# Apple Buying Universal Music? [merged threads]



## macosXrumors (Apr 11, 2003)

Apple may be discussing with Vivendi the purchase of Universal Music at the moment I'm posting that.

My Article 

A Reuters article comfirming


----------



## dmbfan36 (Apr 11, 2003)

I'm not sure how i feel about this, but...here is a link to the story in the latimes:
apple in talks to buy universal 

certainly raises the stakes for the rumored apple music service...


----------



## Randman (Apr 11, 2003)

> It's seemingly unlikely combination with Apple will instantly make technology guru Steve Jobs, Apple's co-founder and chief executive, the most powerful player in the record industry, the newspaper added.


 I'm sure Steve-O would just hate that.


----------



## senne (Apr 11, 2003)

Apple is being Microsoftish..... Buys everything... MONEY MONEY MONEY!


----------



## ccuilla (Apr 11, 2003)

Or Sony-ish.

This reeks of the Sony comparisons of past.

Seems an odd acquisition. But perhaps fits into a larger strategy.

Could Apple also then buy Pixar (from Steve) putting together a complete multimedia/technology company (a la Sony)?


----------



## bolindilly (Apr 11, 2003)

> Apple is being Microsoftish..... Buys everything... MONEY MONEY MONEY!



c'mon, how lame can you get? you might as well say "greedy capitalist pig." people whine about apple not having the market share it deserves, then when apple tries to expand it's influence, people hate $. i hope that comment was just a joke. if it was, then i apologize for this one. if it wasn't, then i am supremely disappointed with the mindset of the apple cult followers.

john galt


----------



## fryke (Apr 11, 2003)

I might add that if you read the article you see that they name 'anonymous' sources. And although the 'paperness' gives them some psychological solidness, I guess it could 'just be another rumour'.

However, if the rumours about Apple's music service turn out to be true, then such a move by Apple would seem rational or at least possible.


----------



## pds (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by bolindilly _
> *
> 
> john galt *



Who is John Galt? 

Can't agree more. Make money by your own invention and innovation!


----------



## chemistry_geek (Apr 11, 2003)

Apple Computer may purchase Universal Music for $5 or $6 billion.  Read about it here:

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=2551272


----------



## banjo_boy (Apr 11, 2003)

What the HECK! $6 BILLION! For a Music company! I must be missing something because the last time I saw Apple was a COMPUTER MAKER! Here are some thoughts:

Why not take that and actually use it to develop FASTER CPUs!

Why not use it to develop cheaper machines!

Why not use it to develop software faster and better so that you can get a finished product rather than release the betas!

So is Apple going to cater to the music industry now? Since Adobe favors PCs now, is Apple giving up on the design world?

Yet again, stupid move Apple!


----------



## fryke (Apr 11, 2003)

Do not forget that

a) it's not an actual move already done, it's a rumour.
b) Apple is getting its processors by IBM and Motorola, and both make progress (now).
c) the Beatles were released on 'Apple Records' ;-)
d) any investment must be justified by a vision to make more money.

The latter point is important here. If Apple thinks it can establish itself in the music industry with iPods (and more for the consumer), a step like that isn't bad, also in the eye of the RIAA. Apple can be what Sony can't. Read on the music industry in one of the latest WIRED issues. Great article about Sony's schizophrenia...


----------



## macosXrumors (Apr 11, 2003)

Apple executives always told they prefer partnerships. But I think there are at least discutions about it because people that told me about that and also people from Reuters are usually quite reliable.


----------



## banjo_boy (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *
> a) it's not an actual move already done, it's a rumour.
> *



Yes and no. This news has gone further than the rumour mills now. This is now more than speculation. It's news.



> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *
> .
> b) Apple is getting its processors by IBM and Motorola, and both make progress (now).
> *



Yes, both are making progress, but neither of them is close to the numbers that PCs are. Yes, the difference makes no difference, but computer users still are not going to sit down and read why Apple Mhz is the same as PC Ghz. The number and the "G" is what people are looking for. That's it. And Apple can not compete until they get there "M" to the same level "G" that PCs are at.



> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *
> c) the Beatles were released on 'Apple Records' ;-)
> *



Good point!



> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *
> d) any investment must be justified by a vision to make more money.
> *



This one better be looked at closely. The iPod is good but Apple better not being putting all their chips on it. If they are going to start ignoring the people that help make the company great, the graphic designer of the world, they will be in a world of hurt.


----------



## senne (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by bolindilly _
> *c'mon, how lame can you get? you might as well say "greedy capitalist pig." people whine about apple not having the market share it deserves, then when apple tries to expand it's influence, people hate $. i hope that comment was just a joke. if it was, then i apologize for this one. if it wasn't, then i am supremely disappointed with the mindset of the apple cult followers.
> 
> john galt *


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 11, 2003)

it's a huge mistake...

The music industry is dying, and I don't care what SJ thinks. The big labels are operating like nothing has changed, and we all know what happens when the landscape changes and the inhabitants don't adapt - dinosaur city.

The future of the music biz is smalller, independent labels who use the new media to get their acts exposure. MTV/VH1/MM are no longer viable avenues to get new artists exposed.

Apple can accomplish more by partnering with several labels, instead of buying one and risk alienating the the other labels. For this rumored online music service of theirs to work (or anybody's for that matter), it needs to be ubiqitous. It has to have an extremely large catalog that will appeal to people with diverse tastes. One labels clientel of artists will not suffice.

And finally, there's the issue of debt. Apple would have to mortgage the farm to make this deal happen. Part of the reason Apple survived the fiasco of the late 90's was because they were very solvent with $4Billion in the bank and not a lot of debt. This deal would put them seriously behind the eight ball on the balance sheet, and they would have very little room to wiggle if the purchase didn't start producing profits soon, something Universal Music Group has not done for quite a long time...

But don't take my word for it - look at what the street thinks about this move... Apple's stock is in the tank this morning due to this rumor, and rightfully so....


----------



## banjo_boy (Apr 11, 2003)

At least Microsoft stays within their expertise...


----------



## chemistry_geek (Apr 11, 2003)

This is one of the few ways Apple Computer can ensure that QuickTime will survive, offer its customer base (Macintosh users) iTunes with the music download feature, increase profits for the company, etc...  I think this is an excellent decision on Steve's part.  Copy protected CDs already only work in Windows Media Player since it has DRM built-in.  Not only will Apple make money from the CDs, but also from the MP3 downloads.


----------



## boi (Apr 11, 2003)

the music 'industry' cannot die. as long as music lives, an industry surrounding it will live. now the _current_ music industry may be dying, but i think that's what Apple is going for. i bet apple, a company of revolution and innovation, can give the record industry what it needs to get back on track with its customers. 
i for one think it's great. computers + record industry = great advancements in the way we acquire music.


----------



## macosXrumors (Apr 11, 2003)

Totally agree about quicktime, as for CD protection, I think apple is not for that at all.


----------



## fryke (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by banjo_boy _
> *"Yes and no. This news has gone further than the rumour mills now. This is now more than speculation. It's news." (about it being a rumour only)
> This one better be looked at closely. The iPod is good but Apple better not being putting all their chips on it. If they are going to start ignoring the people that help make the company great, the graphic designer of the world, they will be in a world of hurt. (about the vision and profit thing) *



1.) This rumour _started_ off of a LA Times and 'Der Spiegel' article. And both claim to have 'anonymous sources', which - although both are well respected publications - doesn't give the article(s) much credibility. And the fact that this rumour is now multiplied throughout the web only shows that people are INTERESTED in it, it doesn't put any truth in it.

2.) I never said Apple would be putting all their chips in it. With having a vision I rather meant that Apple puts their money where their vision is supported, expanded and can be profitable. I think expanding on the idea of the digital hub is money better spent than, say, buying Motorola's PowerPC division and then noticing that they can't really do better. And also better than just throw money into more developers to create better software faster. Apple has a long history in software development, and software like iMovie, Mac OS X and Safari shows that their software development money is well spent at the moment. If Apple would throw more money into Mac OS X, we could see earlier and bigger upgrades, but I think it's quite rational to have upgrades (the big ones) on a year to year basis. As for thinking different, they could use the 6'000'000'000 USD to reduce the price of the iBook and the iMac even further for about a year and watch the platform grow. I know it's not a strategy that people like, but if only 10% of the cheap buyers start liking the platform, they might buy a PowerBook or PowerMac the next time around. But that's off topic.

On topic: Whether it's a bad or a good idea to buy Universal Music, just imagine the big splash of the following announcement (and I'm not claiming it will happen):

"Apple today unveiled the new line of iPods. (Features etc. ...) They also announced the new version of iTunes, number 4, which lets you browse an online catalogue of music tracks from all relevant record labels. You can click on a track and accept to buy it for 0.99 USD, it gets automatically downloaded, added to your iTunes 4 library and synched with your iPod. The MPEG-4 based AAC codec used sports a better quality than MP3 (CD-Quality, actually) and you are free to use the song according to copyright laws. You can copy it to your other Mac or PC, you can burn it on CD and, of course, listen to it on your iPod. In related news, Apple has bought Universal Music and has signed new contracts with (insert a couple of big stars that will celebrate their comeback)." (Those stars would, of course, star in a new 'Switchers' ad, saying that they were under other record labels before and have now 'switched' to Apple Universal.) ;-)


----------



## banjo_boy (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *1.) This rumour _started_ off of a LA Times and 'Der Spiegel' article. And both claim to have 'anonymous sources', which - although both are well respected publications - doesn't give the article(s) much credibility.*



Even if the resources were not credible, it is out in the open more than before. Apple does not like having their "secrets" thrown out like this and especially if it is true. So to me it's black and white. Either it's BS or thehy are stretchin' out their feathers and struttin' to impress the "alphas males".



> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *2.) I never said Apple would be putting all their chips in it. With having a vision I rather meant that Apple puts their money where their vision is supported, expanded and can be profitable. I think expanding on the idea of the digital hub is money better spent than, say, buying Motorola's PowerPC division and then noticing that they can't really do better. And also better than just throw money into more developers to create better software faster. Apple has a long history in software development, and software like iMovie, Mac OS X and Safari shows that their software development money is well spent at the moment.*



I know you didn't say that, but 6B is alot of ching for Apple to lay down. I doubt they have that laying in a drawer somewhere.

Also, what I meant about the software was release golds of programs ie Safari 1.0 not a beta. iCal 1.0 not the beta. I appreciate the yearly updates of the OS, but please give a non-buggy program.



> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *On topic: Whether it's a bad or a good idea to buy Universal Music, just imagine the big splash of the following announcement (and I'm not claiming it will happen):
> 
> "Apple today unveiled the new line of iPods. (Features etc. ...) They also announced the new version of iTunes, number 4, which lets you browse an online catalogue of music tracks from all relevant record labels. You can click on a track and accept to buy it for 0.99 USD, it gets automatically downloaded, added to your iTunes 4 library and synched with your iPod. The MPEG-4 based AAC codec used sports a better quality than MP3 (CD-Quality, actually) and you are free to use the song according to copyright laws. You can copy it to your other Mac or PC, you can burn it on CD and, of course, listen to it on your iPod. In related news, Apple has bought Universal Music and has signed new contracts with (insert a couple of big stars that will celebrate their comeback)." (Those stars would, of course, star in a new 'Switchers' ad, saying that they were under other record labels before and have now 'switched' to Apple Universal.) ;-) *



You have to be an ad writer! You made it sound REEEEEALLy good!

But again, are they going to keep dealing with computers or just the iPod, iTunes, and music?

I, personally, will never use there music service becasue they will never carry any of the music I listen to. I am sure there a many who will glad buy from it, but it will not be my music shop.

I just hope that this, if it does happen, works. If it doesn't, I really do not want to speculate what could happen to Apple...

PS - The market closes in 27 min. and their stack is at 13.10


----------



## Pengu (Apr 11, 2003)

Two points really.
One.


> I know you didn't say that, but 6B is alot of ching for Apple to lay down. I doubt they have that laying in a drawer somewhere.


Uh. macrumors said: *may offer $5 billion to $6 billion* So for one, I don't know why people started assuming any price will be $6b.

Two.


> I, personally, will never use there music service becasue they will never carry any of the music I listen to. I am sure there a many who will glad buy from it, but it will not be my music shop.


Are you psychic? Can you travel through time? I doubt it somehow. Unless you listen to home-made music you create with a soup-tin and a fork, there is no reason to assume ANY type of music won't be released under any possible new record company, whether its owned, or associated with Apple or not. If its music you buy, SOMEONE has to be producing it. Why not Universal/Apple ??

Also. Is Universal Music a seperate company, or a subsidary to Universal Pictures...?


----------



## banjo_boy (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Pengu _
> *So for one, I don't know why people started assuming any price will be $6b.
> *



Does it matter!?! $5B? $6B? It still is a chuck of cash!



> _Originally posted by Pengu _
> *Two.
> 
> Are you psychic? Can you travel through time? I doubt it somehow. Unless you listen to home-made music you create with a soup-tin and a fork, there is no reason to assume ANY type of music won't be released under any possible new record company, whether its owned, or associated with Apple or not. If its music you buy, SOMEONE has to be producing it. Why not Universal/Apple ??*



In this instant, yes I am psychic.

Pengu, does "banjo_boy" give you any hint!?! Bluegrass is my music of choice and most of the best names are on independent labels and will probably not be part of this.

You have to understand that you DO NOT find bluegrass music easily. If a place has it, it is usually in the back of the store and they have 3-5 CDs of "best of bluegrass", each one having "The Ballad of Jed Clampett", "Dueling Banjos" and "Foggy Mountain Breakdown" on them. Or else it is a shop that is run by an ex-hippie that sells only bluegrass and folk music.

If Apple did add some bluegrass, it will most likely be more country than bluegrass.

Country Rocks, but Bluegrass RULES!


----------



## Excalibur (Apr 11, 2003)

I thought this was an odd thing but after thinging its a possible scenario based on these facts.

The music industry is having problems from piracy mainly due to its pricing model once downloadable music was coming to market. Instead of working with the technology they fought against it. They would rather you buy the $18 CD instead of on a per track basis. Customer backlash pretty much blew the whole thing to hell in a handbasket. So enter... Napster, Scour, etc. Also over th elast few years the new talent has been all that spectacular, but they blame downloadable music. There are more factors that just piracy in my view but I prefer to fix the problem instead of bitching about it.

Solution: Now with Apple with a possibility exists to be able to have music on a per track basis now. Before music was limited to having single by what the label dictates, not the uses can control that for a per cost on the track. More so they will ba able to create a new method of distribution for music that the industry is afraid to take. This is a risk yes, but could be what gets all this RIAA BS straightened and the customers not paying $18 for a CD to get one song.

Just my 2 cents on a possibility...


----------



## Ugg (Apr 11, 2003)

Whether true or not, it looks as though Apple is looking to aquire another company and given their digital hub focus it makes sense that they would target the entertainment industry.  I agree with serpicolugnut that the current industry is dying and that it will be replaced by smaller more responsive studios.  The current system is based on a topheavy star system giving those on the bottom little chance to get a leg up.  

The future is with downloadable music and if Apple is able to come up with a viable solution then they will be at the head of the pack.  I'm all for independent music and movie studios but I'm not willing to search a couple hundred web sites to find the music I want.  A centralized system is what is needed and I hope that Apple succeeds.  

I have this gut feeling that this is the year that makes or breaks Apple.  Can Steve pull it off?


----------



## fryke (Apr 11, 2003)

Ugg wrote: "I'm all for independent music and movie studios but I'm not willing to search a couple hundred web sites to find the music I want."

I remember the days when I went to a different city to (just maybe) find the record I was looking for. ;-)

You wouldn't have to search a couple hundred websites, even without a centralised system. Think Google. Or blogs. Or P2P. There _could_ be a networked system of independent resellers. And, yes, even you with your own band's website could be part of it. However: I still am with you with your hope.


----------



## Excalibur (Apr 11, 2003)

I agree with you on that Fryke. The words... out of stock, will not be an issue anymore.


----------



## gwynarion (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by banjo_boy _
> *Pengu, does "banjo_boy" give you any hint!?! Bluegrass is my music of choice and most of the best names are on independent labels and will probably not be part of this.
> 
> You have to understand that you DO NOT find bluegrass music easily.*


You may already know about this, but... Sirius Stream 37 - Bluegrass


----------



## gwynarion (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Excalibur _
> *I agree with you on that Fryke. The words... out of stock, will not be an issue anymore. *


What I really want is for the record labels *entire* libraries to be made available.  Not just the music and artists that they currently have available in stores and catalogs but everything they own.  70% of the music I download is stuff which cannot be bought except at great effort through used stores and similar-purpose online sites.


----------



## bolindilly (Apr 11, 2003)

the *real* question that has to be asked is this:
how will apple debut their music service and not alienate all those people who are used to getting music for free? how do you institute a service like this and reconcile those issues?

next issue:
how do you get the majority of public (willing or not willing) to accept the fact that you have to pay for digital music?

and finally:
how can apple use this business-friendly approach to take future steps into the real $ maker (and therefore the real expansion of influence)?

unfortunately, i don't have these answers. otherwise, i'd probably be getting big $ to work for apple. i *do* hope, however, that apple *does* know these answers. they are gonna make or break their future success...

John Galt


----------



## fryke (Apr 11, 2003)

Well, for once, the quality of the service must be simply perfect. Finding something must be easiest possible, downloads must be as fast as possible (Akamai?) and license restrictions must be almost absent (i.e.: there are laws in each country about copyright, they are enough. we KNOW it's illegal to share that music online, we're just criminals and should be put to jail if we don't agree and copy the stuff.), i.e. no copy restrictions (for your own, private use).


----------



## bolindilly (Apr 11, 2003)

freedom of private use is very important. they never had copy-protection on tapes. or did they?


----------



## Inline_guy (Apr 11, 2003)

'Where there is smoke there is fire."  That is what this reminds me off.  I am not saying this is true, but I do think their is truth in what is being said.  Apple is in the process of transitioning into something more, which is needed if they intend to stay relevant in the new tech industry.

If Apple plays its cards right than we will see that this is another chance to grow the personal computer market.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.  I was just thinking the other day how Apple needs to get in bed with a major movie company or two.  But this might be an interesting start, with the music industry first.  If Apple can successfully market music over the internet, then I think we can expect to see a similar system in the near future for movies.

Matthew


----------



## macosXrumors (Apr 11, 2003)

Here we can read the first comments made by people close to the discussion.

The NY Times article here


----------



## fryke (Apr 11, 2003)

Yes, I'm really dreaming of iFlics 1.0 sometimes. Like iTunes, but for MPEG-4 movies. Choose your bandwidth, choose streaming or download (i.e. choose your price)... Maybe five more years or so... (dreaming, dreaming...)


----------



## senne (Apr 13, 2003)

i said that apple is going microsoftish 

From Slashdot

_An article over at the New York Post is reporting Microsoft has expressed interest in buying Vivendi's Universal Music Group, setting up a possible bidding war between the software maker and rival Apple Computer, according to sources familiar with the matter. Microsoft's interest is said to be at the level of "poking around, kicking the tires," but it has indeed had conversations with Vivendi executives about buying the music division, sources said."_

also look here


----------



## bjurusik (Apr 14, 2003)

... just something microsoft would do.  Personally, I think if Apple acquires Universal it would be great.  Apple would gain a whole new level of respect from record companies.  They would actually be in charge of how music gets distributed and how copy protection would apply.  Microsoft on the other hand puts DRM in everything, and there goes your freedom.  Want to make a mix of your favorite songs, too bad.  Also, everyone complains "we need faster computers" or "macs need to be cheaper" ... well, Apple needs more than 5 percent of the market.  I believe this expansion will definitely boost market share ... not instantly, but gradually.  Sooner or later record companies, software companies, and movie companies will have their way and Kazaa and those other P2P apps will get banned, and there will be Apple!


----------



## Pengu (Apr 14, 2003)

Until there is a change in the way people think, and I mean a major change, then online music trading will not stop. People thought Napster would be the end. No. Until society is into some star-trek "we don't work for money" sorta thing,  then it won't stop. There will ALWAYS be a way to get music without paying for it.


----------



## banjo_boy (Apr 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by gwynarion _
> *You may already know about this, but... Sirius Stream 37 - Bluegrass *



Yes, I have heard it and many other streaming radio and satilite radio station. They are good, but most of them that I have heard really played a few select "pop grass" bands and throw in a couple "oldies" for the 'grassers.

I REALLY hope you all are right. I would love to see the hard to find labels. I would be very happy.

BUT! Is this service even going to happen? Apple is looking. Now, not. Now they are. Now Microsoft. Now, Apple. Now not. What's happening?


----------



## Ripcord (Apr 16, 2003)

More logs for the fire, apparently it's been confirmed:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/30289.html


----------



## Jason (Apr 16, 2003)

hmmm microsoft buying it instead eh? wow....


----------



## Ripcord (Apr 16, 2003)

Okay, now the confirmation is unconfirmed..  You just have to laugh at PR =):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/30305.html


----------



## anerki (Apr 17, 2003)

CUPERTINO, Calif., April 16 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- "Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL - News) has never made any offer to invest in or acquire a major music company.  The press statements this morning attributed to Vivendi board member Claude Bebear are untrue, as Mr. Bebear has confirmed in a later report," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO.  "Beyond these comments, we will abide by Apple's policy of not commenting on rumors."

Sorry guys, hate to be the bearer of bad news for all of you ...


----------

