Regarding iTunes LP Costing Labels $10,000
Is Apple charging the big record labels $10,000 to create iTunes LP packages for them, and outright refusing to make the service available to the indies? That’s the allegation Gizmodo brought forward, based on a conversation with one such indie, who heard it from their labels digital distribution manager, who claims to have heard it from their iTunes rep.
Enter internet brouhaha. Some sites are calling the $10,000 fee exorbitant, and the lockout of indies untenable. Other sites are pointing out how much good quality interactive web development costs, and highlighting that Apple has only rolled out 12 iTunes LP’s so far.
Here’s the thing: when Apple announced iTunes LP, despite the fact that they’re using the fairly open WebKit framework to make it, they didn’t announce the specific TuneKit implementation as an open format, they didn’t announce an SDK, and they didn’t say they were offering it to every artist immediately.
It looks to us like this is just a case of Apple being Apple. iTunes LP is an experiment, clearly near-and-dear to them from Steve Jobs on down, and they’re starting with a few, select albums and trying to provide as premium and experience as possible. That kind of development work isn’t cheap, especially when you want to keep the numbers low at first, and it also means it isn’t open to everyone. Heck, it only even works on iTunes on your Windows or Mac PC at this point!
If they’re still nailing down the format specs, creating the development tools, and getting to set to roll out versions that will work with iPods, iPhones, and mythical, still unreleased Apple TV and iTablet devices, then this makes the kind of sense that does. And we’re guessing, when the dust settles and all the above is in place, Apple will open up iTunes LP and roll the format out wide, even to indies, because it will do what Apple really intends iTunes to do — help sell Apple hardware.
| Tweet |
|
|
Leave a Reply
Note: Comments must be civil, respectful, and on-topic. If a comment does not add to the conversation, if it contains spam advertising, or inappropriate language or content, it will be removed. Comments containing links may be held for moderation. Relax, enjoy, and share in the discussion.
I hardly ever buy albums. If they make the price worth it or offer lossless format for albums only, then i might. I could care less about artwork.
I might also buy movies if they allowed a burn to dvd or blu-ray and they were 1080p.
@cardfan: Hollywood believes we’re all criminals just waiting to steal their content, no way are they enlightened enough to realize consumers will pay fair prices for fair content that can be used and enjoyed, personally, where and how we want.
They actually believe ripping a CD is theft. They really believe we should pay for every version/format of a song, for every place we want to listen to it.
“They actually believe ripping a CD is theft”
well i should be in prison then, just sayin…
@Rene
Minor quibble: As somebody who has worked in that industry, I have to point out that Hollywood != Recording industry. While motion picture studios are no angels, they have not shown nearly the level of boneheadedness that the RIAA et al have shown. The recent “digital copy” available on Blurays may not be as open as I would want, but it is a step in the right direction, and orders of magnitude better than anything the music industry has offered.
@fassy: sorry, that part was in response to cardfan wanting to burn DVDs of the movies he bought. Should have been clearer!
@Rene
No need to apologize — just wanted to point out that the film industry has not (yet) been as full-bore stupid as the RIAA. As bandwidth increases, they probably will be, unfortunately. I happen to agree with Cardfan (and you) about burning for home use. I cannot wait for the day when the music and film industries recognize:
A customer (should) have the absolute right to burn any purchased — not rented — movies to his/her home media server, or to place on a portable device, at whatever resolution he/she can technically achieve.
Producers should realize that is (IMHO) not theft, just personal use of a paid product. In return, I would think it only fair that customers recognize:
Producers should be able to unleash the legal hounds on somebody who copies/burns content they have not purchased, or if they distribute content outside a home network to the world at large.
Simply put — buy it, you should be able to do whatever the **** you want with it for your own use, but for your own use only. No more, no less.
I hope/suspect this is simply a high price early to discourage a rush until the bugs are worked out and Apple can evaluate demand.
Once the service is firmed up, (and perhaps farmed out) I’m sure apple will make it available to all.
Then comes the issue of content censoring. That is NOT going to go over well. Apple will have to step away from that.
And denying Indies: Instant FAIL. Instant FTC investigation. Illegal Restraint of Trade.
Don’t even start with the ol “Its their store they can do what they want with it” nonsense, unless 1) you have graduated from college, 2) have been a sentient being for more than 20 years.
It was Woolworth’s store too, And they found out they COULD NOT do with it as they wanted. http://americanhistory.si.edu/Brown/history/6-legacy/freedom-struggle-2.html .
@icebike
Depends enitrely on how indies are denied. The article does not suggest any sort of Greensboro sit-in situation, merely that indies will be priced out — that even after the service rolls out past the initial test, that $10,000 will be simply too much for them to afford. There is nothing illegal about selling an individual product at a high price, as long as that same price is offered to all comers equally. As long as Apple were to accept an indie that managed to pony up that $10,000, the FTC (and all other government arms) would stay on the sidelines.
When an article contains “based on a conversation with one such indie, who heard it from their labels digital distribution manager, who claims to have heard it from their iTunes rep” I must admit I have a hard time being concerned. Just the facts, please.
I tend to think iTunesLP will be a thud in the marketplace, simply because it does not add enough value to make it worthwhile. (For me; others may disagree.)
As for the format itself, it appears to be mostly vanilla HTML/CSS/JS, as a few people have disassembled it and even made their own iTunesLPs. Barring some TuneKit features yet to be seen (quite possible), It would seem that the $10k is as much for store placement as for any technical creation fee.
Link to crunchgear article (that contains links to some analysis of the format as well as an independently created LP)
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/10/12/dont-want-to-pay-10000-to-have-an-itunes-lp-version-of-your-album-make-your-own/
Simply curious these who’re implementing model new jigga-star plugin for BE or at any time you made this theme by yourself?