Why won't Apple let indies create their own iTunes LPs?

By Josh Fruhlinger  7 comments

I'm on the record (ha ha, "record," get it?) as being underwhelmed by the iTunes LP concept; it strikes me a little bit too much like as an awkward attempt to reproduce as non-virtual object on a computer. iTunes is probably one of OS X's most important applications, but how many people are just sitting at their keyboard looking at it while music plays, and will some video and still images get them to do so? Still, I always like to give things a fair shake. My very favorite band, the Mountain Goats, released a new record last week, and they've always had great and hilarious liner notes and art; it seemed at least possible that they might sign up for the new format on iTunes.

Of course, as you'd find out if you clicked on that iTunes link, they hadn't; in fact, as became clear this weekend, they weren't going to anytime soon, because indie labels have been shut out of the iTunes LP marketplace for now. Chocolate Lab Records, a Chicago-based indie label, reportedly contacted Apple about getting iTunes LP albums up for their artists, and was told that only the majors are being considered, and they'd have to pay $10,000 for design costs. The Mountain Goats are on 4AD -- a pretty big-sized label as indies go, but not big enough to shell out ten grand for each iTunes LP design.

A lot of the controversy over this has been focused on the subject of the large dollar figure being bandied about. But when it comes to design, you do get what you pay for, and I have no doubt that the slick iTunes LP offerings currently in the store cost that much to have put together. What's more puzzling to me is why Apple is taking that money for the design in the first place. iTunes LP packages aren't some secret proprietary format that only Apple can author; they're essentially bundles of based on the technologies used to build ordinary Webpages, and frankly anyone with enough Web design know-how could hack one together. Sure, it wouldn't be as slick as the ones you could buy from the iTunes Store from Mika or the Dave Matthews Band -- but frankly, there are plenty of indie musicians whose recordings aren't as technically slick as the records from Mika or the Dave Matthews Band, and the iTunes Store is still happy to sell them.

To bring this point into sharp relief, you actually can get a non-Apple-authorized iTunes LP album: It's Listen, by a band named Tryad. The album was under a creative commons license, and an outfit called iLongPlay put together the iTunes LP version as a proof of concept. Download it, drop the files onto iTunes, and it will work just like one you buy from the iTunes store.

Of course, this neglects what the whole point of the iTunes LP format has been all along: making extra money from an album. Those iTunes LP packages cost $2 more than just an album full of songs, and if indies can't get their albums into the record-selling machine that is the iTunes Store, they can't make that extra $2. The question is: why won't Apple let indies sell self-authored iTunes LPs? What exactly are they afraid of? I really don't know, but part of the answer might lie in the extremely sparse selections of iTunes LPs currently available -- only a dozen at the moment. They may simply not have a lot of confidence in the format, which may have been pushed on them by the labels somehow. But surely the company loses nothing by allowing artists to experiment with it. It's reminiscent of the control freakish behavior that's been so irritating in the App Store.

UPDATE 10/13: And now Apple is saying that this is all a big misunderstanding, and that open specs for the format would be released "soon". Since it seems weird that Chocolate Lab Records would simply make up such an interaction with Apple, I wonder if the negative publicity got kicked far enough upstairs to get Apple to change their tune.

Follow Josh on Google+

Josh Fruhlinger is ITworld's associate online news editor.

7 comments

    Anonymous 2 years ago
    i don't think that apple hates it's customers they are just hungry for consumers
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    I agree with the opinions in this piece, but more importantly:PROOFREAD.I don't know how long the author's been writing, but the repeated words/phrases and lack of organization here are really a problem.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Apple hates it's customers and is angry that it depends on them for revenue.Apple is not run for the benefit of their customers, but for the shareholders, executives and their friends.They hate you, and their corporate behaviour says so again and again.But some victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H customers just keep going back.
    Anonymous 2 years ago in reply to Anonymous
    Apple doesn't >hate< its customers, it just views them with complete ambivalence. You're right that it is run for the benefity of the shareholders. Every corporation is because the law requires corporations to be run for the benefit of the people who own them, and, usually, executives come in second (or first, when they are violating the law).The bigger the company the more abstract the concept of "consumer" becomes. If the total profit goes up, great! Of course, it goes up because people are spending money on Apple's stuff, but the men and women making the decisions just see the numbers. And Apple's iTunes Store makes money because people like the experience of using it. Just like a chain restaurant, you know exactly what you get when you go inside, and that is how Apple will keep it.Apple is concerned about keeping a tight grip on the reins for its iTunes store because it is concerned about controlling the "tone" of the place. Just like a real store, what's inside will cause different people to have different reactions. To appeal to the broadest base possible, Apple will focus on the most popular and familiar music and musicians possible. Those with niche interests can find what they are looking for if they search, but that group of buyers is used to that. However, if the audiophile seeking a particular song or format doesn't find it at the iTunes store, that doesn't show up in the numbers. It is just too small an effect.Apple doesn't hate you, they just don't care about your business. If you're negative experience is unlikely to be replicated in other buyers, it is especially true.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    "iTunes is probably one of OS X's most important applications"It is a toy OS!
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    The Album standard is an open standard and Apple has stated that they'll sell anyone's albums and they aren't charging any fee.See http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1038901&c=1.
    mburton325
    mburton325 2 years ago
    Again it has nothing to do with Apple hating their customers and more to do with the control freak nature the company has inherited from its co-founder Mr. Jobs. Simply if the cannot control they do not want it any where near one of its products. When Apple and Mr. Jobs decide to play by the law, aka Fair Use of purchased material, you may actually see some changes, but as long as Apple and Mr. Jobs continues to state what you may listen to music that you purchased through iTunes and their store on you are giving them all the control they want. OS X, iTunes, iPods, iPhones whatever you people either need to stand up to these Mr. Jobs and his inflatted ego or quit buying the product. Or in my case tell them to shove the product as long as they continue to the control freak routine.

      Add a comment

      Post a comment using one of these accounts
      Or join now
      At least 6 characters

      Note: Comment will appear soon after you have activated your account.
      Obscene/spam comments will be removed and accounts suspended.
      The information you submit is subject to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

      ITworld LIVE

      Answers - Powered by ITworld

      Ask a question

      Ask a Question