Labels to serve digital albums to iTunes rivals
When news broke late Sunday that Apple has plans to create the next-generation music album, some in the record industry were steamed.
The Financial Times reported that Apple was working on a plan code-named "Cocktail" that involves the creation of "new type of interactive album material, including photos, lyric sheets and liner notes that allow users to click through to items that they find most interesting." That's nearly identical to a plan that executives from some of the four largest music labels pitched Apple about 18 months ago, said a music industry source who requested anonymity.
Even as the music industry cooperates with Apple's efforts, what has some insiders upset is that Apple rejected the labels' plan. By seizing credit, Apple is being "disingenuous," said the source. He added that Apple's attempt to develop a proprietary technology around the new interactive album is an example of the company once again falling back on "the walled garden approach."
What he was referring to was how users of Apple's iPod were prevented from playing songs wrapped in digital rights management made by competitors. That effectively blocked anybody but Apple's iTunes from selling music files to iPod owners. Now, most download stores sell songs in the MP3 format and these DRM-free tunes can play on iPods and iPhones.
Apple representatives did not respond to an interview request.
But Apple's refusal to participate in the labels' plan didn't mean they gave up. The largest recording companies have continued to develop software that will help them release their own version of a new interactive album. Apple will have Cocktail, but Amazon and all the other competing services will get access to the labels' version, which will offer more content than Apple's, said the music industry source.
Apple plans to have Cocktail ready to launch by September, according to the Financial Times, and that's when the labels hope to have their version ready as well, said the source.
Both Apple and the top recording companies appear to be pursuing the same goal: rejuvenating the album, which was the benchmark sales unit that helped the music business generate billions of dollars over the past half-century. Up until the digital download turned the music industry on its head, the album was the standard means for music distribution. Even after the switch from vinyl to the CD, the album format was preserved, as most CDs featured about a dozen tracks.
Record industry execs have long said that there's no way to grow the business by selling single-song tracks. But the big labels have an uphill fight--many consumers may well resent any attempt to force them into paying a premium for packages that include unwanted tracks.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
So, the FT article is incorrect? Can you expand a bit on this?
It seems more and more that if music labels want to make money, they should fire the high-priced lawyers they have racing around the world suing people for illegal downloads, and entice people to purchase their wares online.
Perhaps Apple plans not to implement the exact same thing that was pitched to them by the studios but is instead planning to build into iTunes more features/bloat that can be used to display the extra content - much like adding the ability to view cover art and watch videos.
If so, this could provide a reason (other than the often cited "apple ripped off so and so") why the snubbed the labels - they liked the idea, but the implementation didn't fit their model of channeling everything through iTunes.
And this could leave a means to later upgrade to a full album with all the extras for those who had piecemeal purchased individual songs.
Anyways, isn't cocktail a collection of shell scripts for those who can't be bothered to muck around with the terminal?
"The walled garden approach" HAHAHAHA!! Hey music labels, the DRM was YOUR idea, remember? Apple didn't want any part of it. You forced it on them. Then when the iPod won the player battle, it becomes the "walled garden".
Like other distributors, Apple was never keen on DRM although for business reasons rather than because an altruistic concern for consumer rights. DRM is a tool for the benefit of the producer and restricts the movements of the distributor in much the same way it does the consumer. Apple is all about the control and for somebody else to come in and tell them exactly how they should allow sharing between ipods would go against all their control-freakery instincts.
The lock-in that Apple have managed to sustain has less to do with DRM and more to do with ipod and itunes syncing and connectivity as well as achieving a critical mass of sales. Which should be obvious because the music on iTunes is no longer DRM'd.
ummmm.....Apple didn't want ANY part of DRM, are you KIDDING? They were in love with the idea, especially if it meant tying people to iTunes by way of ONLY using an iPod. Don't be fooled into thinking that Apple ever stenuously fought the idea of DRM."
I guess people only read what they want to read while wearing blinders, but iTunes has been DRM free for a while hafenbrack.
They were the ones that refused to license any of their music without being encumbered by DRM, which gave rise to the dominance of the proprietary Microsoft media player and Apple itunes formats. They expected that a proliferation of many different formats would mean that nobody was effectively in control, leaving them free extend their grip over "their" content. But they didn't think for a moment that Apple would dominate so decisively and therefore find themselves in a position to dictate terms to the RIAA.
So now the DRM has gone and been replaced by crack legal teams that seek to criminalize, harass and deny ownership of the music that we have all payed for.
If the music industry didn't insist on DRM in the first place then the behemoth that is iTunes would probably never have existed. So excuse me if I don't fall for the crocodile tears being shed by the mysterious industry source.
Apple has become the Sony Electronics of the 21-century. Unfortunately, they only care about profits under the guise of an easier and simpler process.
I agree that music distribution needs to die and be re-born as something better.
There are a lot of good ideas out there but nothing that draws lightning.
But, I am not going to make one company rich in the process.
By that logic what in America today are you currently not boycotting?
If you are going to boycott a company because of their trade practices or the poor quality of product or poor service.
But simply because they are out to make a profit???
channels that we are not interested in. This includes some of the content providers like
ESPN that forces Cable networks to display there content as they want and not how the
customer would buy it.
We need to watch how Google addresses this market in the near future with their
powerful Cloud network. There is a major market ripe for the picking here in the form of
a service allowing a customer CHOICE for music. Just look at how successful HULU
has been in providing their video subscribers CHOICE.
Jim A.
Since last year, pay TV subscribers have gone down across the nation. Most cite lousy, "reality" programming as the number one reason. The second reason is, and I quote, "The same ten movies are shown over and over again on all the channels!" The third reason is price. Even if DISH or DirecTV gets you a intro rate of, say, $20 a month, after a few months, the rates skyrocket. For one TV and decent cable package, I had to pay $220 a month to cover four TVs in my house. No thanks. So I considered what I watch.
Thanks to iTunes and Amazon's use of iTunes when I download music and TV, I just use that. Just watch my download limit set up by the @$$hole ISPs and that's about the only complaint.
As far as the music labels or TV companies go...wasn't Joost an attempt at this? Or those services that a person "subscribes" to and is supposed to download all they want from that service? Yeah, I don't hear or see anything about those anymore, and that's what this is.
You obviously didn't have Dish or DirecTV, which would cost $100 less.
Apple has been up front saying it doesn't make money (or not much) on iTunes, they make their money on hardware sales (iPhone, iPod, iPod Touch).
Apple didn't invent the mp3 player, they just made it easy to use.
For Apple, it's getting to a point when the public finally doesn't want an iPod due to saturation, then start licensing the iPod interface and APIs to others. That's maybe, at the least, a decade away. By then, who knows who'll still be around.
I'm wondering which the type of music cocktail Apple is thinking about; much more interesting would be a social one - either a la Amazon (people who like X also like Y) or a via a circle of friends (so friends could recommend mixes / playlists to friends) or perhaps even DJ ... ???
I have never read anything even remotely as ludicrous as this.
Record labels INSISTED ON DRM, APPLE was the ONLY one to argue against it!
p.s. The iPod can play ANY legitimate format. They can't play the Microsoft DRM formats that have since been abandoned, leaving Microsoft customers (all 12 of them) high and dry.
Anyway, this isn't a Apple vs Microsoft issue. Can we all agree the record companies and their Gestapo, the RIAA, is whom we should direct our anger? They are evil personified.
And I agree what was said above, digital download albums are WILDLY overpriced. There's little overhead, no physical product, why on earth are we being charged 10 bucks or more?
Apple is going to introduce the "must-have" [entertainment*] device for the next 5 years.
There is significant advantage to selling your products where people congregate to buy things.
If the labels want to go for a ride, they'd better get in the wagon!
* entertainment, and much, much more.
here's an idea: high definition png, jpg, or pdf files; you know higher resolution than whats printed on CDs or LPs.
Think of this pitch this way:
Steve Jobs: "Book and Music industry. You are getting commoditized because you have no differentiated platform for extending/re-inventing your product for the online age. We just so happen to have a set of tools that have proven compelling to the tune of 1.5B downloads, field-tested across 65K apps and with a current footprint of 46M devices."
Music/Book Industry: "There is no way we can re-create that value proposition, and we already see the writing on the wall with Amazon. If they are successful, they will be telling us how much money we can make or worse, go direct to writers and musicians, and design us out of the equation. How do we get started?"
This is the consummate 1+1=3 for a segment that is otherwise facing a 1+1=<2 future.
Cheers,
Mark
[CNET editors' note: Promotional material deleted]
- by BarryT1970 August 3, 2009 5:42 AM PDT
- Man, anything which helps establish an iTunes rival is fine by me. This pretty much expresses my views: http://beatthat.com/blog/we-hate-itunes
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(32 Comments)