Warner picks Amazon, not Apple for DRM-free debut; more

[AppleInsider]

Warner Music Group dealt Apple Inc. a symbolic blow on Thursday by announcing it would sell its first unprotected music through Amazon MP3 instead of iTunes. However, one financial group is more positive and expects Apple stock at $600 in 18 months.

Warner begins selling DRM-free music through Amazon

In a potentially significant move, Warner Music Group today said it has licensed its catalog to Amazon for use with its Amazon MP3 music store.

The deal is not fully explained by the music label but will include "album bundles" with tracks unavailable anywhere else, according to the two companies. Like all Amazon MP3 tracks, the songs go without digital rights management and can be copied an unlimited number of times and played back on nearly any device, including iPods.

Securing the Warner deal represents the latest in a series of victories for Amazon against Apple. Although launching only in September of this year, Amazon's store has already licensed MP3 music from Universal and forced Apple to lower iTunes Plus pricing to remain competitive. The iPod maker, in turn, has seen both Warner and Universal potentially opt out of long-term contracts for iTunes on a permanent basis. With today's announcement, both have also excluded Apple from their unprotected music offerings.

The agreement to offer MP3s also represents a dramatic shift in policy for Warner. The label's chief Edgar Bronfman began the year by lashing out at Steve Jobs for even suggesting that labels should drop copy protection, accusing the Apple executive of abandoning logic. Since then, three of the four major labels -- EMI, Universal, and Bronfman's own imprint -- have all offered unprotected songs to varying degrees. Only Sony BMG has so far maintained a requirement for copy protection on all its direct downloads.

Report: iPhone to boost Apple stock to $600

While Apple shares have only just flirted with the $200 mark this week, the company is poised to as much as triple that amount in 18 months, says Daedalus Capital chief investment officer Stephen Coleman in an update on his company's outlook.

The financial expert bases this largely on predicted success for the iPhone, which he believes will not only benefit Apple through sales of the phone itself but through revenue-sharing deals. In a more aggressive estimate than some analysts, Coleman estimates as much as 30 percent of subscription revenues for carriers are sent directly to the Cupertino firm.

"There's so much growth to look forward to," he says.

Mossberg credits Dell all-in-one as true iMac rival

Dell's new XPS One desktop is the only Windows PC that can 'match or exceed' the iMac in some areas, according to a new review by the Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg.

The technology columnist justifies the response by noting that the Dell all-in-one maintains a clever industrial design while incorporating features absent from the iMac, such as a memory card reader, a TV tuner, and side-mounted USB ports.

The iMac still wins through software, Mossberg adds: Mac OS X is both faster and more valuable than Vista, and is not burdened by trial versions or ad-based software, nicknamed "craplets" by the journalist. And in a reversal of stereotypes, Apple's systems are also less expensive while offering better overall performance and more screen options. Nonetheless, the system may prove viable for Windows users, he writes.

"If you want a stylish Windows Vista machine that runs well and won’t cost a fortune, the XPS One fits the bill, despite its unlikely heritage," Mossberg says.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[digitalclips]

600!!!! wow

[Dorotea]

I think the analyst is smoking something very funky to believe that the stock will be $600 in 18 months.

[CREB]

There are of options players banking on the $200 plus mark begin 1/1/2008 so the hype will flow to get, and try to keep Apple's stock at or above the $200 mark which will yield windfalls for these players. The $600 mark is irresponsible on Coleman's part with no substantiation.

[ncee]

No doubt baising this on the China market … which is 10 plus times that of the US and most all other markets combined.

Oh, let's not forget what they will be announcing at MacExpo, and the rest of the year.

$600.00 seems steep, but not that far off.

Oh, Steve, just buy these record companies out, and do what you want with the music!

Anyone heard anything lately on the Beatles music coming to itunes?

Skip

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Dorotea

I think the analyst is smoking something very funky to believe that the stock will be $600 in 18 months.

It's gone up 3x in the past 12 months, 80x in the past 10 years, this quarter appears to be beating estimates (again) and the future outlook for Apple looks very strong. $600 in 18 months seems low to me.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by solipsism

It's gone up 3x in the past 12 months, 80x in the past 10 years, this quarter appears to be beating estimates (again) and the future outlook for Apple looks very strong. $600 in 18 months seems low to me.

On knees praying (and I am an atheist)

[GregoriusM]

Not too long before Apple's market valuation is greater than Microsoft.

Oh, but.... isn't Apple going bankrupt???

[SpamSandwich]

"...Daedalus Capital chief investment officer Stephen Coleman..." must be a real idiot, or whomever he's advising are idiots. Six-hundred? He's off his nut. Of course, what timeframe is this guy looking at? Could hit $600 in 3 or 4 years, possibly.

[JimDreamworx]

Apple has been going bankrupt since 1995. When will all these people who have been foolish enough to prop the stock up like this these past several years wise up and buy Microsoft?

Microsoft is the future! Microsoft is a growth stock! Why has it languished?
They are the innovator! Apple is the copycat!

Please, oh wise ones of Wall Street, shine your light on MSFT and darken AAPL.
We need this now more than ever.

[Note: the following ridiculous comment was made by someone long on MSFT.]

[TenoBell]

No doubt baising this on the China market … which is 10 plus times that of the US and most all other markets combined.

Only in people not in buying power. China's GDP is nearly a seventh of the US. China's GDP is also behind the EU, Japan, and Germany. The average income in China is $2,034 far less than in most every other industrial country.

[Quine]

Walt Mossberg is a horrible source and doesn't know what he's doing. He compared the $1200 iMac to the $1500 Dell and said after upgrading the iMac to match the dell it was a $100 difference.

That is WRONG. He is not comparing two equally spec'd machines at all. He was quick to add thing to the iMac to match the dell's specs, but failed to match the dell to the iMac's specs!

20" iMac: Graphics - ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory
20" Dell One: Graphics - Integrated GPU.

There is a huge difference between an integrated gpu and a seperate gpu. You literally can't play recent (last 3 years) games on even the best integrated gpus without major problems. Plus, I called Dell and they wouldn't even tell me what model the integrated gpu was so i could find stats on it. But the rep assured me "It won't run World of Warcraft"

Here's a far more telling comparison (the only one that has the internals close too):

Dell One | iMac
Processor: Core 2 at 2.33 ghz 1333mhz fsb 4mb l2 cache (E6550) VS Core 2 at 2.4 ghz 800mhz fsb 4mb l2 cache (T7700)
Graphics Card: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2400 Video Card VS ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO 256MB
Memory: both 2 GB DDR2 RAM at 667 mhz
Hard Disk: 320 GB 7200 RPM on both
Disk Drive: 8x DVD/CD burners on both
TV Tuner: the Dell has one, iMac does not.
Media Center: both have media center software and include remotes
Media/Extra Ports: 8-in-1 media reader and firewire 400 port VS firewire 400 and 800 ports

Price: $1649 VS $1899

I just presented all that to two Dell sales reps and their only retort was "I assure you when you buy a Dell you are getting a quality system" :P

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Quine

Walt Mossberg is a horrible source and doesn't know what he's doing. He compared the $1200 iMac to the $1500 Dell and said after upgrading the iMac to match the dell it was a $100 difference.

That is WRONG. He is not comparing two equally spec'd machines at all. He was quick to add thing to the iMac to match the dell's specs, but failed to match the dell to the iMac's specs!

20" iMac: Graphics - ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory
20" Dell One: Graphics - Integrated GPU.

There is a huge difference between an integrated gpu and a seperate gpu. You literally can't play recent (last 3 years) games on even the best integrated gpus without major problems. Plus, I called Dell and they wouldn't even tell me what model the integrated gpu was so i could find stats on it. But the rep assured me "It won't run World of Warcraft"

Here's a far more telling comparison (the only one that has the internals close too):

Dell One | iMac
Processor: Core 2 at 2.33 ghz 1333mhz fsb 4mb l2 cache (E6550) VS Core 2 at 2.4 ghz 800mhz fsb 4mb l2 cache (T7700)
Graphics Card: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2400 Video Card VS ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO 256MB
Memory: both 2 GB DDR2 RAM at 667 mhz
Hard Disk: 320 GB 7200 RPM on both
Disk Drive: 8x DVD/CD burners on both
TV Tuner: the Dell has one, iMac does not.
Media Center: both have media center software and include remotes
Media/Extra Ports: 8-in-1 media reader and firewire 400 port VS firewire 400 and 800 ports

Price: $1649 VS $1899

I just presented all that to two Dell sales reps and their only retort was "I assure you when you buy a Dell you are getting a quality system" :P

Why would you present that to the Dell reps? Were you serious about buying or just wanting to point out to some people trying to scrap out a living in a crappy job that your mac is better than their Dell?

[Quine]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Why would you present that to the Dell reps? Were you serious about buying or just wanting to point out to some people trying to scrap out a living in a crappy job that your mac is better than their Dell?

Oh, one of my friends actually wanted to buy a new comp, and my other friend made a bet to me that I couldn't configure an iMac to be better than a Dell One within the proper price range, so I did. Then he denied it and said to call up sales reps and they'd know something that was better about the Dell, so I did, and they literally had nothing to say.

My purchasing friend was leaning toward an iMac already but wanted to be sure, and after I showed my other friend those facts and talked to the reps, my friend (the one who was buying) went to Apple's site and went ahead and bought his iMac.

So, that's why I called the reps, not to be a jerk I actually thanked the second rep for doing her best and had her record a good word from me for her boss because she really tried hard to come up with good reasons.

PS: Sorry for the myriad pronoun problems in that!

[wilco]

Originally Posted by Quine

Walt Mossberg is a horrible source and doesn't know what he's doing. He compared the $1200 iMac to the $1500 Dell and said after upgrading the iMac to match the dell it was a $100 difference.

That is WRONG. He is not comparing two equally spec'd machines at all. He was quick to add thing to the iMac to match the dell's specs, but failed to match the dell to the iMac's specs!

20" iMac: Graphics - ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory
20" Dell One: Graphics - Integrated GPU.

There is a huge difference between an integrated gpu and a seperate gpu. You literally can't play recent (last 3 years) games on even the best integrated gpus without major problems. Plus, I called Dell and they wouldn't even tell me what model the integrated gpu was so i could find stats on it. But the rep assured me "It won't run World of Warcraft"

Here's a far more telling comparison (the only one that has the internals close too):

Dell One | iMac
Processor: Core 2 at 2.33 ghz 1333mhz fsb 4mb l2 cache (E6550) VS Core 2 at 2.4 ghz 800mhz fsb 4mb l2 cache (T7700)
Graphics Card: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2400 Video Card VS ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO 256MB
Memory: both 2 GB DDR2 RAM at 667 mhz
Hard Disk: 320 GB 7200 RPM on both
Disk Drive: 8x DVD/CD burners on both
TV Tuner: the Dell has one, iMac does not.
Media Center: both have media center software and include remotes
Media/Extra Ports: 8-in-1 media reader and firewire 400 port VS firewire 400 and 800 ports

Price: $1649 VS $1899

I just presented all that to two Dell sales reps and their only retort was "I assure you when you buy a Dell you are getting a quality system" :P

If I was that Dell rep., my retort would have been, "get a life, nerd".

[monstrosity]

Originally Posted by Dorotea

I think the analyst is smoking something very funky to believe that the stock will be $600 in 18 months.

Not necessarily, I think many people fail to understand the significance of the iPhone and it's forthcoming big brother(s). Greater mac sales. Plus I'm 100% convinced Apple will make a success of movie downloads this year also.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Quine

Walt Mossberg is a horrible source and doesn't know what he's doing. He compared the $1200 iMac to the $1500 Dell and said after upgrading the iMac to match the dell it was a $100 difference.

That is WRONG. He is not comparing two equally spec'd machines at all. He was quick to add thing to the iMac to match the dell's specs, but failed to match the dell to the iMac's specs!

20" iMac: Graphics - ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory
20" Dell One: Graphics - Integrated GPU.

There is a huge difference between an integrated gpu and a seperate gpu. You literally can't play recent (last 3 years) games on even the best integrated gpus without major problems. Plus, I called Dell and they wouldn't even tell me what model the integrated gpu was so i could find stats on it. But the rep assured me "It won't run World of Warcraft"

Here's a far more telling comparison (the only one that has the internals close too):

Dell One | iMac
Processor: Core 2 at 2.33 ghz 1333mhz fsb 4mb l2 cache (E6550) VS Core 2 at 2.4 ghz 800mhz fsb 4mb l2 cache (T7700)
Graphics Card: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2400 Video Card VS ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO 256MB
Memory: both 2 GB DDR2 RAM at 667 mhz
Hard Disk: 320 GB 7200 RPM on both
Disk Drive: 8x DVD/CD burners on both
TV Tuner: the Dell has one, iMac does not.
Media Center: both have media center software and include remotes
Media/Extra Ports: 8-in-1 media reader and firewire 400 port VS firewire 400 and 800 ports

Price: $1649 VS $1899

I just presented all that to two Dell sales reps and their only retort was "I assure you when you buy a Dell you are getting a quality system" :P

You didn't actually READ what Mossberg said, did you?

He said that while the Dell is the best competitor to the iMac he's seen, and is a big departure for Dell, in the end, the iMac is a better machine.

He also said that the iMac is cheaper, even after you add the wireless keyboard and mouse. He also said that Dell doesn't offer anything other than the 20" models. He also said that Apple's 24" model is better, AND cheaper than Dell's top 20" model. He also said that Dell uses the integrated graphics chip, which isn't as good as the GPU Apple offers. He also said that OS X is a much better OS than Vista, which is the only choice on the Dell. And not least, he also said that Apple's software bundle is much better than the one that Dell offers.

But, you didn't actually READ any of that, did you?

[melgross]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Why would you present that to the Dell reps? Were you serious about buying or just wanting to point out to some people trying to scrap out a living in a crappy job that your mac is better than their Dell?

He didn't speak to any Dell reps. He just wrote that for this thread.

[aaarrrgggh]

Not sure what the big stink is over the $600 price tag-- it's optimistic but not completely out of line. My expectation is $400 in 12 months, and if Apple can keep delivering on new products between now and then, another year at 100% annualized growth isn't out of line.

Mac profits are set to double or better this quarter, and iPod/iPhones should see a huge jump, if the number of iPhones I keep seeing around is any indicator.

Over the last 5 years, EPS growth is 117%... this basically assumes "more of the same, but maybe a little slower."

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by melgross

He didn't speak to any Dell reps. He just wrote that for this thread.

Wow, you guys are rough on newbies...... trial by fire, Quine...

Oh, btw, welcome!

[melgross]

While $600 does seem to be a bit much for 18 months, I bought my stock mid 2004 for $16.93 a share, pre-split, so it's possible.

If Apple gains momentum, anything is possible, including absurd P/E's, ala Google.

We have to see what transpires this quarter, now, oh so close to an end.

If Apple can really beat their numbers, and get to around $10 billion, with $1.4 billion in profit, it could indicate that 2008 will be a stronger year than the most positive expectations I've yet seen.

That could give Apple a possible $35+ billion year, with $5 billion in profits, $20 billion in the bank, and no long term debt.

If that happens, next holiday season could see Apple with $13 billion in sales, possibly even higher.

Also according to a long NYTimes article about Apple's stores, they did 43% more business in 2007 than in 2006. With at least 40 more stores opening in 2008, that will add even more. And the sales at the non
US stores are contributing more percentage to those sales every quarter, and Apple is opening more of those in 2008 than ever before, another reason to be expectant.

So $600 might not be so pie in the sky after all.

[polarissucks]

is it just me or is apple on the downswing with itunes? amazon is going to come out on top i think, whats going on, soon no one will go with itunes, poor apple

[TripleCore]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The label's chief Edgar Bronfman began the year by lashing out at Steve Jobs for even suggesting that labels should drop copy protection, accusing the Apple executive of abandoning logic. Since then, three of the four major labels -- EMI, Universal, and Bronfman's own imprint -- have all offered unprotected songs to varying degrees. Only Sony BMG has so far maintained a requirement for copy protection on all its direct downloads.

Bronfman is such a hypocrite.

[Dick Applebaum]

18 months ago the stock was $60 and today it is $198-- or 3.3 times the price.

...so, $198 x 3.3 = $653 (over 18 months)

Maybe not so far-fetched, after all.

The question for long term investors is where is AAPL on the growth curve? Beginning? Middle? End?

I am betting my investment $ that they are at the beginning!

The capabilities unleashed by the iPhone, alone, open many amazing hardware/service/software product opportunities.

The iPhone and Touch aren't just another cell phone and iPod-- they are the forerunners of a whole new category of products-- Must Have! Must Have With You At All Times!

With Apple's creativity, engineering, profit-making and marketing ability, we should see products that create a revolution bigger than the one that the microcomputer started in the 1970s.

The target audience for these products is billions of individual persons!

Now, That's what I call potential!

[zorinlynx]

Why are the labels excluding iTunes Plus from this new DRM-free idea? iTunes has a lot more customers than Amazon MP3, and it's easy to sell on both (EMI is, afterall).

It seems the labels have some sort of problem with Apple. Why should they, though, when iTunes could get them a lot more sales since most people don't even know about Amazon MP3.

It just seems odd...

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by Quine

I just presented all that to two Dell sales reps and their only retort was "I assure you when you buy a Dell you are getting a quality system" :P

Shame it can't run a decent OS though

Even Mossberg added as a negative; that the Dell didn't run OS X ... Nice to see that now showing up as a negative against a PC

[melgross]

Originally Posted by zorinlynx

Why are the labels excluding iTunes Plus from this new DRM-free idea? iTunes has a lot more customers than Amazon MP3, and it's easy to sell on both (EMI is, afterall).

It seems the labels have some sort of problem with Apple. Why should they, though, when iTunes could get them a lot more sales since most people don't even know about Amazon MP3.

It just seems odd...

They want to break Apple's power, and monopoly, over downloads. If I were in their position, I would do the same thing.

Apple is acting like a monopolist by not allowing them to have control over their own product. No company likes that.

Traditionally, the manufacturer set prices for their products.

I'm not agreeing with anything here, just stating the reasons.

[zorinlynx]

Originally Posted by melgross

They want to break Apple's power, and monopoly, over downloads. If I were in their position, I would do the same thing.

Apple is acting like a monopolist by not allowing them to have control over their own product. No company likes that.

Traditionally, the manufacturer set prices for their products.

I'm not agreeing with anything here, just stating the reasons.

I suppose that makes sense. I have no problem buying from Amazon MP3 and supporting DRM-free music. My worry is that the labels are doing this so that it doesn't succeed and they can go "Well look, we offered music DRM-free but not that many people went for it. They kept buying from iTunes, though, with DRM, so DRM is okay. Told you so!" when in fact they knew Amazon MP3 wasn't going to do that well.

iTunes isn't a monopoly as long as there's another option available to all. Don't get me wrong, I *LOVE* the mp3 music store on Amazon, and find myself checking there BEFORE iTunes lately, because I'm more likely to find the track I want without DRM and it integrates perfectly with iTunes. I just wish iTunes had the tracks too so more people would be aware of this new direction the industry is going.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by zorinlynx

I suppose that makes sense. I have no problem buying from Amazon MP3 and supporting DRM-free music. My worry is that the labels are doing this so that it doesn't succeed and they can go "Well look, we offered music DRM-free but not that many people went for it. They kept buying from iTunes, though, with DRM, so DRM is okay. Told you so!" when in fact they knew Amazon MP3 wasn't going to do that well.

iTunes isn't a monopoly as long as there's another option available to all. Don't get me wrong, I *LOVE* the mp3 music store on Amazon, and find myself checking there BEFORE iTunes lately, because I'm more likely to find the track I want without DRM and it integrates perfectly with iTunes. I just wish iTunes had the tracks too so more people would be aware of this new direction the industry is going.

A monopoly is not defined by having NO competition. Remember that MS was defined as a monopoly in OS sales.

As Apple has (had) about 85%, or more, sales of all digital music downloads here in the US, that would pretty much define them as a monopoly, even if it didn't come to court to have them legally defined as such.

The music companies know very well that digital downloads are the way of the future, that's why they are so concerned.

When Apple first approached them, they didn't think it would succeed, and that's why they allowed Jobs talk them into the 99¢ deal. Now, they are nervous about having given away their control over a sales channel that's becoming more important every day.

The movie and Tv studios have watched this, and have determined that they won't allow it to happen to them. They are playing it smart. BEFORE online sales reach real numbers and percentages, they can experiment, without giving Apple control.

Don't forget that Apple wants to sell at the lowest price, not because they care about their content paying customers, but because they see it as selling iPods, iPhones, which then, through the acknowledged "halo effect" is selling computers and software.

Believe this: If Apple needed to make a good profit on content, as the content producers do, they wouldn't be pushing for such low prices either.

[ecking]

Originally Posted by melgross

They want to break Apple's power, and monopoly, over downloads. If I were in their position, I would do the same thing.

Apple is acting like a monopolist by not allowing them to have control over their own product. No company likes that.

Traditionally, the manufacturer set prices for their products.

I'm not agreeing with anything here, just stating the reasons.

Yup, a digital music storm's a brewin'...

[Dorotea]

Re: $600 in 18 months.

Yes, I know that Apple has done great multiples in this century. However, as a company grows and its stock is worth more, it is much harder to do multiples of current stock price. 3 x 16 (or 80) is much easier than 3 x $200.

Apple has great potential. But there are pitfalls in future. Quality of product (hardware and software) needs to improved while the company is selling more units. I certainly have the feeling that Apple is stretching itself too thin. Leopard (with a clean install) works ok for me, but not perfectly (printing problems, sluggishness).
Moisture problems in iMacs. More and more lawsuits And what will happen to stock when Steve Jobs leaves.

I love apple products. I own stock. I just think an analyst saying $600 in 18 months is irresponsible.

[hmmfe]

Originally Posted by melgross

Apple is acting like a monopolist by not allowing them to have control over their own product. No company likes that.

Traditionally, the manufacturer set prices for their products.

Not allowing them to control their own products? Perhaps you mean, the record labels gave up control by negotiating and signing a bad (for them) agreement?

For the better part of the last 100 years, manufacturers have been barred from setting minimum prices (Dr. Miles). Also, large retailers are often in a powerful position to negotiate better wholesale pricing (Wal-mart comes to mind). So, I can't say that I agree with your statement.

About the only thing that can be said is, traditionally, a manufacturer negotiates a wholesale price with a retailer. This negotiation is dependent on the relative power of each party. That is, if the product is in high demand and low supply the manufacturer is usually in a strong negotiating position. Also, if a retailer is a dominant retailer for a certain type of good (e.g. Wal-mart), they tend to have a strong position at the table. In any case, the Sherman Act has forbid setting of retail prices by the manufacturer. Recently, this rule has changed.

I understand what you are intending to say. Apple has worn out its welcome in the music industry and the record labels are now regaining control over their product. In essence, the balance of power is shifting back to the record labels and they are able to negotiate more favorable wholesale prices.

Whether or not this is good for the consumer is another matter...

[Louzer]

Originally Posted by Quine

Walt Mossberg is a horrible source and doesn't know what he's doing. He compared the $1200 iMac to the $1500 Dell and said after upgrading the iMac to match the dell it was a $100 difference.

That is WRONG. He is not comparing two equally spec'd machines at all. He was quick to add thing to the iMac to match the dell's specs, but failed to match the dell to the iMac's specs!

Why is this a big deal. When Apple-folks like to point out that Dells aren't cheaper, then hack a ton of stuff into the Dell to get the price to be 'the same', they never change the mac.

Then again, it's hard to 'upgrade' the Mac to 8 USB ports, extra drive bays, PCI Express slots, etc, that your general PC has, so they kind of gloss over that ("Yeah, but I've got a built-in web cam! Sure, I never use it, nor did I want it, but it's there!")

[melgross]

Originally Posted by hmmfe

Not allowing them to control their own products? Perhaps you mean, the record labels gave up control by negotiating and signing a bad (for them) agreement?

I already explained what, and why, that happened.

For the better part of the last 100 years, manufacturers have been barred from setting minimum prices (Dr. Miles). Also, large retailers are often in a powerful position to negotiate better wholesale pricing (Wal-mart comes to mind). So, I can't say that I agree with your statement.

You don't have to agree.

But, it's still true. Minimum pricing laws were set so that a monopoly couldn't set pricing so low so as to force its competitors out of business.

Large companies can always negotiate lower prices on many items—if there is enough profit to go around.

Apple is apparently cutting that profit to the bone, both for them, where they don't care, because it's something like a loss leader that stores use to get customers into the store, to the content makers, who do care, since content is their main income source.

About the only thing that can be said is, traditionally, a manufacturer negotiates a wholesale price with a retailer. This negotiation is dependent on the relative power of each party. That is, if the product is in high demand and low supply the manufacturer is usually in a strong negotiating position. Also, if a retailer is a dominant retailer for a certain type of good (e.g. Wal-mart), they tend to have a strong position at the table. In any case, the Sherman Act has forbid setting of retail prices by the manufacturer. Recently, this rule has changed.

It's also relative to how much profit the manufacturer needs to make. They always have a bottom number which they don't go below. I know how this works because I was a manufacturer. You don't negotiate a price below what you decide you need. Also, many manufacturers tell the distributors what price they want, and that's it. They decide the discount.

If your product is desirable, you also have power. Even WalMart can't dictate everything.

I understand what you are intending to say. Apple has worn out its welcome in the music industry and the record labels are now regaining control over their product. In essence, the balance of power is shifting back to the record labels and they are able to negotiate more favorable wholesale prices.

Whether or not this is good for the consumer is another matter...

What's good for the consumer is that they have choices.

It's also true that just because the consumer wants to pay the lowest price possible, that price isn't necessarily fair.

We can look at what that attitude has been doing to our economy. By paying the lowest possible price, we ensured that companies here couldn't make a profit, so they took their factories first to Mexico, then through other countries, to China.

Now, high paying blue collar jobs are scarce, and more people can't afford to pay higher prices. It's a downward spiral.

Before you know it, all movies and music will be produced in China with Chinese crews. Maybe then, people will pay what they want.

[elroth]

Originally Posted by melgross

They want to break Apple's power, and monopoly, over downloads. If I were in their position, I would do the same thing.

Apple is acting like a monopolist by not allowing them to have control over their own product. No company likes that.

Traditionally, the manufacturer set prices for their products.

I'm not agreeing with anything here, just stating the reasons.

Let's see what the Board of Directors and the major shareholders of Warner (and Universal) have to say about ignoring a significant revenue stream. Bronfman, your CEO days may be numbered (I hope).

[quinney]

Originally Posted by melgross

Before you know it, all movies and music will be produced in China with Chinese crews.

When exactly?

[melgross]

Originally Posted by elroth

Let's see what the Board of Directors and the major shareholders of Warner (and Universal) have to say about ignoring a significant revenue stream. Bronfman, your CEO days may be numbered (I hope).

They didn't pull music from iTunes. They just didn't allow any of it to go DRM-free.

It remains to be seen whether sales of DRM-free tracks from Amazon—which play on the iPod/iPhone universe of players, as well as Apple's computers, take sales away from Apple's DRM'd versions of the same tracks.

It will be very interesting.

It's also possible that there will be announcements made at Macworld.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by quinney

When exactly?

Silly question. We'll just have to wait and see. Much movie and Tv production has gone from the US to Canada the past few years because of costs. Movies have also gone to Eastern Europe for almost three decades for the same reason.

As China builds up its infrastructure, it will begin to move there as well. The animation studios have already been discussing this. Chinese animators cost much less than those here, and are just as good.

Give it, what, between five and ten years?

As long as selling prices keep being pushed down, the costs have to go that way as well.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by polarissucks

is it just me or is apple on the downswing with itunes? amazon is going to come out on top i think, whats going on, soon no one will go with itunes, poor apple

All Amazon can hope for is incremental income, if even that. My guess is that Amazon is losing money on every sale right now. Apple doesn't make much money from selling songs, they make money from selling iPods (hardware). Amazon does not have the complete chain, like Apple has.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by Dorotea

Re: $600 in 18 months.

Yes, I know that Apple has done great multiples in this century. However, as a company grows and its stock is worth more, it is much harder to do multiples of current stock price. 3 x 16 (or 80) is much easier than 3 x $200.

Apple has great potential. But there are pitfalls in future. Quality of product (hardware and software) needs to improved while the company is selling more units. I certainly have the feeling that Apple is stretching itself too thin. Leopard (with a clean install) works ok for me, but not perfectly (printing problems, sluggishness).
Moisture problems in iMacs. More and more lawsuits And what will happen to stock when Steve Jobs leaves.

I love apple products. I own stock. I just think an analyst saying $600 in 18 months is irresponsible.

For Apple to grow into the $600's range, I think they would have to adopt an advertising model that would enable them to compete with companies like Google. This could be possible by broadening their iPhone and iPod touch offerings (lower end models), and branching out into other wireless products. By enabling electronic payment options, advertising partnerships, etc. they could reach Googlish levels.