I agree. This is all sounds like a classic Microsoftian move to get people to use an otherwise inferior service. I hope it's more than that, but if not, I doubt it will affect Apple's bottom line or affect the HW in any way so I'm pretty 'meh' on anything that happens with the Beats music service.
Ever heard of the TV show "Shark Tank"? In business, a shark is a fearsome predator, someone you don't screw around with because they will destroy you.
I have caught wind of that title, but since I don't have TV, and since I take better care of my POV, I'd rather suggest that the music biz runs on mutual benefit as much as it does on predation. You don't get to where he is by acting like you describe, at least not exclusively. That's just common sense.
I'm fine if it's exclusives for the right reasons (i.e.the platform is better). How about Iovine use his connections to get great artists to help curate iTunes (and any subscription music service Apple is working on). IMO album exclusives is easy when you have Iovine's connections and Apple's bank account. I hope Apple is working on something more interesting and unique than that.
Personally, I think Apple could have resurrected the album sale for true collectors of music and created new album collectors had they put more effort into iTunes LP.
Personally, I think Apple could have resurrected the album sale for true collectors of music and created new album collectors had they put more effort into iTunes LP.
Possibly, however digital music downloads favors hit singles (there is no incentive to buy additional songs one may not be familiar with), so we're really right back in the 50's where the hit single became the standard on the music charts.
Is there really value in this method of exclusives in today's day? Is that really going to sell hardware? If it does, I doubt many people are going to decide to change their shopping patterns because its only on iTunes.
AC/DC partially went with Walmart because they initially didn't want digital distribution. And well, Walmart is everywhere. In the end, they ended up at least digital.
People really don't buy music anymore. It all seems to be about streaming. I guess like more like the old days - radio.
Personally, I think Apple could have resurrected the album sale for true collectors of music and created new album collectors had they put more effort into iTunes LP.
Possibly, however digital music downloads favors hit singles (there is no incentive to buy additional songs one may not be familiar with), so we're really right back in the 50's where the hit single became the standard on the music charts.
That's where the iTunes LP could have been brilliant. They could brought back the album art, use higher quality tracks (perhaps even lossless), exclusive album tracks, and videos, images, album notes, etc.
One thing I used to do when I bought a new album was read the notes cover to cover as I listened to it. If I could do the same thing but in a digital form — and without it being some separate PDF that feels out of place — it might have pushed me to start buying albums again.
That's where the iTunes LP could have been brilliant. They could brought back the album art, use higher quality tracks (perhaps even lossless), exclusive album tracks, and videos, images, album notes, etc.
One thing I used to do when I bought a new album was read the notes cover to cover as I listened to it. If I could do the same thing but in a digital form — and without it being some separate PDF that feels out of place — it might have pushed me to start buying albums again.
There's obviously some value to the idea, however the extra development costs for the digital LP all fall on the artists and labels. Those additional costs are evidently something they are unwilling to absorb in an incremental revenue business. Almost no one makes their money on the sale of music alone. Those music sales support touring, licensing and merchandise sales, where the real money is made.
They should concentrate on securing worldwide rights and have a respectable launch instead of all this piss ant marketing crap for a dead on arrival U.S. "Grand rebranding"
There's obviously some value to the idea, however the extra development costs for the digital LP all fall on the artists and labels. Those additional costs are evidently something they are unwilling to absorb in an incremental revenue business. Almost no one makes their money on the sale of music alone. Those music sales support touring, licensing and merchandise sales, where the real money is made.
Yeah, that's what I assume are the reasons for their lackadaisical effort.
I didn't like the Beats acquisitionf let price aril because Beats was exactly what anti-Apple fanbois incorrectly derided Apple for being. A mediocre product successful only through marketing.
How ever, it seems to men hat the real fear should have been the acqui-hire of Jimmy Iovine, since I feel his way of doing business is completely antithetical to Appl's way (i.e. Through back room deals instead of creating mutually beneficial platforms and products).
I didn't like the Beats acquisitionf let price aril because Beats was exactly what anti-Apple fanbois incorrectly derided Apple for being. A mediocre product successful only through marketing.
How ever, it seems to men hat the real fear should have been the acqui-hire of Jimmy Iovine, since I feel his way of doing business is completely antithetical to Appl's way (i.e. Through back room deals instead of creating mutually beneficial platforms and products).
The only problem Beats Music has is that you can't easily find top of the charts songs. That's not a problem to me at all, but to many people and mostly teenagers that's huge.
The only problem Beats Music has is that you can't easily find top of the charts songs. That's not a problem to me at all, but to many people and mostly teenagers that's huge.
I'm hard pressed to see the long term benefit to the Iovine relationship with Apple. The guy is a music industry shark who would be better off on his own packaging deals to offer to Apple (or other bidders, for that matter) and streaming subscriptions are still a very tough nut to crack... Perhaps something that can best be offered as an add-on to satellite radio services?
On John Gruber's most recent podcast he says he's heard the Beats deal was 100% Eddy Cue. Eddy was the one pushing for it inside Apple. I still don't get this deal. Does Apple really need Jimmy Iovine to move iTunes forward? There's lots Apple needs to do to move iTunes into the 21st century but I don't think exclusive album launches from Iovine's music pals is it. I see that as turning people off more than anything because everyone knows getting exclusives like this is just about exchanging lots of $$$ and Iovine calling in favors from his music pals. It's not the same as apps that are iOS only/first because iOS a better and more profitable platform.
Apple needs someone. Apple just still doesn't get anything about cloud based media services. Exclusive content, often inexpensively made is a key advantage in this age of media commoditization. The reality with streaming is that most songs aren't worth $1.29 and most albums certainly aren't worth $12.99. You can have thousands of hours of video for $8-10 a month and trying to stand alone in a sea of sameness there won't get you a cent. Much like how Android is available to everyone, people won't go with a specific service unless there is something special for it. So Netflix has House of Cards and Orange is the new Black. This content doesn't keep a customer forever and much like the syndication they will eventually have to release it out there for others to bid on and show as well but it keeps them in the game and hands them extra money for now.
Who knows what keeps anyone in the game for the long term because the reality is that there are just too many things competing for eyeballs and earlobes. The cost is being driven down to near nil. SNL is making jokes about the podcast Serial for goodness sakes. When the cost to produce is practically nil, the returns are always large in terms of percentages but with so many more providers, the relationship and promotions have to go two ways. Apple will promote an artist because that artist is under contract to them in some regard exclusively or to provide some exclusivity. The artist will make less than they would have if they had hit alone but more than if they were an anonymous face in the crowd.
Branding has a purpose. Apple is a good brand and people pay for that brand. Beats is a good brand. Sure some audiophiles turn up their nose at it but the same class of techno nerd has been doing the same to Apple for ages as well. Beats offers a good all-around solution that people will recognize at a price that is premium to garbage headphones but at the same or cheaper price point than many "better" audio solutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Exclusives are a differentiator. That's important when most alternatives are free (there are thousands of sources of free music).
I'm fine if it's exclusives for the right reasons (i.e.the platform is better). How about Iovine use his connections to get great artists to help curate iTunes (and any subscription music service Apple is working on). IMO album exclusives is easy when you have Iovine's connections and Apple's bank account. I hope Apple is working on something more interesting and unique than that.
Artists don't give a crap about software interfaces. Are you seriously suggesting someone go to a Nicki Minaj and tell her that she should avoid selling somewhere else because Apple has a more refined flattened interface on their music app? Why the hell would any artist give a crap about that? Likewise there would be discussion about which artists are even great artists, etc. Apple needs someone at the company who comes up with a better solution than one 50 year old white dude greeting a band of 50 year old white dudes who are giving away their album to the youth of American and the world who are increasingly not white and also could give a crap about 50 year old white dudes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I'm fine if it's exclusives for the right reasons (i.e.the platform is better). How about Iovine use his connections to get great artists to help curate iTunes (and any subscription music service Apple is working on). IMO album exclusives is easy when you have Iovine's connections and Apple's bank account. I hope Apple is working on something more interesting and unique than that.
Personally, I think Apple could have resurrected the album sale for true collectors of music and created new album collectors had they put more effort into iTunes LP.
Sadly it is 2014 and no one cares about 40-ish minutes of music from one artist when there are a million said artists begging for our ears and our eyeballs. Said million artists are also BEGGING us to stop listening to other artists so we can also find time to slot them in as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
Personally, I think Apple could have resurrected the album sale for true collectors of music and created new album collectors had they put more effort into iTunes LP.
Possibly, however digital music downloads favors hit singles (there is no incentive to buy additional songs one may not be familiar with), so we're really right back in the 50's where the hit single became the standard on the music charts.
In this day and age digital doesn't favor anything. The difference between downloaded and entire album or a song over most internet connections is negligible. Apple declares a 5 mbit per second connection would download a single in 4-5 seconds. Most people have speeds double to triple that so split the difference and say the difference between downloading a song (2 seconds) and an album (20-25 seconds) is what.... 18 seconds?
Digital downloads favor nothing. The issue is time, eyeballs and ears and other competing artists. When you are listening to one, you aren't listening to another so the 80/20 principle applies. Most artists produce three maybe four high quality songs per album. Taking one of those high quality songs and having four people remix it provides some additional content for the album (Here is Bang, Bang remixed five different ways for Jessie J lovers.)
Why did you like the liner notes and photos in the LP back in the day? There was no Twitter, no Instagram, no other way to feel closer to an artist. So you'd read who they gave thanks too just so 13 year old you could try to gain some access to the type of person that made this music you love. Now you don't need to do that. You just follow them on Twitter and they'll tweet you a pic of their stocking on Christmas Day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44
I didn't like the Beats acquisitionf let price aril because Beats was exactly what anti-Apple fanbois incorrectly derided Apple for being. A mediocre product successful only through marketing.
How ever, it seems to men hat the real fear should have been the acqui-hire of Jimmy Iovine, since I feel his way of doing business is completely antithetical to Appl's way (i.e. Through back room deals instead of creating mutually beneficial platforms and products).
What product isn't mediocre by some standard nor successful via marketing by some standard. There isn't any brand you can name that people don't accuse of those two traits.
Comments
It all smells likes crony capitalism at its worst. No one is worth that much. He was Jobs' BFF for years.
I have caught wind of that title, but since I don't have TV, and since I take better care of my POV, I'd rather suggest that the music biz runs on mutual benefit as much as it does on predation. You don't get to where he is by acting like you describe, at least not exclusively. That's just common sense.
That's not an example of crony capitalism. There is no government connection here.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism
You probably just meant to say "cronyism", but that is also inaccurate.
Personally, I think Apple could have resurrected the album sale for true collectors of music and created new album collectors had they put more effort into iTunes LP.
Yep, they're not on that pesky evolutionary treadmill.
Meanwhile, the history of the record biz is full of legendary, beloved developers of artists, along with a fair number of reviled sharks.
Possibly, however digital music downloads favors hit singles (there is no incentive to buy additional songs one may not be familiar with), so we're really right back in the 50's where the hit single became the standard on the music charts.
Is there really value in this method of exclusives in today's day? Is that really going to sell hardware? If it does, I doubt many people are going to decide to change their shopping patterns because its only on iTunes.
AC/DC partially went with Walmart because they initially didn't want digital distribution. And well, Walmart is everywhere. In the end, they ended up at least digital.
People really don't buy music anymore. It all seems to be about streaming. I guess like more like the old days - radio.
Agreed. Focus on high quality and unique stuff.
That's where the iTunes LP could have been brilliant. They could brought back the album art, use higher quality tracks (perhaps even lossless), exclusive album tracks, and videos, images, album notes, etc.
One thing I used to do when I bought a new album was read the notes cover to cover as I listened to it. If I could do the same thing but in a digital form — and without it being some separate PDF that feels out of place — it might have pushed me to start buying albums again.
There's obviously some value to the idea, however the extra development costs for the digital LP all fall on the artists and labels. Those additional costs are evidently something they are unwilling to absorb in an incremental revenue business. Almost no one makes their money on the sale of music alone. Those music sales support touring, licensing and merchandise sales, where the real money is made.
Yeah, that's what I assume are the reasons for their lackadaisical effort.
That's a fair criticism at this early stage.
How ever, it seems to men hat the real fear should have been the acqui-hire of Jimmy Iovine, since I feel his way of doing business is completely antithetical to Appl's way (i.e. Through back room deals instead of creating mutually beneficial platforms and products).
Also a fair criticism.
lol, you beat me to that response.
Whose charts?
I'm hard pressed to see the long term benefit to the Iovine relationship with Apple. The guy is a music industry shark who would be better off on his own packaging deals to offer to Apple (or other bidders, for that matter) and streaming subscriptions are still a very tough nut to crack... Perhaps something that can best be offered as an add-on to satellite radio services?
On John Gruber's most recent podcast he says he's heard the Beats deal was 100% Eddy Cue. Eddy was the one pushing for it inside Apple. I still don't get this deal. Does Apple really need Jimmy Iovine to move iTunes forward? There's lots Apple needs to do to move iTunes into the 21st century but I don't think exclusive album launches from Iovine's music pals is it. I see that as turning people off more than anything because everyone knows getting exclusives like this is just about exchanging lots of $$$ and Iovine calling in favors from his music pals. It's not the same as apps that are iOS only/first because iOS a better and more profitable platform.
Apple needs someone. Apple just still doesn't get anything about cloud based media services. Exclusive content, often inexpensively made is a key advantage in this age of media commoditization. The reality with streaming is that most songs aren't worth $1.29 and most albums certainly aren't worth $12.99. You can have thousands of hours of video for $8-10 a month and trying to stand alone in a sea of sameness there won't get you a cent. Much like how Android is available to everyone, people won't go with a specific service unless there is something special for it. So Netflix has House of Cards and Orange is the new Black. This content doesn't keep a customer forever and much like the syndication they will eventually have to release it out there for others to bid on and show as well but it keeps them in the game and hands them extra money for now.
Who knows what keeps anyone in the game for the long term because the reality is that there are just too many things competing for eyeballs and earlobes. The cost is being driven down to near nil. SNL is making jokes about the podcast Serial for goodness sakes. When the cost to produce is practically nil, the returns are always large in terms of percentages but with so many more providers, the relationship and promotions have to go two ways. Apple will promote an artist because that artist is under contract to them in some regard exclusively or to provide some exclusivity. The artist will make less than they would have if they had hit alone but more than if they were an anonymous face in the crowd.
Branding has a purpose. Apple is a good brand and people pay for that brand. Beats is a good brand. Sure some audiophiles turn up their nose at it but the same class of techno nerd has been doing the same to Apple for ages as well. Beats offers a good all-around solution that people will recognize at a price that is premium to garbage headphones but at the same or cheaper price point than many "better" audio solutions.
Exclusives are a differentiator. That's important when most alternatives are free (there are thousands of sources of free music).
I'm fine if it's exclusives for the right reasons (i.e.the platform is better). How about Iovine use his connections to get great artists to help curate iTunes (and any subscription music service Apple is working on). IMO album exclusives is easy when you have Iovine's connections and Apple's bank account. I hope Apple is working on something more interesting and unique than that.
Artists don't give a crap about software interfaces. Are you seriously suggesting someone go to a Nicki Minaj and tell her that she should avoid selling somewhere else because Apple has a more refined flattened interface on their music app? Why the hell would any artist give a crap about that? Likewise there would be discussion about which artists are even great artists, etc. Apple needs someone at the company who comes up with a better solution than one 50 year old white dude greeting a band of 50 year old white dudes who are giving away their album to the youth of American and the world who are increasingly not white and also could give a crap about 50 year old white dudes.
I'm fine if it's exclusives for the right reasons (i.e.the platform is better). How about Iovine use his connections to get great artists to help curate iTunes (and any subscription music service Apple is working on). IMO album exclusives is easy when you have Iovine's connections and Apple's bank account. I hope Apple is working on something more interesting and unique than that.
Personally, I think Apple could have resurrected the album sale for true collectors of music and created new album collectors had they put more effort into iTunes LP.
Dear Grandpa,
It's very cute that you worry about a format from 1948 that centered around being able to fit 40-ish minutes of music onto one album or 9-10 songs to be packaged and sold by one group or person.
Sadly it is 2014 and no one cares about 40-ish minutes of music from one artist when there are a million said artists begging for our ears and our eyeballs. Said million artists are also BEGGING us to stop listening to other artists so we can also find time to slot them in as well.
Personally, I think Apple could have resurrected the album sale for true collectors of music and created new album collectors had they put more effort into iTunes LP.
Possibly, however digital music downloads favors hit singles (there is no incentive to buy additional songs one may not be familiar with), so we're really right back in the 50's where the hit single became the standard on the music charts.
In this day and age digital doesn't favor anything. The difference between downloaded and entire album or a song over most internet connections is negligible. Apple declares a 5 mbit per second connection would download a single in 4-5 seconds. Most people have speeds double to triple that so split the difference and say the difference between downloading a song (2 seconds) and an album (20-25 seconds) is what.... 18 seconds?
Digital downloads favor nothing. The issue is time, eyeballs and ears and other competing artists. When you are listening to one, you aren't listening to another so the 80/20 principle applies. Most artists produce three maybe four high quality songs per album. Taking one of those high quality songs and having four people remix it provides some additional content for the album (Here is Bang, Bang remixed five different ways for Jessie J lovers.)
Why did you like the liner notes and photos in the LP back in the day? There was no Twitter, no Instagram, no other way to feel closer to an artist. So you'd read who they gave thanks too just so 13 year old you could try to gain some access to the type of person that made this music you love. Now you don't need to do that. You just follow them on Twitter and they'll tweet you a pic of their stocking on Christmas Day.
I didn't like the Beats acquisitionf let price aril because Beats was exactly what anti-Apple fanbois incorrectly derided Apple for being. A mediocre product successful only through marketing.
How ever, it seems to men hat the real fear should have been the acqui-hire of Jimmy Iovine, since I feel his way of doing business is completely antithetical to Appl's way (i.e. Through back room deals instead of creating mutually beneficial platforms and products).
What product isn't mediocre by some standard nor successful via marketing by some standard. There isn't any brand you can name that people don't accuse of those two traits.