11 Feb 2004 | Drew said...

This is a patently stupid idea.

Why would Apple do this?
What incentive do they have?

- The legal and publishing matters for such a feature are complex.
- Apple doesn't want to become a record label or deal with artists and it doesn't have a customer service infrastructure set up to deal with these artists.
- Most artists wouldn't use GarageBand. It's a consumer app - not a professional app.
- Why would people vote? What's the incentive?

How does Apple make more money?
I would see this as diluting the quality of music on iTunes.
They only get music from labels for a reason - the labels do all of the work and Apple just signs them a contract.

Not to mention, GarageBand stuff all sounds canned.

11 Feb 2004 | Steven Garrity said...

If anything, I'd rather see a "Share in itunes" than "sell in itunes".

11 Feb 2004 | RS said...

GarageBand is a fun tool and a great sketchpad, but it's not for serious production. That's what Logic and the rest are for.

However, if Apple made it easy for professional, independent musicians to sell their stuff in an "indie" section, sealed off from the rest of the store... that would be cool.

11 Feb 2004 | Graham Hicks said...

GarageBand seems to put a pretty heavy load on the computer, so chances are, if your computer cant read DVDs then using GarageBand wouldn't be a very fulfilling experience. I'm typing this on a three year old Pismo with a DVD-ROM and wouldn't imagine trying to get it to run GarageBand.
That said, you could copy the disk to an iPod or other FireWire drive and install it from there.

Drew makes a good point that Apple isn't a record label, but I could see a company starting that was a record label that sold GarageBand songs. They could pick out the best submissions and sell them through iTunes.

11 Feb 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

I think you can do this through CDBaby -- or at least you will be able to soon. I remember reading that they were working out a deal with Apple to offer independent music through the iTunes store.

But I don't think the process should be made so easy as just clicking a button. There are sites springing up all over the place for people to post their GarageBand compositions, and I don't think anyone would want to pay money for most of it.

Imagine if AppleWorks had a button to "sell on Amazon.com" so you could instantly sell your poems, essays, rants and raves, etc.....no thanks.

12 Feb 2004 | David S said...

> if your computer cant read DVDs then using GarageBand wouldn't be a very fulfilling experience

Since when did DVD reader translate to bad computer? It's all in the options you get, right?

And, I'd have to agree that GarageBand stuff sounds real canned.

12 Feb 2004 | RS said...

And, I'd have to agree that GarageBand stuff sounds real canned.

As with most things, the truth in this depends on how reliant the user is on templates and loops. It's possible to make things sound fairly decent if you record your own tracks and mix them carefully.

12 Feb 2004 | Erin said...

The idea is certainly within the range of Apple's thinking -- bring exclusive tools and trades to the masses, level the playing field (to a certain extent).

But there are serious legal complications. My understanding is that Apple Corps (the record label which produced Beatles albums) has re-hashed its lawsuit against Apple Computers.

The two companies came to an agreement in 1981 that Apple Computer would strictly use the Apple name for computing only. Apple Corps ended up suing Apple Computers in 1989 because the Mac now had musical capabilities. Apple Computer settled in that case, suggesting they had not violated the agreement.

But now how is Apple Computers to defend the idea they aren't involved in the music business now?

I'd think that opening doors for independent artists to distribute their music is clearly overstepping the bounds of the agreement, regardless of what profit or loss it may bring to Apple Computers. The company would be working as the publishing middleman -- just like Apple Corps would distribute an artists' music via LP, CD, etc.

Don't get me wrong -- I think it is a good idea. The solution just has to come via a third-party or the community as a whole.

12 Feb 2004 | Collin said...

You can open up the iLife '04 .pkg and copy out the GarageBand installer and transfer it (via FireWire, maybe) to your Mac, and install it.

12 Feb 2004 | pb said...

The Apple Corps thing is a non-issue (as are most legal things).

The problem is that this is a bad idea. I think we're underestimating the competence required to produce sellable music. GarageBand-generated music is barely give-awayable, much less sellable.

12 Feb 2004 | Silus Grok said...

Aside from the tone of his post, Drew makes a few salient points... but I think that the real killer here is that other folks are already targetting the GarageBand market.

Perhaps the money to be made in this space would be to offer some licensed functionality to these services to allow direct upload, or some other useful feature?

12 Feb 2004 | One of several Steves said...

The Apple Corps thing is a non-issue (as are most legal things).

That's wishful thinking. Trademark law in the States gives beneift to existing, established marks when it comes to reasonably direct competition. And allows for the same name (not logo treatments, etc.) to be used by companies that are not competiting and where no reasonable person would assume there's a connection implied - like if two companies shared a name, one making cement and the other food.

But, if Apple gets into directly selling music, now they are competing on Apple Corps' turf, and trademark law is not likely to look kindly upon that at all. It's highly improbable that Apple would ever have to give up the name for computers, etc., but they'd probably have to go into the music business under a different name. Which would be a blow from a branding perspective, because the halo an Apple-branded entry into music production and distribution would be lost.

12 Feb 2004 | monkeyinabox said...

it's American Idol in itunes!!! I think the problem with selling your music is how would you prove you didn't steal something (like a sample). And if you did, lawsuits baby.

13 Feb 2004 | Adam said...

Two conversations at once, I'll comment on the latter, people are complaining in the game community about receiving cd booklets the size of encyclopedias, (Unreal Tournament 2003 came on five CDs.) DVDs drives are very common nowadays andit's definitely something to consider for a software developer.

13 Feb 2004 | jazer said...

We've kind of had this discussion over on my site... with similar conclusions.

14 Feb 2004 | Drew said...

I could go on and on - I'll just say this.

There are a lot of bands who have records deals, tour, have merchandise and nice equipment and production - but still Suck Hardcore.

Sites like the late mp3.com, soundclick.com, etc are for this.

Plus - Apple's would be required to screen all submitted music for samples or rip-offs.

14 Feb 2004 | Stefanie Noble said...

FYI - CDBaby-distributed artists are indeed available through iTunes as we speak.

19 Feb 2004 | Aaron said...

I don't mind the idea of (very) indie music on itunes. But there's plenty of great music being made without any help from a record label or Garageband itunes should accept music from anywhere. I'd rather put my $99 towards a new mic...

24 Feb 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I like to slide in at the bottom of a dying thread and leave comments.

:-)