record companies
Latest
Apple confirms iCloud won't offer iTunes streaming to iOS
The iTunes Match beta opened up to developers yesterday, and in case you were somehow under the impression that it actually offered streaming of music to your iOS device, you're mistaken. Apple has confirmed, because apparently there was confusion, that iTunes Match doesn't stream music. Instead, the $24.99 a year that you will pay for the service means that any music you download from anywhere will get "activated" as purchased in iTunes, and then you can download that music to any iOS device or Mac that you happen to have. That's still an actual file that will need actual space on the hard drive. Apple says that purchased music can be listened to while it's being downloaded, but it's not like you can have your iPhone full of apps and then still listen to streaming music. In that sense, iTunes Match is more of a sync-ing service than an actual streaming setup. It's too bad -- I'd much rather have Pandora-like access to my music library from anywhere without having to haul all of those files around on my app-filled iPhone. And while you think that distinction might be the issue of some record company's legal text, it's actually an Apple decision, according to the record companies. Apple apparently wants this music to be tied to iTunes, and thus to actual files on your devices. A streaming service could too easily be brought out to other mediums like browsers (which is where Pandora started, incidentally), and thus separated from Apple devices in general. That seems sort of selfish on Apple's part -- I would hope the ideal is that I have access to my music on iTunes all the time, not just when I'm on Apple devices. But for now, this is the way it's done. If you pay up for iTunes Match, you still get all of the service's benefits, but you don't get streaming of your files to or from anywhere. Update: There's some confusion over the word "streaming" here. Streaming, as we're using it, means listening to music without actually downloading it on to your device. This is possible on a Mac with iTunes using the new iTunes Match service (just like it is while sharing a library on Wi-Fi). But it is not possible on an iOS device, even with iTunes Match -- you must download the song to listen to it. You can listen to it while it's downloading, but there will be a file that will take up space on your iOS device.
Apple, others in talks to improve quality of music downloads
CNN reports that Apple is in touch with record labels to try and improve the quality of the downloadable music it sells on iTunes and elsewhere. Currently, the MP3s sold on iTunes are formatted as 16-bit files, but under the new proposal, they'd be upgraded to 24-bit files, which means the files would have more audio data included, and thus be able to play out at a higher resolution. As Chris Foresman at Ars argues, however, it may not matter. While higher quality is always nice to have (and there's no reason Apple shouldn't have it, unless the audio needs to be compressed further for streaming or other memory concerns), most people won't hear the full resolution anyway. You can have the highest quality audio files you want, but when you're playing them through a set of cheap speakers (or even the MacBook's default built-in speakers), you're not going to hear all of the highs and lows that you should. Still, it will be nice to have the higher resolution, and it'll give Apple and iTunes yet another selling point if the agreement can be made (not to mention sell a lot of higher-quality audio speakers and other products as well). So, I expect we'll see it happen before long. Remember way back in 2007 when Apple raised the encoding rate to 256 Kb/s? [via Electronista]
Warner Music Group executive joins Apple
Apple has hired Elliott Peters, a senior vice president and head of digital legal affairs at Warner Music Group, as the "...corporate attorney director for iTunes Europe and Internet services, based in Luxembourg, where he will manage the European legal team for iTunes and MobileMe services," according to a WMG internal memo obtained by Billboard. The memo, sent by Paul Robinson, WMG General Counsel, states that "...Elliott [Peters] has had a hand in almost every major WMG digital deal" since becoming the company's "first digital lawyer" in 2003, though Peters has been with WMG since 2000. With Peters' reported experience, and we can only assume, strong connections and relations with the major music label players, it's not too far a stretch of the imagination to suggest that he will be a key asset to Apple in the love-hate relationship that seems to exists between Apple and the major record companies and labels. One of the first things that comes to mind is the supposed cloud-based iTunes, which has been steadily rumored for quite some time now. Could Peters be set to play a key role in helping Apple get a subscription-based, music streaming service off the ground? Regardless, Peters is due to start working for Apple next month. For the full memo, click here. [via MacDailyNews]
Cloud-based iTunes will be "modest in scope"
We've heard a lot of rumors about a cloud-based iTunes service, and apparently Apple is working on exactly that, but the company has reportedly told a few music label executives that any service that debuts will be only "modest in scope." CNET says that Apple's strategy isn't exactly clear -- apparently Apple doesn't have the agreements it needs with music companies to actually distribute music from the cloud, but Apple has instead put streaming service Lala (which it acquired late last year) to work on video streaming, not music. Of course, this is all second- and third-hand, and Apple has yet to officially comment on the matter, but it sounds like Apple is working on something more like YouTube or Hulu than a music streaming service. The cloud-based deal would consist of "digital shelves," where users could store videos or other media, rather than a full music library. Interesting. There's no question that a cloud-based music database would be extremely popular, and indeed Google is already working on just that, supposedly. Engadget notes that the iPhone 4 launched with the same memory capacities as the 3GS -- perhaps memory isn't such an issue when you can store your movies in the cloud? It seems like Apple's past relationships with the record companies are making the road a little bumpy, so the first official word we see of the iTunes cloud may have nothing to do with distributed music whatsoever. [via TheMacObserver]
Report: RIAA pressured Apple into creating iTunes LP
This feature over at GigaOM has quite a few interesting insights about the iTunes LP program -- while Apple sells it wholeheartedly as "the visual experience of the record album," it appears the story behind the story is not quite so clean. According to an anonymous source in the industry (note, not Apple themselves), the service didn't come from Cupertino. Instead, it was designed by record companies, and agreed to by Apple as a "concession" to "make a gesture in favor of album sales." The piece also states that Apple subsidized the creation of the first few "LPs," some of which cost up to $60,000 to assemble and license. As you might expect with any other less-than-popular product at Apple, iTunes LP isn't exactly being thrown into the spotlight, either. While a much more visual music experience would be perfect for the iPad, GigaOM notes that it didn't even merit a mention by Jobs at the iPad announcement. It's certainly possible that iTunes LP could find a new home in the future, if bands really get behind the service and make their own (a few have, as noted, but the cost seems pretty prohibitive, especially if sales aren't that impressive), but from what this anonymous source says, the LP service is a record company concession that hasn't paid off for Apple even in the way its originators hoped. [via iPodNN]
Shipley confronts Apple on "contain and engage"
Wil Shipley (he of Delicious Monster) has a big piece up about Apple, the iPhone, and the iPod that's making the rounds of online Mac onlookers. He calls out Apple (as they've been called out before) for leaving the iPhone a closed platform, and he answers a lot of questions that were asked by Erica's article the other day.Shipley says that Jobs made a number of mistakes, the first of which was combining forces with other companies, including the record companies and AT&T. In the early days of all this, Jobs was seen as a hero, convincing the record companies to change their minds, and bringing AT&T into the realm of a really great phone. But, Shipley says, Apple plus another company doesn't equal Apple anymore. As much as Apple seemed to have brought record companies around to its point of view, it turns out that the record companies have brought Apple over to their side as well.Case in point: ringtones, in which Apple is asking us to pay three times for the same song just so we can play it when people call us. And then combine that with Jobs' harsh requirements for locking down the Apple aesthetic, and suddenly, instead of finding ourselves locked inside a closed system we like (iPod + iTunes), we're trapped inside a closed system that charges us for no reason (iPhone + ringTones).How to fix things? Shipley says an SDK for iPods and iPhones, which is a big duh. Apple should have done that long ago, and developers have been saying so ever since. They've trusted developers to make beautiful programs for the Mac, and they should trust them on the iPhone as well. And he says Apple needs to open up-- either let their music out, or let others' in. Clearly, people prefer having control over their content rather than, say, what NBC is planning, so if Apple makes a serious effort to free their content (music, movies, and ringtones alike), they won't need the companies-- they'll have all the audience.Thanks to everyone who sent this in!
