[MW Forums]

The head of Universal Music is enlisting partners for a new music service that will seek to undermine Apple's iTunes, a report Friday said. more

[aestival]

Heck, if Universal's music won't play on an iPod, then I don't think it's Apple's bottom line that they'll end up cutting into -- whether it's by attrition of artists to iPod-friendly publishers or by means of shadowy piracy, I think it's fair to say that Universal won't be dictating the music player of choice any decade soon.
[for the record -- I would buy CDs very sparingly, if forced to, but I suspect the vast majority of people wouldn't go to the trouble]

[TheBum]

One word came to mind when I read this: collusion, which is illegal the last time I checked.

[warlock7]

So, in other words, the labels want more money and aren't happy being locked into the iTMS pricing scheme.

[pogo]

There is no way that this $5 monthly subscription will be absorbed by the hardware manufacturers. It makes no sense. Universal is, in effect, telling them that the more units they sell, the more their costs will go up. It's fine to pass on the $5 to the consumer at purchase, but what about the next year? How long will they keep subsidizing the music before it no longer makes business sense? When will the labels wake up to the fact that people won't buy their music if they overprice it. Universal will accomplish nothing by this other than releasing a new wave of piracy.

[JaxbNimbel]

I read this story over and over and there just MUST be something I'm missing or part of the story isn't being told yet. How in the world could giving the music away for free actually make MORE money for the labels OR for the music manufacturers? I just don't see the business model unless there is a significant catch that we don't know yet. It's like a Catch 22. The hardware manufacturers, seeing so many music services failing, will probably not want to take such a significant financial risk. At least they make some money off the players they are selling now. Under this proposal, unless the service is a HUGE success, the manufacturers will take the majority brunt of the losses here and if they have to raise music player prices, they'll be at a price disadvantage compared to Apple. The only company that I can think of that would sink that much money into an arguably predictable failure would be, you guessed it, Microsoft. And what a huge anti-trust debacle it would be if Microsoft & the record execs fixed music prices & player prices together with a free music stunt.
My other guess is that what you don't know is that you'll get the music for free for the 1st year, then be stuck with a music player that either doesn't play your songs that you thought were yours unless you renew for more money or you get the songs you got in the 1st year and then have to pay to keep the service to buy music with higher overall music prices than iTunes. Oh and just because all the record execs are talking about DRV-free music today doesn't mean they haven't give up on DRM. They could just as easily add a more restrictive DRM down the road if this collusion process succeeds. I could see the record labels pulling such a sleazy stunt. They've got to be thinking of something sleazy. These after all are the sleazy record execs behind this proposal, the same ones who just months ago referred to iPods as "music theft devices".

[pdbreske]

Quote:

---

If the new service were to offer DRM-free songs it would make it easier for it to target a wide range of music players.

---

Like what? The iPod, the iPod ... and, um, the iPod? Doesn't Apple own more than seventy percent of the player market? Seven out of ten players isn't enough, though. These companies want to sell to all ten.

Quote:

---

Meanwhile Sony said recently that it would abandon its proprietary ATRAC copy-protection technology, and add Microsofts Windows Media technology to its music players instead.

---

And Sony is doing the opposite. They are abandoning iPods altogether and going with the DRM scheme that works only on the few players that use Windows DRM. Good plan.

Quote:

---

... which aims to counter what the music industry sees as Apples overly stringent restrictions on the way they can market their music.

---

Read: We want to charge more for the songs you actually want to hear, and we won't give one extra penny to the artist.
Why isn't Apple courting the artists to sell directly through iTunes? Here's the pitch: "We'll market your music on the iTS and take 29 cents for each track. You'll keep the rest." The artists would be making TONS of money compared to whatever contract they currently have with the major labels.

[Galloway]

I really think there must be some sort of "Sleaze Test" you have to pass to become a record company executive. You get bonus points for having extra greed.

[jaspermac]

The music industry is taking cues from other sleazeballs: drug dealers.
Want to get your potential clients "hooked for life"? Give them free samples until they can't live without your product, then start charging what the market will bear.
This "free" music will only remain free until customers get locked into the music industry's approved hardware/software system. Then the toll gate comes down.
The "Unlimited Free Music" sales model has no way of making more money for the music industry unless the player manufacturers' subsidy causes players to cost $3000 each.
TANSTAAFL , kids... TANSTAAFL!

[Perry_Clease]

Quote:

---

I really think there must be some sort of "Sleaze Test" you have to pass to become a record company executive. You get bonus points for having extra greed.

---

You are probably correct. I worked a short time for small music company a few years ago, they made politicians seem clean. I left as soon as I could get another job.

[tomtom]

Yes it really does smell of Antitrust big time in the USA at least.
There are so many of the elements of Antitrust present. These are separate considerations from Apple's position in the market.

[PeterHill]

I just checked yesterday, since the ITMS opened, I have purchased over 2200 items. Hopefully the artists received some of that money.
I absolutely refuse to buy music from amazon. I don't want mp3, I want mp4. I don't want bigger files that are slightly better quality than the DRM apple stuff or worse than the non-drm apple stuff.
I certainly won't use some service that universal wants to come up with just so they can "fix" what they think is broken about itunes.
Trent Reznor is already label free. Paul McCartney moved to the Starbucks Label. Starbucks understands music about as well as Apple does. Who goes into a music store nowadays? A brick and mortar one? Oh, target and best buy, great places to browse for new music.
good luck universal, I will miss your artists if you go.

[tomtom]

What a mess these folks are in.
When I read items such as this and about Universal in particular, I sometimes wonder if the stress of running a music business is driving some folks insane or if they are insane to start with.

[adobephile]

Greed, stupidity, and a running dog "press" don't make for any "rebellion." As if they know better than the people who've already spoken with their wallets.
You don't sell over three billion songs in only a few years if you're doing something wrong.
They didn't want to help the hen make her bread, and now these fools are trying to steal it.