New topic
Printablelastdecember said: AlexdeParis said: Because they created the whole damn market! Before the iTunes Music Store opened, no one was getting any money from downloads of the big labels' music. Besides, while Apple doesn't have rent, it certainly has employees (including support) in addition to bandwidth and promotional costs. And do we know whose employees are actually ripping/preparing the millions of files for download. My guess is they work for Apple. But there again Apple still shouldnt get the cut of the music, retailers dont pocket money for cds they all lose money on music, could Apple take a loss? Sure its the label that wont move on this but instead of Apple or any other download store trying to cut into a label its drawing more from the artists, if Apple wanted to make a true stand it wouldnt allow music on their site till labels didnt do that, that to me would be sacrifice. It boils down to this, a store sells say the new Prince CD, for 9.99, now right off the bat the label is taking 50-70% of that in its own costs, now should the store that sells it be taking whats left? If the answer is yes than you would still have Music Retailers that closed down. I'm a little confused. It seems to me like you've always lamented the shutting down of the music retailers, but now you expect Apple to follow in their footsteps.  I don't get it. Basically, the paid-downloads market is where the retailers used to be years ago. The labels are now trying to use Amazon (the iTunes Store's first real competition) so they can cut Apple's margin just like Best Buy and Wal-Mart did. Why would you be supporting that? It's not like they're going to give the extra profit to the artists! As a music fan, it seems to me that Apple is the first real threat to the tyranny of the labels. They've managed to stand up to them in ways that the artists themselves haven't. That's a good thing IMO."Whitney was purely and simply one of a kind." ~ Clive Davis | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
AlexdeParis said: lastdecember said: But there again Apple still shouldnt get the cut of the music, retailers dont pocket money for cds they all lose money on music, could Apple take a loss? Sure its the label that wont move on this but instead of Apple or any other download store trying to cut into a label its drawing more from the artists, if Apple wanted to make a true stand it wouldnt allow music on their site till labels didnt do that, that to me would be sacrifice. It boils down to this, a store sells say the new Prince CD, for 9.99, now right off the bat the label is taking 50-70% of that in its own costs, now should the store that sells it be taking whats left? If the answer is yes than you would still have Music Retailers that closed down. I'm a little confused. It seems to me like you've always lamented the shutting down of the music retailers, but now you expect Apple to follow in their footsteps. I don't get it. Basically, the paid-downloads market is where the retailers used to be years ago. The labels are now trying to use Amazon (the iTunes Store's first real competition) so they can cut Apple's margin just like Best Buy and Wal-Mart did. Why would you be supporting that? It's not like they're going to give the extra profit to the artists! As a music fan, it seems to me that Apple is the first real threat to the tyranny of the labels. They've managed to stand up to them in ways that the artists themselves haven't. That's a good thing IMO.Well if Amazon and iTunes would operate and be forced to sell everything for the same price than i would be all for it, which is why that SHOULD have been the rule in the music retail business, and it was what music retailers were made to believe till Best Buy and others were allowed to sell below cost, because the music went nothing to them, it was more a prestige thing. But of course the consumer didnt care because a 9.99 cd is alot better than a 12 dollar one at the end of the day regardless of who is selling it, so the labels allowed it to happen because it kept people quiet about prices, but the difference here is the retailers like iTunes or Amazon are pocketing that extra money, retailers like Tower werent pocketing that money on a 12-13 dollar cd, thats what they were paying for it. At any rate labels still have and always will have the upper hand because its all one big corporation, so Apple may look like the good guy, but all it would take is a label holding back on a top new cd and they would probably cave in some way. Look at the possible Jay Z apple unity, think that is an artist driven merger? that is a forming of another corporation that will undercut more artists. Just one example of this "Flat Price" theory. In the video game industry NO STORE is allowed to sell a new video game for a cheaper price than another, this is how it was supposed to be with cds. If a video game retailer is caught selling a new video game below the set price they are banned from new releases. Which is why if you go to Best Buy or Target or EB or Game Stop that new game is the same price everywhere. [Edited 1/3/08 20:44pm] "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i think alex has covered the bulk of my argument but i do want to add that apples does indeed have overhead costs...also, a smart artist can market themselves online and sell their product all on their own (like ttd and radiohead)...\ Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: i think alex has covered the bulk of my argument but i do want to add that apples does indeed have overhead costs...also, a smart artist can market themselves online and sell their product all on their own (like ttd and radiohead)...\
There are tons of artists that have been doing it for a long time, if you look at any older artist that may not have the Airplay or support that they had, and they are working from their own site, they make more money than artists that are topping the charts now. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TTD is a joke. I wish you guys would stop hyping him up as being successful.
----- sosgemini said: i think alex has covered the bulk of my argument but i do want to add that apples does indeed have overhead costs...also, a smart artist can market themselves online and sell their product all on their own (like ttd and radiohead)...\ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said: TTD is a joke. I wish you guys would stop hyping him up as being successful.
----- sosgemini said: i think alex has covered the bulk of my argument but i do want to add that apples does indeed have overhead costs...also, a smart artist can market themselves online and sell their product all on their own (like ttd and radiohead)...\ success is relative...if an artist is making a living off of creating their own art then that is a success... ....silly. Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said: TTD is a joke. I wish you guys would stop hyping him up as being successful.
----- sosgemini said: i think alex has covered the bulk of my argument but i do want to add that apples does indeed have overhead costs...also, a smart artist can market themselves online and sell their product all on their own (like ttd and radiohead)...\ sosgemini did not say that he was successfull. Damm...some orgers are a real bunch of pompous biased wannbe musical critics! He (Sananda...) is not a joke. He was one of the first artists that started to sell his stuff online. He even gave us the original config. of WildCard for free. Have in mind that commercial sucess is not the same as quality. So he didn't sell much (or almost anything after "Introduction...") but he has delivered some of the best rock/funk hybrid tunes of the 90's. [Edited 1/4/08 9:29am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: laurarichardson said: TTD is a joke. I wish you guys would stop hyping him up as being successful.
----- success is relative...if an artist is making a living off of creating their own art then that is a success... ....silly. I agree with u sos! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MikeMatronik said: laurarichardson said: TTD is a joke. I wish you guys would stop hyping him up as being successful.
----- sosgemini did not say that he was successfull. Damm...some orgers are a real bunch of pompous biased wannbe musical critics! He (Sananda...) is not a joke. He was one of the first artists that started to sell his stuff online. He even gave us the original config. of WildCard for free. Have in mind that commercial sucess is not the same as quality. So he didn't sell much (or almost anything after "Introduction...") but he has delivered some of the best rock/funk hybrid tunes of the 90's. [Edited 1/4/08 9:29am] Well we need to have those words put on the front page of this site "Commercial success is not the same as quality" EXACTLY. Even with the more popular artists i like it always seems their best work is the stuff that doesnt catch on, examples, Mariah Carey's "Glitter", Prince (insert any album here but the usual), Inxs "elegantly wasted", REM "around the sun" etc... the list goes on and on. Not saying that a "hit" isnt good, but alot of times the best things go unheard, album cuts, bsides, and albums made later in an artists career after their commercial success has diminished. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |