Should Universal want to pull its music (and certainly SJ is capable of telling them where to go), they have to go back to the office and immediately start cutting budgets/labels/artists/people.

Having less music on the iTS would be a negative, but there are lots of other ways to get music onto ipods--some of them even legal.

Steve Jobs' leverage is BETTER than marketshare. He writes the labels big big checks. Of course, they want even more--but don't we all?

spresso

This is a product with a nightmare name from a marketing point of view, no special features to set it apart, and the only reason anyone has ever heard of it is because MS makes it and they have the press in their pocket.

MS spent half a Billion dollars to make Internet Explorer and crush Netscape. They charged huge penalty pricing to PC makers who didn't ONLY ship computers with Windows.

Whenever a company came up with new technology they said "share with us and license or we'll compete and crush you". This is not a company of nice people.

Bill Gates lucked out with DOS and Windows and they use their monopoly to get things, not by doing it better, just by strong arming into it with money. Nothing they do is good for us.

Hello_Newman

Oh come on durian: do you think the RIAA wants any part of any digital media player?

Vinyl and analogue is the way the RIAA wants it to be. And we had no problem with that for years.

Wayde

durian

No, MSN Music was a rebranded store: MusicNet, Loudeye, and others had a relationship with Universal. Urge is wholly owned by MTV. Microsoft has a relationship with MTV to give them a spot on a piece of software that even they are not using.

"For one, if Universal could do over their deal with Apple, a similar deal to this would be in the cards."

It WAS in the cards, and Apple said, "Hell no! This is our offer. Take it or leave it."

"Microsoft not only gets a huge library..."

Huge? By who's standards? Univeral is 1/3 of all music, but Zune's catalog is still going to be around 2 million at launch. Apple has an expanding catalog of 3.5 million already.

"When it's time to renegotiate the license to Universals library will they offer up the same deal Microsoft has?"

"Hell No!" Again.

"If not, is there a possibility that Universal no longer allows Apple to sell their material?"

Not when Apple sells MILLIONS of tracks a week while Microsoft will be lucky to sell a MILLION units a year.

"Also, remember that Microsoft is now opening up a Marketplace on the Xbox 360. They have a foot in the door with Universal."

Don't you mean Unviersal has a foot in the door of the XBox? Now Universal has a precedent to get the "piracy tax" on any MS device that can hold media content... All just to "irk" Apple?

"so if everyone that has a 360 with Universal content on it eventually buys a Zune"

WHo is this "EVERYONE"? XBox only sold 20 million units and represents about 20% of the console market. XBox 360 has sold 10 million and is moving slower than the XBox. SO if EVERYONE buys a Zune, you have 1/3 of the iPod's market and 1/3 of the PS2's market. And that's IF "EVERYONE" buys it.

"It's the big Digital Circle of life."

It's the XBox/une fanboys big Circle Jerk of Rationalization and Slf-Delusion.

Tim Faulkner

atayalor

That's possible - but Apple has a point of leverage that Microsoft doesn't - marketshare.

Dancing Milkcarton

"Under the terms of the deal, Universal will split the money it gets from Zune player sales with its artists. Morris declined to say how much artists will be paid."

The Artists Get the money, please correct your posting.

My Source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228341,00.html

frankcefalu

For one, if Universal could do over their deal with Apple, a similar deal to this would be in the cards. Universal gets a kickback for supporting a product and offering their library to Microsoft.

Microsoft not only gets a huge library, but they also have the edge in negotiating getting content either first or exclusively. Also, as mentioned earlier, Universal will push the Zune because it has an interest.

Another thing is that Microsoft has placed Apple in a pickle. When it's time to renegotiate the license to Universals library will they offer up the same deal Microsoft has? If not, is there a possibility that Universal no longer allows Apple to sell their material?

Also, remember that Microsoft is now opening up a Marketplace on the Xbox 360. They have a foot in the door with Universal. It's just a guess, but I'd figure that eventualy the Zune will sync up to the 360 in some fashion, so if everyone that has a 360 with Universal content on it eventually buys a Zune, then Universals bottom line looks better, and so does Microsofts since it'll be selling content. It's the big Digital Circle of life.

Oh, and artists care about their labels financials. Selfish artists want a label that will pay them more. Artists that want their music to be heard want a big label that can distribute that music to the masses. Others want the support that comes with a profitable label. The only artist that probably wouldn't care is the one performing on a corner with an open guitar case taking tips.

Halenstone

Of course here in Canada we have been paying royalties to music entities on every tape and CD purchased for a long time....even on the iPod for a few years.

KsprayDad

WRONG.

MS already has a relationships with Universal through MSN Music and Urge. This is simply a way to undermine Apple. Remember, Apple's made huge efforts to keep digital music prices low and the music labels don't like it. They'd rather raise prices and force everybody back to P2P. I think they LIKE suing 13 year old girls as long as it lines their pockets.

Tank

BWGunner

Dumb move M$. Thier greedy fat cat paw wasn't even "out" for tithing. Now everyone is going to want a cut of the "cheddar" and the little guys won't have the cash to pay... er I mean "play." (Maybe that was intentional?)

axiomatic

bigpoppa

Anything you said after that was immediately ignored.

This thread has actually gotten quite amusing. I love the internet and its multiple prophets, lawyers, and financial geniuses.

Lance Wallen

If I work for a company like Enron and they announce an extra million in the budget, that's not going to make me happy other than it lessens the chance that I might get downsized--otherwise, who cares, because personally I won't see a dime.

veltis

What happens when EMI, Sony and BMG wonder where their payoffs are? When they decide that Apple and all other player manufacturers need to be tithing too? How about when BMI and ASCAP want their piece of the hardware pie?

Slippery slope. Bad move by Microsoft (of course, doing something that damages an entire industry in favor of their own short-term self-interests is nothing new).

someToast

Which would you care about? Do you immediately hear your employer say "profits are up" and think "great, I'm rich!" No -- you think "gee, I hope that money gets to ME."

And that's my concern with this deal. Look, part of what I'm saying is that Microsoft and Universal are touting this without telling us the details (typical), so I'll be the first to admit *I don't know* exactly what this is about. But until there's a business model that says what this revenue stream actually represents, I would think artists should be rightfully suspicious.

And I also think artists benefit more from *license fees* if they're negotiated across all hardware and all labels, rather than one player, one label, one manufacturer at a time. So maybe you're happy if you're with Universal and they're generous with this deal. You're certainly left out for the moment if either of those things isn't true.

Peter Kirn

spragala

Skeptical_Geezer

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/technology/09pogue.html?...

jonny

You asked Halenstone to find you ANY artist...well...if I may field this one, Halenstone?

EVERY artist cares about their label making more money. Let me walk you through this:

As an artist, your paycheck is a function of how much music you sell, how much revenue you drive to the Label, and how much the Label wants to keep you. A Label with more money is likely to try a little harder to keep artists, and to be willing to spend a little more.

Also, it is in the artists' best interest to sign with a Label that's financially sound; thus ensuring the stability of their own financial future. Would you really want to be signed to a Label that has huge outstanding debts and no profit? Of course not.

It's absurd to assume that an artist, even a particularly selfish one, wouldn't care about the financial health of their employer.

Do YOU care if the company you work for files for bankruptcy? Do YOU like it when your boss announces there's an extra million in the budget?

Don't be stupid. Of course you care. To assume artists are somehow "special" and don't follow the same relationships that every other employee/employer follow is just inane. Artists aren't special. Successful artists make the same amount that successful executives and specialists make. Period.

Brad

When I was 24, and in a band, I might have thought that, too. But I'm not, I'm older and wiser and realize that you may start seeing other manufacturers (name it: DVD players, game consoles, etc...) having to start paying labels for every unit *they* sell to 'cover' any potential loses due to piracy.

I'd like to have a warm fuzzy feeling about this - but I work for Uni's big, profitable parent - and I know this sets a bad, bad precedent.

Dancing Milkcarton

The problem is this: Microsoft doesn't have a model here to explain what this deal is about. If they're paying to get exclusives, fine. But so far, that doesn't appear to be the case.

And I really like the idea of compensating artists. But a lopsided deal that impacts only one major label does NOT do that for everyone else. That's why a lot of people have suggested some sort of compsulsory, universal licensing fee, which would benefit all artists.

If Microsoft gets something out of this deal, then it may make sense. But based on the PR story we're being told, what they're getting out of it is the privilege of sending Universal a check. And they're doing it in a way that suggests labels are somehow deserving of making money off their hardware, rather than just sweetening the deal on actually selling music, as in the online music store. Note, as well, if you're an artist getting online music revenue, if your sales spike in that store, you get a cut. If the hardware is being licensed, then how does the label determine that you actually deserve something? (I.e., there's no mention of what this fee represents. Is it for pirated music? We don't exactly have charts for that. And there's no ASCAP/Harry Fox-like agency determining what you're loading onto your Zune.)

It sounds like a fantastic deal for the label, not so hot for everyone else. And it's much clearer how this benefits Universal than Microsoft, until six months from now we find out that UMG is putting all their exclusives on Zune Marketplace and not iTunes. (Which we may, I'll admit ...)

Peter Kirn

Wayde

It's a genius move by Microsoft.

Medicating

wichsen

If Microsoft did this so willingly, why did the NY Times article cite tense negotiations? This wasn't just an easy payoff from Microsoft; this came from the label.

Also, there's no mention anywhere in the press release I just got from Universal -- or anything I've gotten from Microsoft -- suggesting that Microsoft is getting ANYTHING from Universal in the Zune Marketplace. If Microsoft is keen to unseat Apple, they need to have some kind of carrot to bring consumers to their store. So far, there's none of that. Maybe that will happen in the future, but for now they've got nada. Not to mention, Microsoft's whole angle with Zune is to try to present a more "indie" face, as a different take on the market. They're not bundling Universal music or any other major label with the player; they're showing off indie music from smaller labels. Ironically, this announcement undercuts that very image.

Quite literally, the press release sent out today says, "HURRAY! MICROSOFT GETS TO HAND UNIVERSAL CASH JUST FOR SELLING PLAYERS!"

That looks fantastic for Universal, and it looks ridiculous for Microsoft. If MS comes out with some Zune exclusives in a month, great -- but couldn't Microsoft have secured that by giving Universal cash from the *Zune Marketplace* where the music is sold, rather than the player?

I mean, why not take money from the Xbox and hand it to EA Sports? This is bizarre, you have to admit.

Peter Kirn

If the things came pre-loaded with music, or came with a coupon for 100 free songs with purchase, I could see a record company wanting a piece of that pie, but you can't charge a consumer for what they *might* do with their product. For all the boneheads at universal know, people might use the things solely as portable HDs, impractical but possible, or as doorstops or tiny dancefloors for hamsters and gerbils... who knows. It certainly isn't up to the manufacturer to dictate a product's only use. I wasn't planning on buying one before and I'm not even going to look at them now.

DeeJayQueue

UpIrons

Im sure MS didnt just say "Hey Universal take all of our profits forever"

Yippe Zune and Vista to take over the world, whats next next Rumsfeld gets kicked out of the White House.........................

Justapspfan

slickrick2k1

Both MC and Universal are corps. which are in existence for the sole purpose of making money. If you're worried about the music then that should only be tied to the artist.

Oh, and by the way, I'd say 95% of signed artists are in it for the money anyway, so I'm guessing they don't mind it when their label or studio makes more money to pay them. Right?

Halenstone

They need Universal Music behind them. They need a music catalog that'll compete with the iTunes store. They're taking a gamble with the Zune, and by offering a percentage of sales rather than an up-front signing bonus, is that the risk is shared. Universal now has a motivation to push Zune sales over iPods - which you can bet they'll do with their puppet artists. Suddenly you have Universal artists carrying Zunes, talking about how cool they are, offering to send out a specific song free (wirelessly) to everyone who shows up to a concert with a Zune.

This was a very prudent business decision that Microsoft made. It wasn't a "brain fart" and it wasn't a tactical error. This ties the success of the Zune to the profitability of a major record label, one who re-negotiates it's take of the Zune's biggest competitor about every other year. Why wouldn't they want Universal in their corner?

Brad

Big business is the Real music pirates. -corporate america- it's how you rob people legally.

Now that's priceless

Crazyglues

Now if Microsoft will just start paying the consumers to use the Zune then we can finally take down new Evil Apple Empire!

Actually, this is an obvious move. When you have the deep pockets MS does you can afford to take a hit at your profits if it means your competition (which doesn't have as deep a pockets), will take a hit as well. Moreover if Apple plays hard and doesn't want to pay, they might loose content to Microsoft.

When two forces of Evil fight, it can only mean good times for the good guys (us)!!

Halenstone

davebach

PattiSmithRocks

Fuzz

If Universal made a demand and then denied access to their music for it not being met then I would throw up a flare.

Microsoft is simply doing what they always do, throwing money at something to try and dominate. They're willing to invest and honestly I think it's smart. Does it set a potentially dangerous precedent... yes, but right now MS is the begger at the door, not Universal. This isn't the first time MS has been in a situation like this and there will be a point (if their product is succesful enough) where Universal and other studios will be knocking on MS's door not the other way around.

This isn't bad for the consumer at all so nothing to worry about in my opinion, if anything this sort of process is great for future Zune owners and could turn out to be great for the industry if it creates a friendlier environment for digital distribution of music.

Lance Wallen

More ranting here, but if someone can explain that I'm missing something, be my guest.

I wouldn't say Microsoft ruined the party so much as they had a brain fart in their own negotiating. Throwing tribute money at a company just to keep them onboard? Isn't Microsoft supposed to be at the receiving end of those kind of deals?

Peter Kirn

Brad

rbf2000