But if by "win" you mean "earn a comfortable living and possibly modest riches" then I doubt this thesis has any legs at all.
Build a good product, it will sell. Build an innovative product that scratches the itch of millions and you get onto the top 5 list.
What I see far too often is developers passing off a derivative or poorly executed idea, and complaining that the marketplace is the problem. It's not.
I'm not saying something is WRONG with the market, I'm making an observation about the state of the market.
I think by "win" they mean, "you broke even + $1".
She released stuff with XL Recordings (a label that had multi-million selling artists even back in the nineties) and then signed with Columbia.
Independent used to be somebody in a small label, like 4AD. Nowadays, it's somebody releasing his songs himself or such.
Adele hasn't qualified as such for over 5 years...
Just because they're incredibly successful, doesn't make them not an independent label. Changing the definition of "indie" to exclude XL makes the claim that 'indies aren't successful' a simple tautology.
Perhaps, but has the benefit that it keeps the definition of "indie" as "not a big marketing and sales behemoth" intact.
And that's more to the essense of being "independent" than "doesn't belong to a major record label".
If we're to accept incredibly succesful, large selling artists, big marketing as "independent", then what does distinguish major and indie record labels? Simply that it's not a conglomerate?