Social Currency and the iPod
Dvorak surfs technology trends like no other, intermittently changing his mind when it will draw the most traffic, which is why I usually don't link to him; he gets enough links without one from SwitchBlog. But this story warrants a link.
iPods have become social currency.
There is a very real synergy there between the object and the music that LPs had (and maybe still do) and CDs have, but are quickly losing. It's hard to compare buying an iPod to buying a CD or a vinyl LP, but the fact is that it's a similar business. It's selling an object imbued with social currency. In the case of LPs, there was huge currency, because of the large cover-art and notes, and the fact that there wasn't a real alternative. Some of that currency remains with CDs, but the trade-off was an improvement in the quality of the sound with the sacrifice of the large cover art. Now CDs are, albeit slowly, being replaced by electronic distribution coupled with the iPod. In one sense, the mystique of the CD is disappering as it becomes just another way to get music onto the iPod. The iPod is now the object with that magic. Steve Jobs has very carefully crafted it that way by blending great design, great advertising and the final piece, band synergy.
Variety says:
They've clearly been slow to digital distribution too and there is a reason for that.
The Beatles don't have to embrace anything quickly, and even though this deal with Apple makes sense, it was smart for them to take it slow. I don't think that the lawsuit was necessary, even if it may have been smart, but The Beatles are a conglomeration of interests now, which makes the deal all the more interesting.
So now, what people have been clamoring for, is confirmed. We don't know specifics, but the consensus is that what is wanted is a Beatles-labled iPod.
The deal with The Beatles is the final piece of the pie, and, I might ad, yet another, stunning, no, unbelievably stunning opportunity for U2 to compare themselves to The Beatles.
I don't know the particulars, but I would guess that there are two reasons that Apple hasn't done more deals with bands for band-specific iPods. The first and foremost is that they have been waiting for the Beatles, a strategy which is much more about social currency than business alone. The second is that selling iPods with music pre-installed would have taken away every argument that they are not in the music business.
Selling iPods is selling electronics. Selling songs on the iTunes store, is just being a retailer. Selling iPods pre-loaded with songs is selling music. A minor distinction, but with lawsuits in the air a valid one.
Rumors have been floated about a Madonna iPod, and others, but without a Beatles iPod as the precedent, it would have been premature. The U2 iPod was an exception. It was a foot-in-the-door for Apple and an opportunity for U2 to welcome the Beatles into the future of music distribution. U2 is the only band with a long enough history and enough current relevance to pull this off.
Apple and Steve Jobs have never been in the business of selling electronics. They have always been in the business of shaking things up and ultimately selling culture. Selling culture has nothing to do with selling iPods, or even digital files, but for now, selling iPods is the business model that works.
The obvious take-away is that Apple will now start to behave more like a music company. Now it can sell culture unfettered.
Want proof? That letter from Steve Jobs about about music came out after the deal with The Beatles happened. Steve was putting the record labels on notice.
Could Bill Gates have pulled this off? No. While Steve Jobs was creating the social currency needed to do a deal with The Beatles, Bill Gates was working with lawyers to figure out how many times you can legally share a song.
That is ultimately why people Switch.
------
This just in:
Jobs is no idiot and after already proving that selling music online is a money-maker you'd think the big labels would pay some attention to him when he tells them to get off this DRM nonsense.Dvorak is right, Job's is no idiot and the labels will pay no attention. He's also right that DRM isn't the answer. What he gets wrong though is that selling music online has been a money maker for Apple; it's hasn't been, yet. Selling iPods has been and still is the money maker for Apple, but that is about to change.
Of course they will pay no attention whatsoever.
- Why Steve Jobs is right about digital rights - MarketWatch
iPods have become social currency.
There is a very real synergy there between the object and the music that LPs had (and maybe still do) and CDs have, but are quickly losing. It's hard to compare buying an iPod to buying a CD or a vinyl LP, but the fact is that it's a similar business. It's selling an object imbued with social currency. In the case of LPs, there was huge currency, because of the large cover-art and notes, and the fact that there wasn't a real alternative. Some of that currency remains with CDs, but the trade-off was an improvement in the quality of the sound with the sacrifice of the large cover art. Now CDs are, albeit slowly, being replaced by electronic distribution coupled with the iPod. In one sense, the mystique of the CD is disappering as it becomes just another way to get music onto the iPod. The iPod is now the object with that magic. Steve Jobs has very carefully crafted it that way by blending great design, great advertising and the final piece, band synergy.
Variety says:
When compact discs were introduced to replace vinyl records, the Beatles were slow to come to the table.
They've clearly been slow to digital distribution too and there is a reason for that.
Evidence of the Beatles' extraordinary power at retail: In 2000, the hits compilation 'Beatles 1" performed so well that it was credited with salvaging the year from disaster.
The Beatles don't have to embrace anything quickly, and even though this deal with Apple makes sense, it was smart for them to take it slow. I don't think that the lawsuit was necessary, even if it may have been smart, but The Beatles are a conglomeration of interests now, which makes the deal all the more interesting.
Apple Corps manager Neil Aspinall disclosed that the catalog was being remastered.
So now, what people have been clamoring for, is confirmed. We don't know specifics, but the consensus is that what is wanted is a Beatles-labled iPod.
In a statement issued Monday, he said, "The years ahead are going to be very exciting times for us. We ... look forward to many years of peaceful cooperation with (Apple)."And how.
- Variety.com - Apple, Beatles resolve dispute
The deal with The Beatles is the final piece of the pie, and, I might ad, yet another, stunning, no, unbelievably stunning opportunity for U2 to compare themselves to The Beatles.
I don't know the particulars, but I would guess that there are two reasons that Apple hasn't done more deals with bands for band-specific iPods. The first and foremost is that they have been waiting for the Beatles, a strategy which is much more about social currency than business alone. The second is that selling iPods with music pre-installed would have taken away every argument that they are not in the music business.
Selling iPods is selling electronics. Selling songs on the iTunes store, is just being a retailer. Selling iPods pre-loaded with songs is selling music. A minor distinction, but with lawsuits in the air a valid one.
Rumors have been floated about a Madonna iPod, and others, but without a Beatles iPod as the precedent, it would have been premature. The U2 iPod was an exception. It was a foot-in-the-door for Apple and an opportunity for U2 to welcome the Beatles into the future of music distribution. U2 is the only band with a long enough history and enough current relevance to pull this off.
Apple and Steve Jobs have never been in the business of selling electronics. They have always been in the business of shaking things up and ultimately selling culture. Selling culture has nothing to do with selling iPods, or even digital files, but for now, selling iPods is the business model that works.
The obvious take-away is that Apple will now start to behave more like a music company. Now it can sell culture unfettered.
Want proof? That letter from Steve Jobs about about music came out after the deal with The Beatles happened. Steve was putting the record labels on notice.
Could Bill Gates have pulled this off? No. While Steve Jobs was creating the social currency needed to do a deal with The Beatles, Bill Gates was working with lawyers to figure out how many times you can legally share a song.
That is ultimately why people Switch.
------
This just in:
"Apple?s dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use than DRM-related ?lock in?."
With the leading online store, Apple would benefit most. Mr Jobs?s argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right.
- Digital music | Music wants to be free | Economist.com
1 Comments:
Great writing style. One thing to note. When the original 5 GB ipod was shipped to reviewers over 5 years ago, it came pre-loaded with songs on it. Thats no big deal, what is a big deal is it also shipped with shrinkwrapped copies of all the CD;s that are on the ipod just so Apple could not be blamed for copyright infringement... I found that interesting. Rock on Switchblog!
Post a Comment
<< Home