I think the best of all worlds would be if anyone can sell their music via iTunes but then offer their interactive/LP material separately, either on their own web site or 3rd-party commerce site, or, if they prefer, let Apple sell it and pay the $10K. But then, regardless of where that material comes from, the end user could merge it all in their iTunes client (much like we can now paste our own album art or lyrics onto CD-ripped tracks). This, of course, assuming RIAA isn't involved somewhere and threatens to sue anything that moves.
Now that I've written that, I realize a potential problem. If the 'bonus material' (for lack of a better all-inclusive term) is distributed separately, then that also means it can be ripped-off separately and thrown into the torrents. And in this case there won't be the threat of the RIAAs and ASCAPs to protect the content producer (or, in reality, to protect their own stake in it.) I don't know how the iTunes Store policy and structure might prevent this (maybe with a watermark?), but things are never as simple as they seem at first. My own speculation included.
I think all Apple is trying to do right now is test the waters with this concept. The high cost of entry serves to limit the concept to some of the top selling bands for now and ensures high quality LP's. A limited number of LP's creates a sense of value to the consumer, and the artists featured might entice customers to check these LP's out.
If Apple can create this sense of added value and generate consumer interest, they will most certainly lower the barriers to entry over time, but Apple probably believes that the launch period of this program is a critical factor in its long term success and thus wants almost complete control over the content (for now).
Any indie labels worried about the cost of iTunes LP production should stop worrying about such "gloss" and stick to what they're supposed to do best ?*Music.
$10,000 to develop may be "cheap" but it will definitely kill incentive for most developers to create an itunes LP. This is disappointing news but I would assume this will be a temporary policy. If Apple is the only developer for the format how many LP's are ever going to get made? imagine if Apple charged $10k for every App on the store; there would be far fewer Apps that's for sure.
That is not a good analogy. It would be more like Apple charging you $10 000 to build your app and you just provide the images etc. Not a bad deal really - when you consider how slick these things look. They are even better than most websites these bands have.
Seems to me this will force artists into a label in any case, be that Indie or otherwise, as they will most likely not have $10,000 to see their LP.
I would have been a better idea if they made this more accessible to the common artist where they could forgo a traditional Label altogether.
There's no obligation for anyone to produce in the iTunes LP format. Artists are still free to sell just music, on whatever label they want, indie or otherwise.
There's no obligation for anyone to produce in the iTunes LP format. Artists are still free to sell just music, on whatever label they want, indie or otherwise.
That's not the point. It would have been a great venue for new artists to get their music out there given the popularity of iTunes.
Assuming that's the case, I wonder if this is a temporary state of affairs while Apple sorts everything out. In the long run I hope that indie artists can indeed roll their own at their own level of investment and still get their material sold on the iTunes Store.
One hypothetical argument to be made for Apple is they don't want a flood of randomly-produced interactive content with UI bugs and obscene easter-eggs hidden inside and a general QA nightmare of poor coding. But then they should come out and make that clear, and establish which demographic they want to cater to.
I think the best of all worlds would be if anyone can sell their music via iTunes but then offer their interactive/LP material separately, either on their own web site or 3rd-party commerce site, or, if they prefer, let Apple sell it and pay the $10K. But then, regardless of where that material comes from, the end user could merge it all in their iTunes client (much like we can now paste our own album art or lyrics onto CD-ripped tracks). This, of course, assuming RIAA isn't involved somewhere and threatens to sue anything that moves.
They don't edit or qualify the music they release, so I'm not sure why the LP content would be any different. But I do agree, to a point, that bugginess is always an issue.
These file formats are basically a gzipped web site with the suffix changed to ,itlp or .ite. Inside, it's just HTML, CSS, Javascript, images and perhaps even a few video clips.
A template for iWeb or RapidWeaver would make it possible for any creative person to develop one of these files. These are not, or should not be, barriers to entry.
So, what if I develop such a file? How do I get Apple to make it available along with a selection of music that I've recorded? That's the potential barrier. Has anyone seen any publicly accessible description of how to ask Apple to include an .itlp file with your application?
The iTunes Extras file will also be of interest to podcasters who want to include interactive materials with their linear audio or video podcast.
I don't have the time to respond to all these comments, but let me address a couple things.
1. Yes, I have 3 albums and 1 EP out in the <1 year we've been operating. That doesn't account for upcoming releases - at least two of which are announced on our site.
2. The point of going "indie" is not to avoid the structure of big record companies. We'd love to be a big record company some day. Doesn't mean we won't still row our own boat.
3. $10,000 is too much money. And who says anyone would have to pay a freelance developer/designer. Perhaps I am a designer and could do it for free. Perhaps not. Doesn't matter because I don't have a choice.
4. The only concern I have is now. iTunes may offer a feature allowing me to make an iTunes LP from my G1 phone in 2 days. But they haven't announced it that I'm aware of.
5. There may be an iPhone App, but why do I care. I have a G1 and I'll keep buying Android until iPhones are available from someone besides AT&T.
Lastly, I'm happy to sell our music on iTunes. It's a nice way to sell music but that doesn't mean I'm going to drink the Cool-Aid. Go ahead and blast away at me for trying to do the best job I can with the options available to me.
Cheers,
Brian
Since you've gone to this trouble to respond it would be interesting to hear why 'its too much'.
Possible reasons
1) The incremental sales from the exposure of this format won't generate > $10,000 in additional profit.
2) I can get the same result with the same increase in sales elsewhere for less.
Just saying its too much because you think it is, or if they did it differently you would do it cheaper, it not a valid reason.
I'm genuinely interested because, its seems to me , that the value added is the key. If your reason is (1) above and you're correct in general, then Apple has really wasted its time in creating this format in the first place. If its (2) then Apple will eventually lower the price. If another then???
These file formats are basically a gzipped web site with the suffix changed to ,itlp or .ite. Inside, it's just HTML, CSS, Javascript, images and perhaps even a few video clips.
A template for iWeb or RapidWeaver would make it possible for any creative person to develop one of these files. These are not, or should not be, barriers to entry.
So, what if I develop such a file? How do I get Apple to make it available along with a selection of music that I've recorded? That's the potential barrier. Has anyone seen any publicly accessible description of how to ask Apple to include an .itlp file with your application?
The iTunes Extras file will also be of interest to podcasters who want to include interactive materials with their linear audio or video podcast.
The barrier is Apple/iTunes. My entire point was that these are just glorified websites and that given a chance to create one myself I would have enjoyed offering it as bonus content to anyone interested. We're being told that Apple is deciding who can have them (major labels only) and at what price ($10,000 is what I was told).
Since you've gone to this trouble to respond it would be interesting to hear why 'its too much'.
Possible reasons
1) The incremental sales from the exposure of this format won't generate > $10,000 in additional profit.
2) I can get the same result with the same increase in sales elsewhere for less.
Just saying its too much because you think it is, or if they did it differently you would do it cheaper, it not a valid reason.
I'm genuinely interested because, its seems to me , that the value added is the key. If your reason is (1) above and you're correct in general, then Apple has really wasted its time in creating this format in the first place. If its (2) then Apple will eventually lower the price. If another then???
Can you tell us which it is IYO?
It's not too much for a major label who hemorrhages money in attempts to promote artists with the hope of having a successful album. Anyone can tell you that a major label loses money on 9 out of 10 albums and that that one profitable album pays for the rest of the loses. That's just how majors work.
It's too much for us because why would we want to pay $10,000 (assuming we had $10,000 for one aspect of marketing/production) to have an in-house design team create our LP. But that's not the point either - the point is that we're not being given the option in the first place.
I don't know what the value added would be. I'm shocked that anyone is paying an extra $10 per album to get a couple videos and extras in the first place. My initial goal in pursuing information on LP creation was to release two albums as a "box set/special edition" and at the price of one album and include the LP format as a bonus. That's the only way I could justify the extra cost to the end user. I don't even know who gets to keep the extra $10, to be honest.
Now that I've written that, I realize a potential problem. If the 'bonus material' (for lack of a better all-inclusive term) is distributed separately, then that also means it can be ripped-off separately and thrown into the torrents. And in this case there won't be the threat of the RIAAs and ASCAPs to protect the content producer (or, in reality, to protect their own stake in it.) I don't know how the iTunes Store policy and structure might prevent this (maybe with a watermark?), but things are never as simple as they seem at first. My own speculation included.
It's usually considered bad form to reply to your own post. Just edit your original post to include the new information, or make a new post.
It's akin to an indy band finally getting the ability to make indy records, in indy studios, with indy producers, and then suddenly demanding that they be given the same marketing, post-production and promotional machine of a major label.
Frankly, if you aren't selling enough records as an indy to afford this type of produciton, then YOU PROBABLY DONT NEED IT. Whiners to be certain.
You are wrong and I don't take you seriously. But you should know that we're all just people. Sometimes we sign with or work at a major label and sometimes we don't. And I don't think it's whining to want to attempt to provide an equal product to someone else's should you choose to try. If nobody buys it and you spent the money then so be it. But just saying you can't isn't right.
I would think that this is only a temporary thing, as Apple has not put all cards on the table yet. Once everything is in place (tablet, ebook reading software, and a big enough amount of existing content using "LP", "Extras", etc.), there will be a software tool that will allow content creators to prep these things themselves. Apple certainly does not want to get into the content creation business and they should not.
Just to amplify this point: Apple traditionally "eats its own dog food" before releasing development tools into the wild. Think how many iPhone apps they developed internally before the SDK was released (and how long it took--two+ years at least). So how to get content to shake down the dev process? The answer so far from Apple: approach some labels with bonus content already on the shelf, get some honest money (peanuts to every party concerned), and put them on iTunes for the labels to recoup their peanuts (and Apple to test/refine/extend the concept and test the market).
And now the bonus question: how many native apps were available at iPhone launch vs how many LPs were available at its launch?
It's not too much for a major label who hemorrhages money in attempts to promote artists with the hope of having a successful album. Anyone can tell you that a major label loses money on 9 out of 10 albums and that that one profitable album pays for the rest of the loses. That's just how majors work.
It's too much for us because why would we want to pay $10,000 (assuming we had $10,000 for one aspect of marketing/production) to have an in-house design team create our LP. But that's not the point either - the point is that we're not being given the option in the first place.
I don't know what the value added would be. I'm shocked that anyone is paying an extra $10 per album to get a couple videos and extras in the first place. My initial goal in pursuing information on LP creation was to release two albums as a "box set/special edition" and at the price of one album and include the LP format as a bonus. That's the only way I could justify the extra cost to the end user. I don't even know who gets to keep the extra $10, to be honest.
Thanks for the response. Basically you believe my item (1)
1) The incremental sales from the exposure of this format won't generate > $10,000 in additional profit.
If this is true then the format will fail. Given Apple's boder-line obsessive approach to market research, I actually doubt this is the case and, for most releases, the exposure from this format will more than justify the $10,000. I have to agree with the conclusion 'It's NOT overpriced' but it is certainly true its not have value to everyone. Only time will actually tell.
I see why Apple should be able to do whatever they want in this instance as it's there store and there isn't anything that says a store must sell a product.
However it turns into a bit of an issue with the monopoly Apple's developing over online music sales. It's sort of like them using the fact that most people buy from them to be able to add an extra feature that's based on existing open technology and then demand there the only people that can product for it. At the same time then also decide which suppliers they will do it for. i.e. the ones that will be most profitable.
It's sort of like if Google was to decide they were going to start a server business and then ranked all the sites hosted by them over any other site. As most people use Google to search it would mean website owners would be forced to have their site with Google even if was going to cost more.
Tough situation for Apple. On one hand they only want quality to keep there service at the best, but to do that you end up using a monopoly on a market to unfairly control it. Then again overall there still going to make a load of money whatever they do.
Let's say you take the LP idea over to a no-name freelance graphic designer/developer. Guess what...they'll charge you by the hour. In order to perfect it, make it visually appealing, really allow the artist to portray themselves and reach millions and millions of iTunes users they know they could charge you for it. An we are talking about a no name developer. Interactive applications, customer covers and interfaces and hosting is all, I believe iTunes has every right to charge 10K!
Agreed. I'm a no-name interactive developer and I'd easily charge 10k+.
It's a lot of skilled, creative work. If an artist can't pay for that, then obviously that's that. They can sell music instead
What's amazing here is that Apple is charging so LITTLE. They're the big pros, yet charging what I would working out of a garage!*
Comments
I think the best of all worlds would be if anyone can sell their music via iTunes but then offer their interactive/LP material separately, either on their own web site or 3rd-party commerce site, or, if they prefer, let Apple sell it and pay the $10K. But then, regardless of where that material comes from, the end user could merge it all in their iTunes client (much like we can now paste our own album art or lyrics onto CD-ripped tracks). This, of course, assuming RIAA isn't involved somewhere and threatens to sue anything that moves.
Now that I've written that, I realize a potential problem. If the 'bonus material' (for lack of a better all-inclusive term) is distributed separately, then that also means it can be ripped-off separately and thrown into the torrents. And in this case there won't be the threat of the RIAAs and ASCAPs to protect the content producer (or, in reality, to protect their own stake in it.) I don't know how the iTunes Store policy and structure might prevent this (maybe with a watermark?), but things are never as simple as they seem at first. My own speculation included.
If Apple can create this sense of added value and generate consumer interest, they will most certainly lower the barriers to entry over time, but Apple probably believes that the launch period of this program is a critical factor in its long term success and thus wants almost complete control over the content (for now).
I would have been a better idea if they made this more accessible to the common artist where they could forgo a traditional Label altogether.
$10,000 to develop may be "cheap" but it will definitely kill incentive for most developers to create an itunes LP. This is disappointing news but I would assume this will be a temporary policy. If Apple is the only developer for the format how many LP's are ever going to get made? imagine if Apple charged $10k for every App on the store; there would be far fewer Apps that's for sure.
That is not a good analogy. It would be more like Apple charging you $10 000 to build your app and you just provide the images etc. Not a bad deal really - when you consider how slick these things look. They are even better than most websites these bands have.
Seems to me this will force artists into a label in any case, be that Indie or otherwise, as they will most likely not have $10,000 to see their LP.
I would have been a better idea if they made this more accessible to the common artist where they could forgo a traditional Label altogether.
There's no obligation for anyone to produce in the iTunes LP format. Artists are still free to sell just music, on whatever label they want, indie or otherwise.
There's no obligation for anyone to produce in the iTunes LP format. Artists are still free to sell just music, on whatever label they want, indie or otherwise.
That's not the point. It would have been a great venue for new artists to get their music out there given the popularity of iTunes.
Assuming that's the case, I wonder if this is a temporary state of affairs while Apple sorts everything out. In the long run I hope that indie artists can indeed roll their own at their own level of investment and still get their material sold on the iTunes Store.
One hypothetical argument to be made for Apple is they don't want a flood of randomly-produced interactive content with UI bugs and obscene easter-eggs hidden inside and a general QA nightmare of poor coding. But then they should come out and make that clear, and establish which demographic they want to cater to.
I think the best of all worlds would be if anyone can sell their music via iTunes but then offer their interactive/LP material separately, either on their own web site or 3rd-party commerce site, or, if they prefer, let Apple sell it and pay the $10K. But then, regardless of where that material comes from, the end user could merge it all in their iTunes client (much like we can now paste our own album art or lyrics onto CD-ripped tracks). This, of course, assuming RIAA isn't involved somewhere and threatens to sue anything that moves.
They don't edit or qualify the music they release, so I'm not sure why the LP content would be any different. But I do agree, to a point, that bugginess is always an issue.
A template for iWeb or RapidWeaver would make it possible for any creative person to develop one of these files. These are not, or should not be, barriers to entry.
So, what if I develop such a file? How do I get Apple to make it available along with a selection of music that I've recorded? That's the potential barrier. Has anyone seen any publicly accessible description of how to ask Apple to include an .itlp file with your application?
The iTunes Extras file will also be of interest to podcasters who want to include interactive materials with their linear audio or video podcast.
On another note, why hasn't anyone noted the terrible grammar on this particular article?
Someone ran out of coffee, methinks
Hi - guilty party here.
I don't have the time to respond to all these comments, but let me address a couple things.
1. Yes, I have 3 albums and 1 EP out in the <1 year we've been operating. That doesn't account for upcoming releases - at least two of which are announced on our site.
2. The point of going "indie" is not to avoid the structure of big record companies. We'd love to be a big record company some day. Doesn't mean we won't still row our own boat.
3. $10,000 is too much money. And who says anyone would have to pay a freelance developer/designer. Perhaps I am a designer and could do it for free. Perhaps not. Doesn't matter because I don't have a choice.
4. The only concern I have is now. iTunes may offer a feature allowing me to make an iTunes LP from my G1 phone in 2 days. But they haven't announced it that I'm aware of.
5. There may be an iPhone App, but why do I care. I have a G1 and I'll keep buying Android until iPhones are available from someone besides AT&T.
Lastly, I'm happy to sell our music on iTunes. It's a nice way to sell music but that doesn't mean I'm going to drink the Cool-Aid. Go ahead and blast away at me for trying to do the best job I can with the options available to me.
Cheers,
Brian
Since you've gone to this trouble to respond it would be interesting to hear why 'its too much'.
Possible reasons
1) The incremental sales from the exposure of this format won't generate > $10,000 in additional profit.
2) I can get the same result with the same increase in sales elsewhere for less.
Just saying its too much because you think it is, or if they did it differently you would do it cheaper, it not a valid reason.
I'm genuinely interested because, its seems to me , that the value added is the key. If your reason is (1) above and you're correct in general, then Apple has really wasted its time in creating this format in the first place. If its (2) then Apple will eventually lower the price. If another then???
Can you tell us which it is IYO?
These file formats are basically a gzipped web site with the suffix changed to ,itlp or .ite. Inside, it's just HTML, CSS, Javascript, images and perhaps even a few video clips.
A template for iWeb or RapidWeaver would make it possible for any creative person to develop one of these files. These are not, or should not be, barriers to entry.
So, what if I develop such a file? How do I get Apple to make it available along with a selection of music that I've recorded? That's the potential barrier. Has anyone seen any publicly accessible description of how to ask Apple to include an .itlp file with your application?
The iTunes Extras file will also be of interest to podcasters who want to include interactive materials with their linear audio or video podcast.
The barrier is Apple/iTunes. My entire point was that these are just glorified websites and that given a chance to create one myself I would have enjoyed offering it as bonus content to anyone interested. We're being told that Apple is deciding who can have them (major labels only) and at what price ($10,000 is what I was told).
Since you've gone to this trouble to respond it would be interesting to hear why 'its too much'.
Possible reasons
1) The incremental sales from the exposure of this format won't generate > $10,000 in additional profit.
2) I can get the same result with the same increase in sales elsewhere for less.
Just saying its too much because you think it is, or if they did it differently you would do it cheaper, it not a valid reason.
I'm genuinely interested because, its seems to me , that the value added is the key. If your reason is (1) above and you're correct in general, then Apple has really wasted its time in creating this format in the first place. If its (2) then Apple will eventually lower the price. If another then???
Can you tell us which it is IYO?
It's not too much for a major label who hemorrhages money in attempts to promote artists with the hope of having a successful album. Anyone can tell you that a major label loses money on 9 out of 10 albums and that that one profitable album pays for the rest of the loses. That's just how majors work.
It's too much for us because why would we want to pay $10,000 (assuming we had $10,000 for one aspect of marketing/production) to have an in-house design team create our LP. But that's not the point either - the point is that we're not being given the option in the first place.
I don't know what the value added would be. I'm shocked that anyone is paying an extra $10 per album to get a couple videos and extras in the first place. My initial goal in pursuing information on LP creation was to release two albums as a "box set/special edition" and at the price of one album and include the LP format as a bonus. That's the only way I could justify the extra cost to the end user. I don't even know who gets to keep the extra $10, to be honest.
Don't you have other forums somewhere to share your wisdom? Why do keep posting here?
Even if you beat him like a red-headed stepchild he'd still love the attention.
Now that I've written that, I realize a potential problem. If the 'bonus material' (for lack of a better all-inclusive term) is distributed separately, then that also means it can be ripped-off separately and thrown into the torrents. And in this case there won't be the threat of the RIAAs and ASCAPs to protect the content producer (or, in reality, to protect their own stake in it.) I don't know how the iTunes Store policy and structure might prevent this (maybe with a watermark?), but things are never as simple as they seem at first. My own speculation included.
It's usually considered bad form to reply to your own post. Just edit your original post to include the new information, or make a new post.
It's akin to an indy band finally getting the ability to make indy records, in indy studios, with indy producers, and then suddenly demanding that they be given the same marketing, post-production and promotional machine of a major label.
Frankly, if you aren't selling enough records as an indy to afford this type of produciton, then YOU PROBABLY DONT NEED IT. Whiners to be certain.
You are wrong and I don't take you seriously. But you should know that we're all just people. Sometimes we sign with or work at a major label and sometimes we don't. And I don't think it's whining to want to attempt to provide an equal product to someone else's should you choose to try. If nobody buys it and you spent the money then so be it. But just saying you can't isn't right.
This reminds me of Plessy v. Ferguson...
I would think that this is only a temporary thing, as Apple has not put all cards on the table yet. Once everything is in place (tablet, ebook reading software, and a big enough amount of existing content using "LP", "Extras", etc.), there will be a software tool that will allow content creators to prep these things themselves. Apple certainly does not want to get into the content creation business and they should not.
Just to amplify this point: Apple traditionally "eats its own dog food" before releasing development tools into the wild. Think how many iPhone apps they developed internally before the SDK was released (and how long it took--two+ years at least). So how to get content to shake down the dev process? The answer so far from Apple: approach some labels with bonus content already on the shelf, get some honest money (peanuts to every party concerned), and put them on iTunes for the labels to recoup their peanuts (and Apple to test/refine/extend the concept and test the market).
And now the bonus question: how many native apps were available at iPhone launch vs how many LPs were available at its launch?
It's not too much for a major label who hemorrhages money in attempts to promote artists with the hope of having a successful album. Anyone can tell you that a major label loses money on 9 out of 10 albums and that that one profitable album pays for the rest of the loses. That's just how majors work.
It's too much for us because why would we want to pay $10,000 (assuming we had $10,000 for one aspect of marketing/production) to have an in-house design team create our LP. But that's not the point either - the point is that we're not being given the option in the first place.
I don't know what the value added would be. I'm shocked that anyone is paying an extra $10 per album to get a couple videos and extras in the first place. My initial goal in pursuing information on LP creation was to release two albums as a "box set/special edition" and at the price of one album and include the LP format as a bonus. That's the only way I could justify the extra cost to the end user. I don't even know who gets to keep the extra $10, to be honest.
Thanks for the response. Basically you believe my item (1)
1) The incremental sales from the exposure of this format won't generate > $10,000 in additional profit.
If this is true then the format will fail. Given Apple's boder-line obsessive approach to market research, I actually doubt this is the case and, for most releases, the exposure from this format will more than justify the $10,000. I have to agree with the conclusion 'It's NOT overpriced' but it is certainly true its not have value to everyone. Only time will actually tell.
However it turns into a bit of an issue with the monopoly Apple's developing over online music sales. It's sort of like them using the fact that most people buy from them to be able to add an extra feature that's based on existing open technology and then demand there the only people that can product for it. At the same time then also decide which suppliers they will do it for. i.e. the ones that will be most profitable.
It's sort of like if Google was to decide they were going to start a server business and then ranked all the sites hosted by them over any other site. As most people use Google to search it would mean website owners would be forced to have their site with Google even if was going to cost more.
Tough situation for Apple. On one hand they only want quality to keep there service at the best, but to do that you end up using a monopoly on a market to unfairly control it. Then again overall there still going to make a load of money whatever they do.
Let's say you take the LP idea over to a no-name freelance graphic designer/developer. Guess what...they'll charge you by the hour. In order to perfect it, make it visually appealing, really allow the artist to portray themselves and reach millions and millions of iTunes users they know they could charge you for it. An we are talking about a no name developer. Interactive applications, customer covers and interfaces and hosting is all, I believe iTunes has every right to charge 10K!
Agreed. I'm a no-name interactive developer and I'd easily charge 10k+.
It's a lot of skilled, creative work. If an artist can't pay for that, then obviously that's that. They can sell music instead
What's amazing here is that Apple is charging so LITTLE. They're the big pros, yet charging what I would working out of a garage!*
* I don't even have a garage