Why I'm against the alliance with Apple

[U2Traveller]

Apple gets $.05 from every $.99 song sold on Itunes. So if U2 has sold 100,000 copies of Vertigo since it went for sale, Apple's cut is $5,000. Whoo Hoo! I believe the record companies take the lion share of that $.99 cents. I seem to remember $.75, so Interscope has made $75,000. The rest goes to the artist, $.19 per song, a whopping $19,000 for U2. Those greedy bastards. Divide by 5, and it's $3,800 each. How greedy. I may be wrong in my breakdown, the artist probably gets less. I'll double check. One thing I'm sure of is Apple get's $.05 for every song.

It's all about marketing and publicity.

 

[mkjc]

Apple gets $.05 from every $.99 song sold on Itunes. So if U2 has sold 100,000 copies of Vertigo since it went for sale, Apple's cut is $5,000. Whoo Hoo! I believe the record companies take the lion share of that $.99 cents. I seem to remember $.75, so Interscope has made $75,000. The rest goes to the artist, $.19 per song, a whopping $19,000 for U2. Those greedy bastards. Divide by 5, and it's $3,800 each. How greedy. I may be wrong in my breakdown, the artist probably gets less. I'll double check. One thing I'm sure of is Apple get's $.05 for every song.

Nice analysis/breakdown. Where did you get the info from?

 

[U2Traveller]

OK. This thread seems to be getting off topic. I don't care about the commercialism. I, as a consumer of U2's music would like to be able to buy it from any online store. I don't care how much or how little money Apple or U2 are making. I can understand someone making the point that I am making too big a deal out of them giving Apple a monopoly for a limited period of time for just one single that could illegally be downloaded anyway. But I just hope it doesn't become a trend where U2 fans who prefer other online music stores will have to wait longer than U2 fans who prefer iTunes. Also, I don't understand why any U2 fan would disagree with me on this point. Even if you prefer iTunes, why would you not want it to be available at all of the stores for the benefit of your fellow U2 fans who prefer Napster, Real, MSN or Wal*Mart. Why would you be concerned more about what's best for Apple or U2 than what's best for individual fans. After all, you are likely a U2 fan yourself rather than an Apple executive or someone at U2.

Why Apple? I guess because Apple had the guts or the foresight to ask...as well as the clout, and possibly the money. Marketing, publicity. Apple was brilliant with this move, and they know it.

 

[Party Boy]

OK. This thread seems to be getting off topic. I don't care about the commercialism. I, as a consumer of U2's music would like to be able to buy it from any online store. I don't care how much or how little money Apple or U2 are making. I can understand someone making the point that I am making too big a deal out of them giving Apple a monopoly for a limited period of time for just one single that could illegally be downloaded anyway. But I just hope it doesn't become a trend where U2 fans who prefer other online music stores will have to wait longer than U2 fans who prefer iTunes. Also, I don't understand why any U2 fan would disagree with me on this point. Even if you prefer iTunes, why would you not want it to be available at all of the stores for the benefit of your fellow U2 fans who prefer Napster, Real, MSN or Wal*Mart. Why would you be concerned more about what's best for Apple or U2 than what's best for individual fans. After all, you are likely a U2 fan yourself rather than an Apple executive or someone at U2.

I just don't really see the problem. I don't have an Ipod, I rarely download music - call me old fashioned, but I buy a CD, plonk it in my player and away I go. If bands started to make releases only through web based applications, then maybe I would agree with some of your arguements. At the end of the day, there are many ways/mediums to hear U2 music. ITunes is one. Its a new technology, as a buyer, you have the choice to buy it or not. If not, like me, I'll take a wander down to my local record shop and buy the CD on day of release. No big deal.

 

[MrBrau1]

Nice analysis/breakdown. Where did you get the info from?

In Apple's last fiscal year, they made $1.5 Million from ITunes sales, a report on Apple.com included a breakdown of the $.99 song distribution. I'm going to research it again tonite, I think the artist share I listed is too high. Everyone still think U2 sold out? Big money changing hands here, $3,800 a piece.

 

[U2Traveller]

I just don't really see the problem. I don't have an Ipod, I rarely download music - call me old fashioned, but I buy a CD, plonk it in my player and away I go. If bands started to make releases only through web based applications, then maybe I would agree with some of your arguements. At the end of the day, there are many ways/mediums to hear U2 music. ITunes is one. Its a new technology, as a buyer, you have the choice to buy it or not. If not, like me, I'll take a wander down to my local record shop and buy the CD on day of release. No big deal.

Yeah, we don't do the mp3 thing, either. My husband and I are purists. Mp3's are just not of the same quality as a cd.

 

[U2Traveller]

In Apple's last fiscal year, they made $1.5 Million from ITunes sales, a report on Apple.com included a breakdown of the $.99 song distribution. I'm going to research it again tonite, I think the artist share I listed is too high. Everyone still think U2 sold out? Big money changing hands here, $3,800 a piece.

Do you not understand the concept of marketing and publicity?

 

[Party Boy]

Yeah, we don't do the mp3 thing, either. My husband and I are purists. Mp3's are just not of the same quality as a cd.

I'd love to say it my reasons are based on pure music quality. Reality is I dont have the patience, dial-up speed or inclination to download music! Something special about having a new CD in hand - luckily some really good cheap record shops down the road!

 

[MrBrau1]

Do you not understand the concept of marketing and publicity?

I do. I was responding to mkjc. It's a misconception that U2 are making millions off this. They really won't make much $ at all.

 

[mkjc]

I just don't really see the problem. I don't have an Ipod, I rarely download music - call me old fashioned, but I buy a CD, plonk it in my player and away I go. If bands started to make releases only through web based applications, then maybe I would agree with some of your arguements. At the end of the day, there are many ways/mediums to hear U2 music. ITunes is one. Its a new technology, as a buyer, you have the choice to buy it or not. If not, like me, I'll take a wander down to my local record shop and buy the CD on day of release. No big deal.

Right now I too buy CD's and then I rip them if I want them in a digital jukebox. But someday CD's, like cassettes and everything before it will be gone and you and I will be mainly buying online and when we do, because of the efforts of artists like our favorite band U2, there may be only one online retailer to choose from. With the marketing deal they have with Apple, U2 will reach more listeners which I think is a good thing but they will also increase Apple's market share. If they really wanted to further the technology and be innovative U2 should have tried to level the playing field instead by partnering with one of Apple's competitors or not exclusively partnering with anyone at all.

 

[MrBrau1]

I have an Ipod. 3,600 songs on it. I plug it into my office radio, and play on random. Listen while at work all day, it's like alistenning to a FM station where I'm the DJ. Brilliant technology.

 

[U2Traveller]

I do. I was responding to mkjc. It's a misconception that U2 are making millions off this. They really won't make much $ at all.

Do you? Because guaranteed this will make them a lot of money. It doesn't have to be from iTunes.

 

[mkjc]

In Apple's last fiscal year, they made $1.5 Million from ITunes sales, a report on Apple.com included a breakdown of the $.99 song distribution. I'm going to research it again tonite, I think the artist share I listed is too high. Everyone still think U2 sold out? Big money changing hands here, $3,800 a piece.

Thanks for the information. Fascinating stuff. No really, I have a degree in Accounting so I'm into "boring" things like that.

 

[U2Traveller]

Right now I too buy CD's and then I rip them if I want them in a digital jukebox. But someday CD's, like cassettes and everything before it will be gone and you and I will be mainly buying online and when we do, because of the efforts of artists like our favorite band U2, there may be only one online retailer to choose from. With the marketing deal they have with Apple, U2 will reach more listeners which I think is a good thing but they will also increase Apple's market share. If they really wanted to further the technology and be innovative U2 should have tried to level the playing field instead by partnering with one of Apple's competitors or not exclusively partnering with anyone at all.

Apple = popular company = publicity = money

 

[MrBrau1]

Do you? Because guaranteed this will make them a lot of money. It doesn't have to be from iTunes.

I'm sure it will. I'm talking about the Itunes/Apple deal.

 

[Party Boy]

Right now I too buy CD's and then I rip them if I want them in a digital jukebox. But someday CD's, like cassettes and everything before it will be gone and you and I will be mainly buying online and when we do, because of the efforts of artists like our favorite band U2, there may be only one online retailer to choose from. With the marketing deal they have with Apple, U2 will reach more listeners which I think is a good thing but they will also increase Apple's market share. If they really wanted to further the technology and be innovative U2 should have tried to level the playing field instead by partnering with one of Apple's competitors or not exclusively partnering with anyone at all.

If the technology takes off like you say it will, in terms of eventually replacing CD's and all music will only be available online - no artist would be stupid enough to restrict their music to one provider. It would be like putting all your music out on VHS while half of the market is still using Beta! I really just see this Apple/U2 thing as an example of what new technology is out there, what the full capabilities of this new technology is! As someone already mentioned, its purely a marketing ploy, putting ITunes, Ipods, tripods or whatever, into the public domain. How many people do you know have Ipods? Most of my friends/family don't - maybe one?

Do you remember mini-disc players came out a few years ago and were meant to be the new thing? CD's are a huge improvement on the previous forms of music mediums (Tapes/Vinyl). I don't think it will be as easy to convince the masses to move from CD to online - maybe for younger generation. You need a computer to start, a lot of people still dont have computers (hard to believe!). Secondly, you need the know-how, patience etc to download your music. For a lot of people, that is just too much hassle. I really think CD's will be around for quite a while still.

 

[jcool]

november 22

 

[U2Traveller]

I'm sure it will. I'm talking about the Itunes/Apple deal.

I know. I was talking about the bigger picture. We don't know the deal they made with Apple, anyway, and how much they stand to make out of it, if any. The reason they did this was for money, bottom-line. Better sales, better publicity, bigger audience, exposure, word of mouth. They truly want to be the number one band in the world and they are doing it no matter what it takes. Yes, other bands will benefit from them, and Apple are smiling all the way to the bank. But, U2 isn't hurting either.

They are reaching a whole new market with this thing...on both sides of the deal.

 

[Party Boy]

They are reaching a whole new market with this thing...on both sides of the deal.

Reaching through new technology to new audience who may not normally buy a U2 record. Don't see what is wrong with this? As a band, surely you want your music to reach as many people possible through whatever technologies are available. Sure, they will gain more money through new fans coming on board, but do you really think money is the pure reason? I honestly don't.

 

[U2Traveller]

Reaching through new technology to new audience who may not normally buy a U2 record. Don't see what is wrong with this? As a band, surely you want your music to reach as many people possible through whatever technologies are available. Sure, they will gain more money through new fans coming on board, but do you really think money is the pure reason? I honestly don't.

I don't know. But, it's hard to see for all the smoke.

 

[MrBrau1]

I know. I was talking about the bigger picture. We don't know the deal they made with Apple, anyway, and how much they stand to make out of it, if any. The reason they did this was for money, bottom-line. Better sales, better publicity, bigger audience, exposure, word of mouth. They truly want to be the number one band in the world and they are doing it no matter what it takes. Yes, other bands will benefit from them, and Apple are smiling all the way to the bank. But, U2 isn't hurting either.

They are reaching a whole new market with this thing...on both sides of the deal.

True. Very true.

 

[david]

So U2 are making money off distributing their music through new musical technology? And how exactly am I supposed to see something wrong with this?

 

[MrBrau1]

So U2 are making money off distributing their music through new musical technology? And how exactly am I supposed to see something wrong with this?

In the "indie" rock world, anyone who has, or makes money is evil.

 

[Rastat]

So U2 are making money off distributing their music through new musical technology? And how exactly am I supposed to see something wrong with this?

Soooo right.

 

[U2Traveller]

So U2 are making money off distributing their music through new musical technology? And how exactly am I supposed to see something wrong with this?

Why do they need more? I've always wondered what drives a person who already has over a 100 million to want to make more. Greed? Retire already and let somebody else make it.

 

[doctorwho]

Do you not understand the concept of marketing and publicity?

And what exactly is wrong with those concepts? You act as if they are bad words!

ALL tours are marketing and publicity - usually for a new album. U2 tour to promote a new album. This is their way of reaching the public (i.e., gaining publicity) to help sell the album.

Interviews are granted for marketing and publicity. T-shirts, toys, and even condoms are sold for marketing and publicity. Stores take out ads stating the hot new items they are selling. Why? For marketing and publicity. I guarantee you that places like Best Buy or Circuit City, along with other music stores, will advertise U2's CD at some point (maybe on TV, maybe in ads in newspapers or magazines). U2 are going on SNL for marketing and publicity.

Several people on these forums said they heard from their colleagues and friends that they weren't even aware U2 had a new song/album out - until they saw the "Vertigo" iTunes/iPod ad! This is why one advertises.

So if you think hooking up with Apple is bad because U2 dare to market themselves, then you should have felt this way a LONG time ago.

 

[U2Traveller]

And what exactly is wrong with those concepts? You act as if they are bad words!

ALL tours are marketing and publicity - usually for a new album. U2 tour to promote a new album. This is their way of reaching the public (i.e., gaining publicity) to help sell the album.

Interviews are granted for marketing and publicity. T-shirts, toys, and even condoms are sold for marketing and publicity. Stores take out ads stating the hot new items they are selling. Why? For marketing and publicity. I guarantee you that places like Best Buy or Circuit City, along with other music stores, will advertise U2's CD at some point (maybe on TV, maybe in ads in newspapers or magazines). U2 are going on SNL for marketing and publicity.

Several people on these forums said they heard from their colleagues and friends that they weren't even aware U2 had a new song/album out - until they saw the "Vertigo" iTunes/iPod ad! This is why one advertises.

So if you think hooking up with Apple is bad because U2 dare to market themselves, then you should have felt this way a LONG time ago.

It just changes my perspective of them, that's all. Now I view them very much as a company. Not so much as a rock band with a message. They're not their own ideal anymore. I guess they grew up and found something more attractive than saying what you think as loudly as you can. Oh, I have nothing against this (it is more blatant than ever before, like a cancer that is no longer insidious), they will probably just lose the fierce devotion of some of their fans, that's all. You know, when you look more corporate that's what happens.

I don't know who advised U2 to do this, but I think they only had $$ in their eyes.

Now they will be quietly and politely cheered.

 

[Lancemc]

Why do they need more? I've always wondered what drives a person who already has over a 100 million to want to make more. Greed? Retire already and let somebody else make it.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard all week. So you, being a business owner, are telling a company, inthis case U2, to just stop making money. It just totally contradicts what it means to be a business. "Retire already" no. Don't retire. The way I figure it, the more money they make the more they can tour and release records and all the stuff that I love when they do (make sense?). If it makes you sick to see U2 on a commercial, that just shows what U2 really means to you. you see, to me, it's ALL about the music and enjoying it. The more U2 does to get their music out there the better. Obviously, if you get upset about this, there is another factor here influencing your feelings. U2 seems to be more of an ideal than a band.


P.S. by the way, with the argument about Napster and other online music sources not being represented, I say "Good!". iTunes is THE best music player, and online music store there is. The most people that use itunes, the better it will get. I think the best product out there SHOULD get the most profit. In this case it is Apple and itunes. Maybe in a couple years it will change, when it does, I'll be there to support it, but until then this is how it is.

 

[womanfish]

Why do they need more? I've always wondered what drives a person who already has over a 100 million to want to make more. Greed? Retire already and let somebody else make it.

I'm really confused by your stance Traveller. You say it's all about money, marketing, and publicity. You make it sound as if U2 shouldn't do marketing and publicity???? They have done this their entire career. Print ads, tv appearances, videos, distributing to and lobbying radio stations, tours, movies (R&H), posters, t-shirts, buttons, keyrings, calendars, condoms, the list goes on and on and on.....

They are letting Apple use video of them singing a song. This is promoting their song and where to get it (iTunes). They are breaking into the online market like noone else. The music industry has been hit hard and while most other artists are back on their heels, U2 is moving forward into new territories. They were one of, if not THE first, to put their weight behind the original launching of iTunes. They like to push the technological boundaries, as we've seen with their innovative tours, and i see this as an extention of that.

I don't know how long you've been a U2 fan, but if you have been for a while, then you know that U2 has always wanted to and proclaimed that they want to be the biggest and best band out there. They have used marketing and promotion to do this for their whole career and this is just one part of a huge promotion for this album, like every other album before it.

And as for your "purist" comment. If you were truly a purist you would be listening to vinyl, but other than that, you know that you can download files in a lossless format which is the EXACT same quality as a CD, no data loss, and takes up half the storage space. It's still quite a bit bigger than an MP3, but it is lossless.

The iPod really is an awesome thing. I have 3600 or so songs on mine and can take it anywhere, play it at school, in the car, or work or home through my stereo. The quality of the files is your choice to make.

I am an assistant audio engineer, which means it's my job to hear quality differences in audio, and I have an extremely hard time hearing the difference between CD quality and an MP3 at 192kbps, let alone at 256 or 320. You should check it out.

 

[U2Traveller]

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard all week. So you, being a business owner, are telling a company, inthis case U2, to just stop making money. It just totally contradicts what it means to be a business. "Retire already" no. Don't retire. The way I figure it, the more money they make the more they can tour and release records and all the stuff that I love when they do (make sense?). If it makes you sick to see U2 on a commercial, that just shows what U2 really means to you. you see, to me, it's ALL about the music and enjoying it. The more U2 does to get their music out there the better. Obviously, if you get upset about this, there is another factor here influencing your feelings. U2 seems to be more of an ideal than a band.


P.S. by the way, with the argument about Napster and other online music sources not being represented, I say "Good!". iTunes is THE best music player, and online music store there is. The most people that use itunes, the better it will get. I think the best product out there SHOULD get the most profit. In this case it is Apple and itunes. Maybe in a couple years it will change, when it does, I'll be there to support it, but until then this is how it is.

Believe me, when we reach 100 million I will think it's more than enough money to retire on. Maybe they're just thinking of all their employees and how much they depend on their jobs with U2. Who knows?

U2 an ideal? No. Far from it. Not even as a business. Now, Apple...that's a different story...someone to truly admire.

I don't believe in excess...at least not yet, anyway. But, I suppose like U2 I could one day view it quite differently.