11 Apr 2003 | Paul said...

Apple probably has the best shot to actually shake up the music industry, solely because they are technology people. The music industry has demonstrated that it doesn't get technology the same way consumers do. Apple has demonstrated time and again it gets technology, especially at the consumer level. That is a fantastic match.

I think this could make or break Apple, but if they make the process painless (1-Click?) and affordable, I think people may come around. If the price point is too high, I fear the worst.

11 Apr 2003 | fajalar said...

If they could fit music purchasing into iTunes (or it's next iteration) and make it affordable 50-75 cents a song, I would buy more music. Right now my money goes elsewhere. I just get tired of buying CDs with 3 great, 5 so-so, and 6 crappy songs.

And they could get the music industry to subsidize the iPod... "Buy an iPod and get 500 free songs." Or lower the price of the iPod and offer a free 2-year subscription to the music service. Something to bring the price down, while still building incentive to purchase other things.

You have to give people the tools to use the digital music service. If they could get iPods to be a little more ubiquitous, there would probably be a lot more people willing to particitpate in a digital music service.

11 Apr 2003 | Don Schenck said...

What Fajalar said.

Fajalar! We AGREE on something! :-)

11 Apr 2003 | Benjy said...

This rumor, along with Apple's upcoming download service that's supposed to launch at the end of the month and the next generation iPods really could push Apple to the leading edge of the music industry.

Personally, I think it's a great move because there is an obvious disconnect between what the major record labels offer and what music consumers want. I believe that the rise of Napster, etc. was due to this fact. But Apple may just be positioning itself to become the hub of digitally distributed music, giving music consumers, artists, and the labels what they want.

How long before we see iTunes servers connected to our home stereos and serving up music to our iPods, iCar and who knows what else. Could the MP3 be the killer ap that brings Apple to the forefront of the consumer market again?

And then it could replicate it all with movies...

11 Apr 2003 | p8 said...

fajalar great idea! The I-pod instead of a CD as a music carrier.

11 Apr 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Carry your iPod. Plug it into -- that is to say, into a slot -- on your home stereo.

Ditto your car.

Music, portability, reduced chance of theft.

Like it; where do I sign??

11 Apr 2003 | Tim said...

As an aside, did you all see the (alleged) sort-of-redesigned iPod [via Gizmodo]? Looks like they took the control buttons off that central wheel thingy and gave them their own real-estate. I don't own one, so I can't comment on the goodness/badness of this...

11 Apr 2003 | fajalar said...

Well, my work is done here. Writing a post that was literate, having other posters agree with me.

Where will I go? What will I do? Only the wind and time will tell.

"Fajalar? Yes, I knew him. He made the world a better place."

;P !

11 Apr 2003 | pb said...

Sounds like an awful move. It would guarantee the other studios not working with Apple making it's music service completely irrelevant.

11 Apr 2003 | yuckmouth said...

Sounds like an awful move. It would guarantee the other studios not working with Apple making it's music service completely irrelevant. I don't agree with that. If it is a success, other studios will want to follow suit. Perhaps Apple could spin off a "neutral" company that strictly handle this sales model?

Funny stuff Falajar - I will remember.

11 Apr 2003 | Steve said...

There may be some potential there - I was thinking somewhat along the lines of what fajalar said - but overall this just smacks of a disastrous business move. To get any sort of small or by-song online purchase scheme going, you're going to need the participation and cooperation of more than just one record company. Current pay services are not doing well. Part of it is crappy interfaces, which Apple could improve upon.

But the biggest reason I think this has disaster written all over it is that it's very, very, very, very rare that companies succeed when they purchase a company that has nothing to do with what their core business is. Rare is a 3M or GE that can do a billion unlreated things. Integration issues are an enormous mess, you don't have people who know how to run the new sort of business, etc. Not saying it couldn't work, but the odds are stacked against Apple.

11 Apr 2003 | Benjy said...

But the biggest reason I think this has disaster written all over it is that it's very, very, very, very rare that companies succeed when they purchase a company that has nothing to do with what their core business is.

Except that it has al lot to do with Apples strategy lately. Take a look at their iLife software suite. They've been positioning their products, at least when targeting home comsumers, as the digital media hub.

Apple is beginning to grasp how different technologies are finally converging in ways that are easy to use and make sense. It used to be that a camera interacted with film and the drugstore. Your stereo interacted with cassettes and CDs. Your video camera with the VCR and TV. Each their own little domain.

But its changing, and Apple's bringing it all together. They're not going to take your vacation pictures of videotape your family events, because that's personal to you. But they can provide the music and movie content pipeline. And by buying a record label, the would have content to experiment with, without the typical hurdles and fears created by the labels and studios today.

11 Apr 2003 | Steve said...

Except that it has al lot to do with Apples strategy lately. Take a look at their iLife software suite. They've been positioning their products, at least when targeting home comsumers, as the digital media hub.

I'd disagree that creating tools for media consumption is related to creating content. Sony is the only company I can think of that handles both the "hardware" - for purpsoes of this discussion, think of the players like iTunes as hardware - and the software (content creation) end of things. And it's been an extremely rocky road for them. Plus, they're many, many times larger than Apple and therefore had a lot of extra flexibility to get through the years of losing a lot of money on the media creation side.

Apple has a tremendous opportunity in creating digital entertainment hubs - if they don't fall to the mistakes of the past and make everything Mac-only (witness the success of the PC-based iPod). But creating the media to be consumed in these hubs is really a different business entirely.

11 Apr 2003 | Darrel said...

Tim: I'm thinking that that artist's rendition was pulled out of his ass.

As for Apple buying a label, I'm not sure why they'd do that as oppossed to just starting their own label...grab the cast of that Apple ad they did a while back and go for it.

11 Apr 2003 | e.fladung said...

I'd love to see Apple buy UMG. I'd love to see how they change music distribution and knock the socks off companies like Sony. But i don't think this has anything to do with the coming Apple music service. Apple's service is really just the best possible test scenario for the labels. 3% of computer users essentially beta-testing a legal downloads service (and i'd say maybe 1% of that 3% will be actually downloading music on a regular basis). I'm positive that Jobs used this approach in the sell to the labels. It's the only thing that makes sense.

If Apple does buy UMG, they will need to figure out how to integrate the other 97% of computer users, on top of keeping traditional music distribution going. There is no way my grand-dad is gonna download music to his computer to burn a cd. He's gonna go to music-o-rama to buy it, old school style. for most people, it actually makes more sense to get in the car and go buy the cd then to have to figure out how to do it digitally. Apple will definitely have their work cut out for them. But with Apple/Pixar/UMG together, oh my the possibilities are endless!

11 Apr 2003 | Doug said...

By buying Universal they'd be able to guarantee that any Microsoft/RIAA/whomever-headed music media control in the future would have to pass through Apple's approval (or risk losing the large flock of acts on Universal). They'd be able to always remain relevant and instead of having to go along to what larger bodies choose, would be the ones dictating the course of things to come.

Also, it'd just be another nice way of supporting Apple by getting Universal products, for those of us who can't afford to always buy the latest platinum goodness.

11 Apr 2003 | Ry Rivard said...

Two links come to mind, Jared North does a nice little dissection of Apple's bid and, from winter, Tom Coates' observations and speculations on the future of the music industry.

The one thing I worry about that was mentioned the piecemeal buying of tracks as opposed to albums.

We all like 3 great songs and our 5 so-sos, but those 6 pieces of crap are not crap to everyone and are often essential in understanding the art beyond the marketing. True, the album is a very new thing (the phonogram, the LP, etc), but a set of music determined by the artist is not (concerts, recitals, etc).

As much as I would love to be able to just get the one or two songs off a CD that I want--and this is precisely what I would do, making myself a hypocrite--the whole experience should sometimes stay intact, at the artists request. A minor quibble perhaps, but it seems important to allow the artist some, even minute and bypassable, control over the progression of their opuses.

11 Apr 2003 | jazer said...

I too don't want to see the album go away.

Part of why I like iTunes so much is that I can open up 'Browse' mode and look at (and play) a complete album. Apple ought to mirror that functionality (to some extent) in the way it sells music.

It also depends what kind of music you are talking about -- trust me, there is no "art beyond the marketing" to an album by Britney Spears. Today's pop music market is singles-driven, today's 'albums' are simply vehicles for those singles.

12 Apr 2003 | over it said...

apple is done. despite better design, they have less than 5% market share of the software industry. bill gates owns big part of them anyway. only traditional graphic designers (ie: print me an annual report) or the odd man out owns them. who really cares what they do?

no matter how many commercials, product placements, or stores they might build, apple's days are numbered. remember betamax? my parents had one. hehe. but fight it as long as you have breath... microsoft is the usa of the planet and will rule one way or another.

12 Apr 2003 | kev said...

over it:

Oh, you. Flame-baiting on svn. silly you.

12 Apr 2003 | brian said...

i have an honest question here, maybe someone may be able to answer it. how have SINGLES sales done since the birth of the file-trading phenomenon? I would think their sales would have tanked (I mean, who wants to pay $6 for 2 brittney songs). Then as a sidenote, how much of record sales do singles account for?

12 Apr 2003 | Drew said...

bill gates owns big part of them anyway.

Microsoft has sold their Apple stock over the past 2-3 years.
and it was non-voting shares.

Apple's & of sales sits at around 4% now
their installed base (% of computers out there) is something like 7%

Macs also still dominate professional video and music production.

Not that Apple doesn't need to get it's butt in gear . . .

this UMG is scary
but I see how it could work.

12 Apr 2003 | wr said...

Having worked in the music industry and the tech industry (what joy, to have my entire professional experience in two hemmoraging industries) I would be VERY nervous about such a move. Despite any theoretical benefits, the music industry seems to operate on a sub-professional level concerned only with short term goals and surface; i.e. this week album X is the MOST IMPORTANT thing in the world, next week it's like "huh? never heard of it". Changing that model without replacing almost the entire workforce would be very very difficult.

Apple as a business is on the way up - the marriage of unix with ui, plus products like their rack-mounted server means they could make some real noise in the corporate space (especially if they do a better job keeping their JVM up to date). As a Java developer almost all the software I own and use will run as well on OS X as it does on Windows XP.

13 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

they should concentrate on getting OS X to work properly first.
Im ready to throw it out and go back to 9.

nice info wr.

14 Apr 2003 | over it said...

Oh, you. Flame-baiting on svn. silly you.

yup. gotta love svn for their lack of censorhip. where else can you find and bash mac lovin folks? seriously, it is a better product. i just don't see how it can survive. good design and better quality rarely do... peace.

14 Apr 2003 | hurley#1 said...

I don't think Apple's doing so badly: 30 million people using Macs is a pretty respectable number even if it's less than 5% of the market. And the popularity of Macs is growing, not so much because of the "switch" campaign but because Unix users are falling in love with OSX.

I've been using OSX for two years now and while it was a rocky transition at first I would never go back to OS 9. I've only had one system crash in two years and now that I'm adjusted to the interface I find OS 9 less intuitive (it was the other way 'round at first...I think it takes at least a year to really get used to a new operating system). Every operating system has bugs and problems and OSX is no exception, but I like it better than any other OS I've used.

14 Apr 2003 | fajalar said...

I've been using OSX for two years now and while it was a rocky transition at first I would never go back to OS 9.

Me too. I look at OS9 and shudder now. There are still some things that are good about it, but OSX is the only OS that ever runs on my machine. If Classic Mode trys to start up, I just don't do what I was trying to do.

I had 2 system crashes with 10, but since the first upgrade the only thing that crashes is an application now and then. Not a big deal. Much different than my work computer, but that may have something to do with NT. We're getting XP this year, hopefully it will be better.

30 million people using Macs is a pretty respectable number...

I wonder how many that really is. 30 million Macs in use, or 30 million people using Macs.

15 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

I've been using OSX for two years now and while it was a rocky transition at first I would never go back to OS 9. I've only had one system crash in two years and now that I'm adjusted to the interface I find OS 9 less intuitive
---
Thats my problem - I dont want to go back but illustrator 10 has nothing but problems with OSX (10.2.4), I lose all my settings with each new start, it crashes all my software frequently, Quark doesnt even run on it, suitcase sucks, the list goes on and on. Ive been told by my printers that they went back to 9 and wont touch OSX again until its a dependable program - they lost a ton of money with switching back and forth. Does anyone have a tip where I can find a good forum with answers?

15 Apr 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Thats my problem - I dont want to go back but illustrator 10 has nothing but problems with OSX (10.2.4),

I would submit that this is a problem with Illustrator rather than OSX. The operating system itself is pretty solid; if your programs are crashing it's most likely the manufacturer's fault, not Apple's.

Quark is coming out with an OSX version, but knowing them I bet the first release or two will be pretty buggy. All the graphic designers I work with are sticking with OS9 until stable versions of the software they use every day are available. It'll happen, but we ain't there yet.

17 Apr 2003 | alisha said...

thanx Hurley1 - ill check into it.

14 Oct 2003 | WANG CHUNG said...

iTHIN THAT suddam hates the U.S. who is with me?

03 Jan 2004 | casino said...

Very informed and interesting comments! Greetings from Hadealer team

05 Jan 2004 | casino said...

Excellent site I have bookmarked your site and I will come back soon!