Apple denies reports of Universal's iTunes standoff
Apple is denying reports that record label Universal Music Group does not plan to renew its contract to sell songs on iTunes, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
"We are still negotiating with Universal," Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr told the paper Monday afternoon. "Their music is still on iTunes and their not re-signing is just not true."
Citing "executives briefed on the issue," the New York Times on Monday morning reported that Universal, the world?s biggest music corporation, had notified Apple that it would not be renewing its annual contract with iTunes.
Instead, the newspaper said Universal would look to market music to Apple at will, which could allow the label to yank its songs from the iTunes service on short notice if the two sides do not agree on pricing or other terms in the future.
Apple and the major record labels have been wrestling over how much people should be charged per tune, with the iPod maker and its chief executive Steve Jobs advocating a simple 99-cents-each model while the music companies are demanding the freedom to charge different prices for certain songs and albums.
"We are still negotiating with Universal," Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr told the paper Monday afternoon. "Their music is still on iTunes and their not re-signing is just not true."
Citing "executives briefed on the issue," the New York Times on Monday morning reported that Universal, the world?s biggest music corporation, had notified Apple that it would not be renewing its annual contract with iTunes.
Instead, the newspaper said Universal would look to market music to Apple at will, which could allow the label to yank its songs from the iTunes service on short notice if the two sides do not agree on pricing or other terms in the future.
Apple and the major record labels have been wrestling over how much people should be charged per tune, with the iPod maker and its chief executive Steve Jobs advocating a simple 99-cents-each model while the music companies are demanding the freedom to charge different prices for certain songs and albums.
Comments
I'll be interested to see how this one turns out...
EDIT: looks like not too many people on the market are noticing - share prices are still up on iPhone.
Yep. Seems like SJ is doing some backpedaling today. You don't see this sort of thing from Apple very often.
Apple never said anything yesterday - the reports indicated that neither Universal or Apple had any comment. How can you backpedal from silence?
Yep. Seems like SJ is doing some backpedaling today. You don't see this sort of thing from Apple very often.
What makes you think that he is backpedalling?
If Universal wants to cut off 15% of its revenue - then so be it. In the end it probably will not pay for them.
Universal exec is claiming that they aren't negotiating.
I am curious why Steve really cares if some tunes are 99 cents and some are say 125 cents or whatever. I may have missed his reasoning along the way and I am sure he has a good one. To me it seems to me no one would blame Apple if some artists cost more. We'd all know it was the label not Apple and either buy or not buy those that were priced higher. It's all about supply and demand at the end of the day. As I suggested in an earlier thread perhaps it's time for Apple Corp. to come back on line as part of Apple (which I suspect they are now) and offer artists an alternative distribution channel too.
I think the answer is two fold...
? If Apple raised the prices per Universal's demands most people would simply blame Apple because they are the vendor. Not many are going to delve into the music industries politics in order to correctly focus the blame. They are simply going to pissed off at Apple and start to hate iTunes and possibility think about not buying another iPod.
? There is also Jobs desire to keep things simple for the consumer. I can tell you right now how much any 128kbps DRMed song on iTS costs withhout thinking twice. No one wants to check out iTS prices and then make a decision to see who has the best deal. And Universal could up that price if it became more popular while you were deciding.
Apple is denying reports that record label Universal Music Group does not plan to renew its contract to sell songs on iTunes, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
It would have been nice if you'd link to the stories that you discuss:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...UGM5QPPLG1.DTL
Given that I've seen Apple PR say things that turned out to not be true, I'm not going to take Apple at their word either.
This had to happen at some point. A challenge to the potential Apple hegemony. The last throw of the dice for the record companies. Should be fun.
Given that I've seen Apple PR say things that turned out to not be true, I'm not going to take Apple at their word either.
No. Really? You must have been devastated.
Apple does NOT make a generous margin on every sale made through the iTunes Store. The main point is to give consumers a huge amount of choice to fill up their iPods. Even so, Steve himself has said that a miniscule percentage of the average iPod contains product sold to consumers via iTunes... which means that most people have "free" (aka unpaid for music) or music they've ripped themselves from their own CD collection.
You sound like that exec from Warner who called all iPod owners thieves. Just because people don't buy huge amounts of music from iTunes, it doesn't mean the remaining music is "free" (aka stolen). The majority of the iTunes content on my iPod was in fact free, the 2-3 free songs offered in the iTunes Store every week. The other 5000+ songs on my iPod were ripped from MY CD's (not borrowed or copied).
On the major topic, if anyone leaked the story, I would guess it was Universal. I don't really see what Apple would gain from leaking it; it would sort of be like Disney World announcing that 1/3 of the park won't be open any more soon. Apple has more to lose in this case. Imagine the hit the store will take if roughly 1/3 of the selection is suddenly gone. How many iTunes gift cards are going to be sold after that? People might actually be tempted to go elsewhere for their music, maybe even try out a Zune (okay, maybe that's not very likely, but still).
You sound like that exec from Warner who called all iPod owners thieves. Just because people don't buy huge amounts of music from iTunes, it doesn't mean the remaining music is "free" (aka stolen). The majority of the iTunes content on my iPod was in fact free, the 2-3 free songs offered in the iTunes Store every week. The other 5000+ songs on my iPod were ripped from MY CD's (not borrowed or copied).
I don't think that's what he meant. It's just a statement of reality, I think you are reading too much into it. Of course not everyone fills their iPod up with infringing copies of music, but there are plenty that do.
No. Really? You must have been devastated.
Um, no, but people here do put too much faith in what Apple says, particularly their denials, actually, sometimes any faith at all is too much. I think Apple PR is trying to be Orwellian, hoping that people don't remember when they said the opposite a week or two before.
Business 101. Use the press.