<i>>A month later, Steve Jobs did a special worldwide simulcast keynote speech about iTunes. People had been criticizing iTunes for having less music than the competition. They had 400,000 songs while Rhapsody and Napster had over 2 million songs. (Over 500,000 of those were from CD Baby.)<p></i>>Four minutes in, he said something that made my pounding heart sink to my burning stomach:<p><i>>“This number could have easily been much higher, if we wanted to let in every song. But we realize that record companies do a great service. They edit! Did you know that if you and I record a song, for $40 we can pay a few of the services to get it on their site, through some intermediaries? We can be on Rhapsody and all these other guys for $40? Well we don’t want to let that stuff on our site! So we’ve had to edit it. And these are 400,000 quality songs.”</i><p>In 2003, there were 2 special events with Steve Jobs keynotes about iTunes and he's referring to the 2nd one on October 16, 2003 (deep link to that quote) :
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvCJ613HORA&t=9m00s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvCJ613HORA&t=9m00s</a><p>(For trivia reference, the first one was April 28, 20003 : <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF9o46zK5Jo" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF9o46zK5Jo</a>)<p><i>>Whoa! Wow. Steve Jobs just dissed me hard! I’m the only one charging $40. That was me he’s referring to!</i><p>The author Derek Sivers left a lot of details out but here's how I interpret the situation ...<p>As prerequisite background, you can categorize "record labels" into 2 groups:<p>(1) the record label pays the artist for music via "advances", paying upfront recording costs, marketing etc. These are the traditional record labels like Warner, Universal, Sony, Motown, etc that "develop" the artist by making financial bets and losing money on most of the signed roster but making a profit a tiny number.<p>(2) the artists pay the "record label" -- where these entities are mostly used as a "distribution" intermediary. CD Baby and Tunecore would be typical examples.<p>Now look at the convoluted process with <i>physical CDs</i> that Apple forced CDBaby and other independents to use:<p><i>>The Apple guys said, “Sorry, you need to use this software; there is no other way.”<p>>Ugh. That means we have to pull each one of those CDs off of the shelf again, stick it in a Mac, then cut-and-paste every song title into that Mac software. But so be it. If that’s what Apple needs, OK.</i><p>That is basically a form of "proof-of-work". Apple didn't necessarily want <i>everything</i> from CD Baby. Instead, they just wanted the stuff CD Baby thought was worthwhile enough to expend time & effort to mess around with physical CDs.<p>The big labels didn't have to do that because they already did a form of "proof-of-work" via paying in advance for artists.<p>The issue is that Derek didn't "read between the lines" to understand what Steve Jobs and the convoluted upload process was trying to accomplish. I suppose business people could just speak plainly so they don't get mixed messages but sometimes they don't.
> I suppose business people could just speak plainly so they don't get mixed messages but sometimes they don't.<p>When you’re putting out a message to a large amount of people, no matter how much time and effort you spend trying to get the words just right so everyone understands, there’s always going to someone that misunderstands it and gets offended.
I think it's more likely that the iTunes software was just immature at that point.<p>What you're describing is a nice side effect of that for Apple, but the reality is they're not going to do the bitch work of importing all those songs from a hodge podge of whatever formats they're given. They didn't have a better tool available at that time to make their catalog consistent.<p>It's very believable that Apple felt enough urgency to rush this phase.
After reading this story, I do think Apple is bad, but from a business perspective, it makes sense. (By 'business perspective,' I mean it's immoral but profitable.)<p>Because if CD Baby was acting as a middleman and a gateway for indie music distribution, Apple's move to shut it out was about preventing power from becoming decentralized and keeping control concentrated in Apple's hands to position iTunes as a premium platform. On top of that, if CD Baby had monopolized the indie music market, any future platform would only need to deal with CD Baby, which would have been a burden down the line.<p>It was likely a strategy to capture the entire music market. Sometimes I wonder why people don't get as angry at Apple as they do at Microsoft. I don't know what the image is like in the US. Personally, I've always thought Apple's premium strategy is terrible
> Sometimes I wonder why people don't get as angry at Apple as they do at Microsoft.<p>Apple was the underdog at a point where Microsoft got its bad image by virtue of it's monopolistic practice. I can't help but think that a lot of it is a combination of inertia and MS pissing off a sufficient subset of geeks at a point where we made up a much larger proportion of the online discourse and so could set the tone. And for at least a time, in part by virtue of MS bad reputation, a subset of geeks saw Apple as a possible saviour.<p>It also helps that for all of its calculated business behaviour, Apple also has a reputation for better quality that makes people <i>want</i> to give them passes for things MS wouldn't get a pass for.
Microsoft also had more instances of being petty, (see the bit about join press releases in Jerry Kaplan's _StartUp_ <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1171250.Startup" rel="nofollow">https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1171250.Startup</a> ), vindictive (bundling Internet Explorer rather than having two separate produces, an HTML display component coded to the standard and usable by all apps and a browser application which also used it and optionally extended it), and even destructive (poster child for this is MacBasic: <a href="https://www.folklore.org/MacBasic.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.folklore.org/MacBasic.html</a> but there are two many instances to note and researching more instances is left as an exercise for the reader).<p>At least Apple's destructiveness was mostly related to market realities and their own product (still waiting for a replacement for my Newton MessagePad --- my Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ sort of works (but not daylight viewable), my Kindle Scribe ColourSoft is quite nice, but way too limited and no 3rd party apps other than what can be done via PDFs or HTML)).
> By 'business perspective,' I mean it's immoral but profitable.<p>So, the purest form of evil there is?<p>> Sometimes I wonder why people don't get as angry at Apple as they do at Microsoft.<p>They are indeed just as bad as each other. I think Microsoft just got unlucky and had a lot of bad-PR emails leak. If that had happened at Apple he'd probably have someone killed.