Spork Boards

AAPL.O

tomierna's Avatar Picture tomierna (Admin) – December 08, 2007 02:37AM Reply Quote
Talk about industry stock market mumbo-jumbo here.

Cloudscout – December 16, 2007 08:30PM Reply Quote
Det finnes ikke dårlig vær, bare dårlige klær!
Am I the only one who expected this topic to be named "APPL.O take III..."?

Simon – December 16, 2007 08:47PM Reply Quote
Well the other was called take II because the first one went old and soggy and I guess whoever started it could be bothered waiting for Tom to dry it out.

tomierna (Admin) – December 16, 2007 08:50PM Reply Quote
Hideously Unnatural
Exactly!

That, or Tom was too lazy to log out of his regular user and into SysOp mode in WebX to dry the old one out or merge the topics.

Madaracs – December 18, 2007 05:32PM Reply Quote
Ooh! Scary! Scary! Don't we look mean? You can't see me! But I can see you!
Let's just call it bondage stockings.

Cloudscout – December 26, 2007 03:38PM Reply Quote
Det finnes ikke dårlig vær, bare dårlige klær!
Hello, 200.

Mokers – January 03, 2008 12:00PM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
Thoughts?

http://www.macedition.com/2008/01/03/hova-jobs-aapl-success

Not just on the article, but the idea of Apple doing a record label. Good/bad?

Dr Phred (Moderator) – January 03, 2008 12:08PM Reply Quote
owned by the mothership.
Now that the whole Apple records legal mess is cleared up, I don't see anything standing in their way. Other retailers have private labels, why not Apple?

tliet – January 03, 2008 12:50PM Reply Quote
Since we're getting old it's sometimes easy to forget that in the period since the iPod got introduced and the iTunes Music Store got big, a whole new generation of music listeners grew up. Those who were 10 in 2001 are around 17 now, right in the middle of the target group I'd say. Most of these consumers probably don't see the CD as something that's desireable, but may look to iTunes (if they buy legal at all) as the preferred music store.

It's not too far fetched to cut the record label out of the chain when there's no distribution model necessary like it was in the old days. Kids these days listen to MTV or MySpace streams, I doubt if they listen to FM. So, I think it could be a brilliant move, especially since Universal is now fucking with Apple regarding DRM. (still no DRM-free music from Universal on iTunes)

Dr. Strangelove – January 03, 2008 01:51PM Reply Quote
The real question is, what is the role of the record label going forward?

My understanding is that record labels provide two things: $$$/expertise/space for recording and $$$/expertise for promotion. Obviously, Apple can do the second of these. The first seems to becoming considerably cheaper in many ways, and is something that can easily be contracted out. So I wonder what it means for Apple to become a record label. They potentially have the ability to be a much lighter-weight label (in the good sense, i.e. unobtrusive) than the traditional record companies. That would be a good thing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2008 01:52PM by Dr. Strangelove.

johnny k – January 03, 2008 02:21PM Reply Quote
Recording is not a big deal - it's usually "outsourced" in the sense that record companies front money to pay a studio/producer. Promotion is more than just advertising on websites, ain't it? What does Apple know about getting DJs to play tracks? Can it maneuver the world of tastemakers, different for each genre? That too could be outsourced to marketing firms, leaving Apple with the distribution/synergy/iPod user base it knows well. Or a new model might make the artist responsible for directing its marketing with its now-bigger chunk of the pie. But I think Apple must stick with the established acts for the foreseeable future so promotion concerns and the serious risk of funding potential flops are minimal. The record companies' model involves betting and losing lots of money and hoping to get lucky. A new model will have to be more of a meritocracy.

tliet – January 03, 2008 02:27PM Reply Quote
Read this article that's from march last year Johnny, Apple is already champion at this. They've only honed it since then I would guess.


http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117340340327331757-OZTwdOgBiRz0flPHET_MBcnOfmc_20080308.html

johnny k – January 03, 2008 02:38PM Reply Quote
Well, I won't say "champion" until they can carry it beyond iTunes into other media - though growing like crazy, digital sales did only account for 10% in 2006. A lot of people still find artists through radio, MTV, WB shows, Rolling Stone, etc. But it looks like iTunes is staffed with experienced music people who can stay on top of it.

tliet – January 03, 2008 02:55PM Reply Quote
I agree about all the other channels, but my original point was questioning how much of todays largest music consumers read Rolling Stone or listen to the radio? I really don't know but one can just guess that they might be influenced the most by the iTMS homepage. And Apple controls that one.

johnny k – January 03, 2008 03:17PM Reply Quote
If that were true, I suspect that iTMS would represent a much larger percent of overall music sales.

Cloudscout – January 03, 2008 03:19PM Reply Quote
Det finnes ikke dårlig vær, bare dårlige klær!
Quote
johnny k
If that were true, I suspect that iTMS would represent a much larger percent of overall music sales.

When was the last time figures were released reporting iTMS market share? I wonder how that's going.

Dr. Strangelove – January 03, 2008 04:02PM Reply Quote
JK, I agree with a lot of what you say, especially Apple sticking with established acts at first. But I also see the current big labels latching onto the American Idol/Hannah Montana mechanism for selling records and creating "artists". I think nontraditional "labels" like Apple are more the future of the wider music world.

tliet – January 03, 2008 07:26PM Reply Quote
According to this Wired article about Morris, Universal's chief, 22% of all music sold in the US in 2007 went through iTunes. No reference given tho...

Nobody Special – January 03, 2008 10:38PM Reply Quote
I'd assume that number comes from Universal's sales data - and that's a huge freakin' slice of the market. That article also foretells of a huge firefight on the brew, especially if this Total Music thing gets off the ground. Damn rights an iTunes label needs to get off the ground, pronto if only as defensive measure against the collective gangbang that guy is planning.

Geffin started by signing estabilished artists - for then outragous sums of money - simply to get a baseline catalogue into the distribution market and grow their record business from there. Doing this at iTunes secures a level of desirable content to feed all those iPod owners. The trick is to use this baseline to introduce new exclusive acts to the clientele. I see something like the old Columbia House connection where loyal customers, having reached a certain purchasing level, get free tracks from the unkown acts as a means of breaking them to the audience.

This looks to me to be a long drawn-out, dirty fight coming down the line.

Dr Phred (Moderator) – January 04, 2008 07:34AM Reply Quote
owned by the mothership.
remember, Apple has a mountain of cash that they could use to fund any start up venture they wanted to get off the ground fast. And still have a slightly smaler mountain left when they where done.

peter – January 04, 2008 08:38AM Reply Quote
The thing is, we're in the midst of a mighty paradigm shift here. Throwing mountains of cash at a problem is usually not the best strategy, and especially not when the wheel is in spin. Part of SJs genius I believe is that he understands this, and got it early on. Cf Apple with Google, Microsoft, Sun, Yahoo, Cisco, all of whom spent (and some of whom continue to spend) like drunken sailors and look at who is now in the best position.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2008 08:40AM by peter.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login