Jon Bon Jovi slams Steve Jobs for 'killing' music

[amirm]

Let me make sure one thing is clear: I do not agree with Bon Jovi that Apple is killing music. Piracy is the top reason for music label revenues declining. We all know that people listen to as much music now if not more, than before.

My point regrading apple is that they have sucked the life out of selling music. That has the effect of taking out just about everyone else from that business. The result? We don't have a great store to go and buy lossless audio for every piece of audio we like. So longer term, Apple may be responsible for killing the audiophile music industry as CD sales shrink and Apple doesn't see fit to serve us! They will continue to serve the non-audiophile market and given the overabundance of love for the company despite heavy handedness, they will continue to do so.

BTW, all hopes are on subscription music now....

 

[garylkoh]

I may be in the tiny minority but I can say that when I really like an album (not song) that I downloaded, I do go out and buy whatever is available in either LP, SACD or CD. In that order.

I'm the same.... and sometimes I get every single format I can get a hold of CD, XRCD, DVA-A, LP (different pressings) because unfortunately, there is so much variance in pressings.

 

[vinylphilemag]

I have a bit of a soft place for microsoft. Someone needed to come along and allow us all to talk to one another. They did it. That is their legacy IMO.

Tom

I don't want to derail this thread, but WHAAAAT? Microsoft had nothing to do with "allowing us to talk with each other".

 

[audioguy]

I don't want to derail this thread, but WHAAAAT? Microsoft had nothing to do with "allowing us to talk with each other".

+1

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

My point regrading apple is that they have sucked the life out of selling music.

And while I hate to keep beating this horse, it shouldn't go unsaid that while we understand the point, you haven't made it. The only thing you've offered to show that Apple sucked the life out of selling music is the migration of a significant portion of the market from buying albums to buying songs. And as I've said several times already, that is a choice that the market made, not a Machiavellian scheme from Jobs. It is something people obviously wanted, or the it would have failed. So Apple offered people something they wanted and they took it. Where's the foul?

Tim

 

[vinylphilemag]

I thought I might not have been specific enough for some. MS DOS and mircosoft programs are what nearly every business, government, and military across the world use. Someone had to dominate enough so that we could all communicate with each other across common software. That was then, I don't know what your business use to communicate these days but I have an idea its microsoft programs.

Tom

Regarding the first point: Microsoft only just made it onto the Internet bandwagon when they decided to include TCP/IP out of the box with Windows 95 at the last minute (prior versions required a TCP/IP stack from 3rd parties).

You could not be more wrong on that last point with me! Me and my business do not, have not, and will never use, ANY software from Microsoft for communications. I've been sending email since before Outhouse existed and surfing the web since Mosaic was the defacto (only?) browser. And I absolutely will NOT allow my documents et al be held hostage to a proprietary file format. (Hint: if you use MS Office, your ability to access those docs is at MS' mercy. If you use ODF, no one vendor controls your ability to access your docs.)

The only reason why there's (begrudgingly) a copy of Windows here, period, is because Sage Software (the clowns who write Simple Accounting) do not currently support Mac OS X. When they do (or when I switch to a Mac friendly program), I'll happily delete the VM I use to run them on my iMac and use the disk space for something else.

Out of respect for my fellow forum writers, I'll refrain from describing my intense disdain for anything Microsoft.

 

[amirm]

And while I hate to keep beating this horse, it shouldn't go unsaid that while we understand the point, you haven't made it.

Beating a dead horse it is. I get the feeling that even if Steve Jobs showed up here and told you otherwise, you wouldn't believe it .

With that in mind, I will leave you with this article: http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/200...iny-step-forward-still-trails-apple-by-miles/

"But let’s be clear: The digital music download market looks like the search market in that it’s dominated by a single giant player. But it’s not like search in that there aren’t many benefits to running a download store with a relatively small audience: The small margins for music sales mean that you need to be awfully big to make this a significant business."

The only thing you've offered to show that Apple sucked the life out of selling music is the migration of a significant portion of the market from buying albums to buying songs. And as I've said several times already, that is a choice that the market made, not a Machiavellian scheme from Jobs. It is something people obviously wanted, or the it would have failed. So Apple offered people something they wanted and they took it. Where's the foul?

Tim

You are taking half the argument and ignoring the other part. That he cut a revenue split with labels which everyone else is stuck with. While Apple acquires an iTunes customer with every i* product, others have to go hunt for them. And with lousy margins, the acquisition cost becomes horrendous.

I will leave you with this proposal: if you think the market for selling music is healthy, how about you writing a business proposal for a new music service? Send it to me and I will get it funded!

 

[amirm]

Regarding the first point: Microsoft only just made it onto the Internet bandwagon when they decided to include TCP/IP out of the box with Windows 95 at the last minute (prior versions required a TCP/IP stack from 3rd parties).

Looks like you are forgetting that Microsoft demolished its AOL-like walled garden overnight and adopted the entire Internet protocols on a dime and stayed committed to it in a huge way. OP was right. They did give the ability to hundreds of millions of people to get on the Internet.

You could not be more wrong on that last point with me! Me and my business do not, have not, and will never use, ANY software from Microsoft for communications. I've been sending email since before Outhouse existed and surfing the web since Mosaic was the defacto (only?) browser. And I absolutely will NOT allow my documents et al be held hostage to a proprietary file format. (Hint: if you use MS Office, your ability to access those docs is at MS' mercy. If you use ODF, no one vendor controls your ability to access your docs.)

As if you will really get stranded tomorrow if you used Microsoft formats with no ability to read them. And regardless, Microsoft opened its Office specifications a while back. You or anyone else can write a tool to read or write them: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/docs/officebinaryformats.mspx

"The current and supported specifications for the Microsoft Word 97-2010, Excel 97-2010, and PowerPoint 97-2010 binary file formats are located here. All of these specifications are covered by the Microsoft Open Specification Promise."

And what is Open Specification Promise?

"Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification (“Covered Implementation”), subject to the following. This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you..."

Translation? You can use the format free of charge from Microsoft.

How is one stuck then with anything here?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm not ignoring the other half of the argument, Amir, I just haven't seen any support for it. If the majors cut a horrible deal with Jobs, they should get out of it. If middle managers are afraid of not hitting their numbers short-term, senior managers should make the long-term call. And if they can't, or won't, it's nobody's fault but their own.

I'm not being an Apple fanboy here, Amir, I'm looking for a logical reason why the music industry can lay their problems at Apple's feet, and I'm coming up with nothing.

I will leave you with this proposal: if you think the market for selling music is healthy, how about you writing a business proposal for a new music service? Send it to me and I will get it funded!

Who said it was healthy? I just said Apple didn't create the condition that 35% of the market doesn't want to buy albums full of filler. They just made a successful business out of it. And that's your business proposal, if Steve will share it with you.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

What was the revenue split of the old model? Retailer's % + Artists % + Label's %?

In iTunes Store's case for every 99 cents it is Apple 31 cents, Artist 34 cents, Label 34 cents. This is according to Market Watch of the Wall Street Journal.

I think before we should go any further we should see what the old model was like in comparison.

Check this out

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties6.htm

Keep in mind that Label costs are down significantly. Packaging costs are practically gone. Recording costs are way down because of the lower costs of recording equipment. Compare for example an SSL or NEVE suite using 2" tape machines and a horde of outboard gear to a Protools HD or any other DAW based system including control surfaces and a horde of plug ins.

What does Apple do with the 31 cents? Anything and everything a retailer does except it is in cyberspace and not real space. Storage, cataloging, sales tracking, merchandising, transaction processing, delivery, add store maintenance and upgrading, service development and creation, capital expenditures for physical plant assets, promotions and advertising, prepaid cards similar to gift certificates. These are just the things off the top of my head.

 

[amirm]

I think before we should go any further we should see what the old model was like in comparison.

What old model? No one was able to sell tracks before this deal.

 

[tonmeister2008]

Let me make sure one thing is clear: I do not agree with Bon Jovi that Apple is killing music. Piracy is the top reason for music label revenues declining. We all know that people listen to as much music now if not more, than before.

My point regrading apple is that they have sucked the life out of selling music. That has the effect of taking out just about everyone else from that business. The result? We don't have a great store to go and buy lossless audio for every piece of audio we like. So longer term, Apple may be responsible for killing the audiophile music industry as CD sales shrink and Apple doesn't see fit to serve us! They will continue to serve the non-audiophile market and given the overabundance of love for the company despite heavy handedness, they will continue to do so.

BTW, all hopes are on subscription music now....

Apple is currently on an aggressive recruiting campaign for acoustic/psychoacoustic/audio expertise. My sense is that they are getting serious about improving the sound quality of recorded and reproduced sound. They recently announced future support for 24-bit music on iTunes, and surely that will be encoded as lossless music. Their current computers natively support 24-bit/96 kHz audio, and now 8-channels of 24/192kHz audio. At the recent CES we were demonstrating Mark Levinson/Revel gear using 24 bit/192 kHz music (provided by Bravura Records) sent from a Mac Mini via HDMI. iPad/Apps seem to becoming a disruptive technology used for controlling audio/video content & audio system components that are otherwise are too difficult for the average person to program/operate. The technology is available at a fraction of the price of a standard universal remote. Airplay, while not perfect, makes it simple to send iTunes and other digital content from Apple devices to an audio receiver.

From my perspective, Apple seems to be a major driving force behind the creation, distribution and reproduction of audio content. They have improved the user experience, and they seem to be focussed on improving sound quality over time. If they ever decide to get into the loudspeaker/amplifier business they could quickly make many audio companies irrelevant.

 

[JackD201]

An album is still a single unit Amir. Historically 45 singles outsold 12" LPs. Buying by the song is not new. Labels chose to offer singles and a bonus B-side per 45, it was their call. There are quite a few albums that can be bought only as complete albums, again this is the label's or artist's call. Apple iTunes store is just the retail front for the content providing services to both supplier and customer. We know that. I just think you are over simplifying things when you say they are keeping the competition by keeping costs low in the form of keeping margins low. I'm saying that costs just really are lower.

The link I provided showed that the consumer was subsidizing up to 10% of volume as freebies as well as physical damage of parts of the inventory. Packaging cost 3 times more than the CD itself.

You're right. You couldn't buy YOUR choice of singles from an album before. Actually this is still not totally true. You could only technically steal it by exploring the oft times unenforceable provisions of fair use, or by really just plain stealing it. Let's look at the charts provided earlier then. CD sales drop thanks to Napster and its copycats. They are now getting 0 cents for every illegal copy and as stated gross sales are down. Here comes a company that tells you that you can recover the opportunity losses and cover sales declines by earning up to 34 cents if you tap into this very market that was burning you. A market that continues to grow exponentially. Seriously, is that coercion or a life line?

My background is that of an Intellectual Property Advocate. I worked with international agencies including your Department of Trade in finding ways to stop piracy through legislation. Obviously that makes me pro artist. From what I've seen, no model prior to this one has ever favored the artist more. If that takes a chunk from the labels that have exploited artists since the birth of the industry, I'm not shedding any tears. See the link above once more for the calculations under US law.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Apple is currently on an aggressive recruiting campaign for acoustic/psychoacoustic/audio expertise. My sense is that they are getting serious about improving the sound quality of recorded and reproduced sound. They recently announced future support for 24-bit music on iTunes, and surely that will be encoded as lossless music. Their current computers natively support 24-bit/96 kHz audio, and now 8-channels of 24/192kHz audio. At the recent CES we were demonstrating Mark Levinson/Revel gear using 24 bit/192 kHz music (provided by Bravura Records) sent from a Mac Mini via HDMI. iPad/Apps seem to becoming a disruptive technology used for controlling audio/video content & audio system components that are otherwise are too difficult for the average person to program/operate. The technology is available at a fraction of the price of a standard universal remote. Airplay, while not perfect, makes it simple to send iTunes and other digital content from Apple devices to an audio receiver.

From my perspective, Apple seems to be a major driving force behind the creation, distribution and reproduction of audio content. They have improved the user experience, and they seem to be focussed on improving sound quality over time. If they ever decide to get into the loudspeaker/amplifier business they could quickly make many audio companies irrelevant.

Apple transitioned from a 128kbps standard to a 256kbps standard not because they had an audiophile audience that was demanding better quality, or because there was money in it (they charge no more). They did it because bandwidth and storage capacities made it possible; they did it simply because they could.

I think that, alone, tells us that there is an awareness of audio quality there that will continue drive the product up. Will they become HD tracks? No. They are a mass market company. But they will, I suspect, continue to improve the quality or their codecs and expand the size of their files as average bandwidths and storage capacities allow.

Just one comment on the WSJ article linked to above, before I let this dead horse lie. the author said:

The small margins for music sales mean that you need to be awfully big to make this a significant business.

HDTracks is not a significant business? Chesky is not a significant business? The hundreds of independent and mainstream artists who sell digital music off of their web sites do so insignificantly? I don't know what WSJ considers significant, but the anecdotal evidence would indicate that online sales of digital downloads is a very scalable business that can be worthwhile on a very small scale and even allow small players with a small capital investment and a strong niche market idea to get in at a pretty big level. That wouldn't be surprising, internet commerce has had exactly the same effect on a lot of other endeavors.

Tim

 

[jazdoc]

Here's a thought experiment: Suppose before 1995, there was no physically recorded music. No vinyl, no cassettes, no RTR and no CD.

Following the introduction of mp3, iTunes and iPods -- would anyone be successful selling any physical media? Would anyone try? Would there be a market for expensive turntables and cartridges? How differently would the business model for selling music software and hardware evolved?

 

[amirm]

An album is still a single unit Amir. Historically 45 singles outsold 12" LPs. Buying by the song is not new. Labels chose to offer singles and a bonus B-side per 45, it was their call. There are quite a few albums that can be bought only as complete albums, again this is the label's or artist's call. Apple iTunes store is just the retail front for the content providing services to both supplier and customer. We know that. I just think you are over simplifying things when you say they are keeping the competition by keeping costs low in the form of keeping margins low. I'm saying that costs just really are lower.

Well, let me ask you this. Were all 45 singles priced exactly the same?

If that takes a chunk from the labels that have exploited artists since the birth of the industry, I'm not shedding any tears. See the link above once more for the calculations under US law.

I am not here to defend labels. I am here to defend the business of distributing music once they are done with it. Between them and Apple, no one else can get into music distribution business. How is this right in anyone's book? Digital distribution was supposed to even out the odds, letting anyone get into the business. But the exact reverse has happened and we have folks dancing in streets, thanking Steve jobs and Apple with so honoring us with white little boxes. OK, overly dramatic . But I hope you get the point.

Longer term, we face a situation where the artist may bypass the labels and work directly with iTunes. Apple's power in that situation will become absolute as no else may be able to get a license for music at any price!

 

[mep]

The music industry was in decline long before Jobs showed up on the scene offering all the record labels a deal they agreed to. And I think their problem is multi-faceted. Number one, they don't have much talent to sell. If they do, they are keeping it hidden. What we have had for the last twenty years is manufactured *talent* that is packaged and sold. Half of the pop female singers can't carry a tune and only through studio wizardry and pitch boxes can they sound half-way awful instead of just plain awful. Throw in a bunch of boy-bands and other made-up drivel and you had the music industry catering to pre-teens and early-teens.

With few exceptions, it seems the best music has already been made and now we are chasing the best sounding versions of it on analog and digital. Meanwhile, record labels are stabbing themselves in the neck by requiring their music be recorded at 0vu and compressed as much as possible to make it LOUD. CD/digital might as well have no dynamic range because the record labels don't want to use it.

 

[amirm]

The music industry was in decline long before Jobs showed up on the scene offering all the record labels a deal they agreed to. And I think their problem is multi-faceted. Number one, they don't have much talent to sell. If they do, they are keeping it hidden. What we have had for the last twenty years is manufactured *talent* that is packaged and sold. Half of the pop female singers can't carry a tune and only through studio wizardry and pitch boxes can they sound half-way awful instead of just plain awful. Throw in a bunch of boy-bands and other made-up drivel and you had the music industry catering to pre-teens and early-teens.

With few exceptions, it seems the best music has already been made and now we are chasing the best sounding versions of it on analog and digital. Meanwhile, record labels are stabbing themselves in the neck by requiring their music be recorded at 0vu and compressed as much as possible to make it LOUD. CD/digital might as well have no dynamic range because the record labels don't want to use it.

Damn it Mark. Now I feel like going and committing suicide . All great music already made? I hope not.....

 

[arthurs]

Haven't read the whole thread, so delete if this has been mentioned...but as of this morning Bon Jovi (whose music has probably done more to harm music than Apple has) is still selling his product on iTunes....so I guess he isn't THAT mad.....

 

[DaveyF]

Well, let me ask you this. Were all 45 singles priced exactly the same?


I am not here to defend labels. I am here to defend the business of distributing music once they are done with it. Between them and Apple, no one else can get into music distribution business. How is this right in anyone's book? Digital distribution was supposed to even out the odds, letting anyone get into the business. But the exact reverse has happened and we have folks dancing in streets, thanking Steve jobs and Apple with so honoring us with white little boxes. OK, overly dramatic . But I hope you get the point.

Longer term, we face a situation where the artist may bypass the labels and work directly with iTunes. Apple's power in that situation will become absolute as no else may be able to get a license for music at any price!

On this point I do agree with you Amir. It has always been shown that a 'monopoly' is a very bad thing for any consumer.
OTOH, I'm not sure that the itunes platform cannot currently be competed against. Although, I do see that as it grows, this will become more and more difficult.
What is of undeniable concern is that Jobs and Apple have a very large 'step-up' on the rest of the industry, resulting in the possibility of too much control of the industry. Not a good thing IMHO.