[shostack]

I've always wondered why Google and Apple didn't do just that.

They offer some of the biggest distribution channels available, have deep pockets, and have a VERY vested interest in killing the status quo because of the freedom it will give them for using music and promoting artists in new ways.

That is definitely one industry that needs to have more competition.

[prostoalex]

The book "How Music Got Free" explores that dynamics. Steve Jobs had an idea for Apple Music to launch as a label, doing direct 50/50 split with an artist instead of opaque label contracts.

He'd call Doug Morris (ex-Universal, ex-Warner, ex-Sony) to get him to come onboard as a CEO of that label, but in Morris' view a label that could not cut upfront checks to young artists would not stay in business for long.

Any promising artists would then be schmoozed and seduced by the labels who can cut advance checks and offer real money in the pocket today instead of abstract fairer revenue split down the road. Any existing top artists already have some label relationship that is hard to get out of. What you're left with is a bunch of nobodies, kinda like the MP3.com back in the days.

[shostack]

I might be missing something here, but Apple clearly can bankroll paying artists up front. Any insight into what drove the strategic decision not to (at least in the short term)?

[prostoalex]

From the book it sounds like they didn't want to. That implies running a whole shebang with scouts, sleazy agents, legal departments that draw up screwy contracts to guarantee future revenues, i.e., everything but the transparency that Apple wanted to bring to market.