With Apple's recent dominance of the music industry (85% of worldwide online digital music sales), do you think Apple would be a good fit as a record label? They have everything they would need to be successful including recording software (GarageBand/ Logic Express/Logic Pro), video software (Final Cut Studio), distribution (iTunes), and amazing marketing. What would be the advantages for Apple to start a record label? What would be the advantages for consumers?

Also, in Steve Jobs’ “Thoughts on Music” letter, he said, “97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.” If Apple started a record label how could they boost this number up?

Just curious, thanks.

[PKIDelirium]

That would piss the hell out of Apple Corps.

[chucker]

Apple Corps has no more say on that matter. Apple Corps now licenses the "Apple" trademark from Apple Inc.

[PKIDelirium]

Well that shows how much attention I paid to that issue...

[turtle]

I don't see Apple doing that. They aren't in *that* business. Selling music is far different from being a label. I can see tight ties in with the other labels though.

[mooty]

I wouldn't be surprised if Steve Jobs has a large part of the private bid for EMI. I guess we'll see soon...

[Anthem]

That would be stupid.

Labels aren't exactly a growth industry. There are better places for Apple to invest their money.

[Mark_TS]

>>That would piss the hell out of Apple Corps.
---
Not necessarily-I could see APPLE joining up under the umbrella of old Aunt EMI. (ah for the early days of EMI-Harvest)
whom Warner, BMG SONY and some other trillionaire are trying to woo.
Think of the music muscle of APPLE with its stores, and in some conjunction with APPLE Corps-could hold d tight reign over content-listening or viewed.
Remember rumours where that SONY was a contender to buy APPLE some years ago, should she fail...
This could start Bill Gates down the road to Zoloft®
----
Edit printed 2 minutes ago:


NEW YORK TIMES May 28, 2007
Plunge in CD Sales Shakes Up Big Labels

By JEFF LEEDS


“Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” the Beatles album often cited as the greatest pop recording in music history, received a thoroughly modern 40th-anniversary salute last week when singers on “American Idol” belted out their own versions of its songs live on the show’s season finale.

But off stage, in a sign of the recording industry’s declining fortunes, shareholders of EMI, the music conglomerate that markets “Sgt. Pepper” and a vast trove of other recordings, were weighing a plan to sell the company as its financial performance was weakening.

It’s a maddening juxtaposition for more than one top record-label executive. Music may still be a big force in pop culture — from “Idol” to the iPod — but the music business’s own comeback attempt is falling flat.

Even pop’s pioneers are rethinking their approach. As it happens, one of the performers on “Sgt. Pepper,” Paul McCartney, is releasing a new album on June 5. But Mr. McCartney is not betting on the traditional record-label methods: He elected to sidestep EMI, his longtime home, and release the album through a new arrangement with Starbucks. (Good God!!!)

It’s too soon to tell if Starbucks’ new label (a partnership with the established Concord label) will have much success in marketing CDs. But not many other players are.

Despite costly efforts to build buzz around new talent and thwart piracy, CD sales have plunged more than 20 percent this year, far outweighing any gains made by digital sales at iTunes and similar services. Aram Sinnreich, a media industry consultant at Radar Research in Los Angeles, said the CD format, introduced in the United States 24 years ago, is in its death throes. “Everyone in the industry thinks of this Christmas as the last big holiday season for CD sales,” Mr. Sinnreich said, “and then everything goes kaput.”

It’s been four years since the last big shuffle in ownership of the major record labels. But now, with the sales plunge dimming hopes for a recovery any time soon, there is a new game of corporate musical chairs afoot that could shake up the industry hierarchy.

Under the deal that awaits shareholder approval, London-based EMI agreed last week to be purchased for more than $4.7 billion by a private equity investor, Terra Firma Capital Partners, whose diverse holdings include a European waste-conversion business. Rival bids could yet surface — though the higher the ultimate price, the more pressure the owners will face to make dramatic cuts or sell the company in pieces in order to recoup their investment.

SONY and WEA are said to be interested in EMI.

For the companies that choose to plow ahead, the question is how to weather the worsening storm. One answer: diversify into businesses that do not rely directly on CD sales or downloads. The biggest one is music publishing, which represents songwriters (who may or may not also be performers) and earns money when their songs are used in TV commercials, video games or other media. Universal Music Group, (UMG) already the biggest label, became the world’s biggest music publisher on Friday after closing its purchase of BMG Music, publisher of songs by artists like Keane, for more than $2 billion.

Now both Universal and Warner Music Group are said to be kicking the tires of Sanctuary, an independent British music and artist management company (founded by Elvis Costello) whose roster includes Iron Maiden and Elton John. The owners of all four of the major record companies also recently have chewed over deals to diversify into merchandise sales, concert tickets, advertising and other fields that are not part of their traditional business.

Even as the industry tries to branch out, though, there is no promise of an answer to a potentially more profound predicament: a creative drought and a corresponding lack of artists who ignite consumers’ interest in buying music. Sales of rap, which had provided the industry with a lifeboat in recent years, fell far more than the overall market last year with a drop of almost 21 percent, according to Nielsen SoundScan. (And the marquee star 50 Cent just delayed his forthcoming album, “Curtis.”)

In other genres the picture is not much brighter. Fans do still turn out (at least initially) for artists that have managed to build loyal followings. The biggest debut of the year came just last week from the rock band Linkin Park, whose third studio album, “Minutes to Midnight,” sold an estimated 623,000 copies, according to Nielsen SoundScan data.

But very few albums have gained traction. And that is compounded by the industry’s core structural problem: Its main product is widely available free. More than half of all music acquired by fans last year came from unpaid sources including Internet file sharing and CD burning, according to the market research company NPD Group. The “social” ripping and burning of CDs among friends — which takes place offline and almost entirely out of reach of industry policing efforts — accounted for 37 percent of all music consumption, more than file-sharing, NPD said.

The industry had long pinned its hopes on making up some of the business lost to piracy with licensed digital sales. But those prospects have dimmed as the rapid CD decline has overshadowed the sharp rise in sales at services like Apple’s iTunes. Even as music executives fret that iTunes has not generated enough sales, though, they gripe that it unfairly dominates the sale of digital music.

Partly out of frustration with Apple, some of the music companies have been slowly retreating from their longtime insistence on selling music online with digital locks that prevent unlimited copying. Their aim is to sell more music that can be played on Apple’s wildly popular iPod device, which is not compatible with the protection software used by most other digital music services. EMI led the reversal, striking a deal with Apple to offer its music catalog in the unrestricted AAC format.

Some music executives say that dropping copy-restriction software, also known as digital-rights management, c ould stoke business at iTunes’ competitors and generate a surge in sales. Others predict it would have little impact, though they add that the labels squandered years on failed attempts to restrict digital music instead of converting more fans into paying consumers.

“They were so slow to react, and let things get totally out of hand,” said Russ Crupnick, a senior entertainment industry analyst at NPD, the research company. “They just missed the boat.”

Perhaps there is little to lose, then, in experimentation. Mr. McCartney, for example, may not have made it to the “American Idol” finale, but he too is employing thoroughly modern techniques to reach his audience.

Starbucks will be selling his album “Memory Almost Full” through regular music retail shops but will also be playing it repeatedly in thousands of its coffee shops in more than two dozen countries on the day of release. And the first music video from the new album had it premiere on YouTube. Mr. McCartney, in announcing his deal with Starbucks, described his rationale simply: “It’s a new world.”
Many labels are rekindling interest in "Value-added" re-releases of back catalog;
Remastered sound, bonus tracks and original or spiffed-up packaging-at a decent price.

The entire Beatles catalog are said to be readied for sale next month as CD-(or download)-in remastered, deluxe original packaging.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by mooty I wouldn't be surprised if Steve Jobs has a large part of the private bid for EMI. I guess we'll see soon...

Why? Wait a little longer and they'll simply implode, then Apple can pick up the pieces at a discount, or strike a deal with the new IP owners. That's got to be a lot better than propping up a company / ethic which is now an ailing dinosaur in modern business terms.

[mooty]

Originally Posted by scratt Why? Wait a little longer and they'll simply implode, then Apple can pick up the pieces at a discount, or strike a deal with the new IP owners. That's got to be a lot better than propping up a company / ethic which is now an ailing dinosaur in modern business terms.

I never said Apple, I said Steve Jobs... and I think you'll find EMI are already at the discount price (or were before the Terra Firma bid). This has been going on for years, not months - so waiting for EMI to implode imminently would be very wishful thinking on anyones part - Look to Warners for such delights first...

Why a private equity bid would be happy to come in and "prop up" EMI in its current form I don't know - it doesn't make business sense. Whomever strikes the deal in the coming months will for sure make drastic changes to the business and will definitely NOT carry on as usual - that would be pretty idiotic of any buyer.

[Doxxic]

There seems to be a misconception about why music labels exist, even among some music labels themselves, I think.

A record label's added value to musicians is in knowing the music market, while their added value to the market is in knowing musicians.
Besides, they know how to invest money in those musicians and their promotion.
Above that, a good record label has a certain reputation itself: it knows especially well what's going on in a specific part of the music market, and connects this to some specific, publicly respected taste.

Apple knows nothing about any of these things, except that they have a big load of general music purchase statistics. But that doesn't even nearly make a company a music label.

Apple's added value to the music market is rather that of a music *distributor/retailer*, which in this case happens to need to know even less about the music market than their competition, because their technology allows them to offer the customer just everything the music industry offers Apple.

If any other type of company could take over the role of music labels, it's (web) radio broadcasting / podcasting.

The reason that this might actually happen is that those have always been forced to stick to a certain identity to survive, while some record labels, especially the big ones, consist mainly of lawyers sitting on a big pile of music rights, wondering how to survive all the changes that have come over them.

[Anthem]

Home taping is killing the music industry.

[SteveC]

Maybe Apple, Starbucks, NASA and EMI should all team up together, since a computer company is more interested in phones and music than computers, and a coffee company is more interested in music and sandwiches, then what we really need is a music company interested in space exploration, telephones, internet, Bono and Sir Paul. Since surely there is no intelligent life left on this planet. :-)

We have all this wonderful technology to make sharing possible, and we have made everything illegal.

[Mac Donald]

Originally Posted by chucker Apple Corps has no more say on that matter. Apple Corps now licenses the "Apple" trademark from Apple Inc.

Apple Corps. has an exclusive license to the trademark in that particular area. Thus, Apple Inc. has no right to use it for record labels.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Mac Donald Apple Corps. has an exclusive license to the trademark in that particular area. Thus, Apple Inc. has no right to use it for record labels.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/02/05apple.html doesn't say so.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...006471,00.html doesn't say so.

What source does? And do three "no" emoticons negate each other, or do they merely breed more offsprings?

[JerseyThursday]

Isn't there already an Apple Records, a little known group called The Beatles started it.

[scratt]

The Beatles, who are they? I like trance and stuff. Do they do any? Where can I get a CD?

[Mac Donald]

Originally Posted by chucker What source does? And do three "no" emoticons negate each other, or do they merely breed more offsprings?

The agreement says so. I've read it. Don't care if you believe me or not, but I'm an IP lawyer and am very familiar with the terms of that deal.

[scratt]

/ot What does an IP lawyer do, on a day to day basis?

[LoganT]

Holy crap dude.

Apple to Start Record Label with Jay-Z and Beyonce?

ROFL if true.

[chucker]

One of the weirdest rumors ever.

[Moogs]

No. They should not do this. They've already bitten off quite a lot with AppleTV and iPhone for the next couple years at least. Apple should consider carefully how large it grows and into what markets it jumps, as the larger the company gets and the more divergent its management tasks, the more the quality of the Mac and the OS will suffer IMO. We'll end up with marginally well made hardware (getting closer to that every year IMO) and buggier, less compelling software.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by LoganT Holy crap dude. Apple to Start Record Label with Jay-Z and Beyonce? ROFL if true.

Weird. Not exactly the artists I would've expected. I mean, honestly...who gives a shit? I guess from a "biz" perspective, yeah...get something the MTV monkeys will go for. But what a waste.

I've never gotten Beyonce at all. I always thought she was the least capable singer (and most unattractive) of Destiny's Child, yet she was the "breakout star" (and not the genuinely talented and beautiful Kelly Rowland?). So unfair and backwards.

I don't think this rumor is true. Tough to even imagine.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Mac Donald The agreement says so. I've read it. Don't care if you believe me or not, but I'm an IP lawyer and am very familiar with the terms of that deal.

Great! Where's the source? Surely as a lawyer, you know how to cite sources, right?

[Yontsey]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I've never gotten Beyonce at all. I always thought she was the least capable singer (and most unattractive) of Destiny's Child, yet she was the "breakout star" (and not the genuinely talented and beautiful Kelly Rowland?). So unfair and backwards. \

I agree 100% with you

[Wrao]

I can't see what Apple stands to gain from this, it is a pretty silly fanboy dream that doesn't really make a lot of practical sense(on the surface at least) but I wouldn't say no to being signed to the theoretical Apple label. I've been working on a demo anyway, and the next step is establishing the contacts/network to move it. I'm already pretty heavily invested in AAPL as is, why not just go full bore. Give me money Apple, Inc.!!

[Doxxic]

People, record labels are history. Really.

Think about what they are, what their added value is today, and who needs that anymore.

The only reasons to start a new record label are vanity, lack of talent and romanticism.
The reason not to sell a record label if you already own one, is fear for the harsh truth that no-one is going to pay for it.

This says it all. Luckily for him, I think he's intentionally trying to say what I'm saying here.

Originally Posted by wrao I can't see what Apple stands to gain from this, it is a pretty silly fanboy dream that doesn't really make a lot of practical sense(on the surface at least) but I wouldn't say no to being signed to the theoretical Apple label. I've been working on a demo anyway, and the next step is establishing the contacts/network to move it. I'm already pretty heavily invested in AAPL as is, why not just go full bore. Give me money Apple, Inc.!!

Wrao, go to Tunecore.com and do the promotion yourself. Try to get support not from record labels, but from specific radio stations with profiles (i.e. brands, reputations) that fit your music.