McCartney: Zune Scores, iTunes Misses?
|
As of today, Zune Marketplace has numerous former-Beatle Paul McCartney albums for subscription download or for purchase, while iTunes has none? |
EMI released McCartney's back catalog, digitally, and it is available—in part, anyway—from various online music stores, including MTV URGE, Napster, Rhapsody and Zune Marketplace. But I can't find the albums on the iTunes Music Store, only McCartney's forthcoming "Memory Almost Full" for preorder.
These days, Microsoft and its former PlaysForSure partners need to count up their small victories—and McCartney pretty much everywhere but iTunes is worthy. Most of the online stores carrying McCartney albums use Windows Media Audio DRM—and, as such, music is available for immediate, suscriber download, too.
Being a Zune Marketplace subscriber, I downloaded four McCartney albums this afternoon. If I really wanted to buy them, I would have done so years ago. For younger music listeners, subscription service is a good way of sampling McCartney albums, assuming mom and dad—or foreshame, grandparents—don't already have CDs or vinyl.
So, why is McCartney's catalog missing from iTunes? I'll throw out some plausible reasons rather than calling for Apple's typical "no comment":
- Catalog wasn't made available to Apple, because of the recent court case with Apple Music. I rate this one as unlikely, but, nevertheless, plausible.
- Apple chose not to license the McCartney catalog. That's about as likely as Apple's CEO being God (Yes, I know there are some Mac fans that are sure that he is).
- Apple is waiting to offer McCartney's catalog as completely DRM-free, with other offerings from EMI. The introduction would certainly be worth some PR.
- Apple wants to offer Beatles and McCartney catalogs together and maybe even DRM-free for spice.
- The music is on iTunes, and I'm too dimwitted to find it.
Where is Apple's DRM-free catalog, by the way? New Music Tuesday would be the place for DRM-free releases and today would have made loads of sense because of the McCartney catalog. The bigger question to ask: Will there be a DRM-free catalog? There's only one New Music Tuesday left in May to find out.
Yesterday, EMI agreed to be bought by Terra Firma. Will the new owners share the old management's attitude about DRM-free music, especially if the ink hasn't dried on the contracts? Private equity firms like Terra Firma typically look to maximize return on investment, which might not be consistent with the idea of selling music that could be easily pirated.
"Say, Say, Say," maybe Microsoft isn't making a big deal out of McCartney because the company doesn't want to take a "Live and Let Die" approach or "Listen to What the Man Says."
A number of our regular commenters are big Microsoft fans. What do you make of this McCartney catalog situation?
- Zune: It's Not a Fire Sale, Yet, Microsoft Watch, April 30, 2007
- What Apple DRM-Free Means to Microsoft, Microsoft Watch, April 2, 2007
- Jobs Calls for DRM Freedom, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 6, 2007
- Allchin's Windows Media Device Lament, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 21, 2007
- Where's the 'You' in iPhone?, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 10, 2007
- Microsoft's Connect Lifestyle, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 7, 2007
- Whoa, Zune Is Social, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 1, 2007
- Welcome to My Social, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 25, 2006
- Zune Chips Away at iPod, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 18, 2006
- Microsoft's Music Madness, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 27, 2006
- Zune Goes to War, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 14, 2006
Comments (14)
yeah but, it's a Zune, does anyone care?
Posted by David | May 22, 2007 8:37 PM
Does it "plays for sure"? Maybe thats part of the reason it "dosn't sell so great."
Posted by chips b malroy | May 22, 2007 8:49 PM
Where have you been? Apple posted a press release last week on this.
First, iTunes has an exclusive pre-order on Paul's new album, which includes a bonus track.
Second, they will have all of Paul's solo catalog (25 albums!) "later this month".
The press release is here:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/05/15itunes.html
Posted by Tom | May 22, 2007 11:25 PM
I'm surprised that you overlooked what Tom has just mentioned. Also, music stocks are not a selling point for a device/service, provided they are extensive. There's a wealth of media out there, but few services that are trouble-free.
Posted by Roy Schestowitz | May 23, 2007 3:24 AM
Joe , we dedicate this McCartney song to you : " Nowhere Man"
Posted by Eder | May 23, 2007 8:49 AM
Tom wrote: "They will have all of Paul's solo catalog (25 albums!) 'later this month'."
Right now, Tom, later this month means later than everyone else. Of course, I saw the press release.
If roles had been reversed, with Microsoft issuing a press release but then delivering after Apple, what would the comments have been? So, I'll ask: Why cut Apple extra slack?
Joe
Posted by Joe | May 23, 2007 9:06 AM
Joe,
I am very impressed that you called out the question as to why cut Apple extra slack? I will admit my bias in that Microsoft products put food on my table, so I am very pro Microsoft. That being said I will admit that iPod beat Zune to the punch and Apple wins on that. It is odd that Apple fans can not admit that Microsoft beat Apple to the punch on this and in this one small thing at least Microsoft wins.
Posted by Jake | May 23, 2007 12:14 PM
Joe,
You wrote: "So, I'll ask: Why cut Apple extra slack?"
Apple has the only exclusive here (pre-order of the new album with a bonus track). Not Zune or any of the others.
Maybe "later this month" is because of the significant changes already going on to iTunes this month to support the DRM-free initiative? I don't know, but since when is it cutting slack to simply hold a company to their own press release?
Posted by Tom | May 23, 2007 3:52 PM
Joe, with regards to Tom and the information he linked to...
I, too, saw that press release days ago. I also saw that you made no mention of the press release in your article, yet when Tom called you out on it, you simply said, "Yes, of course I saw the press release."
I don't consider full disclosure of all the facts to be "cutting Apple some slack." Your article, as written, strongly implies that Apple not only doesn't have any of McCartney's albums, but that they never will. The implication is one of conspicuous omission. (If I didn't know better, I'd draw that very conclusion based on what you wrote.)
In response to Tom's second comment, in which he speculates on the "why" of Apple's "later this month" release of McCartney's albums, I believe he is correct. Apple is in the process of shifting how it handles the EMI catalog -- don't forget that all tracks are now supposed to be available for 99 cents with DRM, and for 30 cents more without (and at a higher bitrate to boot). This requires re-encoding a large percentage of the already-available catalog, and extra encoding to be done any time new EMI releases are added to the iTMS.
As for where the DRM-free catalog is... I haven't seen these tracks yet, either, but we have just over a week left to this month. Apple's nasty habit is to always drag things out to the last minute, so expect to see something *right* before the end of the month. I've seen some of the other newly touted features (e.g., "Complete this album"), so if there's any delay, it's either back-end logistics (see above comments about re-encoding tracks) or contract problems, not code.
Posted by Rob Poole | May 23, 2007 9:29 PM
Rob Poole wrote: "Your article, as written, strongly implies that Apple not only doesn't have any of McCartney's albums, but that they never will."
Hi, Rob,
Mmmm, I don't read the implication. Also, I didn't mention the press release for two reasons: 1) The point was everyone else got in front of Apple, so later is still too late. 2) I didn't want to appear to be attacking Apple for issuing a press release and then falling behind everyone else.
My bullet points clearly indicate the tracks should be coming and that Apple may have held them back for another reason.
On the other hand, iTunes popularity is pretty good reason to expect Apple to at least release with everyone else, rather than later.
Joe
Posted by Joe | May 24, 2007 12:40 PM
Joe,
I like this site; it's one of my daily reads. And I really don't want to get into a big argument here, but your article simply does not support that you had Apple's Press Release at hand when you wrote it. Responding to Rob, you say:
"My bullet points clearly indicate the tracks should be coming and that Apple may have held them back for another reason."
But it's your very bullet points that would make anyone conclude you didn't have the press release in mind. In fact, the bullet points are what prompted me to write my first response to you.
The press release directly refutes the first two bullet points (i.e., the catalog was obviously made available to Apple, and Apple clearly chose to license it)! How could those points have been written with the press release in mind? Further, I'd argue the press release refutes bullet point four as well (waiting to license McCartney with the Beatles), since Paul's work is slated for this month and there is no mention of the Beatles.
Maybe you just wanted a few extra bullet points and wrote them anyway. Fine, but frankly that's not the kind of writing I expect from you on this site. I would have much preferred that you had simply forgotten about, or never saw, the press release. With all the press releases flying around in the tech world that was a very understandable explanation to me. Oh well, I'll drop this subject now.
Posted by Tom | May 24, 2007 2:36 PM
Wow! Zune has clinched the all important 50+ demographic with this one. Look out 80 year olds; I hear an exclusive with Mel Torme is next!
Posted by Spencer Ferguson | May 25, 2007 5:42 PM
My bullet points clearly indicate the tracks should be coming and that Apple may have held them back for another reason.
Yet 2 of your bullet points are;
# Catalog wasn't made available to Apple, because of the recent court case with Apple Music. I rate this one as unlikely, but, nevertheless, plausible.
# Apple chose not to license the McCartney catalog. That's about as likely as Apple's CEO being God (Yes, I know there are some Mac fans that are sure that he is)
And you admit to knowing of the Apple Press Release when writing the above? Sorry but that's not reporting that's just plain lying to make MS look good.
Posted by Darren | June 15, 2007 9:03 AM
umm zunes are the best mp3/4 players out and are so much better that the gay ass ipod i had an ipod and it broke 4 times in the 3 months i owned it i never even did anything to it the scroll wheel locked up/ the play button stuck/ the hold switch stoped working/ and the hard drive locked up. i have had my zune for 5 months now and it hasnt broken yet and i drop it all the time but i never dropped my ipod
Posted by will | June 4, 2008 9:45 PM