popularity of any music store portal that Apple could easily ask for their own per track royalties,
(Note: I don't think Apple will forego their music store)
Yeah, Apple should just start dealing directly with the artists. Maybe they can start by giving the artists the raise they want, and then say, "By the way, if you want 70 cents instead of 15, let's talk. The record companies offer very little value, and Apple could offer so much more.
And yes, Mr. Israelite, you make nothing from the sale of an iPod just like you make nothing when somebody downloads the songs for free from the Internet, so keep that in mind.
There is no way Apple becomes a defacto record label. Running the iTMS is one thing. Doing record deals is another thing entirely. Apple does not want to turn into Sony.
This is a little disengenuous. There are probably a million guys out there doing the electronica "background" thing that would have no qualms about licensing their music out. Moby just had a very large amount of talent and luck. There is no "magic key" to making it in the music business. You have to be extraordinarily talented, be in the right place at the right time and mostly just get a few key people to like you.
I don't disagree with you. Entertainment is a very, very competitive business which basically means: no business can support 10 Britney Spears. One is enough, yet there are probably hundreds of singers who copy her to a 't'. Uniqueness is key, and being in the right place at the right time is essential.
Apple's obsession with 99¢, as opposed to, say $1.05, is silly.
Heck, make it $1.09, blame in on the government, and make an extra 4¢ per tune, Apple! I need some sops as a shareholder right about now.....
It's a magical barrier.. the dollar mark. I believe they'll loose millions of spontaneous sales if they take it above the dollar mark. And this has nothing to do with logic, I mean really, what's the 5-10 cents gonna do for each and every one of us? Practically nothing. It's just psychologically more motivating to buy at 99 cents. If it needs to be done, it will be done, and over time customers will become used to it.
US only. That is why there is a different iTMS for each country. It's also why I doubt its going to cause the iTMS to run at a loss. There are other countries where the royalties are higher and the iTMS still makes a profit.
US only. That is why there is a different iTMS for each country. It's also why I doubt its going to cause the iTMS to run at a loss. There are other countries where the royalties are higher and the iTMS still makes a profit.
I know they're higher in canada and Italy, right off the top of my head. But there also isn't any .99 barrier in those countries either, as it was never an option to charge under 1 dollar in their currencies.
Comments
Eh... they'll run it at a loss to support their other products if that happens.
Especially if competitors go above the $.99 mark.
speaking of which, is the amazon online music store running at a profit or loss?
Eh... they'll run it at a loss to support their other products if that happens.
Especially if competitors go above the $.99 mark.
HELLO!! A voice of reason!
First of all, if Apple ate 15 of their alleged 30 cent profit per song, do any of you actually think they will be taking a loss? The iTunes store is a server farm somewhere in Cupertino that generates residual income in the billions for the price of a monthly electric bill in the thousands.
Second, The iTunes Store is so completely intertwined into the iPod/iPhone business model, there is NO WAY they can shut its doors. NO EFFING WAY. Not gonna happen when they hold 85% of the market share.
With all due respect to Eddy Cue, even as a fanboy I recognize posturing when I hear it. This is froth. A bluff.
You'd have a better chance of seeing the Pope's balls than seeing the iTunes Store close down.
People have been abbreviating the iTunes Music Store as iTMS for years.
First of all, if Apple ate 15 of their alleged 30 cent profit per song, do any of you actually think they will be taking a loss? The iTunes store is a server farm somewhere in Cupertino that generates residual income in the billions for the price of a monthly electric bill in the thousands.
Second, The iTunes Store is so completely intertwined into the iPod/iPhone business model, there is NO WAY they can shut its doors. NO EFFING WAY. Not gonna happen when they hold 85% of the market share.
I think you underestimate the cost of the itunes store. it needs to be coded, it needs to be maintained, it needs to be upgraded, and then there's the hardware... which also needs to be maintained, upgraded, kept redundant, etc.. you may have been exaggerating to make a point, but in case you weren't there is a little more to the apple store than you think.
I agree that the itunes store is intertwined with its business model, but then apple would be relying on the ipods and iphones to cover the lost revenue (and plausibly lost profit) of the itunes store. they would probably do it, but they'd search for a new model, because that isn't a good way to run a business.
People have been abbreviating the iTunes Music Store as iTMS for years.
now I feel old
but seriously, your fingers need exercise too!
I find all of this to be rather hilarious. In an age were record companies are becoming less and less relevant, they ask for more. Haha. They're like squirrels hoarding nuts for the winter. I'm not saying that record companies are going away, just that their whole business model is getting rearranged. (Look at Radiohead, NIN, Moby and the momentum of Myspace) I would like to see Apple play hardball with these losers. Maybe cancel iTMS, and release iTunes 8.1 with increased compatibility with Limewire. And then throw a marketing campeign behind it for good measure. I'm not saying Apple will do this or even that they should. I would just like to see the impact it has on record sales.
No, this relates to the copyright holders, not the labels specifically. More often than not, it would refer to the musician(s), and also their publishing companies.
I am confused: The article talks about "National Music Publishers' Association" wanting "to raise the rates paid to its members on songs...."
Where do the record companies come into this? Aren't we talking about the artists?
Correct, it has little or nothing to do with the labels.
So Apple gets 29 cents to host albums and take care of transactions and run the iTunes store, sounds fair.
Record companies collect 70 cents for... uhmm... errr... i dunno... but pays artists for producing the music 9.1 cents per sale!!! Sounds like a total rip off to me, artists should cut the middle man, follow in the footsteps of Prince. But I think artists are trapped in a contract and think they have too much to lose if they complain.
Musicians, like actors are a dime a dozen and most of them will never make a lot of money... if they choose to compete in the same arena. If they specialize, however, they could do very well for themselves. Example: Moby licenses nearly all of his music for use in commercials, ads, etc. It amounts to background music.
speaking of which, is the amazon online music store running at a profit or loss?
I'd have to guess that Amazon operates at a net loss, hoping to drive their other business offerings with their low priced music.
I think you underestimate the cost of the itunes store. it needs to be coded, it needs to be maintained, it needs to be upgraded, and then there's the hardware... which also needs to be maintained, upgraded, kept redundant, etc.. you may have been exaggerating to make a point, but in case you weren't there is a little more to the apple store than you think.
I agree that the itunes store is intertwined with its business model, but then apple would be relying on the ipods and iphones to cover the lost revenue (and plausibly lost profit) of the itunes store. they would probably do it, but they'd search for a new model, because that isn't a good way to run a business.
I think Steve could afford to risk shutting off the music spigot, and he'd provide the phone numbers of the people to complain to. Things would go his way pretty fast.
2) You really don't understand what record labels provide? Recording studios are not cheap. Say what you will about home recording these days, but it still isn't close to matching a professional studio, with professional engineers and professional producers. The record company foots the bill up front for these things. The record companies market the albums, pitching and placing it on radio stations, etc. That's not cheap. Like I said, you can make the argument that record companies should go the way of the dinosaur, but its not because they're ripping artists off, that's an old wives tale, its because they're becoming less and less efficient at dealing with the state of the music industry today.
3) Its hard to say exactly how much is posturing. iTMS is NOT apple's core business. In a recession, they're not going to operate the store at a significant loss. I'm sorry folks. I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple sell off the iTMS's assets to somebody like Amazon. There are obviously a lot of valuable synergies there with the iPod and a directly linked music store and I'd be surprised to see those go away entirely. But I don't think this is necessarily posturing.
4) I found it kind of odd that nobody seems to question whether or not there is no price point where the iTMS could break even or operate at a profit. That seems to be the clearest avenue of attack. The studies that show $.99 as the magical barrier are a little old now. Apple might also cave in and allow record companies to restrict certain albums to "full CD only" downloads, which has been a major issue. Or they may even *gasp* charge different rates for different songs. If they did those things they might be able to get the record companies to eat a little more of the price increase. I for one would be okay with letting artists charge up to 1.50 for new hit singles but also only charging something like .50 for deep album tracks. The one price to rule them all approach seems kind of silly and it has to end EVENTUALLY.
5) Just when the tides were starting to turn in the fight against piracy, as the ratio of legitimately download to illegally downloaded tracks started to inch higher, the music industry is risking shooting itself in the foot here.
And yes, Mr. Israelite, you make nothing from the sale of an iPod just like you make nothing when somebody downloads the songs for free from the Internet, so keep that in mind.
Musicians, like actors are a dime a dozen and most of them will never make a lot of money... if they choose to compete in the same arena. If they specialize, however, they could do very well for themselves. Example: Moby licenses nearly all of his music for use in commercials, ads, etc. It amounts to background music.
This is a little disengenuous. There are probably a million guys out there doing the electronica "background" thing that would have no qualms about licensing their music out. Moby just had a very large amount of talent and luck. There is no "magic key" to making it in the music business. You have to be extraordinarily talented, be in the right place at the right time and mostly just get a few key people to like you.
I agree, tho, that the iTMS simply can't go away altogether. Apple owes its current status to iTMS, the iPod, and the iPhone.
snip
But if they did stop their own music store, that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be any music store within iTunes. Apple could get with Amazon, eMusic, et al. to offer a music store portal within the iTunes application. This would instantly and dramatically increase the popularity of any music store portal that Apple could easily ask for their own per track royalties,
(Note: I don't think Apple will forego their music store)
Yeah, Apple should just start dealing directly with the artists. Maybe they can start by giving the artists the raise they want, and then say, "By the way, if you want 70 cents instead of 15, let's talk. The record companies offer very little value, and Apple could offer so much more.
And yes, Mr. Israelite, you make nothing from the sale of an iPod just like you make nothing when somebody downloads the songs for free from the Internet, so keep that in mind.
There is no way Apple becomes a defacto record label. Running the iTMS is one thing. Doing record deals is another thing entirely. Apple does not want to turn into Sony.
This is a little disengenuous. There are probably a million guys out there doing the electronica "background" thing that would have no qualms about licensing their music out. Moby just had a very large amount of talent and luck. There is no "magic key" to making it in the music business. You have to be extraordinarily talented, be in the right place at the right time and mostly just get a few key people to like you.
I don't disagree with you. Entertainment is a very, very competitive business which basically means: no business can support 10 Britney Spears. One is enough, yet there are probably hundreds of singers who copy her to a 't'. Uniqueness is key, and being in the right place at the right time is essential.
Apple's obsession with 99¢, as opposed to, say $1.05, is silly.
Heck, make it $1.09, blame in on the government, and make an extra 4¢ per tune, Apple! I need some sops as a shareholder right about now.....
It's a magical barrier.. the dollar mark. I believe they'll loose millions of spontaneous sales if they take it above the dollar mark. And this has nothing to do with logic, I mean really, what's the 5-10 cents gonna do for each and every one of us? Practically nothing. It's just psychologically more motivating to buy at 99 cents. If it needs to be done, it will be done, and over time customers will become used to it.
Btw, is this US only or is it world wide?
Btw, is this US only or is it world wide?
US only. That is why there is a different iTMS for each country. It's also why I doubt its going to cause the iTMS to run at a loss. There are other countries where the royalties are higher and the iTMS still makes a profit.
US only. That is why there is a different iTMS for each country. It's also why I doubt its going to cause the iTMS to run at a loss. There are other countries where the royalties are higher and the iTMS still makes a profit.
What countries? Can you post links to such stats?
What countries? Can you post links to such stats?
I know they're higher in canada and Italy, right off the top of my head. But there also isn't any .99 barrier in those countries either, as it was never an option to charge under 1 dollar in their currencies.