MOTUnation.com

This explains the deal a bit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/busin ... .html?_r=1

To release U2’s album free, Apple paid the band and Universal an unspecified fee as a blanket royalty and committed to a marketing campaign for the band worth up to $100 million, according to several people briefed on the deal. That marketing will include a global television campaign, the first piece of which was a commercial that was shown during the event.

Bono, U2’s lead singer, alluded to the deal himself at Apple’s event. After the band performed, he and Mr. Cook playfully negotiated over how the album could be released through iTunes “in five seconds.” Mr. Cook said it could if the album was given away free.

“But first you would have to pay for it,” Bono said, “because we’re not going in for the free music around here.”

Mr. Oseary, who took over management of the band less than a year ago, stressed in a phone interview after the event that the music still had value even though it was being given away.

“This is a gift from Apple to their customers,” Mr. Oseary said. “They bought it and they are giving it away.”

I still haven't really been able to process this and think the situation over. Some analysis of the implications for musicians who aren't the stature of U2 is finally rolling in. In some ways, it sort of feels like U2 made a heap of money for themselves, but at the same time sort of screwed the little guy who's still trying to actually sell his album for $10 when a major band is giving it away... and actually it's a large corporation giving it away... the band got paid.

I haven't listened to it, so I don't know if it's particular good or not, but then that's subjective. Funny thing is U2 basically got guaranteed money. If people didn't like the album, the market would have decided how much U2 would have earned. Now it doesn't matter. Sort of like when you get a black jack at the table and the dealer has an Ace showing, you have the option to get "even money" for your blackjack. It doesn't pay 5:2, but you're guaranteed something. Every player with any smarts takes the sure thing. If putting out a release is a *gamble*, U2 was smart and took the sure bet courtesy One Infinite Loop.

I agree. It is annoying.

http://www.macworld.com/article/2607112 ... tk.rss_all

Doesn't bother me, makes perfect sense. In some ways, I find it kind of refreshing for a major mega corporation to still have a hard-on for one band. It all started because Steve Jobs was a raving U2 fan. Fact is, they could have chosen some other band-of-the-year that was charting a lot better, but they're in it for the long haul, and holy •••• so is U2. It's a good match, a band that's relatively big in the charts but has a 30 year history and lot of lasting power. I'm sure many board members would have rather gone with One Direction or something of that ilk (especially now that so many tweens are buying smartphones). I would have gone with Rush (especially if we're talking lasting power), but I'm not sure how big of a Geddy fan Jobs would have been.

All I'm saying is, Apple could have done A LOT worse, always had a huge respect for U2. One of the few bands with really good music to actually get what they deserve.

Yeah. I would have preferred Rush, but Rush probably isn't as chic and Geddy Lee isn't flying around the world taking up various causes, so maybe Rush lacks the "socially conscious" credentials needed to be true heroes in the bay area?

James Steele wrote:Yeah. I would have preferred Rush, but Rush probably isn't as chic and Geddy Lee isn't flying around the world taking up various causes, so maybe Rush lacks the "socially conscious" credentials needed to be true heroes in the bay area?

Agree - Rush would have been good. The U2 album is okay if you like U2 as it is very U2 in a generic sense - not necessarily a good or bad thing. They make their money from tours and merchandise so the album giveaway is just a part of the brand - sadly a less important part of the package than albums used to be.

James Steele wrote:Yeah. I would have preferred Rush

Me too, but Rush wouldn't have done it.

bayswater wrote:

James Steele wrote:Yeah. I would have preferred Rush

Me too, but Rush wouldn't have done it.

True enough.

I don't really get it. I've never bought music on-line as I don't like lossy compression and/or being ripped off for a set rate per "song" (I won't go into the story about my run in w/ the iTunes manager, at a private event, and trying to explain how that term has little if any meaning in quite a few genres, in particular with regards to pricing structures per "track").

So I guess if you buy music on-line and have an iTunes Account (or whatever it's called), you get the U2 album for free? Maybe that's what the new iTunes update was about the other day that I refused to install as I was in the middle of a session.

To summarize, I have no context for understanding this news story, as I don't know how iTunes works as a service or whatever. I don't know if people pay subscriptions so that there is some royalty that is getting doled out proportionally.

It didn't show up in my iTunes library.

Maybe that because I live in the land of Oz?

For me iTunes has become a confusing dog's dinner.

It's not clear whether the U2 album was given out in Canada. I have auto download of new purchases turned on. If I go to iTunes Store, it says I got it, labels it as purchased and that it has already been downloaded to my library, but it's not there. If I go to the list of purchased items at the store, it is not in the list.

In fact most of my purchases are not listed. The links between my library and the store are a mess. If I go to "It Goes To 11" in my library, and link to that song in the store, it lists it twice -- once as purchased, once as not purchased.

bayswater wrote:For me iTunes has become a confusing dog's dinner.

It's not clear whether the U2 album was given out in Canada. I have auto download of new purchases turned on. If I go to iTunes Store, it says I got it, labels it as purchased and that it has already been downloaded to my library, but it's not there. If I go to the list of purchased items at the store, it is not in the list.

In fact most of my purchases are not listed. The links between my library and the store are a mess. If I go to "It Goes To 11" in my library, and link to that song in the store, it lists it twice -- once as purchased, once as not purchased.

I had to log into iCloud first - a bit fiddly - finally found out how to download it - so not automatically there.

I don't have iTunes linked to iCloud. Maybe that's the problem.

bayswater wrote:I don't have iTunes linked to iCloud. Maybe that's the problem.

Nor do I, maybe that is why I haven't got it either.

I don't mind m a bit of U2, and I have no philosophical or ethical worries about it being free, but I'm not signing up to iCloud just to get this album.

BKK-OZ wrote:

bayswater wrote:I don't have iTunes linked to iCloud. Maybe that's the problem.

Nor do I, maybe that is why I haven't got it either.

If that's the reason, it's a bit of creeping sloppiness on Apple's part. iTunes says the album is already in my library.