You want proof about iTunes and how it rips you off the artist? And how anyone who buys a single download from iTunes is still ripping off their beloved artists?
When Steve Jobs and Apple had to approach the solution of providing "content" to their new amazing little device, the iPod, they had very little imagination. As that time Apple's re-birth was being perceived as a specialized premium computer hardware designer and manufacturer, versus a content creator or service provider.
Apple makes and sell premium gadgets, that was their ONLY motivation with the iPod, too. Pitch to Apple boardmembers: "We will sell lots of these little iPod devices, cheaply made overseas, integrating pieces parts from other companies, that are well-designed bling and would fit into a new trendy lifestyle and change behavior and use."
But, without content -- Apple's iPod would be foiled and left as some little device that came out and disappeared and essentially commoditized (by the competition - think APPLE NEWTON) never causing any shift in people's music listening and ownership behaviors and causing very whiny and pouty Apple boardmembers. But, someone had an idea.
So, unimaginatively, Apple went and talked to the mighty stalwart content owners, the ones that owned content that clearly people still wanted to listen to and would want far into the future. For Apple, this would force a competitive block at least for a short amount of time... and allow them to get a behavioral shift underway aka "people cherishing their iPods and ripping every god-damn song off of every cd they owned onto it". Talk about a brilliant strategy - who would ever leave the iPod then? If each consumer ripped their entire collection to it - they would never jump to a competitive product regardless of content choices!
But, Apple didn't stop there. So, they went to these content owners (about 5 or 6 globally in total) that owned the full 100% copyrights to all the major recordings of our time (nearly). But, to get a deal done fast that looked great for everyone (never considering: independent music or artists or artists that hadn't even begun to be artists or bands)... Apple said to these 5 or 6 major content owners: "We can just work with all your old royalty deals. We do not need to change a thing. Or upset that pesky artist apple cart."
The majority of all recorded music from those 5 or 6 content owners minus a few bands (think Beatles) that had some control over their digital futures - made iTunes possible, which gave the iPod its next great positioning to unassuming consumers and the unaware and create a stranglehold that will be hard to dislodge at this point. Bad deals and ideas from the past carried forward atop the iTunes/iPod platform for another 20 or 30 years? Fuck.
So, all this cause on one fine day at Apple someone had a slightly bad latte most likely and couldn't muster up a teensy bit more imaginatiion. Surely, the major content holders, who are all apart of the RIAA, who were suffering from Napsteritis and a case of boneheaditis around what to do to stop "DIGITAL" distribution saw this as a stop gap measure - being the limited thinkers they are. Did these content owners ever successfully stop cassette mix tapes? No.
More imagination or a thought to include all artists in a way that could allow them the benefit of easy digital distribution in a single place (like iTunes) -and- allow a new type of "royalty" deal that would allow small or unknown or new artists to take the majority or larger portion of a single track sale or full album download sale - and - therefore allow a dedicated artist musician or singer/songwriter or band to launch themselves into a sustainable creative force with independence, yet a top the iTunes/iPod platform. Boy, that woulda really been great, somehow. Like the mouse. Or the graphical user interface. Imagine if we were all still using command line prompts on the computer? Boy, thanks Apple.
WANT PROOF? And I quote David Byrne (from Wired Magazine: Issue 16.01):
So what happens when online sales eliminate many of these expenses? Look at iTunes: $10 for a "CD" download reflects the cost savings of digital distribution, which seems fair — at first. It's certainly better for consumers. But after Apple takes its 30 percent, the royalty percentage is applied [from the old slavery deals between the major content owners and artists] the artist — surprise! — is no better off.
His words not mine. David Byrne is a former member of a little band called the Talking Heads, a former label owner and solo performer who makes music to perform and sell.
What is funny about the article by David Byrne in Wired is he uses a $13.99 price point for the entire article and then without much mention, he switches to being ok with a $10 a cd price point. A price point instigated by Apple's amazing math machine and cost dismantling based on what they could cheapen out (cause digital distribution is cheaper... I guess by a whole $4 per unit cheaper!).
That is the touche here frankly, in all of this all artists works were reduced to a value of .99 cents a song, no matter how many people buy it, and without care of what the perceived value of the song is to individuals or the universe.
Imagine if you all had said to Apple: "Ehhhh, yeah, this iPod thing is worth about $14 dollars. Parts $4, Malaysian labor $1.13, Ammortized r&d costs $3.75, ammortized cost of lattes with extra foam drank during design about $2.82. What is that? Like $13 bucks, fuck, whatever here is $10." Apple to you potential buyer of iPod: "But, what about the perceived value and added value to your life and a change for the better in how the iPod does this and how it might save your life one day?" Your answer: "Fuck you here is $10 dollars for it." Boy, that woulda been great.
So, a cd of music or art or sound is now valued at $10 on the open market all because it made for easy math that one really bad day a few years back in Cupertino at Apple's HQ. Artists everywhere got screwed (again) and David Byrne, a legend is handing you the artist and music buying consumer the fucking proof. Will you believe it now?
Yet, artists new and old everywhere, and mini-record labels think iTunes is their potential savior and the way forward. You folks are as bad as the in a trance Radiohead fanbase!
Speaking of which, if I see that RADIOHEAD TELEVISION COMMERCIAL again with the mime's hands "trying" to fold up the DIY packaging of the physical cd released which was released today 01.01.08 to the physical earth I think I will fall over in hysterics as Radiohead fans want to tell me they are not still part of the big hit major record label machine?? WHO THE FUCK PAID FOR THOSE TV COMMERCIALS blasted around the universe last night on a pretty expensive night to buy tv ad time? THOM YORKE? Sure.
And now, full circle, we await what the deal will be between the geniuses at the Radiohead business empire and the Apple iTunes controlled distribution empire. Stay tuned. Someone should send in David Byrne to mediate that discussion.
When Steve Jobs and Apple had to approach the solution of providing "content" to their new amazing little device, the iPod, they had very little imagination. As that time Apple's re-birth was being perceived as a specialized premium computer hardware designer and manufacturer, versus a content creator or service provider.
Apple makes and sell premium gadgets, that was their ONLY motivation with the iPod, too. Pitch to Apple boardmembers: "We will sell lots of these little iPod devices, cheaply made overseas, integrating pieces parts from other companies, that are well-designed bling and would fit into a new trendy lifestyle and change behavior and use."
But, without content -- Apple's iPod would be foiled and left as some little device that came out and disappeared and essentially commoditized (by the competition - think APPLE NEWTON) never causing any shift in people's music listening and ownership behaviors and causing very whiny and pouty Apple boardmembers. But, someone had an idea.
So, unimaginatively, Apple went and talked to the mighty stalwart content owners, the ones that owned content that clearly people still wanted to listen to and would want far into the future. For Apple, this would force a competitive block at least for a short amount of time... and allow them to get a behavioral shift underway aka "people cherishing their iPods and ripping every god-damn song off of every cd they owned onto it". Talk about a brilliant strategy - who would ever leave the iPod then? If each consumer ripped their entire collection to it - they would never jump to a competitive product regardless of content choices!
But, Apple didn't stop there. So, they went to these content owners (about 5 or 6 globally in total) that owned the full 100% copyrights to all the major recordings of our time (nearly). But, to get a deal done fast that looked great for everyone (never considering: independent music or artists or artists that hadn't even begun to be artists or bands)... Apple said to these 5 or 6 major content owners: "We can just work with all your old royalty deals. We do not need to change a thing. Or upset that pesky artist apple cart."
The majority of all recorded music from those 5 or 6 content owners minus a few bands (think Beatles) that had some control over their digital futures - made iTunes possible, which gave the iPod its next great positioning to unassuming consumers and the unaware and create a stranglehold that will be hard to dislodge at this point. Bad deals and ideas from the past carried forward atop the iTunes/iPod platform for another 20 or 30 years? Fuck.
So, all this cause on one fine day at Apple someone had a slightly bad latte most likely and couldn't muster up a teensy bit more imaginatiion. Surely, the major content holders, who are all apart of the RIAA, who were suffering from Napsteritis and a case of boneheaditis around what to do to stop "DIGITAL" distribution saw this as a stop gap measure - being the limited thinkers they are. Did these content owners ever successfully stop cassette mix tapes? No.
More imagination or a thought to include all artists in a way that could allow them the benefit of easy digital distribution in a single place (like iTunes) -and- allow a new type of "royalty" deal that would allow small or unknown or new artists to take the majority or larger portion of a single track sale or full album download sale - and - therefore allow a dedicated artist musician or singer/songwriter or band to launch themselves into a sustainable creative force with independence, yet a top the iTunes/iPod platform. Boy, that woulda really been great, somehow. Like the mouse. Or the graphical user interface. Imagine if we were all still using command line prompts on the computer? Boy, thanks Apple.
WANT PROOF? And I quote David Byrne (from Wired Magazine: Issue 16.01):
So what happens when online sales eliminate many of these expenses? Look at iTunes: $10 for a "CD" download reflects the cost savings of digital distribution, which seems fair — at first. It's certainly better for consumers. But after Apple takes its 30 percent, the royalty percentage is applied [from the old slavery deals between the major content owners and artists] the artist — surprise! — is no better off.
His words not mine. David Byrne is a former member of a little band called the Talking Heads, a former label owner and solo performer who makes music to perform and sell.
What is funny about the article by David Byrne in Wired is he uses a $13.99 price point for the entire article and then without much mention, he switches to being ok with a $10 a cd price point. A price point instigated by Apple's amazing math machine and cost dismantling based on what they could cheapen out (cause digital distribution is cheaper... I guess by a whole $4 per unit cheaper!).
That is the touche here frankly, in all of this all artists works were reduced to a value of .99 cents a song, no matter how many people buy it, and without care of what the perceived value of the song is to individuals or the universe.
Imagine if you all had said to Apple: "Ehhhh, yeah, this iPod thing is worth about $14 dollars. Parts $4, Malaysian labor $1.13, Ammortized r&d costs $3.75, ammortized cost of lattes with extra foam drank during design about $2.82. What is that? Like $13 bucks, fuck, whatever here is $10." Apple to you potential buyer of iPod: "But, what about the perceived value and added value to your life and a change for the better in how the iPod does this and how it might save your life one day?" Your answer: "Fuck you here is $10 dollars for it." Boy, that woulda been great.
So, a cd of music or art or sound is now valued at $10 on the open market all because it made for easy math that one really bad day a few years back in Cupertino at Apple's HQ. Artists everywhere got screwed (again) and David Byrne, a legend is handing you the artist and music buying consumer the fucking proof. Will you believe it now?
Yet, artists new and old everywhere, and mini-record labels think iTunes is their potential savior and the way forward. You folks are as bad as the in a trance Radiohead fanbase!
Speaking of which, if I see that RADIOHEAD TELEVISION COMMERCIAL again with the mime's hands "trying" to fold up the DIY packaging of the physical cd released which was released today 01.01.08 to the physical earth I think I will fall over in hysterics as Radiohead fans want to tell me they are not still part of the big hit major record label machine?? WHO THE FUCK PAID FOR THOSE TV COMMERCIALS blasted around the universe last night on a pretty expensive night to buy tv ad time? THOM YORKE? Sure.
And now, full circle, we await what the deal will be between the geniuses at the Radiohead business empire and the Apple iTunes controlled distribution empire. Stay tuned. Someone should send in David Byrne to mediate that discussion.
Comments