Why I'm against the alliance with Apple

[mkjc]

I don't have any of the "U2 is selling out" concerns that others have expressed. But I still have a major problem with the alliance U2 has made with Apple. I don't like the fact that U2 is choosing one retailer over another instead of treating all of them equally. I don't like the fact that Vertigo is available exclusively at iTunes. I also read today that U2 is considering selling their upcoming concerts online. Though I have been waiting for this for a long time and am glad that they are finally thinking of making soundboard recordings of all concerts available for download, I am not happy that these recordings will be available only on iTunes.

Right now I'm sure many agree that the iPod is the best mp3 player out there and it looks oh so pretty. But what if some other manufacturer makes something better in the future that can't play downloads from iTunes. What it boils down to is that U2, through their dealings with Apple have significantly limited their fans' choices not to mention they have given Apple a way to overprice their products.

 

[bcrt2000]

*anything* can play downloads from iTunes

by the way, the one big misconception about apple is its a blood sucking corporate company and all they care about is the bottom line... if that is so they would have abandoned their elegant/high class approach and gone head to head against mainstream computers.. instead they prefer to think of their machines as an artform

 

[TC2290]

I don't have any of the "U2 is selling out" concerns that others have expressed. But I still have a major problem with the alliance U2 has made with Apple. I don't like the fact that U2 is choosing one retailer over another instead of treating all of them equally. I don't like the fact that Vertigo is available exclusively at iTunes. I also read today that U2 is considering selling their upcoming concerts online. Though I have been waiting for this for a long time and am glad that they are finally thinking of making soundboard recordings of all concerts available for download, I am not happy that these recordings will be available only on iTunes.

Right now I'm sure many agree that the iPod is the best mp3 player out there and it looks oh so pretty. But what if some other manufacturer makes something better in the future that can't play downloads from iTunes. What it boils down to is that U2, through their dealings with Apple have significantly limited their fans' choices not to mention they have given Apple a way to overprice their products.

Why has the choice been limited? You pay what U2 and their record company want you to pay regardless of retailer, records are unique in that whoever makes them has a monopoly over that particular product. This is no bad thing, just an inherent feature of music.

 

[kobayashi]

But what if some other manufacturer makes something better in the future that can't play downloads from iTunes

such a product would not only exclude U2 from iTunes but also the vast vast majority of mp3s in the world at present, U2 or not.

i would have doubts about the commercial viability of such a product and, in turn, i doubt it would ever come to be. unless something about the music distribution environment as we presently understand it changes.

 

[TC2290]

Re: Re: Why I'm against the alliance with Apple

i would have doubts about the commercial viability of such a product

I doubt that U2 think that with the $$$ that Vertigo is raking in at present!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

iTunes offers mp3 files to download, which are playable on any computer using any mp3 compatable program, and are playable on any mp3 compatable stereo system and/or portable music system.

 

[mkjc]

*anything* can play downloads from iTunes

by the way, the one big misconception about apple is its a blood sucking corporate company and all they care about is the bottom line... if that is so they would have abandoned their elegant/high class approach and gone head to head against mainstream computers.. instead they prefer to think of their machines as an artform

My main beef here is not with Apple. My main beef is with U2. Apple is doing what any for profit corporation would do. They are simply trying to capitalize on a competitive advantage. I don't think it's U2's place to help Apple capitalize even if it appears to sell records for them in the short term. I don't think it will be good for U2 or their fans in the long run. Any producer of any product, be it widgets or songs, is better served and creates greatest value for their ultimate customers if they have as many retailers as possible selling their product. Simple supply/demand. Right now Apple has a monopoly on the Vertigo single therefore U2's fans have very little choice when it comes to where they will buy it and how they will play it once it is bought.

Why has the choice been limited? You pay what U2 and their record company want you to pay regardless of retailer, records are unique in that whoever makes them has a monopoly over that particular product. This is no bad thing, just an inherent feature of music.

Not true. Other stores may be able to offer deals that would reduce the price of the single. For example at RealNetworks you can buy any of the Rolling Stone Top 10 for $0.49. With only one retailer carrying Vertigo iTunes is the only one who can offer a similar discount and right now they have no incentive to do so.

 

[mkjc]

iTunes offers mp3 files to download, which are playable on any computer using any mp3 compatable program, and are playable on any mp3 compatable stereo system and/or portable music system.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6490_7-5140299.html?tag=dir.comp

Is CNET wrong? Can someone clear this up? Thanks.

 

[U2Traveller]

I don't like that U2 have done this, frankly. It's all about money, really, and I don't know why they needed more. I also do not like that they are favoring Apple. There is something that totally smacks of hard to swallow to me here.

I think it's the capitalism that's getting to me. Now, don't get me wrong, I own my own business, so I'm not blaming Apple at all. Like someone else said here, they're only doing what any company would do, and they're very smart to do it. Both my husband and I are learning from their ideas. But, U2, somehow, that just reeks. Now, I guess they're looking like a company more than a rock band. It makes it all very commercial. It makes it like all the other music out there. I guess that's what U2 wanted, so more power to them. This is the move they want to make now, but once again I reflect the opening statements...I don't know why they need more money.

U2, for this move.

 

[mkjc]

I don't like that U2 have done this, frankly. It's all about money, really, and I don't know why they needed more. I also do not like that they are favoring Apple. There is something that totally smacks of hard to swallow to me here.

I think it's the capitalism that's getting to me. Now, don't get me wrong, I own my own business, so I'm not blaming Apple at all. Like someone else said here, they're only doing what any company would do, and they're very smart to do it. Both my husband and I are learning from their ideas. But, U2, somehow, that just reeks. Now, I guess they're looking like a company more than a rock band. It makes it all very commercial. It makes it like all the other music out there. I guess that's what U2 wanted, so more power to them. This is the move they want to make now, but once again I reflect the opening statements...I don't know why they need more money.

U2, for this move.

I want to be clear. My main problem is not with U2's commercialism here. That's for another thread. I just think in the long run it's bad business to limit your customers' choices.

 

[kobayashi]

Re: Re: Re: Why I'm against the alliance with Apple

I doubt that U2 think that with the $$$ that Vertigo is raking in at present!

what?

my post alluded to the likely commercial failure of future digital music players unable to play mp3s as they are presently known.

my point is such a system would never come to market to begin with.

Originally posted by mkjc

I just think in the long run it's bad business to limit your customers' choices.

U2, nor apple, have not limited anyones choice.

iTunes may facilitate easier buying, downloading and transferring of files.

but non iTunes purchased mp3s can be transferred to an iPod.
iTunes purchased mp3s can be transferred to something other than an iPod if one chooses.

to think that who one who has iTunes needs an iPod, or one who has an iPod must buy their mp3s for that iPod from iTunes, is truly an indication of the success of Apple's marketing.

 

[doctorwho]

Gee... Apple is a big rich corporation... why do they need more $$? You own your own business... why do you need more $$?

The song has sold, what, 100,000 copies? I have no idea what U2's cut is, but chances are the bulk of the $ is going to Apple. So it's not like U2 are raking in the dollars from this adventure.

The real $$ is in touring and that's where U2 will make a small fortune. Album sales will also bring in a lot of money provided it's a huge seller. But sales from iTunes or CD singles is minimal.

Does Apple have a monopoly? Only at present. They are featuring the song NOW. But this won't hold up for long. The CD single will soon be released followed by the album a few weeks later. In other words, U2 fans DO have a choice. If they want the song NOW, they can get it from Apple (or an illegal download or tape from the radio). If they are willing to wait, they can hear it on CD soon enough.

Of course, that's providing you think U2's deals with all music stores are just as bad.

 

[TC2290]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why I'm against the alliance with Apple

what?

my post alluded to the likely commercial failure of future digital music players unable to play mp3s as they are presently known.

my point is such a system would never come to market to begin with.

Sorry I got the wrong end of the stick.

 

[U2Traveller]

mkjc, I didn't think you were thinking that. That is just what I think about it.

I don't know why it bothers me so, but it has to be about the capitalism. I really don't know why. I guess it does seem unfair and unequal, and greedy.

But, U2 are a company I suppose, and they just want to capitalize now, so go right ahead! Eventually I'll get use to this aspect of U2, too, I'm sure.

 

[mkjc]

Gee... Apple is a big rich corporation... why do they need more $$? You own your own business... why do you need more $$?

The song has sold, what, 100,000 copies? I have no idea what U2's cut is, but chances are the bulk of the $ is going to Apple. So it's not like U2 are raking in the dollars from this adventure.

The real $$ is in touring and that's where U2 will make a small fortune. Album sales will also bring in a lot of money provided it's a huge seller. But sales from iTunes or CD singles is minimal.

Does Apple have a monopoly? Only at present. They are featuring the song NOW. But this won't hold up for long. The CD single will soon be released followed by the album a few weeks later. In other words, U2 fans DO have a choice. If they want the song NOW, they can get it from Apple (or an illegal download or tape from the radio). If they are willing to wait, they can hear it on CD soon enough.

Of course, that's providing you think U2's deals with all music stores are just as bad.

That makes sense and calms me down a bit. But if the soundboard recordings are exclusive to iTunes I'll be complaining like a little bitch all over again.

 

[Rastat]

[BIt's all about money, really, and I don't know why they needed more. [/B]

Is it serious?

I really don't understand what's wrong with taking care about taking profits from your hard work. Everybody likes to get paid for his work.

And iTunes share almost 92% of the internet music market, so... what's the deal? If they want to sell music online, they MUST take advantage of the market leader.

You CAN download Vertigo from another online music service if you want...

Just imagine a software creator not advertising his product for a windows based platform... it would be idiotic!!!

 

[bsp77]

I don't like that U2 have done this, frankly. It's all about money, really, and I don't know why they needed more. I also do not like that they are favoring Apple. There is something that totally smacks of hard to swallow to me here.

I think it's the capitalism that's getting to me. Now, don't get me wrong, I own my own business, so I'm not blaming Apple at all. Like someone else said here, they're only doing what any company would do, and they're very smart to do it. Both my husband and I are learning from their ideas. But, U2, somehow, that just reeks. Now, I guess they're looking like a company more than a rock band. It makes it all very commercial. It makes it like all the other music out there. I guess that's what U2 wanted, so more power to them. This is the move they want to make now, but once again I reflect the opening statements...I don't know why they need more money.

U2, for this move.

How do you know it is all about money? It could be about pioneering digital sales. Don't presume to know their intentions, I don't. People are always getting overly excited around here when they really have no clue what they are talking about.

 

[U2Traveller]

Is it serious?

I really don't understand what's wrong with taking care about taking profits from your hard work. Everybody likes to get paid for his work.

And iTunes share almost 92% of the internet music market, so... what's the deal? If they want to sell music online, they MUST take advantage of the market leader.

You CAN download Vertigo from another online music service if you want...

Just imagine a software creator not advertising his product for a windows based platform... it would be idiotic!!!

Like I said, I don't have a problem with Apple doing it. I guess I just viewed U2 as wanting to stand for something, say something, not stand for Apple. That's all. I guess in a way they did sell their souls in my eyes. But, like I said, ah well, if that's what they want to do.

Now they're just a greedy corporate entity like everybody else. I guess they always were. They were just good at hiding it for a while behind all the bluster.

 

[U2Traveller]

How do you know it is all about money? It could be about pioneering digital sales. Don't presume to know their intentions, I don't. People are always getting overly excited around here when they really have no clue what they are talking about.

It's all about the money. Why else would they do it? At the end of it all = money. Pioneering digital sales is about MONEY, and being on the edge. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.

They get the recognition and the boost they want for their single and album, and Apple profits. U2 profits, too. Money. But, I don't have a problem with making money. I'd be a hypocrite if I was when my husband can away with over $500 for three hours of sound work, but we never pretended to stand for something, either, beyond a lucrative business. Or, pretended to be something more, that is.

I just don't agree with the move. But, like I said, if they are a business, they are doing exactly what I would do. It just changes the "feel" of U2 in my eyes, that's all.

Don't worry, I'll still go see their concert.

 

[kobayashi]

They were just good at hiding it for a while behind all the bluster.

keep in mind (if you want to consider being a little happier) that as much as vertigo might harken back to U2's earliest days, it is 2004 and a very different world in terms of music distribution.

 

[U2Traveller]

keep in mind (if you want to consider being a little happier) that as much as vertigo might harken back to U2's earliest days, it is 2004 and a very different world in terms of music distribution.

I was never miserable.

 

[Party Boy]

People seem to be taking the standpoint that the whole Apple/U2 venture is purely about money for both sides. New product that will allow millions of people to listen and hear music in a new way - why not get the best band in the world to help promote new technology? Similarly, U2 are one of the most progressive bands, always willing to embrace new ideas, new technologies etc. Why not be at the cutting edge of new music technology?? Sure, there is a certain level of win-win for both sides, but seriously, how much will U2 make or how many U2 will be sold?

I really think U2 are exploring new technologies and new ways to listen, download and share music. I don't buy into all this commercialism/sell out crap. Does anyone seriously think there music is compromised??

Announcing their Popmart in a K-mart didn't stoke up as much publicity. I really think some people read way too much into things sometimes.

 

[U2Traveller]

People seem to be taking the standpoint that the whole Apple/U2 venture is purely about money for both sides. New product that will allow millions of people to listen and hear music in a new way - why not get the best band in the world to help promote new technology? Similarly, U2 are one of the most progressive bands, always willing to embrace new ideas, new technologies etc. Why not be at the cutting edge of new music technology?? Sure, there is a certain level of win-win for both sides, but seriously, how much will U2 make or how many U2 will be sold?

I really think U2 are exploring new technologies and new ways to listen, download and share music. I don't buy into all this commercialism/sell out crap. Does anyone seriously think there music is compromised??

Announcing their Popmart in a K-mart didn't stoke up as much publicity. I really think some people read way too much into things sometimes.

No. Their music isn't compromised...

 

[bsp77]

It's all about the money. Why else would they do it? At the end of it all = money. Pioneering digital sales is about MONEY, and being on the edge. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.

They get the recognition and the boost they want for their single and album, and Apple profits. U2 profits, too. Money. But, I don't have a problem with making money. I'd be a hypocrite if I was when my husband can away with over $500 for three hours of sound work, but we never pretended to stand for something, either, beyond a lucrative business. Or, pretended to be something more, that is.

I just don't agree with the move. But, like I said, if they are a business, they are doing exactly what I would do. It just changes the "feel" of U2 in my eyes, that's all.

Don't worry, I'll still go see their concert.

Not everything is 100% about money. I guarantee Edge is enjoying all of this new technology, it is not all about money.

Very cynical viewpoint of life.

 

[U2Traveller]

Not everything is 100% about money. I guarantee Edge is enjoying all of this new technology, it is not all about money.

Very cynical viewpoint of life.

Life doesn't equal U2.

It IS all about money...U2 is a business (now I see). I should know. I OWN a business. I know how it is. It's not a bad thing. Just a new perspective about U2. We have more in common than they think.

 

[TC2290]

Life doesn't equal U2.

It IS all about money...U2 is a business (now I see). I should know. I OWN a business. I know how it is. It's not a bad thing. Just a new perspective about U2. We have more in common than they think.

I'm sure their motives are not just money based, otherwise they would have never made Achtung Baby and POP or indeed spent ludicrous amounts of money on ZOO TV and POPmart which were, in their own way commercial gambles by the band. They also had ample opportunity to rake in more cash from fans given the demand for their live shows

They have so much money that I'm sure they do not feel the burning desire to make shitloads more but remember just like the rest of us they like to get paid for what they do, they're not a freaking charity.

If you've ever read about their business ventures they very much take pride in "U2 Corporation" and why not? They react strongly against the white middle class view that music integrity is inversely proportional to the amount of money you make. Oh, and the fact that you own a business does not make you any better judge whatsoever of what motivates them.

 

[bsp77]

Life doesn't equal U2.

It IS all about money...U2 is a business (now I see). I should know. I OWN a business. I know how it is. It's not a bad thing. Just a new perspective about U2. We have more in common than they think.

You have still proved nothing. You repeating over and over that it is all about money does not make it so. Could you please answer the question of why it is impossible that maybe they are just trying to pioneer digital sales. Yes, they still make money too, but is extremely close minded to assume it is only money to them. Is your business only about money, do you not care about customer satisfaction or get some of your own satisfaction from your business. If it is only about money, remind me to avoid your business.

 

[Party Boy]

Life doesn't equal U2.

It IS all about money...U2 is a business (now I see). I should know. I OWN a business. I know how it is. It's not a bad thing. Just a new perspective about U2. We have more in common than they think.

I think your taking very cynical view of the band. If you really think they are in the whole business purely for the money then you seriously underestimate them. They are in a position to promote a new way of listening to music. Whats wrong with that??
As a band, they give a huge amount of support, time and money to worthy causes. Yes, they are in a position of strength to do this - they dont have to do this, but they do. I would think this is one big difference between the band and you, me and most other people.

 

[mkjc]

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.

 

[MrBrau1]

Gee... Apple is a big rich corporation... why do they need more $$? You own your own business... why do you need more $$?

The song has sold, what, 100,000 copies? I have no idea what U2's cut is, but chances are the bulk of the $ is going to Apple. So it's not like U2 are raking in the dollars from this adventure.

The real $$ is in touring and that's where U2 will make a small fortune. Album sales will also bring in a lot of money provided it's a huge seller. But sales from iTunes or CD singles is minimal.

Does Apple have a monopoly? Only at present. They are featuring the song NOW. But this won't hold up for long. The CD single will soon be released followed by the album a few weeks later. In other words, U2 fans DO have a choice. If they want the song NOW, they can get it from Apple (or an illegal download or tape from the radio). If they are willing to wait, they can hear it on CD soon enough.

Of course, that's providing you think U2's deals with all music stores are just as bad.

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.