Apple will not show any preference for Mac user other than building in support for Music Downloads into the OS.
The object in Music is to distribute as much as you can. Offer it to everyone. Apple can then offer their own ways of access ing these files in OSX .
This will work. Sometimes a product has to be cast away to grow. Does anyone think the the eventual Final Cut Pro would have flourished under Macromedia's guidance? Vivendi probably just doesn't see how to get to that next step as clearly as Apple does. There's no harm in that.
haha, well, if it helps, I doubt my scoopage too. It's not like anyone was whispering in my ear, I just heard a little conversation on a theme and the concensus seemed to be that Apple wouldn't be able to make buyout/merger work because of other stuff possibly going on at Vivendi, which I didn't understand. Then again, this bunch is pessimistic about everything. Funny then, that I could have heard about something less than two days before it was all over the net. At the least we can guess that Apple and Vivendi were deep enough into talks to send some pretty far reaching ripples. At this point such tightly wrapped discussions may have only broken because the likelihood of a deal had already slipped past and one side or the other was excercising a little retribution, mebbe?
I dunno, it was probably just guys who know just a little more than we do playing closet analyst. Personally, I think it's a good idea for Apple to diversify their revenue stream. That back catalogue is worth a lot of money and a new delivery paradigm could put them over the top. Nothings confirmed either way.
I can tell you from inside experience that the whole RIAA and label bitching that has been coming out about how pirated CD's etc are killing the industry is a bunch of BS. The problem lies with the greed of the labels. I work in production, I am directly involved in the process of the manufacturing of, costs of, and labor costs of releasing an album. I also have a very close friend who works in royalties. It's sick how the music companies operate and the fact that sales are down is there own damn fault and not because people are ripping music. It's because CD's are still being priced at $17.98. The movie studios were brilliant when DVD's came out cause they priced them very very well and they are flying off of shelves. Wanna know how much it costs to release a CD? Keep in mind that all the majors own their own distribution. Hell, my label owns the printer that prints the graphics, the plant that manufactures it and the distrubutor.
Burn master to glass
Duplicate CD's
Single Disc
Artwork on the disc 4-color
Jewel Case
Clear Tray
12 page book 4-color
Inlay card
Shrinkwrap
Sticker
Spine sticker on the top of the jewel case
Labor
Carton for the cd's to ship in
$1.10 (roughly, give or take some cents)
Um...the artist doesn't get $16.88 in royalties. Actually with royalties and marketing included it's still under $3. THAT is what is wrong with the music business.
Yep that sounds about right to me, even short run 1000 cds or less isnt really much more than that.. Another thing to consider with all the bitching they do is that the sales of dvd and computer games have skyrocketed, people just dont have the money to buy everything so while they may not be making as much in $$ sales on cds you can be sure they are making it up and more on dvd and games sales.
To me it seems like a mistake unless Universal Records really is a profitable venture. But if it was, why does Vivendi want to get rid of it so eagerly?
Because Vivendi went on an ill-advised shopping spree, accumulated $30 billion in debt to do so, and then imploded. They're looking to either raise about $7 billion in cash or erase that much debt on their balance sheet, soon.
Basically, even though Universal is profitable, Vivendi needs to stabilize itself. Oh, and its investors want to refocus the company after the last buying spree, so divestiture is one of the best ways they have of regaining their investors' confidence.
Basically, even though Universal is profitable, Vivendi needs to stabilize itself. Oh, and its investors want to refocus the company after the last buying spree, so divestiture is one of the best ways they have of regaining their investors' confidence.
1) Universal's profits have been on the decline.
2) Apple's going to have to make a tough sell to whichever crack-smoking investment bankers looking to help make this acquisition possible...
The value to Apple would not be in the management of UMG. It would be in the sheer volume of music it sells.
If Apple's music eStore is a sucess, then they will be able to 0wn the music industry. It will be the only legal yet popular avenue for online music, and so if Apple charges 25¢ a song for their music, the other labels would have to, as Apple would be selling about 1/4 of the music in the world. In other words, Apple can say "You charge what we tell you to!"
Apple Said to Discuss a Music Deal, but Not Too Seriously
By GERALDINE FABRIKANT with LAURA M. HOLSON
Apple, the iconoclastic computer maker, has discussed an investment in Universal Music, the world's largest recording company, people close to the discussions said yesterday. These people, however, also cautioned that a deal was unlikely to be concluded.
Charles Wolf, who follows Apple for Needham & Company, said that an investment in Universal Music "does not play to the company's competitive advantages."
"That is software design," he added. "They have a suite of software programs that provide a digital entertainment. The part that I find difficult to understand is that they are not in the content business and they know nothing about it."
Analysts are so thick skulled.
Hey Charley what would you call Pixar?? For the record I agree this deal won't go through. But I think it would be a good thing for Apple if it did. I heard Analysts make similar claims once the iPod came out. "Apple cannot compete with more established Device Makers" Funny how no one tracks these people for accuracy. I'm sure you'd find startling results.
If nothing else, it'll signal that Apple is willing to put its money where its mouth is, and how.
Good thought. Maybe that is all that Apple intends to do. It sure gets attention, and lets the industry know how serious Apple is about music.
A question occurred to me. For such a large acquisition and diversification, wouldn't approval be required from the board of directors? There are limits to how much a CEO can do on his or her own discretion. I think something like buying Universal Music is not just a SJ decision.
Comments
Sony can't "Print Money" with an OS.
Apple will not show any preference for Mac user other than building in support for Music Downloads into the OS.
The object in Music is to distribute as much as you can. Offer it to everyone. Apple can then offer their own ways of access ing these files in OSX .
This will work. Sometimes a product has to be cast away to grow. Does anyone think the the eventual Final Cut Pro would have flourished under Macromedia's guidance? Vivendi probably just doesn't see how to get to that next step as clearly as Apple does. There's no harm in that.
Originally posted by hmurchison
The Sony/ Apple comparison won't work.
For the second time, I was not comparing the two!
I dunno, it was probably just guys who know just a little more than we do playing closet analyst. Personally, I think it's a good idea for Apple to diversify their revenue stream. That back catalogue is worth a lot of money and a new delivery paradigm could put them over the top. Nothings confirmed either way.
-the switch to Intel [64]
-the release of a "lite" version of the OSX for all X86 machines for 99$
-the further "Open Sourcing" of Quicktime
-the introduction of Digital Lifestyle Convergence Devices [tablets, set-top boxes, cinema displays and OLED displays with HDTV receivers]
Originally posted by bluesigns
i think of this in conjunction with some future moves to capture massive market share:
-the switch to Intel [64]
-the release of a "lite" version of the OSX for all X86 machines for 99$
-the further "Open Sourcing" of Quicktime
-the introduction of Digital Lifestyle Convergence Devices [tablets, set-top boxes, cinema displays and OLED displays with HDTV receivers]
So, you're putting this in the Not Gonna Happen(tm) realm?
edit: WTF is up with Safari screwing up the (tm) character?
Originally posted by Bodhi
I can tell you from inside experience that the whole RIAA and label bitching that has been coming out about how pirated CD's etc are killing the industry is a bunch of BS. The problem lies with the greed of the labels. I work in production, I am directly involved in the process of the manufacturing of, costs of, and labor costs of releasing an album. I also have a very close friend who works in royalties. It's sick how the music companies operate and the fact that sales are down is there own damn fault and not because people are ripping music. It's because CD's are still being priced at $17.98. The movie studios were brilliant when DVD's came out cause they priced them very very well and they are flying off of shelves. Wanna know how much it costs to release a CD? Keep in mind that all the majors own their own distribution. Hell, my label owns the printer that prints the graphics, the plant that manufactures it and the distrubutor.
Burn master to glass
Duplicate CD's
Single Disc
Artwork on the disc 4-color
Jewel Case
Clear Tray
12 page book 4-color
Inlay card
Shrinkwrap
Sticker
Spine sticker on the top of the jewel case
Labor
Carton for the cd's to ship in
$1.10 (roughly, give or take some cents)
Um...the artist doesn't get $16.88 in royalties. Actually with royalties and marketing included it's still under $3. THAT is what is wrong with the music business.
Yep that sounds about right to me, even short run 1000 cds or less isnt really much more than that.. Another thing to consider with all the bitching they do is that the sales of dvd and computer games have skyrocketed, people just dont have the money to buy everything so while they may not be making as much in $$ sales on cds you can be sure they are making it up and more on dvd and games sales.
At last someone big enough to tame them. Apple!
Barto
Originally posted by Eugene
To me it seems like a mistake unless Universal Records really is a profitable venture. But if it was, why does Vivendi want to get rid of it so eagerly?
Because Vivendi went on an ill-advised shopping spree, accumulated $30 billion in debt to do so, and then imploded. They're looking to either raise about $7 billion in cash or erase that much debt on their balance sheet, soon.
Basically, even though Universal is profitable, Vivendi needs to stabilize itself. Oh, and its investors want to refocus the company after the last buying spree, so divestiture is one of the best ways they have of regaining their investors' confidence.
Originally posted by Amorph
Basically, even though Universal is profitable, Vivendi needs to stabilize itself. Oh, and its investors want to refocus the company after the last buying spree, so divestiture is one of the best ways they have of regaining their investors' confidence.
1) Universal's profits have been on the decline.
2) Apple's going to have to make a tough sell to whichever crack-smoking investment bankers looking to help make this acquisition possible...
If Apple's music eStore is a sucess, then they will be able to 0wn the music industry. It will be the only legal yet popular avenue for online music, and so if Apple charges 25¢ a song for their music, the other labels would have to, as Apple would be selling about 1/4 of the music in the world. In other words, Apple can say "You charge what we tell you to!"
Barto
PS Arrrgggg!
By GERALDINE FABRIKANT with LAURA M. HOLSON
Apple, the iconoclastic computer maker, has discussed an investment in Universal Music, the world's largest recording company, people close to the discussions said yesterday. These people, however, also cautioned that a deal was unlikely to be concluded.
Complete story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/12/bu...ia/12MUSI.html
For those who really want to view it (without registering), just replace "www" with "archive".
That is; http://archive.nytimes.com/2003/04/1...ia/12MUSI.html
Barto
Originally posted by Clive
How about cost of....
None of that matters for your back catalogue.
Charles Wolf, who follows Apple for Needham & Company, said that an investment in Universal Music "does not play to the company's competitive advantages."
"That is software design," he added. "They have a suite of software programs that provide a digital entertainment. The part that I find difficult to understand is that they are not in the content business and they know nothing about it."
Analysts are so thick skulled.
Hey Charley what would you call Pixar?? For the record I agree this deal won't go through. But I think it would be a good thing for Apple if it did. I heard Analysts make similar claims once the iPod came out. "Apple cannot compete with more established Device Makers" Funny how no one tracks these people for accuracy. I'm sure you'd find startling results.
Originally posted by Amorph
If nothing else, it'll signal that Apple is willing to put its money where its mouth is, and how.
Good thought. Maybe that is all that Apple intends to do. It sure gets attention, and lets the industry know how serious Apple is about music.
A question occurred to me. For such a large acquisition and diversification, wouldn't approval be required from the board of directors? There are limits to how much a CEO can do on his or her own discretion. I think something like buying Universal Music is not just a SJ decision.
NYPOST.COM Business: NOW IT'S M'SOFT By TIM ARANGO and ERICA COPULSKY
Originally posted by torifile
edit: WTF is up with Safari screwing up the (tm) character?
It's a bug, it can't properly post upper ascii values (ie accented characters TM, R, C... lots of other stuff in everyday "English" usage).