Jon Bon Jovi slams Steve Jobs for 'killing' music

[JackD201]

I believe I read somewhere that people thought Jobs was crazy for trying to sell things people could get for free from peer to peer networks. Jobs said he was banking on people "doing the right thing" by buying instead of stealing or something to that effect. Bon Jovi should be happy artists are at least getting something. If the model is killing anything, it is killing the drive to create and listen to ALBUMS as complete artistic works. Of course it can be argued that the emphasis on carrier singles started that.

I'm with the Ponk 100% on this one. FREE downloading was what cracked the CD's hold on the market. CD shops were closing before the iTunes store even launched.

 

[DaveyF]

Yes. Remember who broke up the album: Steve Jobs. Used to be if there was one good song you wanted, you forked over $13 for the whole CD. Jobs comes around and demands that songs be sold for 99 cents. Now people buy just that song. As for your kids, many don't even buy the music. The advent of portable music players means that they have a convenient way to download and play content they have not paid for. Add these two together and you see why the artists and labels can't make as much money as they used to.

Amir, my kids---like most kids- Buy their music and buy more of it than my generation ever did ( the Baby Boomer's). I'm sure that the music industry lost considerable money in the old days due to the fact that many buyer's didn't actually buy the whole CD if they only wanted one song!--- I'm also with Tim's thoughts on this one.

 

[Steve Williams]

I am with you guys as well

My kids have purchased more from the itunes store in a year than I buy albums. This is nothing more than sour grapes IMHO

 

[amirm]

I believe I read somewhere that people thought Jobs was crazy for trying to sell things people could get for free from peer to peer networks. Jobs said he was banking on people "doing the right thing" by buying instead of stealing or something to that effect. Bon Jovi should be happy artists are at least getting something. If the model is killing anything, it is killing the drive to create and listen to ALBUMS as complete artistic works. Of course it can be argued that the emphasis on carrier singles started that.

Well, history works against this argument . People forget that Jobs shipped millions of iPods before he had a music store. Billboard ads in bay area use to heavily encourage customers ripping and copying to iPod. Even after the itunes store came out, studies were showing that only 10 to 20% of the music on them was legal.

Let's do some math regarding today. Let's say a kid gets a 32 gigabyte music player. Assuming a simple number of 3 megabytes/song, that is 10,000 songs. If the kid pays for all of those songs, it will cost him/her $10,000. Do we really think that is what they are spending?

Yes, Apple is responsible for creating a legitimate market for buying music. No doubt about that. But there is also no doubt about the economics of it for the world of music at large. If Apple was making huge profits from the store, they would shout from the top of the mountain about it. Instead, we hear that kind of screaming about the hardware sales. My old favorite saying: "when something fills a vacuum, things can still suck." Yes, Apple filled the vacuum here but I am not sure it is for better for all of us but Apple.

 

[amirm]

Amir, my kids---like most kids- Buy their music and buy more of it than my generation ever did ( the Baby Boomer's). I'm sure that the music industry lost considerable money in the old days due to the fact that many buyer's didn't actually buy the whole CD if they only wanted one song!--- I'm also with Tim's thoughts on this one.

There is no question that the technological quake of PCs being able to readily create and distribute music caught the music industry by surprise and they were ill prepared to deal with it. Apple plays one part in there but can't be blamed for everything. I created a thread elsewhere on what could be done to save the music industry. I did not walk away with any ideas. So yes, lots of things went wrong and it seems even now, we are not smart enough to figure out how to save the industry and longer term, our hobby.

 

[amirm]

An argument against Napster, Vuze, Pirate Bay. Kids pay Apple for music. Apple invented the business model, software and channel that brought millions of them back to buying music. It's hard to see how that ruined the music business, which I think was hurt by being uninventive, greedy, stuck in entrenched thinking, with an inability to adapt.

Again, remember what Apple did. In addition to making music buying mainstream, they also introduced the general public to the whole concept of portable music players. Until then if someone said to hear music you had to figure out how to use a computer, people would laugh at you. But overnight, with the success of iPod, everyone learned the tools and with it, sharply accelerated the pace. There was a golden opportunity between Apple and Music labels to create a new healthy market for music distribution. But that didn't come about.

And the hits keep coming. This is on UMG, world's largest music label. You think with artists like Lady Gaga they would be rolling in the cash. But here they are: http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2010/09/universal-music-group-revenues-fall-again.html

"For the first half of 2010, Universal Music Group's (UMG) revenues fell 5.4% compared to the same period last year (or 7.9% decline at constant currency). The label group blamed a weak release schedule and reduced demand for physical product for the drop. Hoepful signs included growth in merchandise and digital sales. Highlights of the report include:

UMG's EBITA was EUR159 million, a 24.6% decline compared to the same period last year. Lower revenues and an unfavorable sales mix more than offset operating cost savings and a reduction in restructuring charges.

Major recorded music sales included Lady Gaga, Black Eyed Peas, Eminem, Justin Bieber, Florence & The Machine and Coeur de Pirate in addition to the debut release from Drake.
New mobile music deals with major telcos such as Singapore's SingTel and India's Reliance Communications.

In the second half 2010, the albums slate includes artists such as Black Eyed Peas, Kanye West, Mariah Carey, Michel Sardou, Florent Pagny, Akon, Zazie, Maroon 5 and Duffy.
Vevo, launched in December 2009 in the United States, is already the #1 music video website with 44.7 million unique viewers in July."

And lots of companies, including Microsoft, could have done what Apple did, they just didn't have the vision and/or wouldn't take the risk.

Not true. For anyone to have followed Apple's footstep, they would have had to be a failure!!! Ask me why. I know you are itching to know.

 

[Steve Williams]

As far as I am concerned the entire infrastructure as to how music will be delivered to consumers is changing, perhaps even for the better. To say that Apple and Steve Jobs is the reason for the decline in the music industry is just plain silly. Apple was smart enough and had the foresight to seize the opportunity. I would bet if someone or some other company beat him to it, I wonder if all of the negative press would be heaped upon that company as it is for Apple
CD's will become a thing of the past and streaming audio and downloads will be the way of the future.

Apple is just getting there quicker

Again, remember what Apple did. In addition to making music buying mainstream, they also introduced the general public to the whole concept of portable music players. Until then if someone said to hear music you had to figure out how to use a computer, people would laugh at you. But overnight, with the success of iPod, everyone learned the tools and with it, sharply accelerated the pace. There was a golden opportunity between Apple and Music labels to create a new healthy market for music distribution. But that didn't come about.

once again the genius of Apple IMO

 

[amirm]

Let me be clear on what we are discussing: we are NOT discussing whether Apple or Steve Jobs are great company/people. I don't have a dog in that fight and at any rate, that discussion is for another thread. I am hoping this thread is about music distribution and the direction it is heading.

 

[garylkoh]

Again, remember what Apple did. In addition to making music buying mainstream, they also introduced the general public to the whole concept of portable music players. Until then if someone said to hear music you had to figure out how to use a computer, people would laugh at you.

Not true - the first popular portable music player was the Sony Walkman in 1979. It was also marketed as the Soundabout and the Stowaway. Sony released the Discman in 1984 - the first time I heard one, I had to rip the headphones off my head because it sounded so horrible.

 

[amirm]

Gary, I was specific with regards to which category of portable music I was talking about: the version requiring a PC to load music into them.

But going along, there was a period where sales of recordable CDs skyrocketed as people were downloading music and burning them. That was the transition period until portable flash and hard disk based music players took off.

 

[JackD201]

The iPod is not revolutionary from a behavioral standpoint. There is a pattern that goes back to R2R, then Compact Cassette, then to a much lesser degree to DCC and ATRAC then of course the CDR. The ability to record/copy in the home made making compilations, mixed tapes and playlists possible. The pattern of behavior for cherry picking songs has been with us for more than half a century. Singles have been around for decades as well. Remember the CD single? Every transport tray still has the vestigial little slot for them.


Apple didn't make the first flash mp3 player nor did they make the first drive mp3 player. Apple just made a better moustrap with the iPod. At the time, Apple was a brand which most people avoided like the plague because pretty much everybody was using Windows and exchanging files wasn't exactly easy. I had both a PC and a Mac for a looooong time until MS finally offered Office for Mac. I'd say practically every Mac user I know except those who were in it like I was from OS9 or earlier, got into using Macs because of iTunes control over an iPod. So we go full circle.

Still, iTunes isn't the first successful MP3 player. WinAMP was. Why not blame those kits that ported AMP to Windows? Hmmm. Why don't we just blame the guys that came up with mp3 in the first place? We could also blame the internet. The way tablets are selling, the print magazine is facing the same fate as the CD. Books I'm more optimistic about but now I am being nostalgic. I've already begun downloading books for the same reasons I'm paying for downloaded music. It's easy and it is fast.

All I'm saying is that if Apple didn't do it, somebody else would have anyway. The market was ripe.

 

[garylkoh]

Gary, I was specific with regards to which category of portable music I was talking about: the version requiring a PC to load music into them.

Oh. OK. I thought that the first of that type was by Creative (the Soundblaster ppl) who introduced the Nomad in 2003 in Singapore. It won the CES Innovations award, and they were selling quite well in Singapore. Most of the owners - computer-savvy folk - loaded their player from Napster and other illegal downloading sites.

But going along, there was a period where sales of recordable CDs skyrocketed as people were downloading music and burning them. That was the transition period until portable flash and hard disk based music players took off.

Yes. When I first released my Black CD White Paper in 2003 (how to make CDR's sound better than the original CD) I got thousands of downloads a week from all over the world and I was wondering what was going on. Now, it's stabilized to a nice 100 a week with people no longer playing CDs.

 

[garylkoh]

The iPod is not revolutionary from a behavioral standpoint. There is a pattern that goes back to R2R, then Compact Cassette, then to a much lesser degree to DCC and ATRAC then of course the CDR. The ability to record/copy in the home made making compilations, mixed tapes and playlists possible. The pattern of behavior for cherry picking songs has been with us for more than half a century. Singles have been around for decades as well. Remember the CD single? Every transport tray still has the vestigial little slot for them.

I think that the behavioral standpoint that Apple changed was to push consumers into buying single songs instead of whole albums with their pricing models. When singles cost half of what an album would cost, consumers who wanted more than one song would buy the whole album. With singles now costing $1 and whole albums $14, the consumer would buy the singles that they want and not the whole album. The ability to sample each song online further exacerbates this problem.

However, this may bring us around to the whole issue that some of us here have. Without the cost of physical manufacturing, distribution, retail, etc. why is the cost of an album downloaded not cheaper than the cost of the physical CD?? As a business decision, if artists, music producers, download sites, etc. all still have to buy and produce the whole album, and only one song gets bought at 99cents - the overheads of songs that no body will ever buy might equal the physical overheads.

The paradigm may have to change. Artists and music producers might have to concentrate more on singles the way they do albums now. May be the paradigm of the music album will have to change?

 

[JackD201]

Let's not forget Gary that to buy many of the BEST songs, you have to buy the entire album. Those pesky ALBUM ONLY tags are everywhere. That is the producer's call not Apple's.

 

[garylkoh]

Let's not forget Gary that to buy many of the BEST songs, you have to buy the entire album. Those pesky ALBUM ONLY tags are everywhere. That is the producer's call not Apple's.

Then the kid who doesn't want to buy the whole album will download from an illegal site somewhere. The overheads are still there albeit in another form if the producers keep doing that.

 

[JackD201]

Seems we have a chicken or the egg situation.

 

[fas42]

Just curious ...

Am I the only one who would like to have, or hold something physical in my hands, representing or elaborating upon the music that I am hearing? I haven't even looked at using PC or similar music software source, it doesn't really appeal, maybe it's just an age thing ...

Frank

 

[JackD201]

I'd like to think we all do Frank. However, for as long as we are interested in listening to new music I think, the way things are going, we really won't have a choice.

 

[naturephoto1]

I'd like to think we all do Frank. However, for as long as we are interested in listening to new music I think, the way things are going, we really won't have a choice.

Frank and Jack,

I think that most of us in this community want to have physical media. I hope that it will be an alternative for as long as possible. And, we have the ability to prepare our own more transportable media for our applications when it is necessary or preferred.

Rich

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Let's do some math regarding today. Let's say a kid gets a 32 gigabyte music player. Assuming a simple number of 3 megabytes/song, that is 10,000 songs. If the kid pays for all of those songs, it will cost him/her $10,000. Do we really think that is what they are spending?

If you're getting a 32 megabyte player, I think we're assuming you're putting a large, ripped CD collection on it. And for that reason, as we've moved deeper into the era of the download, the iPod Classics, with their hard drives, have been surpassed by Nanos and Touches with flash memory. That's what kids are buying.

Again, remember what Apple did. In addition to making music buying mainstream, they also introduced the general public to the whole concept of portable music players.

Not really. Like the tablet, online music distribution and smart phones, Apple didn't invent the portable player, it just took it a quantum leap forward.

But overnight, with the success of iPod, everyone learned the tools and with it, sharply accelerated the pace.

There's no arguing with that.

There was a golden opportunity between Apple and Music labels to create a new healthy market for music distribution. But that didn't come about.

Not Apple's job, and as a shareholder I'm glad they're not spending their resources creating healthy markets for other industries in which I do not own shares.. The music labels? Yes, they had a golden opportunity to embrace the new media and come up with a viable business model for distribution and online sales. Instead, they sat on their hands, turned out more cloned "product" full of filler instead of art, prosecuted children for piracy and blamed everyone but themselves for their problems.

Not true. For anyone to have followed Apple's footstep, they would have had to be a failure!!! Ask me why. I know you are itching to know.

I am. I'm still wondering how you can change to what is obviously a much more efficient manufacturing, distribution and sales model, one that actually eliminates many of the most expensive steps, only decrease the price by a little more than 20%, and lose money. The internet age has been a long string of business casualties replaced by new models. Music retailing is definitely one of them. Is Apple solely responsible for its demise? Largely, for sure. Did they do it at a loss, just to sell hardware? I remain unconvinced.

Tim