Apple Buying Universal Music? [merged threads]

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.
Click to expand...
I'm sure Steve-O would just hate that.
 
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)?
 
Apple is being Microsoftish..... Buys everything... MONEY MONEY MONEY!
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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!
 
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...
 
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.
 
Originally posted by fryke

a) it's not an actual move already done, it's a rumour.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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' ;-)
Click to expand...

Good point!

Originally posted by fryke

d) any investment must be justified by a vision to make more money.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

:eek:
 
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....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)
Click to expand...

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.) ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top