or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Sony hints it could pull its music from iTunes in ongoing war with Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony hints it could pull its music from iTunes in ongoing war with Apple - Page 4

post #121 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeshuawatso View Post

You're ignoring fiduciary responsibilities Sony's managers have to their shareholders. If Sony could drop iTunes and use other distribution channels that offer a greater profit return, even at lower revenues, then they have an obligation to provide the greatest return for their shareholders investment. Business wise, I understand why Sony is upset about the ereader problem. For starters, Apple is competing with them with hardware, software, and slowly encroaching on their digital content. Second, Apple is reducing Sony's contribution margin on books that Apple dictated the price to while keeping their contribution margins lower. This forces Sony to raise their prices higher than Apple's to make up that 30% cut, effectively cutting off Sony, and all other book distributors, from competing fairly (at least on iOS). Strategically, utilizing a core component of iTunes as a way to muscle one of your distributors is a reasonable decision, and possibly one of Sony's last efforts.

Now, everything I said above can be applied to Apple in reverse as to why Apple would do such things to provide a greater return for their shareholders. Unfortunately, the only people who lose are consumers and iOS owners, as Apple has effectively killed off all competition to the products and services Apple offers on these devices. Let's just hope Sony prevails so you, as consumers, get better competition and the lower prices that usually come with it.

I certainly do not wish to see Sony prevail. If they had in the past we would be locked into ATRAC, Minidisc, Memory Stick and who knows how many other proprietary systems.
post #122 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

What you guys don't get is that the music companies are desperate because their business is dying. Music sales in the U.S. are half of their 1999 peak. Citibank just took over an in-default EMI and has put it quickly up for sale in order to beat Warner Music putting themselves up for sale.

There are only four large music companies left (EMI, Sony, Warner Music Group and Universal). If Sony did pull out of iTunes, that would be a big blow for iTunes, no matter how much you guys love Apple and hate Sony.

I think there is a real chance that WMG will double-down and buy EMI. Here are a couple of related articles:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/...-on-the-block/

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/indus...05015022.story

The question then is would Apple ever consider buying Warner/EMI? They could certainly afford it but is not the best fit for their business.
post #123 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Regardless of the fact that Sony has been losing money, the market cap on Sony is $35 billion. Apple would have to pay a premium to buy it. Japanese regulations probably wouldn't permit a non-Japanese company to buy it anyway. Why would Apple buy it?

In 2009, Sony had 171,000 employees. Apple has about 37,000 employees. Absorbing Sony would be completely overwhelming to Apple. You can't run a company the size of Sony the way that Apple is run (with a very hands-on executive team). Apple has a relatively few number of products and services. Sony has tens of thousands, if not more.

It would never happen and if it did, it would kill Apple. Get real. The only possibility is that Sony decides to get out of the music business, but I doubt U.S. regulators would permit Apple, as the largest distributor of online music, to buy one of the remaining four large music companies. But even if the regulators permitted it, Sony would never sell, if only for face-saving reasons and especially after absorbing most of BMG (RCA).

Apple would only be willing to buy a few parts of Sony - basically, Sony Entertainment (Sony Music Entertainment and Sony Pictures). Unless they teamed with some other parties to divvy up the businesses they didn't want, Apple would never get drawn into this.

Apple might consider buying a combined Warner Music Group and EMI but it's not the best fit for them.

I doubt they would have any problems with the FTC or DOJ if they considered such a purchase. After all, they just approved Comcast (the largest cable company) purchasing NBC Universal. I think an Apple purchase of a record label would suffer far less scrutiny.
post #124 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

IF you think about it, Apple's behavior here isn't that much different than MS telling PC manufacturer's that they must pay for a license to install Windows on every PC they sell, even if the customer only wanted Linux and not Windows on their computer.

Apple still allows purchases outside of iTunes, as long as the iTunes option is also available. That's the only thing keeping them out of hot water...but they are dangerously close to getting the attention of regulators and losing the trust of developers and customers. (In my opinion.)

I am not so sure that this would catch the eye of US regulators (maybe in Europe though) but it may cause some partners to take pause. I don't think it bothers customers at all if the product is the same price and the purchase can be completed more easily in-app.
post #125 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Nobody has even seen the Sony e-reader. It probably links back to the app - kindle does.

The problem is that 11.2 used to ban people like Sony and Kindle from doing their own in-app purchases in the app UI ( not a huge technical challenge) so companies got around it by linking out to a website, and linking back it when bought.

Now Apple have demanded that Sony ( and others) have a UI which uses Apples In App Purchasing, but have made nothing else clear about how many buttons the UI can have, can the app even link outside to the website via a button, can there be differential pricing.

Its simultaneously amateur and sinister.

It is somewhat amateur but I am not seeing sinister. I expect the details will be revealed when they formerly announce the subscription service as this also entails in-app purchases. Hopefully, Apple will be flexible so that everyone wins.
post #126 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

If Apple were trying to be "fair" (vs just plain greedy), they would create a more flexible pricing structure. A few possibilities:

1. Charge a lower commision (ie, 10%) for in-app content purchases via the iTunes infrastructure than for application sales (30%).
2. No longer allow free commerical applications. You'd need to define "commercial"...such as an application which was meant to generate revenue for the developer via content subscriptions. This would allow Apple to be compensated for distributing the orignal application which is currently free.
3. (Not sure if the current rules already allow for this one) Allow the developer to have different prices for in-app content purchases via iTunes vs. non-iTunes distribution of content. So I could charge $10 for my content if you get if from me, $13 if you get it from Apple. This lets the customer decide if Apple's channel is enough of a convenience to justify Apple getting a 30% cut.

#2 isn't really feasible. #3 creates confusion for the user and would make Apple look bad for being greedy for "taxing" content purchases through their store. #1 seems like the best, most "fair" solution.

If it were MS doing something like this, every single person here would be calling them pure evil for it. To pretend otherwise would be naive Apple fanboy-ism.

Option #1 is clearly the most sensible. Hopefully Apple demonstrates sensibility when they announce the details of their subscription service which should also address other types of in-app purchases.
post #127 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

Apple's cut is not for you downloading the app. It is for giving the app's developer the channel to reach a customer, and customer utilizing that channel to make a purchase. Each time you buy something through the app, it's another instance of that channel facilitating a transaction between the developer and the customer. So Apple asking for a cut of the deal for each transaction is totally within the norm of such business practices. Take a real estate agent for example, you only have to sign with this agent once, but every property you buy through this agent, and no matter how many you buy each time, you have to pay a cut of commission on every single property's price.

Rest of your point on how much Apple should charge is certainly something Apple should do some serious thinking on to arrive at a good equilibrium.

I really agree with this sentiment. Apple, by virtue of its products and placement of the app in the App Store is providing some form of "merchandising". This, along with payment processing, is not worth 30% but it is worth something.

Hopefully, a mutually-beneficial arrangement will be achieved.
post #128 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Apparently this game of Sony's is a subscription service. Home grown Zunepass without the ten tracks a month or whatever it is. Who knows if that will take off or not

It's interesting that the record labels have refused to let Apple enter the music subscription business. They have allowed others and this seems to be the approach they want to take themselves. As far as I am concerned, they should let Apple have a subscription-based service; I think their revenues would take a significant jump.
post #129 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I still wonder if Sony might not make a nice department for Apple Inc. The music rights alone would be sweet and think of all those nice HD cameras and professional equipment.

The thought of Apple buying Sony makes my stomach turn. I love my PS3 and I have this nightmare fantasy of the newly acquired Apple-Sony division delivering a firmware update that makes the PS3 just as "full-featured" as the AppleTV:

1) Blu-Ray drive is disabled
2) Video output is downgraded from 1080p to 720p
3) USB ports no longer support external storage and peripherals, only for diagnostic purposes
4) Media card slots disabled.
5) Hulu Plus support removed
6) Vudu support removed
7) DLNA support removed
8) Video codec support reduced
9) Audio formats reduced to lossy formats except Apple Lossless
10) Audio/Video/Text messaging ability removed
11) 3D video support removed
12) Web Browser removed
13) Keyboard/Mouse support removed
14) Bluetooth support reduced to remote control only
15) Local storage of content to PS3 hard drive disabled
16) 1080p video/5.1 audio removed from Netflix app
17) Games no longer supported
18) Custom themes and wallpaper support removed
19) Firmware updates with new features are 1-2 years apart instead of 4-6 months apart
post #130 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

The thought of Apple buying Sony makes my stomach turn. I love my PS3 and I have this nightmare fantasy of the newly acquired Apple-Sony division delivering a firmware update that makes the PS3 just as "full-featured" as the AppleTV:

1) Blu-Ray drive is disabled
2) Video output is downgraded from 1080p to 720p
3) USB ports no longer support external storage and peripherals, only for diagnostic purposes
4) Media card slots disabled.
5) Hulu Plus support removed
6) Vudu support removed
7) DLNA support removed
8) Video codec support reduced
9) Audio formats reduced to lossy formats except Apple Lossless
10) Audio/Video/Text messaging ability removed
11) 3D video support removed
12) Web Browser removed
13) Keyboard/Mouse support removed
14) Bluetooth support reduced to remote control only
15) Local storage of content to PS3 hard drive disabled
16) 1080p video/5.1 audio removed from Netflix app
17) Games no longer supported
18) Custom themes and wallpaper support removed
19) Firmware updates with new features are 1-2 years apart instead of 4-6 months apart

Not to worry. That would be just one of the many product lines that Apple would sell off. When you go down the list of Sony's products, you realize that there are very few that would be of interest to Apple - starting with anything that has a spinning plastic disc.
post #131 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

Apple's cut is not for you downloading the app. It is for giving the app's developer the channel to reach a customer, and customer utilizing that channel to make a purchase. Each time you buy something through the app, it's another instance of that channel facilitating a transaction between the developer and the customer. So Apple asking for a cut of the deal for each transaction is totally within the norm of such business practices. Take a real estate agent for example, you only have to sign with this agent once, but every property you buy through this agent, and no matter how many you buy each time, you have to pay a cut of commission on every single property's price.

Rest of your point on how much Apple should charge is certainly something Apple should do some serious thinking on to arrive at a good equilibrium.

Kind of a bad analogy. In your example, you are utilizing the agent's services for each and every sale. So yes, they should get the commission. Imagine if once you've purchased a house through that agent, they then required you to allow them to try and sell you a house each and every time you moved. Even if you had another agent for your next move, you are required to allow the first agent to also have an opportunity to sell you the same house.

But overall, I think we agree. Certainly, Apple should get a commission if they provided the service through which you downloaded the new content. The issue is whether 30% for doing nothing but passing on the data is a fair amount, especially if they are going to require that option to be included in every subscription app.
post #132 of 158
Sony's music service was Connect.com. It was closed in 2008 apparently the victim of iTunes.
post #133 of 158
Hm, something else I just thought of... Will Apple also be policing the content of the downloaded subscription material downloaded via iTunes?

Apple has some strict moral guidelines for what they allow for apps in the App Store. If they are requiring all content to be available via in-app purchases facilitated by the App Store, what happens if that content violates those guidelines? Will they be reviewing and blocking the content they find objectionable? And if they allow it to be downloaded via the iTunes, should they also allow the same content in the applications themselves?

Might be a bit of a moral quandary for them.
post #134 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

But overall, I think we agree. Certainly, Apple should get a commission if they provided the service through which you downloaded the new content. The issue is whether 30% for doing nothing but passing on the data is a fair amount, especially if they are going to require that option to be included in every subscription app.

Even the staunchest of Apple enthusiasts should see this as unfair. IMO, Apple should get somewhere between 5 and 7 percent for "merchandising" and payment processing. Maybe, 10% tops, but that seems like a lot to me.

Hopefully, Apple will be fair with its partners because they do need partners.
post #135 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Even the staunchest of Apple enthusiasts should see this as unfair. IMO, Apple should get somewhere between 5 and 7 percent for "merchandising" and payment processing. Maybe, 10% tops, but that seems like a lot to me.

Hopefully, Apple will be fair with its partners because they do need partners.

Retail channel buys at about 50-55% of retail for most low cost non-consumable product. Selling through Apple's channel is selling into the retail channel at 70%. No matter how you try to spin it, Apple is giving a better deal than retail, and for a lot of developers, they are voting with their Apps that it costs more than 30% of their gross to run their own stores or contract out the storefront.

I think you need to understand business better before you try to make pricing judgements.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #136 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Retail channel buys at about 50-55% of retail for most low cost non-consumable product. Selling through Apple's channel is selling into the retail channel at 70%. No matter how you try to spin it, Apple is giving a better deal than retail, and for a lot of developers, they are voting with their Apps that it costs more than 30% of their gross to run their own stores or contract out the storefront.

I think you need to understand business better before you try to make pricing judgements.

You are ignoring the fact that for that 50% cut the retailer is handling inventory, merchandising and payment processing. If all that Apple provides is a spot in the store and payment processing (i.e., they do not handle the download), then 30% seems high.
post #137 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Retail channel buys at about 50-55% of retail for most low cost non-consumable product. Selling through Apple's channel is selling into the retail channel at 70%. No matter how you try to spin it, Apple is giving a better deal than retail, and for a lot of developers, they are voting with their Apps that it costs more than 30% of their gross to run their own stores or contract out the storefront.

I think you need to understand business better before you try to make pricing judgements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

You are ignoring the fact that for that 50% cut the retailer is handling inventory, merchandising and payment processing. If all that Apple provides is a spot in the store and payment processing (i.e., they do not handle the download), then 30% seems high.

And don't forget property costs, payroll for sales clerks, utilities, theft, breakage, etc, associated with a retail storefront. So add all those to that 50% buy-in for retail and see just how much of that is left as profit. Compare that to the less-than-a-penny for Apple to process the transaction which results in a pretty hefty profit for them.
post #138 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Which I clearly stated in my 2nd paragraph which you conveniently deleted from your reply to my post. Don't selectively quote someone just so you can have an excuse to be argumentative. You've contributed nothing to this conversation.

My orignal post:





And if I only subsquently purchase 1 issue (or even none) vs if I then purchase 100 issues over the next couple of years, why should Apple be compensated 100x more when the original app was only downloaded once? Apple created the problem buy insisting all app distribution goes through them. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but they also need to recognize the problems it creates. A 30% cut is probably reasonable for applications because of the marketing iTunes provides. But it's unreasonable for content if all Apple is doing is act as a data pipe from the application to the providers content. If I recall, the estimates for music was that Apple got about 10% of the sale price, the rest went to the content owner. Why then 30% for a magazine or book?

If Apple were trying to be "fair" (vs just plain greedy), they would create a more flexible pricing structure. A few possibilities:

1. Charge a lower commision (ie, 10%) for in-app content purchases via the iTunes infrastructure than for application sales (30%).
2. No longer allow free commerical applications. You'd need to define "commercial"...such as an application which was meant to generate revenue for the developer via content subscriptions. This would allow Apple to be compensated for distributing the orignal application which is currently free.
3. (Not sure if the current rules already allow for this one) Allow the developer to have different prices for in-app content purchases via iTunes vs. non-iTunes distribution of content. So I could charge $10 for my content if you get if from me, $13 if you get it from Apple. This lets the customer decide if Apple's channel is enough of a convenience to justify Apple getting a 30% cut.

#2 isn't really feasible. #3 creates confusion for the user and would make Apple look bad for being greedy for "taxing" content purchases through their store. #1 seems like the best, most "fair" solution.

If it were MS doing something like this, every single person here would be calling them pure evil for it. To pretend otherwise would be naive Apple fanboy-ism.

There, I quoted your whole post. Are you happy now?

It still doesn't make it right to compare Apple to Microsoft. The line I quoted is still wrong
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
post #139 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post

There, I quoted your whole post. Are you happy now?

It still doesn't make it right to compare Apple to Microsoft. The line I quoted is still wrong

Sony was once an innovate company - they brought Beta to market, which was superior to VHS. They once stood for the consumer. Working in the broadcast industry, I saw that innovative steam ran out, and rather they relied on marketing - producing products at least twice the price of its nearest competitor Panasonic. Nowadays, their products are junk - I won't even buy any of their made-in-china televisions.

I don't know what they're thinking - their CEO must be Mr. Schizophrenia living in Dementia - how can they think that way??? It is slightly delusional to think that someone would subscribe to a service that would not allow them access to songs from the other 3 of the big four, isn't it??? I only see their tactic as trying to extort Apple, without them their music division would be nothing. Universal tried it with Pressplay, and failed miserably. With Sony - you'd have a major DRM infestation like Blu-Ray - look at the tactics they're using against the PS3 jail breakers - reminiscent of tactics used by the Costra Nostra, N'dranghetta, and Commora organizations (Mafia).

Kudos to Apple. Apple is a great American company that got to where it is by innovation - creating products that its customers want, rather than forcing things down someone's throat.
post #140 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

You are ignoring the fact that for that 50% cut the retailer is handling inventory, merchandising and payment processing. If all that Apple provides is a spot in the store and payment processing (i.e., they do not handle the download), then 30% seems high.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

And don't forget property costs, payroll for sales clerks, utilities, theft, breakage, etc, associated with a retail storefront. So add all those to that 50% buy-in for retail and see just how much of that is left as profit. Compare that to the less-than-a-penny for Apple to process the transaction which results in a pretty hefty profit for them.

No, I'm not ignoring these. The fact Apple is doing something for a lower cost than the traditional retail sector is known as a business advantage. Entirely justifiable, and they are giving the wholesaler a nearly 40% discount on sales services.

What you are ignoring is that the cost of the service isn't the incremental cost of a single transaction. The actual cost includes the maintenance, website updates, bandwidth, backup, redundancy, banking services, IT staff supporting the enterprise, and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage. At best Apple is clearing a couple percent as profit margin.

Yes that 2-3% percent adds up over the full number of sales, but it isn't a make all the money over the developer proposition. Apple set the aggressive service pricing because there is a clear benefit to the hardware side of the house and support for the vertical market health. The only folks who are complaining about the 30% service cut are the ones who never priced out what it actually costs to sell software as a serious business.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #141 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Regardless of the fact that Sony has been losing money, the market cap on Sony is $35 billion. Apple would have to pay a premium to buy it. Japanese regulations probably wouldn't permit a non-Japanese company to buy it anyway. Why would Apple buy it?

In 2009, Sony had 171,000 employees. Apple has about 37,000 employees. Absorbing Sony would be completely overwhelming to Apple. You can't run a company the size of Sony the way that Apple is run (with a very hands-on executive team). Apple has a relatively few number of products and services. Sony has tens of thousands, if not more.

It would never happen and if it did, it would kill Apple. Get real. The only possibility is that Sony decides to get out of the music business, but I doubt U.S. regulators would permit Apple, as the largest distributor of online music, to buy one of the remaining four large music companies. But even if the regulators permitted it, Sony would never sell, if only for face-saving reasons and especially after absorbing most of BMG (RCA).

My bet is that regardless of their cash hoard, there are no big Apple acquisitions while Steve is still CEO and unhealthy.

I couldn't agree more with you . Very well put.
post #142 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

No, I'm not ignoring these. The fact Apple is doing something for a lower cost than the traditional retail sector is known as a business advantage. Entirely justifiable, and they are giving the wholesaler a nearly 40% discount on sales services.

What you are ignoring is that the cost of the service isn't the incremental cost of a single transaction. The actual cost includes the maintenance, website updates, bandwidth, backup, redundancy, banking services, IT staff supporting the enterprise, and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage. At best Apple is clearing a couple percent as profit margin.

Yes that 2-3% percent adds up over the full number of sales, but it isn't a make all the money over the developer proposition. Apple set the aggressive service pricing because there is a clear benefit to the hardware side of the house and support for the vertical market health. The only folks who are complaining about the 30% service cut are the ones who never priced out what it actually costs to sell software as a serious business.


What you are ignoring is that Apple is not doing any of this for Amazon, or Sony. The 30% is for a forced credit card transaction. These companies do all of the maintenance, website updates, bandwidth, backup, redundancy, banking services, IT staff supporting the enterprise, and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage [sic] themselves. Thats what Kindle does when you re-direct.


Or do you think that Sony or Amazon were storing the e-books on Apple's servers. If you do, then let me put is as simply as fucking possible. They aren't.

The cult continues to defend Dear Leader without any factual evidence.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #143 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

And don't forget property costs, payroll for sales clerks, utilities, theft, breakage, etc, associated with a retail storefront. So add all those to that 50% buy-in for retail and see just how much of that is left as profit. Compare that to the less-than-a-penny for Apple to process the transaction which results in a pretty hefty profit for them.

It's unlikely that the payment processing costs less than a penny. Apple probably pays the payment processor about 1.8% (maybe they could get a deal a bit lower but not much) plus they have to pay the transaction fee. Even if Apple negotiated a great deal for the transaction fee, I suspect it would still be 10 cents.

The rest of your comments are right on the money. If Apple does not provide the actual e-delivery, they should be asking for much less than 30%.

Apple could still make extra money in merchandising fees by allowing their supplier to pay the equivalent of shelf fees for premium placement (promotion) within the store - this is the equivalent of someone paying for an end-cap in a B&M. They may already be doing this for all I know.
post #144 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

What you are ignoring is that Apple is not doing any of this for Amazon, or Sony. The 30% is for a forced credit card transaction. These companies do all of the maintenance, website updates, bandwidth, backup, redundancy, banking services, IT staff supporting the enterprise, and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage [sic] themselves. Thats what Kindle does when you re-direct.

His thought is not completely mistaken. His point is that there is a good deal of infrastructure required before you even open your site which is why he said " and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage". On the other hand, that infrastructure and payroll costs are largely paid for by customers for whom Apple provides the e-delivery service.

Apple needs to find a middle-ground position for those instances where it provides only merchandising (making something available on their platform) and payment processing. Perhaps Apple won't make much on such deals but if it is affordable enough, some app developers might decide to use it as the only option to provide a better customer experience.
post #145 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

What you are ignoring is that Apple is not doing any of this for Amazon, or Sony. The 30% is for a forced credit card transaction. These companies do all of the maintenance, website updates, bandwidth, backup, redundancy, banking services, IT staff supporting the enterprise, and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage [sic] themselves. Thats what Kindle does when you re-direct.

Or do you think that Sony or Amazon were storing the e-books on Apple's servers. If you do, then let me put is as simply as fucking possible. They aren't.

That to me is a big issue. Apple wants a cut of the profits for doing none of the work. If Apple wants to require in-app purchases, that is fine. But unless Apple is managing the whole transaction (which includes hosting the files), they don't deserve 30%. It should be some sort of sliding scale, from 30% if Apple handles the entire transaction, to maybe 10% if all Apple is doing is billing, to nothing if the app maker handles the entire transaction themselves.

I'm pretty sure Sony and Amazon can build their own in-app purchasing system that has no need to link to Apple.

I guess maybe Apple is worried about companies offering apps for free and then linking users to their own websites to actually unlock the program's functionality. In that case Apple handles all of the web hosting but gets no compensation for it. But even in that situation, Apple still benefits from having the program in the App Store to begin with.

For example, Angry Birds is one of those big App Store success stories. I'm sure the developer is hard at work on Angry Birds 2. It would be a negative thing if they decided to only bring the sequel to Android users (or in a more likely scenario, Microsoft pays them to bring it exclusively to Xbox and Microsoft Phone).
post #146 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

What you are ignoring is that Apple is not doing any of this for Amazon, or Sony. The 30% is for a forced credit card transaction. These companies do all of the maintenance, website updates, bandwidth, backup, redundancy, banking services, IT staff supporting the enterprise, and all that is before you get to the physical hosting and storage [sic] themselves. Thats what Kindle does when you re-direct.


Or do you think that Sony or Amazon were storing the e-books on Apple's servers. If you do, then let me put is as simply as fucking possible. They aren't.

The cult continues to defend Dear Leader without any factual evidence.

Let me put this, in terms you seem to understand, as fooking simple as possible for you: Amazon and Sony can still sell content external to the App store. There is no requirement to only sell content via in-app purchase. Got that hardcase? Your premise is incorrect. Your vile bile is pure internal creation. Boo-hoo for you. Given that, for all content served externally you are correct, Apple doesn't pay to host it and they shouldn't receive anything for it. For all future content served via the App Store you would be incorrect and that means Apple will need to host the content, therefore Apple will bear those support costs I mentioned.

Maybe if you took the time to actually read what is going on and hold off on weak and broken North Korean references you might find out you could actually make some real money via the App Store. Sitting on the sidelines and bitching about bogus problems just makes sure you keep sucking the hind-tit. It's sad, but self inflicted...
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #147 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

The thought of Apple buying Sony makes my stomach turn. I love my PS3 and I have this nightmare fantasy of the newly acquired Apple-Sony division delivering a firmware update that makes the PS3 just as "full-featured" as the AppleTV:

Why would anyone want Sony?

C.
post #148 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Why would anyone want Sony?

C.

Why would anyone want parts of Sony? Sony Entertainment has some good stuff going.

Sony's real problem is they bought too much "other stuff" trying to paper over their management weaknesses in the post-Walkman-fall hardware division. They are a very likely candidate for the parts are worth more than the sum of the whole.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #149 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Why would anyone want Sony?

anyone would want Sony for their media content, as an example.

Sony owns Sony Pictures Entertainment (formally the Columbia Pictures and TriStar Pictures) as well as Sony Music Entertainment (which includes Columbia/Epic Label Group, RCA/Jive Label Group, Arista Records, Columbia Records UK and Bertelsmann Music Group).
post #150 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Why would anyone want parts of Sony? Sony Entertainment has some good stuff going.

Sony's real problem is they bought too much "other stuff" trying to paper over their management weaknesses in the post-Walkman-fall hardware division. They are a very likely candidate for the parts are worth more than the sum of the whole.

Exactly the case.

Apple might well be interested in Sony Entertainment but I doubt they would have any interest in entering the digital camera space (either consumer or pro) and have no interest in their computer business, blue-ray business or countless other product lines.

The most likely deal for Sony is some takeover specialist like KKR buying it up with various divisions being pre-sold to others. Sony Entertainment would be the division which has the most interest.
post #151 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post

anyone would want Sony for their media content, as an example.

Sony owns Sony Pictures Entertainment (formally the Columbia Pictures and TriStar Pictures) as well as Sony Music Entertainment (which includes Columbia/Epic Label Group, RCA/Jive Label Group, Arista Records, Columbia Records UK and Bertelsmann Music Group).

But it was Sony's media ownership that lost them dominance in the portable audio space.
They were so obsessed with piracy of its content that they refused to create MP3 players.

And yet Sony's media ownership contributes very little to its profits. It's been a ball and chain for Sony.

C.
post #152 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

But it was Sony's media ownership that lost them dominance in the portable audio space.
They were so obsessed with piracy of its content that they refused to create MP3 players.

And yet Sony's media ownership contributes very little to its profits. It's been a ball and chain for Sony.

Sony was really the first company to figure out that there was an opportunity to marry great HW and SW in the entertainment space. Unfortunately, there was so much infighting between the various groups at Sony and all their hair-brained proprietary formats that they squandered what could have been a good opportunity. Stringer was brought in with the hopes that he could finally deliver some synergies between the various parties - he has not had much success either.

However, Sony Entertainment could be valuable to others who might create these synergies - especially someone like Apple who already has a solid distribution platform. But Apple would need to weigh that against the possibility that they would disenfranchise competing studios and record labels. I don't really think there is much chance that Apple would end up owning Sony Entertainment but it is an interesting mental exercise to consider how Apple might make things work.
post #153 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

But it was Sony's media ownership that lost them dominance in the portable audio space.

you asked the question why anyone would purchase Sony and i responded with examples of media content that Sony has publishing rights. there's great value in what they possess. there are other products, services and content that Sony has of value; i can provide further examples if you like.
post #154 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinitaBoy View Post

I have loathed Sony--and not supported them in any fashion--ever since their little rootkit/copy protection scheme back in 2005. Remember that little debacle? Scroom. Let the entire company go the way of the Walkman. They deserve it!

Sony Walkman was actually outselling iPods in Japan last year, and I'd expect they did sell a few more players around the world on top of that.

For an non-Apple MP3 player, Sony Walkman is doing OK.

Or are you referring to old cassette tape players?
post #155 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard View Post

That's just it, SONY would NEVER talk to SJ. SONY hates that Apple's replaced them as the most recognized brand of electronics maker.

I would disagree with that.

While Apple comes to mind first when MP3 players or even (arguably) smart phones are being mentioned, Sony is still force to reckon when someone mentions TVs, top-shelve audio equipment, digital cameras and camcorders, game consoles, DVD recorders, BR players... it is not that Sony beats Apple in those markets, but Apple basically does not even exist there - at present.
post #156 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

My "crappy" MP3 player has an FM radio built in, and cost less than half the price of an iPod.

And because it doesn't support Apple's proprietary DRM, I buy my music through the Ubuntu Store or Amazon, where I get DRM-free MP3s that I can use with any player, often for a little less than the iTunes store price.

I like my MP3 player, and feel it offers a good value.

Use what you enjoy. But don't fall into the trap of believing that anything that doesn't sport an Apple logo is necessarily crap. If you've bought as many Macs as I have you'd know that Apple doesn't make perfect products any more than anyone else in this imperfect world.

Good post.

It seems (for some people) that Apple elitism is actually an excuse for being clueless and ill-informed.

It is actually sad.
post #157 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

While Apple comes to mind first when MP3 players or even (arguably) smart phones are being mentioned, Sony is still force to reckon when someone mentions TVs, top-shelve audio equipment, digital cameras and camcorders, game consoles, DVD recorders, BR players... it is not that Sony beats Apple in those markets, but Apple basically does not even exist there - at present.

Apple doesn't want to play in most of those markets - especially anything that uses a spinning plastic disc. I am not even sure that Apple would be interested in Sony's digital imaging assets.
post #158 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post

you asked the question why anyone would purchase Sony and i responded with examples of media content that Sony has publishing rights. there's great value in what they possess. there are other products, services and content that Sony has of value; i can provide further examples if you like.

But my point is that it has not really been of value. It has cost Sony dearly.

C.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Sony hints it could pull its music from iTunes in ongoing war with Apple