Dubious Rumor Alert: Apple is not starting a record label with Jay-Z
- January 2nd, 2008
- Read 9759 times
- 10 Comments

We like BGR as much as the next blog, but we’re calling horse hockey on the Boy’s rumor that Jay-Z is starting a new label for Apple. While we’re sure there’s a nugget of truth to this, Jobs would be shooting himself in the foot if he started an Apple-branded label. Let’s break down why this is kinda goofy.
The idea is that Jay-Z, whom recently left Def Jam, will launch a label partnered with Apple. The problem is, Steve Jobs can’t do that; the other labels would call shenanigans (rightly so, too) and jump ship, there would be federal trust issues at play, and more importantly, Apple is banned from ever starting a record label due to previous litigation with the Beatle’s Apple Records.
If those aren’t good enough reasons for you, then we don’t know what else to say. That doesn’t mean, though, that Jay-Z isn’t starting a label himself, in fact that’s likely. And we wouldn’t put it past the genius to make it the first mainstream digital downloads-only label. In fact, we’d not be surprised if he made an exclusive distribution deal with Apple. That would totally make sense, and not really cause any of the previously mentioned headaches.
But Apple as a record label, even partially, just isn’t in the cards. Sorry, BGR.
Now for something really fun, try to find some Jay-Zeezer to download. Try it, it’s tight.







Marcus
2008-01-02 22:15:24
Album art that matches my iPod? I would love that, by the time I think I can get no deeper in the Apple hole they release new products, products using shinier enamels. I would love to listen to my Apple music on my Apple iTunes on my Apple iBook pro, you know what they say, an apple a day keeps the doctor away.
I have never been much of a Apple fan, but as a new music lover I hate their products
Reply
David Dugan
2008-01-03 00:15:43
Actually, it is my understanding that, as of the last lawsuit between Apple Inc and Apple Corps, Apple Inc now retains all rights to the Apple name, including usage of the name in all aspects of the music industry. Also as part of the settlement, Apple Inc now licenses the name back to Apple Corps.
That being said, I agree that this Jay-Z/Apple label idea is unlikely. First, as you’ve stated, the other labels would go nuts at a time when relations are on thin ice as it is, and secondly, didn’t Jay-Z just pull his latest album from iTunes at the last second, even after a bunch of pre-orders were taken? That doesn’t sound like the actions of a guy who’s going into business with Apple…
Reply
BLIZZ
2008-01-03 07:09:24
This would make sense. Also, seems like great timing since most of Steve’s Keynote has already been leaked out. I think it is true. You know people try to start rumors to kill deals and momentum. I would actually like to see how this model would work. If this happens Apple will probably dive all the way into music and telco.
Reply
BLIZZ
2008-01-03 07:12:19
To the poster above. Apple product and the music industry are hand in hand already. 95% of music studios use Pro Tools which functions best on Macs, and most studio computers are made by Apple so basically they are on the backside already and want some money from the front.
Reply
Yasser
2008-01-03 11:20:57
This is the weirdest rumor of the year so far. There is no way Jay-Z would do such a thing and if he does I would be extremely surprised. He has too much in Def Jam.
Reply
GearsofWar
2008-01-03 11:23:07
Are you still sure about that Beatles Apple Corp. agreement? Things changed in the last year or so-are you sure the ban is still in effect?
Reply
Mb1000
2008-01-03 11:33:32
Somehow, I tend to believe this rumor. It makes sense for Apple to start a label of their own. And now, contrary to what the article above says, Apple is free to pursue music as much as it want’s.
You know what I’m thinking? Maybe Steve will launch a co-branded label with Apple Corps. Remember, Apple Records (Apple Corps’ record label division) was originally supposed to be a label any worthy artist could get signed to, not just a vehicle for The Beatles. To quote John Lennon: “We’ve got this thing called Apple, which is going to be records, films and electronics, which all tie up.”
If not,I suspect any new label will have to be called iTunes Records, which actually sounds pretty cool.
Reply
Mb1000
2008-01-03 11:36:42
Oh, by the way, I don’t nessesarily believe the part about Jay-z being involved. :)
Reply
Realtosh
2008-01-03 11:49:18
First, Apple bought all rights to the Apple brand from Apple Corp in their settlement. So, to be short Apple Inc has all rights to the Apple brand and licenses it back to Apple Corp. This likely means that they not only have the right to start a label if they wish, but that they could also do so under the Apple brand if they wish. They may choose to use a different name for their label as Starbucks as done with the Hear Music label.
Apple will create a label, even if only a de facto pseudo-label. The market forces will demand it. Over time as more and more established music talents break from their own labels and go independent, they will increasingly look to online distributors like Apple. Novel ways of getting new good music to new listeners through Hear Music and iTunes will become increasingly more relevant.
Don’t get me wrong, this is not an Apple vs. the labels. The role of the labels will become less important over time, as music talents will rely less on labels for distribution and promotion. As more and more of the power goes to the music talents, they musicians will be able to cut deals directly with today’s modern distributors without much of a role left for yesterday’s labels.
The labels need to adapt quickly and become much smaller organizations focused on their core strengths of finding and promoting new talents. Already established and well-known music talents will often require less assistance from the labels and will be reluctant to pay staggering cuts of their royalties in exchange.
Apple will benefit from changing market conditions, that are already under way. The market was already changing before Apple entered the music industry and the market would have changed even without Apple. Apple success has only helped move the process along a bit faster, but only because they did things right. Someone else would have come along, if Apple hadn’t gotten it right.
The labels are desperately trying in vain to keep things as they were before. The world will change around them with or without Apple. But this changing world will in time have Apple take on some quasi-label role even if it doesn’t call itself a label. Apple’s strengths of distribution and promotion will increasingly take on a more important role.
So while I doubt that Jay-Z and Apple have started a label, they may have worked out a distribution agreement for Jay-Z and other talents that may represent. Other talents will also continue to take control of their own music and work out their own distribution deals. The future is here. Those who work with the market will prosper and enjoy success, while those who work against the market will suffer and lose whatever fortunes they have.
Reply
D9
2008-01-03 11:52:05
Yes, but it doesn’t stop Apple from signing an exclusive distribution deal w/ Jay-Z’s new label; similar to what McCartney did with Starbucks.
It provides Jay-Z w/ the leading digital distribution market for pennies of the traditional, music-mogul controlled CD market. And for Apple, it allows them to show a means to circumvent the labels and their “We won’t let you sell our music” practices, aka Universal… basically, Apple gets to stick their tongue out at Universal.
No, I can see this and other artists moving in the direction of direct digital distribution deals. Sir Paul has, in essence, opened a can of worms on the music moguls!
/
Reply