Apple Threatens to Shut Down iTunes
Source: Tom's Guide | Keywords: Apple, iTunes, Royalties, music
This Thursday, a ruling by the Copyright Royalty Board will decide the fate of iTunes as artists demand greater royalties.
According to Fortune, the National Music Publishers’ Association is seeking to increase the royalty rates for artists from 9-cents to 15-cents per track purchased on online music stores; a 66-percent increase. The problem is that no one wants to be the one who pays for it. Currently iTunes charges 99-cents a song, with 61-cents of that going to the record industry, 9-cents of it going to the artists and the rest going to Apple. Apple claims the 29-cents per song it makes is barely is enough for maintenance costs, let alone a profit.
According to a statement made last year by iTunes vice president Eddy Cue, "If the [iTunes music store] was forced to absorb any increase in the ... royalty rate, the result would be to significantly increase the likelihood of the store operating at a financial loss - which is no alternative at all." Clarifying that statement further he says, “Apple has repeatedly made it clear that it is in this business to make money, and most likely would not continue to operate [the iTunes music store] if it were no longer possible to do so profitably.”
While Apple may threaten to shut down the iTunes music store, the reality is that it may of been just an empty threat. Currently iTunes is the leading online music retailer, but it still only makes up a small portion of all music sales. Closing its doors could result in Apple losing its edge, even if the store closed only temporarily, giving enough time for alternative music sources to take hold. It definitely would not be a move stockholders would appreciate; as if the stockholders have not already taken enough of a beating from the current economy crisis.
Furthermore, by Apple shutting down iTunes to fend off music artists, Apple may taint its own marketing image by appearing as a greedy monster that is against music artists. As well, Apple also depends on the iTunes store to sell iPods; even if the iTunes store ran slightly into the red, Apple could still overall benefit from having it. The iTunes store also sells more than just music, but it also offers applications, audiobooks and videos, all of which may be affected in a negative way for Apple if it stopped selling songs.
While the concept of increasing the cost of a song instead of just absorbing the cost may sound sensible, Apple fears such a tactic will negatively affect sales. "I have no doubt that an increase in the per track price would lower total music purchases at the store," Cue had said in a statement. 99-cents is an appealing number for consumers, but it also gives Apple a reason to have a low fixed price on songs. If the price of a single song broke past the 99-cent barrier, suddenly there would be no limit on what could be demanded. $1.09 this week, next week the record industry could be demanding it be set to $1.29, with a song costing as much as an album before long.
The fact is, for some artists, that is exactly what they want. With customers able to pick and choose from low-priced singles, artists that became familiar with selling CD albums stuffed with filler are feeling the burn. Would you buy Katy Perry’s album, when the popular hit ’I kissed a girl’ is all that you want? With the current credit crunch and with heavy inflation looming, iTunes may soon be forced anyways into increasing the price of tracks to over 99-cents.
While artists are actually on the short end of the stick in this matter, their attempt at increasing royalties may not be just about making more money, but it could also be a counter-measure to prevent their royalties from actually being decreased. There has been a lot of effort to actually slash royalties of artists from 9-percent down to 4-percent, so in making a stance saying they are already undervalued could help their cause and prevent decreased royalties.
In the end, there is still the obvious answer, just cut back on the record’s industry massive 61-percent cut. The industry is out-of-date and the greed the industry has grown accustomed to seems silly these days. The chance of this happening though will require Apple to make threats against the big labels, to show that it is serious about the issue. With the record industry down 20-percent in sales with their old CD cash cow and profits now appearing from online retailers like iTunes, the record industry needs to start showing some gratitude. Otherwise, the industry may just end up killing the goose that is popping out the golden eggs.
Without iTunes ease of use, its excellent marketing, its iPod monopoly and fair iTunes pricing, the online music market may revert back to the chaotic days of Napster. Apple needs to show it won’t budge on the matter, to force the record industry’s hand, although really, Apple is just blowing hot air.
-
Previous News Article
Report: New Nintendo DS Hardware... -
Next News Article
YouTube Cranks Up Upload Limit


Sure, it should make a perfectly good coaster, as long as the artwork is face down.
I still buy CDs. No DRM and I can convert it to ANY format I want at as high a bitrate as my heart desires.
The NMPA represents songwriters and the royalty discussed is for the songwriters, not the performing artists.
If Apple really wanted to do something cool... They could cut out the middle man so to speak. Just offer the artists something like 20% to sign a deal with them and sell exclusively on iTunes. Apples gets a massive 80% and the artist gets nearly double what they where getting before. But to be honest the percentages should probably be reversed in a perfect world... Hmmm me thinks there is much room in this industry for some competition.
I think this model would work best for already known artists, and Apple would need to work out some way to get air time for bands on radio stations hmmm or Apple could create iTunes iNternet rAdio and promote new bands that way
JonathanDeane - the problem is the contracts record companies already have with the artists. I actually admire Apple for holding firm on this one. They are defending their business, but at the same time defending us consumers. The hit needs to come out of the freaking bloated record industry. They make the largest chunk of profit, more than Apple - who works to sell it - and the artist, whose talent makes it all possible to begin with.
I still buy CDs. No DRM and I can convert it to ANY format I want at as high a bitrate as my heart desires.
Ahh the joys of having my Zune. Go ahead shut down Itunes, make the Zune replace the Ipod. It's a better player anyway.
i think apple should create their own record companies, so apple can gain more profit while increasing the royalty rates for artists
Zune, hahahahah ha ha ha -- that's a good one. Took me a long time to get up off the ground.
Does Zune still have any titles?
Better player -- do you like bad spanish TV also?
Zune, hahahahah ha ha ha -- that's a good one. Took me a long time to get up off the ground.Does Zune still have any titles?Better player -- do you like bad spanish TV also?
Before you make yourself look stupid i suggest you get off this HARDWARE AND TECH GUIDE website before you start making even more flambait and fanboyish comments...
Zune owns, Ipod owns. Itunes sucks. Period.
I'll admit that was hard to say, since i do indeed also hate apple.. but still it's the truth.
reading the article and the responses i'm surprised nobody mentioned the ratio's that everybody gets :
As for threatening to shut down itunes... well , thats ol' diva applian tactics again, u get used to it ^^ but they are a good bunch (just a bit over zealous at times) so they know that closing it won't help them, most likely it threathens the cash income of the rec. industry more than it does theirs, since the rec comp's have more to lose out of this ^^ And music is just one of many parts of itunes! u also get video, films, tvs etc etc.... so u can't close down itunes....
I disagree with linking ipod sales with itunes, itunes may help getting content, except when u're like me and buy tons of cds (for the object as well as the content). I buy ipods because they work damn well, as much as most high end mp3 players on the market... never bought anything on itunes.
Zune owns, Ipod owns. Itunes sucks. Period.
I'll admit that was hard to say, since i do indeed also hate apple.. but still it's the truth.
Well im sure there is one website on the net that praises the Zune. too bad every other website think it sucks LOL
Apple would never let iTunes die. iTunes and iPod are one in the same. If they kill iTunes they'd stab themselves in the heart since the iPod would loose popularity. I can't see apple letting iTunes go while still trying to promote the iPod.
Apple would never let iTunes die. iTunes and iPod are one in the same. If they kill iTunes they'd stab themselves in the heart since the iPod would loose popularity. I can't see apple letting iTunes go while still trying to promote the iPod.
QFT. What will most likely happen is....... NOTHING.
Kinda sucks to be a songwritter right about now. You ask for a higher minimum wage and your record company just says, "if you want more money, sell more records."
I hate Apple as a company more and more each day but not even I expect them to run an operation like itunes and not make any money at it.
Yes, I'm sure its all made up in sales of other items...but unless the profits overall are pretty freaking huge...its only good business to just keep the portions of your business that make money.
The exceptions being cases like AT&T (at least in my area)...they'll give you DSL for almost nothing so they can keep raking it in on the landline charges.
I could only agree Apple was being greedy if they weren't really going to lose that much on itunes after the change, or if it would barely put a dent in their profits. I don't know the answer on that one, and don't care enough about the issue at hand to look...but thats my 2cents anyway.