I don't know what I thinka bout all of this, to be honest. Apple has a good thing going, and are by far the most successful Online Music Store. I can't seem to understand what the labels' problem is? I mean, they're making money hand over fist (SO much less overhead for them distributing online). Where's the problem? This does nothing but make them look greedy greedy greedy. And it only boosts my opinion of Apple and Stevie J. They unwillingness to back down DEFINITELY makes them look as though they're putting the consumer first. It's great all around.

I'll tell you what I'm waiting for - I'm waiting for people to realize that iTMS can, all by itself, be an excellent vehicle for distributing music. It's also a perfect vehicle for getting the word out on your music. I feel confident that the day will come when bands start signing distribution deals directly with the iTMS and leaving the labels out completely.

When that happens, who benefits? The customers: we keep the low prices. The artists: they're signed directly with iTMS and will take a larger cut of each purchase. Apple: I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon, so they'll continue to benefit.

Who loses? The labels: their greed can only go so far before people realize they don't care about the people they represent, and only have eyes for their bottom line.

It'll be a good day when the music industry has to admit that they don't know how to run their own business, and a "regular Joe" from Cupertino can do it better almost all by himself.

Reply

bands signing distribution deals with itunes store would most definatly land apple back in court with apple (music) - and we all know the history there, if only apple (computer) could have seen the future here, im sure they would have gone with a different name then!

Reply

wow #1 Well said! My sentiments EXACTLY!

Reply

steve should just buy apple the music company...

Reply

@ Bill I
Independant artists can allreay submit music to iTMS via the service http://www.tunecore.com

Reply

Wow...after reading back over my comment, I should really proofread these things before I submit them....


@ andy
True - that might land them back in cour with Apple Corp. Yarg, Apple Corp is so irrelevant these days...they need to give up the ghost on this one. They're clearly impeding upon what could be an ideal situation here....and for what? Because they're worried people will confuse the two Apples? Has Apple Corp done anything worth a s#!t in the past 20 years anyway?

@ Andre
Good call - I did not know that. Now all we need are most people going the Independent route if it gets them a nice deal with the iTMS. :)

Reply

Japan ITMS has a two-tier price system. We just don't have stats about this ITMS. I do agree that a single-priced system makes thing much simpler.

Reply

I would have no problem paying 2 a song if it went straight to the artist, because they really deserve the money. How can a record company demand (and I'm guessing) more then 50% of the profit from a itms song purchase. There is no distributing cost... no shipping... they are getting the same if not greater profit for less work. We need a little recording finance reform.

Reply

The labels need to realize that many people simply don't want a subscription service - AT ALL. If they pull their content from iTMS, well I just won't have the ability to buy their content. Since iTMS I haven't purchased a regular CD at all. So its really their choice on whether or not their content is available for me to purchase it or not.

Reply

As arkowi pointed out, Apple Comp. should just buy out Apple Corps, they'll get access to all of Beatles' tracks. If the mess between Sony and MJ isn't yet over, they could even help Apple Corps retain MJ's share of the tracks he owns. And then they could turn around iTMS as a bona fide label and sign up any artist who wants to. What do you think? Highly improbable, but who knew a puny MP3 player could have changed Apple's fate.

Reply

"I have to say I'm hopeful that Jobs can successfully stick it to the labels and make them deal with a pricing model that actual *gasp* favors consumers."

How about a model that benfits both. It doesn't need to be biased for either side. The current iTunes seems to meet this.

Reply

I wouldn't go so far as saying that it *benefits* consumers. The record labels got sued for price fixing and the settlement was to pay off the consumers(I did get my $13 and some change(not even enough to buy 1 cd;)), while not actually fixing the pricing model.

This is _sorta_ a step in the right direction, but songs are still $1 at lower quality then what they were before and none of that packaging or warehouses that it actually takes to store and distribute the physical goods. They also impose DRM on you which I also have a distaste for whilie understanding the need. I guess I am bitter because the artists are still usually getting screwed in their deals with the record companies and the rights to their music. It is still executives piling their coins and the people that actually create and consume the music that are getting screwed. Or at least have little to no say with what is going on even when you win court battles.

Reply

The pricing model currently in place is the one that works best. I can see for some music where a subscription model wouldn't bother me too much, if it was cheap enough, as most music released by the labels today isn't worth hanging on to. But it would be too confusing I think. The music I but I want to keep. I don't want to rent the right to listen to music.

Reply

12. I wouldn't go so far as saying that it *benefits* consumers. The record labels got sued for price fixing and the settlement was to pay off the consumers(I did get my $13 and some change(not even enough to buy 1 cd;)), while not actually fixing the pricing model.

--

Of course it does. It's cheaper. You can buy the songs individually or buy the album. By and large, it rewards bands that put out good albums vs. those who only have one or two decent songs.

How do customers lose with this? The record companies want to price differentiate, yes, but it would make the pricing scheme a mess. The 99c for all system is slick.. makes casually buying more attractive than 'thinking about the price'

Reply