The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Universal Music May Not Renew iTunes Contract
online.wsj.com — Highlighting ongoing tension between the music industry and Apple Inc., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group is set to notify the Cupertino, Calif. company that it is not renewing a long term contract to sell digital music downloads through the increasingly powerful iTunes Store, according to people familiar with the situation.
ih8apple- 1221 diggs
- digg it
- cambrown99, on 10/11/2007, -13/+277In future news: Universal Music's profits have dropped significantly.
- Loyaleagle, on 10/11/2007, -6/+26If you read the second paragraph it really just means their new contract will be shorter-term....
- tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -3/+40If Universal pulls out, we'll all just pirate their music. EMI will still make money. Sadly, the Big 4 are NOT in competition with each other.
- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -32/+16People don't use iTunes because it's Apple, they use it because it's got the music they want. Apple and the labels are in it together - Apple has tied it to virtually their entire product range, and they have a monopoly on legal online distribution.
But while they're in it together, Apple can't afford to lose Universal and the other major labels. Major labels *can* afford to move to Zune or Napster or whatever other marketplace they want, and customers will follow because major labels own pretty much all popular music.
Steve Jobs should be sweating right about now.- smackhero, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17you really think that iTune users--all 30+ million of them as of january '07--are going to switch over to a different media player & music download service? and you think iPod owners (90+ million) are going to start using MS Surge?
- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7No, but if they woke up one day and discovered that all the music they wanted was no longer on iTunes I think they'd be inclined to buy it from wherever that music went to. It wouldn't necessarily be Microsoft, and it wouldn't necessarily mean switching to another program although it could involve using an additional program. The point is, people don't use iTunes for the software they use it for the content they can buy there.
The record labels have bargaining power now - Apple needs them more than they need Apple. Apple's tied iTunes into virtually every product they have while the record labels can move with relative ease to whatever distribution company they want.
PS.
I'm sure I read iTunes has had ~500,000,000 downloads? They surely have more than 30,000,000 users. - hypercrypt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I think it's 300 million users (iTunes use is greater than iPod ownership, obviously).
I do not think that most iTunes users will be purchasing music from any other store, especially the iPod users. The "additional program" would probably be LimeWire, a Bittorrent client or another P2P program. I for one am not going to pay any money to purchase a song in wma format that will not play on my iPod, thus it will have to be iTunes or CDs, not Napster or any other DRMed market place.
- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7No, but if they woke up one day and discovered that all the music they wanted was no longer on iTunes I think they'd be inclined to buy it from wherever that music went to. It wouldn't necessarily be Microsoft, and it wouldn't necessarily mean switching to another program although it could involve using an additional program. The point is, people don't use iTunes for the software they use it for the content they can buy there.
- ScrumFritter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Take that back! His Steveness does NOT sweat!
- smackhero, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17you really think that iTune users--all 30+ million of them as of january '07--are going to switch over to a different media player & music download service? and you think iPod owners (90+ million) are going to start using MS Surge?
- seibed, on 10/11/2007, -4/+27but that's OK, because all drops in music buying are related to piracy, not bad business decisions or crappy music... right?
- christianw, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18dont worry everyone. this release is just a ploy by universal for what they think will be a big bargaining chip at the negotiation table. one thing history has taught us, is steve jobs cannot be intimidated ever.
- hunchback, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3If humans eventually evolve into mutants ala X-men, then Steve J may be among the first, what with his RDF powers.
But I would root for Apple in this tug of war between Universal and Apple. I would go so far as to say, ***** universal music if they want to raise rates.
- hunchback, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3If humans eventually evolve into mutants ala X-men, then Steve J may be among the first, what with his RDF powers.
- Quix, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24"Major labels *can* afford to move to Zune" - fkr3
Yeah, I hear there are *dozens* of Zune owners now.
Apple's bread and butter isn't in selling music, it's in selling hardware. Universal, however, is in the business of selling media. Tell me again who can't afford to lose whom?- zachgc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Exactly, Apple doesn't exactly rake in tons-o-cash from song sales. If anything, Apple sees iTunes as a feature of the iPod. However unlikely, if somehow Universal decided to pull their catalog from iTunes, the effect on overall iPod sales would be negligible.
On a personal note... I couldn't care less about not being able to pay for the privilege to download a 50 Cent or Eminem album. - TechCF, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The Zune store only works in the US, whereas iTunes works in most contries in the developed world
@fkr3: Most major labels would loose most of their digital market by selling on Zune, which only works in the US. Understand?- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Zune was just an example. There are other places you can buy music online, any could be substituted into my argument. Zune just happens to be one of the 3 I know of - iTunes, Napster and Zune.
- zachgc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Exactly, Apple doesn't exactly rake in tons-o-cash from song sales. If anything, Apple sees iTunes as a feature of the iPod. However unlikely, if somehow Universal decided to pull their catalog from iTunes, the effect on overall iPod sales would be negligible.
- superkendall, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5If Universal pulls out, it doesn't hurt Apple much - the store selection gets a little slimmer. But people would still buy iPods, and iPhones, and what have you - you all forget the iPod was popular well before the store was ever even around! Since Apple is just breaking even with the store, Universal needs ITMS a lot more than ITMS needs universal.
- Philluminati, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3A little slimmer? Try more than a quater. Huge names to like U2. People would notice and they won't be impressed.
- christianw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1bono and steve are friends. you can pretty much guarantee u2 will always be there. i believe u2 even helped promote the ipod's initial launch didnt they?
- Philluminati, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3A little slimmer? Try more than a quater. Huge names to like U2. People would notice and they won't be impressed.
- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Zune isn't the only alternative and Universal isn't the only major label. Between the various major labels (aka the RIAA) they matter more to Apple then Apple does to them. I don't think consumers are going to care much if they're clicking "Buy" on iTunes or "Buy" on any other (not specifically or explicitly Zune) market place.
- thewaxgrid, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2That's assuming they are making profits, which hasn't been the case for at least a few years. I know, big shock, given how they price-gauged consumers in the 1990s, but things do change. If they are losing money with iTunes, I can't blame them for ditching it.
Still think they are making loads? Read this: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/15137581/the_record_industrys_decline/1- pfranz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Yeah, but if they've been gouging the customer for more than 10 years, then they've build up quite a bit of "extra" (and overpaid) jobs. When the time get tough is when you have to slim down to what's really necessary. If they're not making a profit on iTunes, then maybe they're spending too much money elsewhere. I know the price of good engineers hasn't gone down, but with new equipment the cost of studio time (and making your own studio) has. Also, with all this automation and digitalification, engineers are more productive in less time. So you pay less engineers for less time for the same result.
- BobOki, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4OHHH BOO HOOO the record industry will actually have to run itself like a business, not a overly fed fatass machine. They might have to start making actual business decisions, discontinue its millions of factories pumping out cds that sell for $15-20 but cost $0.10 to make.
"We are losing sooo much money!"
No, you are not losing it, you are just starting to get what your product is worth. You are no longer $500 gajillion business with 50% or more of it going directly to bogus overpriced costs, you are now a 300-400 million dollar business and you now make money off the songs, not your ridiculously overpriced cds that you had a monopoly on for so many years.
Cry me a ***** waterfall and then jump off record industry.
- rebrad, on 10/11/2007, -38/+4Will this require Apple to deactivate all Universal tunes on users iPod's? Sucks if it does but since the users don't own the songs I can see this happening.
- obey43, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11theres no way that could happen, even if thats true "they dont own the songs" as some say, imagine the backlash
- ericdano, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26When you buy something off the iTunes store, you own it. They can't deactivate them. Get a clue guy. You are thinking SUBSCRIPTION MUSIC.
- Radionesiac, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11what? if you purchase it, you DO own it. that's the point.
- seithon, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Actually since most music companies have the opinion that your simply buying a licence to listen to the music.. By rejecting the licence to apple are they not also rejecting the licence to the people that brought from apple ?
Its an interesting thought. - meshman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"you own it"
No, you don't. You have purchased a license to use the material within the terms and conditions set out in the iTunes licensing agreement. You don't 'own' music anymore than you 'own' OSX. The question is, is the Apple license a limited license? Have they reserved the right to revoke that license under certain conditions (yes they have) and would this be one (don't know)? I guess that would depend on Apple's agreement with Universal.
- garryw, on 10/11/2007, -16/+73Remember everybody bashing Zune six months ago for making a 1$ per unit sold deal with Universal? Well, this gets interesting now.
- ericdano, on 10/11/2007, -9/+41Yeah, and the Zune has sold sooooo well.
- craig4, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3ya, garry obviously didn't read the full article. they just want to get into a short-term deal. not back out completely.
- garryw, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7did I say they backed out completely? obviously you didn't read my full comment, and it was only 2 short sentences.
- craig4, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3ya, garry obviously didn't read the full article. they just want to get into a short-term deal. not back out completely.
- Batiu-Drami, on 10/11/2007, -23/+19Will everyone please get over the 'Zune has sold like *****' shots? It has a 10% market share with HDD-based players (yes, that would be the 5G iPod which it is directly competing with) (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune#Sales_and_marketing), which is really quite good considering that it is only available in the US (I still can't get one in Australia), and that iPod has been around for such a long time.
Oh, and rip into the '3 plays or 3 days' rule, but with iPod you can't share any music with anyone for any amount of time, so I'm thinking maybe, just maybe, Zune might be better on that front.
One of my mate's has a Zune (which he bought off eBay and imported into Au. It's really good - I'm not sure why the internets don't like it.
[owner of a 4G and 5G iPod, which I am happy with]- garryw, on 10/11/2007, -16/+10They dont like it because digg has adopted the iPhone as the new supreme being. It must be worshiped and thou must not speak against it or be doomed to suffer the red button over there on the right.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9good point
just because its Microsoft doesn't mean its bad- neffy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually, that's exactly why you should suspect that a product/technology/application is bad. Microsoft is nothing if not consistent. Consistently trampling over their users with insane EULA's. Consistently attempting to create de facto standards using proprietary technologies. Consistently leveraging their marketshare to squeeze their way into markets way later than any normal competitive company could do. Etc.
- jer2eydevil88, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually most Diggers seem pretty happy bashing the iPhone because its missing a ton of useful features. The difference between the iPhone and the Zune is that Apple is trying to carve out a new market by innovating and Microsoft just tried to clone the iPod's success. If Microsoft could actually create new and great products without stealing ***** to do it then maybe they would have a different image.
- BlackMicro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually, that's exactly what it means!
- Atomic1fire, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9good point
- superkendall, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5You can easily share music with the iPod, because it simply mounts as a portable hard drive. If you've bough iTunes+ music or ripped from CD, you can give that to friends and they can play it just fine.
- hunchback, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Lets face it, the $1 was Universal strong arming Microsoft, or put it another way, MS's way to have access to Universal's catalog. Apple, as it stands does not have to do that.
- garryw, on 10/11/2007, -16/+10They dont like it because digg has adopted the iPhone as the new supreme being. It must be worshiped and thou must not speak against it or be doomed to suffer the red button over there on the right.
- LeeSoong, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Zune - If it's brown, flush it down...
- ericdano, on 10/11/2007, -9/+41Yeah, and the Zune has sold sooooo well.
- pimpinainteasy, on 10/11/2007, -12/+61You can still "buy" music?
- garryw, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Good point. That has to factor into these negociations. The fact that everything can be had for free if you want it for free. People dont buy 80gb ipods to fill them with $1 songs do they. That would cost as much as a house.
- snarkleclackers, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Wow, I'm not sure how well the housing market is doing in your part of town, but over here, $16,000 doesn't get you that much of a house.
- garryw, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13 I live in a cardboard box in darfur. There is a little hand crank on the side of my $100 laptop to keep it powered. I would respond but my arm is getting tired.
- addicted68098, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Neat, I live in ***** land where I still think $13 for a CD is a great deal
- snarkleclackers, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Wow, I'm not sure how well the housing market is doing in your part of town, but over here, $16,000 doesn't get you that much of a house.
- consonance, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I know for a fact that television stations do not negotiate commercial prices based on the piracy factor. There's absolutely no reason for music stores to do the same.
- dvddesign, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Har-har-har.
Oh to be so witty as to be able to make the same comment made 100 times before, yet still seem so fresh and current.
Like a joke about Reganomics or The Great Depression.
We get it. Music is available for free just about anywhere you want it. Fine.
- garryw, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Good point. That has to factor into these negociations. The fact that everything can be had for free if you want it for free. People dont buy 80gb ipods to fill them with $1 songs do they. That would cost as much as a house.
- deadbaby, on 10/11/2007, -5/+158No wonder the music industry is in trouble. They're going to pull out of the 3rd largest music store in the world simply because Apple won't let them raise prices? Good call guys. Good call.
- bmnrocks, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Don't worry though, I am sure that even more people will learn about P2P file sharing really quickly if something like this would happen.
- Irfit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They prefer winning 0 by iTunes store than winning what they have now, greedy bastards.
- paulburke, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Go through Google News to see the full story:
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1117767506&hl=en - gafasiesornivek, on 10/11/2007, -51/+4Apple sucks. Buh bye.
- gism82, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8What are you, 10?
- digg0t, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4im thinking 8
- gism82, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8What are you, 10?
- zweben, on 10/11/2007, -3/+124If they take their tracks off the iTMS, i'm not going to buy their overpriced music on CDs. I'm either going to pirate it or just stop listening to their music altogether.
The record industry is full of idiots.- theTVaddict, on 10/11/2007, -1/+48Agreed totally.
Right now if its on iTunes, I'll gladly spend 99 cents on a song. Afterall I spend 5 bucks on a mocha at Starbucks.
If it's not on iTunes, I have no problem finding it online for free.
Way to once again shoot yourself in the foot Universal... get a clue. CD's are over.- Ethyriel, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Ah, now it makes so much sense! I've really been having trouble figuring out the whole iTMS phenomenon beyond the typical "humans are ***** morons" theorem. But now I've got it, the people paying $0.99 on a poor quality song are the same ones paying $5 for ***** tasting coffee!
Thanks for clearing that up. Next up, an understanding of why the hell artists allow their dynamic range to get compressed all to hell. - n344853835, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2CD's aren't over, douche. CDs are over when I can get equal or higher than CD quality for a fraction of the price.
- nicepants, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2....that's what's available on P2P networks ;-)
- Philluminati, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2CD's are ***** deader than a can of spam
- abandonedhero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Deader? Wow. That is all.
- Ethyriel, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Ah, now it makes so much sense! I've really been having trouble figuring out the whole iTMS phenomenon beyond the typical "humans are ***** morons" theorem. But now I've got it, the people paying $0.99 on a poor quality song are the same ones paying $5 for ***** tasting coffee!
- kingkilr, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Yes, yes it is. I am working on a new radio site and I want to kill everyone, this industry is ***** up and convoluted beyond belief.
- santeria49, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2How clueless can these guys be? If they need to make more money maybe they should look at their bloated corporate structure instead of trying to raise (already too high) prices. No wonder the music industry is in a steady decline.
- drakethegreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You were buying their music off iTMS to begin with? Weak...
- addicted68098, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2 Universals CD's are about $7
- theTVaddict, on 10/11/2007, -1/+48Agreed totally.
- pradaaddict, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!
- Bootes, on 10/11/2007, -1/+35"The move does not mean, however, that Universal will remove its catalog from iTunes immediately. Rather, the world's largest music company is expected to arrange a short-term sales agreement."
- jongos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Sounds like they are either trying to intimidate Apple or they have some other plan for selling their content in the works.
- compu73rg33k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4And we can only hope that the company goes bankrupt in the meantime.
- tomz17, on 10/11/2007, -5/+43queue recording industry bitching about poor sales...
This will hurt Universal sales WAY more than it will hurt Apple. - ibone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10This would be ***** hilarious
- michaelb1, on 10/11/2007, -10/+14***** em.
- xaxxon, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3They're just changing the contract. RTFA.
- grr74, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6What the hell? Animosity between Apple and Universal. Universal won't renew contract. Universal won't removing catalog. Universal will renew contract...
- xaxxon, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2They're just changing the contract. RTFA.
- roxics, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23The question now is, are the people going to have to go to the music or is the music going to have to come to the people?
Most of my music doesn't come from iTunes anyway. But I like the selection when I do purchase. And I'm not going to buy a Zune just because the record company has a better deal going with Microsoft instead. They are going to have to come to me on my platform of choice, which is the iPod.- digboy99, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0You are funny. Are you the kind of guy that held out for Sony Betamax to win? A platform like itunes/ipod needs content.
- roxics, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2No I'm not.
But my point was you can get your music from more places then just itunes. So my iPod will go on even if all of the iTunes store closes it's virtual doors tomorrow.
If Universal wants to sell me music online they better do it through iTunes cause I'm not going anywhere else unless something truly better comes along. I'm so tired of corporations pushing me around for their own gain. When I can I will fight back with my wallet.
- roxics, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2No I'm not.
- Philluminati, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I won't be bullied into going Microsoft just to get some music. I'd pirate that ***** in a heartbeat if I felt I was being forced to a single platform.
- digboy99, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0You are funny. Are you the kind of guy that held out for Sony Betamax to win? A platform like itunes/ipod needs content.
- bluechips23, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10That's just lame thinking by Universal. If they don't want to sell by iTunes (one of the only channels where I actually purchase a song), then sure, fine. I won't buy anything made by Universal then. Record companies like Universal are the main reason why piracy still exists.
- rpgmaker, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I thought it was the broadband internet access and the little to no risk of being caught pirating something.
- bluechips23, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1High price, monopoly and crappy CD quality are just few other reasons too.
- rpgmaker, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I thought it was the broadband internet access and the little to no risk of being caught pirating something.
- drn666, on 10/11/2007, -6/+57Universal once tried to dictate terms to Blockbuster in their video business. Blockbuster has 70% of the rental market in the United States. Universal even threatened to pull their content from Blockbuster stores. Blockbuster said "fine, leave". Universal blinked.
Point is: Universal needs Apple more than Apple needs Universal. Universal best remember that.- gcnaddict, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2I'm surprised Universal didn't pull out of Blockbuster. That would've ***** Blockbuster over.
- digg0t, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1apple need universal just as much as universal need them, people will buy their songs else where if itunes doesn't have the song and therefore apple will miss out on potential customers.
- unfinity, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Apple makes their money on iPods - not on iTunes Music Store purchases. People still need an MP3 player to listen to their music on the go - and if someone isn't going to buy an iPod because the iTunes Music Store doesn't have Universal music available, they probably weren't going to buy an iPod in the first place.
- abandonedhero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sure Apple would lose some customers, but it wouldn't affect them much - but they're already missing out on a different demographic - users of operating systems other than Windows and OSX. They do that because the *nix/other demographic isn't profitable for them.
- bommai, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Just for accuracy sake - Universal Music is owned by Vivendi ( a French company). Universal Studios and Theme park are owned by GE (NBC).
- yfph, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Well, a short term agreement obviously works in Universal's favour as they can have more chances to strongarm Apple more frequently in order to sweeten their pot. Now, let's see what Apple how responds...
- xaxxon, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Finally someone read the article and understood what it means. And you're right -- it will be interesting. Apple obviously doesn't want to deal with them every 6mo.. 3mo.. whatever shorter timeframe they want.
- dorkino, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7Vivendi is getting a little too large for their pants. FYI, Vivendi is also the parent company of Blizzard, the developer of our beloved World of Warcraft.
- uahgekido, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Surely someone hasn't put this little idea in their heads: "Since everyone is wanting to go all No-DRM, why not sell our ***** ourselves and cut the middleman?"
Surely not.
I'd say a short term agreement would only be put in place in hopes of scaring Apple into submission ("Ok, Apple, we'll give you 1 more chance to play nice"). Maybe Universal should call the EU and see how well that went over. - DaveClarkOne, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Why wait until Universal pulls the plug? I'll be paying more attention to their catalog starting today --I'll skip them entirely.
- Zero2aHero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Nicely said.
Apple should pull all of their music for a day, just to show Universal some direct evidence on how much it will effect them.- Chordonblue, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Since Vivendi wanted to make such a splash announcement to embarrass Apple, I think Apple should immediately cut them off and THEN: Any searches for Vivendi's music should get referred to sound-alike bands on Apple other brands. Let Vivendi come crawling back and force them to submit...
- xaxxon, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3RTFA. They're just changing the duration for the next contract.
- DaveClarkOne, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I think you're misreading Universal's intention. It is a shot across Apple's bow. Fact is, when they say all artists AREN'T equal, it's true even when the charge is 99 cents for everyone; the more popular (i.e. "unequal") artists SELL MORE!
- addicted68098, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2If their not a friend of apple their not a friend of me, honestly I am not a fan of either companies.
- Zero2aHero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Nicely said.
- fireball74, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I don't think Universal is going anywhere. They won't go for a long term contract, but short term contracts so they can negotiate more often. It's a CYA so they don't get locked into a long term contract and end up not liking the long term effects.
Anyway, it's kind of moot at this point anyway. They'll still be there.- addicted68098, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Universal Fanboy ^
- abandonedhero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Idiot ^
- addicted68098, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Universal Fanboy ^
- scotty1024, on 10/11/2007, -9/+17Well you know the French (Universal is owned 100% by a French company) need the extra money to keep their country from being burned down by its job-less youth. I hope this move breaks Vivendi and the artists get a shot at more of the $.99.
- Ratspilf, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Yeah, damn the French and their superior healthcare system too.
- addicted68098, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Yeah right, French music is usually good!
- hermes369, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Ah, the attempt to squeeze. Why do these guys suck so loudly? F-ing profiteers.
- TomK2434, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4So instead of paying 9.99 for a universal album conveniently downloaded, I can pay 0.00 for a universal album slightly less conveniently downloaded, or pay a few bucks for a used record. They will never get my money.
Oh, wait, universal sucks anyway. - TinFoil209, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Umm there is NO tree with this damm Safari beta on PPC. To fkr3 I reply.
Everyone looks at what the device will support BEFORE buying it. No one will ditch iPod cause Metallica switched to Zune via its record owner. One thing Apple and satellite radio embraced is the fact that music piracy is super easy. The only thing that stops it is to please the "new internet user" so that they feel paying for it gives them bonuses. Either it be fast one click downloads. Software to make it easy to listen to, organize, and transfer to device(s). Your not selling the music, your selling the experience to get and enjoy it at a reasonable price.
P.S. Ohh and now tower records gone. The nearest record store is over .99 in gas away round trip.- potterboy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Safari for pocket pc? Where? Or did you mean PowerPC?
- Bootes, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2PowerPC came before PocketPC so PPC will always equal PowerPC.
- potterboy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Safari for pocket pc? Where? Or did you mean PowerPC?
- joshlewis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10This just in: people worldwide boycott Universal music.
Honestly, I wish the big bands on Universal would just leave them and go to EMI. - jrbernsen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Here's a list of artists under Universal...in the words of "Clash of the Titans..."
"Mark, and remember."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Universal_Music_Group_artists- addicted68098, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The only talented artist I am aware they have is Nelly Furtado,
- santeria49, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1But, but.... where will people buy their Billy Ray Cyrus CD's if they aren't on iTunes?
- viktro, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4Why do all you apple nerds think itunes will be the only place to purchase and download music?
- Kyderdog, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Zune to you buddy...
- Zero2aHero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11iTunes now ranks third in music store sales (with 8% of the market), behind Walmart and Best Buy. Are you saying those music sales are coming solely from Apple nerds?
- addicted68098, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I get all my imports from Borders and my more mainstream stuff from borders.
- so1omon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well goodie for you. I only buy music from my local, independently owned record store. Who freakin' cares?!
- mustacheo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Is Borders your friend?
- jinushaun, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Good luck playing Zune or Rhapsody content on an iPod.
- Kyderdog, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Goodbye Universal I wish I could say it was nice knowing ya.
Looks like we might have just Killed one bad company- addicted68098, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1We? What have you done? Bought an iPod along with 100,000,000 other people,
- easy4lif, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2worhless bunch of assholes. they need to DIAF
- Neorio, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Actually, I read that some of these music execs think that Apple is severely hurting their leverage with music -- looking towards Japan and how music sales over cell phones is doing much better for their bottom line in a country where iTunes doesn't have the entire market to itself.
.....and in steps the iPhone.- garryw, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Are you trying to say monopolies are bad for businesses and consumers? Interesting. hmm. Maybe Universal aint so dumb.
- MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Except that Apple ISN'T a monopoly over downloaded music or digital audio players. They certainly currently have the largest share (which could and eventually will change), but they have done nothing to prevent competition. How many download music stores and players are out there? Lots. With Apple now offering DRM-less tracks that will play on any player with AAC compatibility, there goes the DRM lock-in argument as well. Other catalog rights holders will eventually sell theirs DRM-less as well. Apple has no say in when that will happen.
Calling Apple a monopoly because of the iPod/iTunes combination is foolish
- MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Except that Apple ISN'T a monopoly over downloaded music or digital audio players. They certainly currently have the largest share (which could and eventually will change), but they have done nothing to prevent competition. How many download music stores and players are out there? Lots. With Apple now offering DRM-less tracks that will play on any player with AAC compatibility, there goes the DRM lock-in argument as well. Other catalog rights holders will eventually sell theirs DRM-less as well. Apple has no say in when that will happen.
- jinushaun, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Japan is also a country where CDs are so expensive that CD *rentals* are commonplace.
- dvddesign, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I have a friend who lives over there and he's ripped just about every damn CD they let him rent out.
And cell phones are as ubiquitous there as ipods and mp3 players are here, so no duh cell phone sales are high in Japan.
Softbank and DoCoMo have horrible DRM'd Windows players too. None are mac compatible either.
Suprise!
- garryw, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Are you trying to say monopolies are bad for businesses and consumers? Interesting. hmm. Maybe Universal aint so dumb.
- willcoll, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1idiots
- addicted68098, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2The struggle of Universal and some other record companies greatly depicts their neo-conservative view and how the spread of inter-corporate propaganda greatly affects the virtual marketplace.
- ingoldsby, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2What are apples profits via the itunes music store anyway? After you factor in cost to keep itunes running smooth (bandwidth, employees, R&D etc.) and royalty fees.. I doubt they can be making a whole heck of a lot... Although with their volume now, that may well have changed :p
Does apple actually release the revenue it makes off of itunes?- addicted68098, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Not significant but it keeps people buying iPods
- dvddesign, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I had heard that it was about $.05 a track, but it could be as high as $.15. Either way the artist makes less than Apple does for each track sold at $.99
- BlackMicro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This would be due to their contract with the record label. Don't blame Apple. The record labels profit the most - by a large margin!
- addicted68098, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Sorry for posting in succession, I spend to much time on one article,
Anyways I like Universal not only did they screw with Microsoft by managing to find a way to get $10 for every Zune sold, but they want to lessen Apples dominance in the digital music business, helping to fuel apples dominance in the portable music arena!
I found this to be more insightful http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070101480.html - GetTheGirl, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0just use
http://seeqpod.com and forget itunes, here's the full article as wsj is still living in the dark ages...
Universal Music May Seek
Shorter iTunes-Sales Pact
By ETHAN SMITH and NICK WINGFIELD
July 2, 2007; Page B3
Highlighting continuing tension between the music industry and Apple Inc., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group is considering notifying the Cupertino, Calif., company that it isn't renewing a long-term contract to sell digital-music downloads through the increasingly powerful iTunes Store, according to a person familiar with the situation.
Such a move wouldn't mean Universal would remove its vast catalog -- including Eminem, 50 Cent and Sting -- from iTunes in the foreseeable future. Instead, Universal, the world's largest music company by market share, hopes to go to a short-term sales agreement rather than a contract that lasted more than a year.
Though it is unlikely to have sweeping effects immediately, such a change could give Universal more flexibility in its dealings with competitors to iTunes. For instance, it could enable the company to more easily switch gears and offer exclusive rights to parts of its catalog to other digital-download stores.
An Apple spokeswoman said the company doesn't comment on "rumors and speculation."
Universal's move comes against a backdrop of significant change in the way music is sold. Traditional music retailers have fallen by the wayside, and the major labels have seen sales declines accelerate. Meanwhile, Apple has gained greater influence in music sales, recently becoming the No. 3 seller of recorded music to the public, behind Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Best Buy Co. Its power has made record-label executives increasingly uneasy, as it has generally refused to comply with labels' desire for flexibility on matters such as pricing.
As a result, the record labels and Apple have traded barbs with one another over the past year or so, with Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs, for instance, calling record labels "greedy."
Practically since the launch of the iTunes store in 2003, Apple and the four major record labels have been at loggerheads over two critical issues: pricing and the lack of so-called interoperability between downloads sold by iTunes competitors and Apple's popular iPod. Apple from the start insisted on selling all downloads for 99 cents each. Record labels wanted to sell some music for more, other music for less. In an effort to break that standoff, EMI Group PLC, the No. 3 music company in the world, recently reached agreements with Apple and other digital-music sellers to sell for $1.30 downloads that are interoperable. None of EMI's competitors have followed suit.
In another illustration of the tension between Apple and the music industry, Apple doesn't currently offer wireless downloads to its new iPhone or other wireless handsets. Currently, the iPhone can store only music that is loaded by a physical connection to a computer, or "side loaded." But when asked about such a service in a recent interview, Mr. Jobs said, "There's a lot of things you can imagine down the road."
Music companies generally consider the mobile market the next frontier for their business, and are loath to let Apple dominate it that market the way it has digital downloads.
Write to Ethan Smith at ethan.smith@wsj.com1 and Nick Wingfield at nick.wingfield@wsj.com2- dvddesign, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"None of EMI's competitors have followed suit."
Chicken ***** closed minded *****.
I spent $16 upgrading my EMI tracks and it didn't kill me. My music plays back on my ipod, my computer, my Xbox 360, and most importantly, anywhere else I ***** want it to play.
Guess what? EMI's going to get more of my money when they put the Beatles on iTunes. And when I go to buy, at least 3 artists I'm planning on picking up are releasing their albums on EMI. Circumstance, I suppose, but it certainly reassures me that I don't have to think about dealing with DRM ***** anymore.
3 out of 5 machines my ass. - digboy99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Its obvious that the iphone is part of the issue. They can't let Apple uses the iphone to gain the upper hand, and dictate terms of the mobile phone stunt music market.
- dvddesign, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"None of EMI's competitors have followed suit."
- Barnolde, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Universal is also the exclusive backer of HD DVD, so they're not the smartest decision makers. Seriously, iTunes is only going to grow, why get out now?
- superkendall, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17Boy, first they back HD-DVD, and now they are getting out of iTunes. Is Universal allergic to money?
If I were Apple, I'd say "fine then, if you feel that way there's no need for the third largest music store in the country to continue to sell your music - anywhere".
A powerful object lession to Universal, and to other media companies.
I'd be fine if iTunes scrubbed any partner not willing to go for DRM-free iTunes+ - chazzbro, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Hey...ANOTHER reason to make sure I don't have to bother listening to Kanye West for the rest of my life.
In looking thru their roster....Nashville Pussy? There's a BAND named Nashville Pussy? Please...just go away. There's just nothin' like the geniuses at record companies to elevate this kind of crap, is there? - abcgi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Technically, you don't "own" any music that you "buy", you have purchased the right to listen to that recording in that medium for yourself and not for any public performance (plus whatever other conditions/restrictions are also attached). But you knew that...
- jvq1958, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Roll on the brave new world where the artists and retailers have a direct relationship with the consumer. Artist -> iTunes/Apple -> consumer or Artist -> Amazon -> consumer or whatever. The role of the "Record Company" as technician (producer), distributor, promotor is dying fast. When all that is left is "middle man" you know their days are numbered.
- chamady, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Feel free to voice your displeasure over this unfortunate direction that Universal has taken by writing a polite, yet poignant email to:
communications@umusic.com- digboy99, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Thanks. I think I will congratulate them, and urge them to stick it to Jobs. Only a Jobs fanboy or significant stock holder would want Apple to dominate this industry. I like competition, and so as a consumer, I hope that everybody gets a healthy piece of the electronic music pie.
- psimac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Apple could just become their own "record company" and distribute music for artists directly. These record companies need to whither away and die, along with the RIAA. Their antiquated business model, as well as their job security, is something they are desperately trying to hold onto. They are dinosaurs, who will be dead in 10 years. And they keep doing dinosaur things, that will end up hurting them in the long run--like trying to control Internet radio stations with outrageous royalties, citing that Internet radio doesn't promote music! I've learned more about musicians listening to Pandora than I ever did from some record company's marketing. I say give the control back to the artists and let them sell through iTunes, eMusic and others. Heck U2 is so powerful, why do they remain loyal to a record company? Dinosaur business model, for sure.
- funk49, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Apple Inc. has had a 25 or so year deal with Apple Records (Beatles) that it would never be allowed to get into the music business, which is why the Itunes store is missing all mentioned of the word "Apple". I"m not sure what the recent arrangement was but they came to some sort of deal. Personally, I would love to Jobs get into the music business...perhaps he could fix the broken model.
- TheMadCow, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Does anyone who is plugging their tired horse here, really think that Apple or Universal •cares• about what anyone on here is pontificating about? You'll either put up with it or make other plans. End of story.
- ReinMasamuri, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Buried because someone was a big enough idiot to try and digg to subscription content. (even if it DOES show the basic layout.)
- Heembo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Universal Music May Seek
Shorter iTunes-Sales Pact
By ETHAN SMITH and NICK WINGFIELD
July 2, 2007; Page B3
Highlighting continuing tension between the music industry and Apple Inc., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group is considering notifying the Cupertino, Calif., company that it isn't renewing a long-term contract to sell digital-music downloads through the increasingly powerful iTunes Store, according to a person familiar with the situation.
Such a move wouldn't mean Universal would remove its vast catalog -- including Eminem, 50 Cent and Sting -- from iTunes in the foreseeable future. Instead, Universal, the world's largest music company by market share, hopes to go to a short-term sales agreement rather than a contract that lasted more than a year.
Though it is unlikely to have sweeping effects immediately, such a change could give Universal more flexibility in its dealings with competitors to iTunes. For instance, it could enable the company to more easily switch gears and offer exclusive rights to parts of its catalog to other digital-download stores.
An Apple spokeswoman said the company doesn't comment on "rumors and speculation."
Universal's move comes against a backdrop of significant change in the way music is sold. Traditional music retailers have fallen by the wayside, and the major labels have seen sales declines accelerate. Meanwhile, Apple has gained greater influence in music sales, recently becoming the No. 3 seller of recorded music to the public, behind Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Best Buy Co. Its power has made record-label executives increasingly uneasy, as it has generally refused to comply with labels' desire for flexibility on matters such as pricing.
As a result, the record labels and Apple have traded barbs with one another over the past year or so, with Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs, for instance, calling record labels "greedy."
Practically since the launch of the iTunes store in 2003, Apple and the four major record labels have been at loggerheads over two critical issues: pricing and the lack of so-called interoperability between downloads sold by iTunes competitors and Apple's popular iPod. Apple from the start insisted on selling all downloads for 99 cents each. Record labels wanted to sell some music for more, other music for less. In an effort to break that standoff, EMI Group PLC, the No. 3 music company in the world, recently reached agreements with Apple and other digital-music sellers to sell for $1.30 downloads that are interoperable. None of EMI's competitors have followed suit.
In another illustration of the tension between Apple and the music industry, Apple doesn't currently offer wireless downloads to its new iPhone or other wireless handsets. Currently, the iPhone can store only music that is loaded by a physical connection to a computer, or "side loaded." But when asked about such a service in a recent interview, Mr. Jobs said, "There's a lot of things you can imagine down the road."
Music companies generally consider the mobile market the next frontier for their business, and are loath to let Apple dominate it that market the way it has digital downloads.
Write to Ethan Smith at ethan.smith@wsj.com1 and Nick Wingfield at nick.wingfield@wsj.com2
- Heembo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Universal Music May Seek
- TheMadCow, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9I don't see anything mentioned about the iPhone.
- MikeWeller, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You just had to spoil it didn't you?
- DestroyFascism, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Yes they should stick to CD sales as it seems they are not capable of thinking anything more complex....
- bwana, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Universal cuts off nose to spite face . . ."
I guess I'll just stop paying for their music then.
Good move Universally Stupid. - ilgaz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It looks like eMusic.com subscribers may get future surprises.
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is