The only way I can think of some benefit for songwriters would be in the way music is licensed. Perhaps songwriters will register their music through Apple and Apple will act as licensing and royalty agent, replacing BMI and ASCAP. Only by becoming a self-publisher of music (lyrics and compositions) do songwriters have any influence over the use of their own work.
I guess that is possible, but I don't know how that could benefit Apple?
Folks, Songs of Innocence is not as innocent as it first appears, the hint was there all along: SOI = iOS Doubt it is a supposed coincidence like HAL / IBM
I guess that is possible, but I don't know how that could benefit Apple?
You don't know how acting as an agent to license and collect royalties could benefit Apple? That's "where the money is." Apple would cut out all the middlemen in the mechanical rights licensing business. That plus being able to put together so-called 360° deals which extend to other entertainment properties...there's a LOT of money to be made.
Is picking U2 reflective of how "Apple" sees itself? Was this an unconscious decision reflective of how leadership sees the company? That's how I see it.
Apple once hip and progressive and all that and somewhat of a niche, but getting older and less relevant. (I hope not).
With that said, Apple may become irrelevant as newer companies transform technology. Not too long ago, you could keep up with technological changes, but these days it is overwhelming. There is going to be tremendous disruption in business due to the tons of technological discoveries. It would not be a surprise to see Apple impacted like IBM and Microsoft.
For me, I don't watch the keynotes anymore. I see Tim Cook becoming too self-reflective of Apple and the company becoming staid. Jobs was always about tremendous disruption and very iconoclastic.
Apple is losing its iconoclastic view. It is changing as it gets older and bigger. Just my feeling about the company as I've used their products since the Apple II.
On the contrary, I would be concerned if Apple weren't changing. Nobody can be Jobs like the original. Apple needs to be the best it can be right now; not trying to recreate the past.
If streaming services are hurting the bottom line of artists and labels, why are they continuing to support streaming services?
I think the labels are desperate for any revenue they can get because the overall music business is less than half of its 1999-2000 peak (and that doesn't even account for inflation. Accounting for inflation, the U.S. industry is at 38% of its 1999 peak).
Also, when you don't support a technology that people want, people find a way to get it illegally, which is what the industry was blamed for when it responded slowly to the demand for downloadable files (and which iTunes changed).
However, as I've posted before, what's really hurting the industry is not "digital" (a misnomer, since CDs are digital as well). It's the fact that since the advent of downloads, the industry has changed back to a singles-driven industry and that's not sustainable based upon today's recording and production costs. Back in the 1950s and 60s, when the single also dominated (for rock, country and R&B), artists would go into the studio and record three songs in a few hours. They'd be released within two weeks. Now they spend months recording, mixing, etc. The numbers simply don't work.
In 2013, according to the RIAA, revenues from Sound Exchange, Paid Subscriptions and On Demand Ad Supported Streaming totaled $1.4 billion (in the U.S.). Album downloads were $1.2 billion and Single downloads were just under $1.6 billion. That compares with $2.123 billion for CD sales. The overhyped vinyl LP sales were just $211 million. (And note that these are revenues at "list" prices, not what the labels actually receive). Looking at that, one might believe that CD sales are still quite good, but that constitutes only 172.2 million CDs, compared with sales of 942 million back in 2000.
Frankly, I can't conceive what a "new" file format would be like and how it would change the fact that consumers are moving to streaming. Apple AAC is already pretty good and there is absolutely no evidence that consumers as a whole really care about audio quality anyway (they never really did). The only way to get consumers away from streaming is to once again create music that's so great that people want to own it. And they would have want to own the album, not just the single. But I don't see that happening without a new cultural revolution similar to the post-Beatles revolution that created "album rock".
Is picking U2 reflective of how "Apple" sees itself? Was this an unconscious decision reflective of how leadership sees the company? That's how I see it.
NO. Like it or not, Bono is the last great rock star, and that still carries weight in a lot of corners. I'm sure the Apple people like the cache of hanging out with someone cool.
From everything I see, this is more about making money than anything to "improve" music.
<p>I can't wait to see Bono's contribution to an audio codec and compression whitepaper.</p>
I will be mightily impressed also when U2 release it. In other words U2 are just a name being attached to something Apple are doing but will have no real input.
This is hogwash. Apple would not need U2 to "develop" a new format...perhaps they would rely on one or more bands/artists in different genres to market a launch, but what's Bono going to say to Jony? "Hey man, I saw this cool one of kind device in a movie years ago that went to eleven... Can you do that?"
Of course U2 is looking for a way to end piracy. If they don't fix the piracy problem, they may as well just give their albums away for free on iTunes.
I don't doubt that Apple is working on improvements to music of the same ilk that h.265 is giving video. But it seems like a lot of these comments from Bono are really old. So they don't perhaps support that Apple AND Bono are working on anything together or aren't.
Along with higher fidelity files, how about when you buy the full LP (old school term, I know) you get a separate file (free of charge) that includes all of the music videos, photos, liner notes, accurate lyrics and sheet music for all the instruments for all of the songs.
Music (both production and consumption) is a great vector for bringing customers deeper into the fold for Apple. I'm really excited about Beats and I still hope that Apple will one day buy Sony; it would take a lot of work to revise their business and products but I think the quantity of engineering talent would bolster Apple's software projects in the long run (and.
Yesterday I learned that Pioneer is going to sell its DJ business to a private equity firm (for $550m). If Apple picked up that business, some pretty incredible things could happen (Pioneer's build quality and interface sensibility, IMHO, is up to snuff, and their brand commands the kind of respect that Apple does).
DJ and club culture might seem peripheral and high-risk to a businessperson or a suburbanite - but I think the pervasive subtext of "people from all nations can get along, teach each other and have fun, while basking in the headspace of a confident self-taught artist" is relevant, ascendant, and on-brand.
Comments
That's work for audio engineers and technologists. Not old rock bands.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
I guess that is possible, but I don't know how that could benefit Apple?
Doubt it is a supposed coincidence like HAL / IBM
After a secluded first couple of years, Cook is beginning to get a little weird.
You don't know how acting as an agent to license and collect royalties could benefit Apple? That's "where the money is." Apple would cut out all the middlemen in the mechanical rights licensing business. That plus being able to put together so-called 360° deals which extend to other entertainment properties...there's a LOT of money to be made.
On the contrary, I would be concerned if Apple weren't changing. Nobody can be Jobs like the original. Apple needs to be the best it can be right now; not trying to recreate the past.
If streaming services are hurting the bottom line of artists and labels, why are they continuing to support streaming services?
I think the labels are desperate for any revenue they can get because the overall music business is less than half of its 1999-2000 peak (and that doesn't even account for inflation. Accounting for inflation, the U.S. industry is at 38% of its 1999 peak).
Also, when you don't support a technology that people want, people find a way to get it illegally, which is what the industry was blamed for when it responded slowly to the demand for downloadable files (and which iTunes changed).
However, as I've posted before, what's really hurting the industry is not "digital" (a misnomer, since CDs are digital as well). It's the fact that since the advent of downloads, the industry has changed back to a singles-driven industry and that's not sustainable based upon today's recording and production costs. Back in the 1950s and 60s, when the single also dominated (for rock, country and R&B), artists would go into the studio and record three songs in a few hours. They'd be released within two weeks. Now they spend months recording, mixing, etc. The numbers simply don't work.
In 2013, according to the RIAA, revenues from Sound Exchange, Paid Subscriptions and On Demand Ad Supported Streaming totaled $1.4 billion (in the U.S.). Album downloads were $1.2 billion and Single downloads were just under $1.6 billion. That compares with $2.123 billion for CD sales. The overhyped vinyl LP sales were just $211 million. (And note that these are revenues at "list" prices, not what the labels actually receive). Looking at that, one might believe that CD sales are still quite good, but that constitutes only 172.2 million CDs, compared with sales of 942 million back in 2000.
Frankly, I can't conceive what a "new" file format would be like and how it would change the fact that consumers are moving to streaming. Apple AAC is already pretty good and there is absolutely no evidence that consumers as a whole really care about audio quality anyway (they never really did). The only way to get consumers away from streaming is to once again create music that's so great that people want to own it. And they would have want to own the album, not just the single. But I don't see that happening without a new cultural revolution similar to the post-Beatles revolution that created "album rock".
Is picking U2 reflective of how "Apple" sees itself? Was this an unconscious decision reflective of how leadership sees the company? That's how I see it.
NO. Like it or not, Bono is the last great rock star, and that still carries weight in a lot of corners. I'm sure the Apple people like the cache of hanging out with someone cool.
From everything I see, this is more about making money than anything to "improve" music.
My Apple fanboy is wearing thin.
Feed him something.
Why not collaborate with Dre & Iovine instead?
We have ALAC. What else could the world possibly need?
In Bono's eyes? DRM.
ALAC+.
Along with higher fidelity files, how about when you buy the full LP (old school term, I know) you get a separate file (free of charge) that includes all of the music videos, photos, liner notes, accurate lyrics and sheet music for all the instruments for all of the songs.
Feed him something.
Perhaps a sandwich of some sort?
Yesterday I learned that Pioneer is going to sell its DJ business to a private equity firm (for $550m). If Apple picked up that business, some pretty incredible things could happen (Pioneer's build quality and interface sensibility, IMHO, is up to snuff, and their brand commands the kind of respect that Apple does).
DJ and club culture might seem peripheral and high-risk to a businessperson or a suburbanite - but I think the pervasive subtext of "people from all nations can get along, teach each other and have fun, while basking in the headspace of a confident self-taught artist" is relevant, ascendant, and on-brand.