Members Geoff Grace Posted June 5, 2014 Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 And of course, Michael Vakulenko—who wrote that article—is just speculating too. As Jimmy Iovine put it, “Obviously, we can’t talk about that, as you know. See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it.” Best, Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 5, 2014 Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 If this is targeted to kids, I still question its sensibility. Artists who target youth should know its a moving target. Fads are short lived and has an average lifespan of 4 years because that generation will move from say high school to college, or college to the working world and they priorities take big changes at that point. Yeah, but that's the music biz. With the exception of the anomaly of that period in the late 80s/early 90s when the big boomer audience was moving into affluence just as CDs were taking hold and the record labels could target them with a ton of reissues and new music by older audiences, the recorded music biz has ALWAYS been about targeting the young audiences with short-lived fads. That golden age isn't coming back. What the future will be is a model much more like how things were in the 30s/40s/50s except the delivery systems will obviously be different. But artist management will be similar. Controlling the entire process from top to bottom seems like the most logical way to make money with such reduced revenue streams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted June 5, 2014 Author Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 It seems fairly easy to understand to me: You can drive the youth market with advertising and hype and they (mostly) do not research their purchases. This is very different from 'mature' audience/market sectors that are more driven by accumulated experience with both personal taste as well as a base of experience with the consequences of making rational vs rationalized purchase decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WRGKMC Posted June 5, 2014 Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 ^^^ I don't disagree with some of that. I'm not sure a 30's~50's model can work because they didn't have the same income tax laws then. I just don't know if this kind of revenue stream can pay back that 3 billion and then turn a profit. I think its risky speculation in a volatile economy. Apple only has around 15% of the market as a computer manufacturer. Their phones are around 43% Many of those units are used in business and not by kids, and from what I know kids aren't super keen on their portable units because apps all have to come from apple at a premium cost. Maybe they can pull it off but I'll have to view it like satellite radio. It sounded good till you found out how much it costs and if you sample what it has to offer and check out the quality, you're likely to back off because all the hype in the world wont cover up poor quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted June 5, 2014 Author Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 Actually Apple's desktop share is only about 7%. In the US, their marketshare is closer to 10%. Windows has aprx 88% of desktop OS's worldwide. But their PROFITS are huge because of their uncanny ability to keep their customers lined up for new machines, accessories, and app and hardware updates (chasing the endless cycle of enforced obsolescence). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 5, 2014 Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 ^^^ I don't disagree with some of that. I'm not sure a 30's~50's model can work because they didn't have the same income tax laws then. I just don't know if this kind of revenue stream can pay back that 3 billion and then turn a profit. I think its risky speculation in a volatile economy. Apple only has around 15% of the market as a computer manufacturer. Their phones are around 43% Many of those units are used in business and not by kids, and from what I know kids aren't super keen on their portable units because apps all have to come from apple at a premium cost. Maybe they can pull it off but I'll have to view it like satellite radio. It sounded good till you found out how much it costs and if you sample what it has to offer and check out the quality, you're likely to back off because all the hype in the world wont cover up poor quality. Not sure what income tax laws have to do with anything. You only pay income tax on profit, not the other way around. And we're talking about kids. Quality isn't really an issue. Never has been. Heck, the entire music business was built off of selling 45-rpms for kids to listen to on close-and-plays who first heard the songs on AM radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 5, 2014 Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 I don't think the $3 billion paid is the big issue here either. Apple has oodles of cash right now. The success of this venture isn't going to be determined on how quickly they can recover the money spent and turn it into a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted June 5, 2014 Moderators Share Posted June 5, 2014 I won't pretend to understand any of this acquisition. I can give you my gut reaction however. If anyone wants to doubt Jimmy Iovine's knack as talent scout and groomer, think again. His track record as producer and later music business impresario is pretty uniquely impressive. I caught a couple of his American Idol comments and... while the wife and kid were not impressed by the big fat meany, I found him to be remarkably spot on. Refreshing. SURPRISING! Dre? Who knows? Telented no doubt. Smart no doubt. Though we all know about his lapses of premature celebration. Oops. Apparently them together as a team are pretty scary potent. The brand? Pretty impressive. The phones? Well... the streaming service? Suck. But any lacking is easily fixed. Iovine was a bro to Jobs. This sounds like a stab at rejuvenating (and taking over) the music business in general. I'm not opposed to that. I don't think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 5, 2014 Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 I won't pretend to understand any of this acquisition. I can give you my gut reaction however. If anyone wants to doubt Jimmy Iovine's knack as talent scout and groomer, think again. His track record as producer and later music business impresario is pretty uniquely impressive. I caught a couple of his American Idol comments and... while the wife and kid were not impressed by the big fat meany, I found him to be remarkably spot on. Refreshing. SURPRISING! Dre? Who knows? Telented no doubt. Smart no doubt. Though we all know about his lapses of premature celebration. Oops. Apparently them together as a team are pretty scary potent. The brand? Pretty impressive. The phones? Well... the streaming service? Suck. But any lacking is easily fixed. Iovine was a bro to Jobs. This sounds like a stab at rejuvenating (and taking over) the music business in general. I'm not opposed to that. I don't think... Same gut reaction I have. The music business needs to be taken over by SOMEBODY. Might as well be Apple and Iovine. But I don't expect any new model that works to be one that musicians, sound engineers and audiophiles would be happy with. At least not initially. But if the end result is a more vibrant business, then it benefits all of us in the long run? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted June 5, 2014 Author Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 I'd say the problem with the music business is that its modern history is pretty much that it was taken over, first by organized crime types, then control was solidified by the next generation after they got out of their JD and MBA programs -- or rose up from their street drug sale organizations. In the first half of the century, the midwestern crime families had a big part. In the late century, one could make a good case that the Contra-Cocaine connection helped lay the foundation for big changes in the business -- and the rise of very efficient drug distribution networks helped not just fund the rise of certain new power centers in the business -- but helped inform the way they did their business. All very parallel to how the trade in illegal booze had funded the move into control of music unions and juke box distribution as former whisky runners did their version of 'going legit.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted June 5, 2014 Members Share Posted June 5, 2014 Maybe organized crime needs to take it over again. Because pretty obviously the current powers-that-be don't have a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted June 6, 2014 Author Members Share Posted June 6, 2014 Well, Freeway Ricky Ross -- sentenced to life in prison in 1996 for his part in selling nearly a billion dollars worth of cocaine during the time he was selling cocaine supplied to him by Contra moneyman, Oscar Danilo Blandon -- had has sentence reduced on appeal to 20 years in federal prsion (for perspective, you can get 209 years for one joint of harmless/medicinal pot in Texas) and then was released early as a model prisoner in 2009. So he's free for hiring by any music biz power house that wants to put his organizational genius to work. With Siri, the fact that Ross is functionally illiterate probably wouldn't slow him down at all in today's corporate world. Of course, among music biz execs, you might not even be able to tell the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.