4 ms·
Why I think Apple's Launching a Record Label
- lurkinggrue 17y agoCould Apple be trying to buy out Apple Records? I can't imagine the remaining Beatles letting them use the name Apple for a record label.
- hughprime 17y agoIndeed, as I understand it starting a record label is exactly the one thing which Apple Computer is forbidden from doing, thanks to an earlier deal with Apple Records. I remember the story that this caused a little bit of concern in Apple's legal department when the first macs with built-in microphones were released. This, supposedly, is the reason why the update of the sound software released with those new macs included the new system beep sound "Sosumi". I also remember in those days when I read the story how ridiculous the idea that Apple Computer would start a record label sounded. Just a sign of how much things have changed.
- butterfi 17y agoI love a good story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi
- amohr 17y agoFun Fact: In the 2004 proceeding in the RCJ, the case was handled by "The Honourable Mr Justice Mann"
- 10ren 17y agoI expect that Apple isn't forbidden to do it; just forbidden to use the name "Apple" for that purpose. Solutions: 1. Apple finds (or creates) another company/business/brand to do it. 2. Apple negotiates permission from Apple Records (perhaps involving royalties and the latter's experience at the "artist" end of the business).
- dbreunig 17y agoAuthor here: Excellent point. It fits with the story. With Yoko's late confirmation on Twitter that the Beatles will be on iTunes tomorrow, the last hurdle is clear. The Apple Records/Apple Computer debacle will be put to bed at last as Apple turns iTunes into a label. Yoko, EMI, and the MJ Estate see a fat pay day in exchange (probably no cut taken by apple).
- MaysonL 17y agoAnd people have been wondering why Apple was hoarding so much cash...
- Perceval 17y agoI always enjoy the wholly baseless wild speculation that arrives during the week before an Apple event.
- jobu 17y agoFTFA: "They’ve been hiring H&R types and artist relation managers. Alright, alright, I have no link to the post. But I remember seeing this position when job hunting about a year ago for client-side marketing roles." I assume the author means "A&R" (Artists and Repertoire) here, but the whole article smacks of an Apple fanboy with no clue about the music industry.
- raptrex 17y agoSure Jay Z has his own record label, but he still doesnt tie into the Rock n Roll theme
- joao 17y agoApple already allows you, if you are an artist, to submit yourself for consideration to be featured in the iTunes Music Store. Many, not label signed, indie bands alreay do this. They go through a similar process as the app store aproval, and yes, many are refused. Not mentioning this process in his post, the author shows how he doesn't know what he is writing about really well.
- dbreunig 17y ago(*Clueless) Author here: This process isn't streamlined, you need a hearty foundation of financials to accept payment and there's not a whole lot of relations or management support. PLUS: most of the data on this program is no longer in Apple's support. As of last week I couldn't find any process on their site, even with Dev login to iTunes Manager.
- nuweborder 17y agoThat's the problem. Some indie artits may do this, but not nearly enough, due to Apple's approval process. Most actually are refused as you mentioned, and this is why itunes is not a viable option for unsigned musicians, as many sites are not. The industry is catered to major label musicians, and FCC regulation stricken. It does not meet the needs of the unsigned musician. Checkout Pandora's plight. http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/the-tech-observer/2008/08/18/first-bytes-pandora-u2-fcc-techcrunch-vs-demo/ http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/the-tech-observer/2008/... http://blog.pandora.com/pandora/archives/2009/07/important_updat_1.html http://blog.pandora.com/pandora/archives/2009/07/important_u... http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/14/pandora-teams-up-with-record-labels-wants-regular-radio-to-pay-music-fees-too/ http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/14/pandora-teams-up-with-r...
- zaidf 17y agoIt'd be dumb not to.
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoWhy? In order for that to be the case, all the other functions that labels provide need to be: 1. More profitable than what iTunes already does 2. Something that Apple has the expertise to be able to do 3. Worth the risk of labels ditching iTunes #3 is fairly important...I wouldn't put it above the labels to get together and pull out of iTunes en masse.
- zaidf 17y agoI'd say Apple has a pretty strong grip of selling music and more importantly, they are the unquestioned leader in music innovation.
- dbreunig 17y agoAuthor again: #3 is the reason they didn't do this ages ago. Now that they comprise a quarter of all music being sold, there's simply no way for the labels to walk. Even if they all agreed to, one could stay and reap the profits. If they managed to split all at once they risk being caught as a cartel (but they never could pull it off). Apple essentially owns the most valuable market they exist in. They can't walk. Read the article.
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoWell, I think Apple is going to start a car company, because they already have deals with some car companies to do iPod integration, and all car companies really do is design cars, build them, and put stereo systems in them. I'm sorry, but this seems like the dumbest idea ever. Apple is a technology product company, not a marketing and touring services company. This would be completely outside their area of expertise, and I don't even really see the justification that it would worth the financial risk. iTunes is making money as the distribution arm for the entire industry...what do they gain by trying to pick up the less profitable parts of the value chain? In addition, while the author of the post mentions that labels "book tours", he doesn't really delve into how much of a big deal this is. Nor does he cover how labels help setup and finance production. This is ridiculous.
- philwelch 17y agoApple wouldn't be a traditional record label. They would re-invent the business. They'd probably handle distribution in a way somewhat similar to App Store while outsourcing tours and production of physical CD's--or, perhaps, setting up an ecosystem for artists to hire promotion firms and touring firms like LiveNation while Apple does the distribution side.
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoWhat? That makes no sense...Apple is already effectively outsourcing everything except for the distribution. Furthermore, they're not bound by the bizarre economics of trying to make up for 20 loser albums with 1 spectacular winner; Apple makes roughly the same amount on each song they sell. And with the way the music industry is going, it hardly seems clear that it would be a good idea to move more in the direction of a label, even a non-traditional one.
- dflock 17y agoApple already control the profits and destiny of all the existing record labels by being the gatekeeper of something like ~80% of digital sales (i.e. ~80% of ~99% of all sales, eventually) via iTunes. They have already managed, apparently without waking the slumbering record industry, to sneak in and take over control of distribution - the only profitable thing about being a record label in the first place. Not just one labels, or one markets distribution either, but all of it - all 'legal' digital music retail distribution, pretty much. I'm not sure that the traditional phrase 'record label' really contains meaning, from here on out, anyway. If I can record some music using my digital studio (shhh, it's just a pc, but don't tell anyone), sign up to iTunes Music Store as an artist and just start selling it, I would. So, not only have Apple pinched the whole music distribution business out from under the majors, they've also provided the opportunity for people to sidestep most of the middlemen altogether. Notably, Apple will also sell you the software & hardware for your digital studio too, if you like. So, the App store for Recording Artists, not Software Developers, with the artists getting a much bigger (like 20x bigger, or more) cut than they do now. Rating and reviews doing your marketing. Sounds like an idea who's time has finally come. The Monopoly is dead, long live the Monopoly. Ties in nicely with this which I was reading just the other day: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/08/23/On-Music http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/08/23/On-Music
- chrischen 17y ago> They have already managed, apparently without waking the slumbering record industry, to sneak in and take over control of distribution Can't the record labels just jack up prices for iTunes?
- steveklabnik 17y agoThey've been trying to do that for quite a while. It never really works...
- dflock 17y agoThere's a certain amount of internal competition within the iTunes market that prevents this working across the board. Also, the 99c thing is pretty sacred - if it went up to $2.50 across the board, there would be a huge backlash, which Apple (being teflon coated) would just redirect to the RIAA/record labels - who everyone already 'knows' are evil anyway; ergo (even more) huge PR disaster for the majors.
- chrischen 17y agoiTunes for digital mass distribution, social music apps for viral marketing: the time is nigh for self distribution through Apple to happen!
- mr_eel 17y agoI don't agree with the general thrust of this post, but first, some nitpicking: "Because in the end, all a label really does is market, distribute, and schedule tours." No actually. For starters, touring is generally handled by the artists and their managers. Up till now, it's been uncommon to have labels involved -- although this is changing as we see majors scrabble for more money. The author is also forgetting the actual production of the music. A label generally fronts the money for a producer, engineer and studio time. Not to mention the mastering required for distribution. This isn't to say labels are the only avenue for funding recording, but it is one important thing that they do and that the imaginary Apple label won't. "Digital music has reached an audience where this makes sense. 25% of all music sold in the US (physical and digital) is sold through iTunes." That's impressive, but 25% still means there are a lot of other retailers shifting music. I can't imagine artists -- especially independent ones -- limiting themselves to just that chunk of the market. The only way around that is if Apple starts distributing music through other retailers. Not likely in my opinion. "They’ve been hiring H&R types and artist relation managers." A few AR and HR hires does not translate into the kind of marketing needed to support thousands of individual artists. If they did start a label, Apple may forego this, but a few hires is not evidence enough. We should not underestimate the importance of _individualised_ marketing for artists. I have a hard time seeing Apple doing this. "Why Jay-Z? Well, Jay-Z isn’t really on a major label." He does run a label though. I don't think he wants to cut himself out of the loop by helping Apple launch a label. One of the major roles a label has is to editorialise. They hunt for and preen artists. They pay for recording, they tailor the marketing and distribute the music. How can Apple do this on a large scale? If they can't do it on a large scale, why would they bother? Is it open to all artists or are they going to pick and choose? Pick and choose means limiting the scale of the operation. Making it open risks having Apple associated with music and ideas that conflict with their tightly controlled marketing. Retail is just retail, but being a label means "blessing" the content. I can't see Apple wanting to lose that control. I really don't think the author understands how music gets produced and sold. I know it's popular to underplay the role of a label and simply conflate them with distribution, but in reality it's more complex. Some labels are arguably leeches and some work really hard to make their artists successful. Irregardless, they're not easily replaced by some monolithic Apple label.
- 17y ago
- ThomPete 17y agoIsn't it much more likely that they buy a digital distribution service like http://fuga.me http://fuga.me ?
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoYeah, the keynote just ended and no announcements even remotely like this. What a shock!