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 3

post #81 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigelian View Post

There is a difference between GE products and Sony content. Content, unlike most consumer electric products is uniquely differentiated. If I want to listent to a particular version of Giant Steps from John Coltrane, pulling down a copy of Giant Steps from Sonny Rollins isn't an adequate substitute. It would be good, but it isn't nearly the same thing. If I am forced to go to say, Amazon to buy my Sony content, I might just buy some of my other content while there, because once I'm plugged into Amazon's or Walmart's infrastructure, I've already learned how to use that ecosystem and the marginal cost of purchasing an additional item from that ecosystem goes down. I know, this to be true, since I now purchase the vast majority of my music from Amazon these days.

Having Sony on Amazon or Walmart and not on Itunes is an amazing selling point for Amazon and Walmart.

I think this battle is far more balanced than people in here believe. Which is why I think it will result in some type of nuanced agreement between the two.

I agree that there will be some kind of an agreement because it will be better for both to stay. My main point was a disagreement that it would be worse for Apple if Sony pulled out than it would be for Sony. And therefore Apple would be stupid to not give in.

I also think that many people use iTunes as a way to discover music. You are right that if I am looking for a specific title and can't find it I may go elsewhere, but I might just be interested in cool jazz. So, I browse through and don't even realize that Coltrane isn't there because, uh he isn't there. I find another artist that is also good and download that instead.

It sounds to me like you are also an album buyer (as am I) and a lot of what makes iTunes great for a lot of people is singles downloading. So, if I can't get the song I want because it's Sony and my only choice is to buy the whole album, then I'm likely to head to the bit torrents. But again, I agree, they will work this out.
post #82 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.

DRM is mostly gone, though. To be fair, Apple doesnt really care about DRM. The content providers do.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #83 of 158
deleted
post #84 of 158
deleted
post #85 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

[...]
It's not downloading that's killed the industry as much as the return to an industry based upon sales of singles. There's a lot of blame to be passed around for that, but it doesn't matter - it's killing the music business.
[...]

You mean we were better off buying whole albums with lots of crap "filler songs" instead?
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 #86 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

...except, apparently, when they sell through the Ubuntu Store or Amazon.

Yeah, true enough.

Jobs has an Open Letter on this where he makes his opposition to DRM clear, though. Its well worded.

Its related to the fact that they also said ( maybe in that letter) that only 3% of content on an iPod was DRM anyway. Apple have that bit right. iTunes is clearly not the only way to get music for the iPod ( as opposed to get it onto the iPod) and Apple dont, and shouldn't care.

Same with e-Books. iBooks is a nice to have, maybe a small earner. Kindle and Sony E-Reader cost you nothing and may sell hardware.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #87 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.

iTunes hasn't used DRM for quite some time. Obviously, you haven't used it in a long time (if ever.) On my iPhone I have material that I purchased through iTunes, stuff from Rhapsody and stuff that I ripped myself. I can play my iTunes purchased music on any player I want. I also bought my mom an iPod nano which also has an FM radio in it, so I don't know what it is that is making you feel so self-righteous. As you said, use what you enjoy. Plastic electronics feel crappy to me and I am willing to pay more for something with a high build quality and a solid feel.
post #88 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool View Post

That is Sony's exact point, there are other methods. You buying it somewhere else takes that $ out of Apples hands. Sony still gets paid. So I think they do get it.

If they 'got' it, they'd make it easier to buy the books/music through their own online service in a way that's integrated into their e-reader app - easier than clicking for an in-app purchase. If they make it harder, then it's not really surprising that they're afraid that people will click for the in-app purchase and they lose 30%. Hell, they could probably put the in-app purchase further down on a screen / on another sub-screen and not violate the policy since it's still available, while making their own purchase more visible. But then there's a good chance they're pushing their own web site into the interface in a way that makes it harder to do that GUI - so fix it. Do some markup on your site so that the e-reader app can insert a link back to the app. Whatever.

But you're right that they do get the $ part - they always have, whether trying to make a closed environment where they get royalties for betamax, Blue-ray, their strange proprietary flash-RAM formats, etc. Funny they don't like other companies building the same types of walls.
post #89 of 158
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.)
post #90 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.

My "iPod" has a phone, a portable game console and many more things built in! And it costed just right IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

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.

Cool down, I only said that the iPod is the de-facto mp3 player. That is, most people evidently think Apple's mp3 player is the best game in town (incidentally, me included)... Sorry if the "crappy" part offended you. I'm sure that, despite not being "sexy", Sony's players are of excellent quality.

I'm also sure as a manufacturer, Apple has lots of examples of failure/poor build just as anyone else. But these 10 years or so nobody really seems to design attractive products. Most everything seems to be inside the "Windows/DOS" mindset. Made by engineers, for engineers. It's not that I'm a grandma who can't install a printer's driver; I can. But it annoys me that I have to go over that time and again when things should "just work" out of the box so I can dedicate my energy to my main task.

Have fun with Ubuntu.
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 #91 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrstep View Post

If they 'got' it, they'd make it easier to buy the books/music through their own online service in a way that's integrated into their e-reader app - easier than clicking for an in-app purchase. If they make it harder, then it's not really surprising that they're afraid that people will click for the in-app purchase and they lose 30%. Hell, they could probably put the in-app purchase further down on a screen / on another sub-screen and not violate the policy since it's still available, while making their own purchase more visible. But then there's a good chance they're pushing their own web site into the interface in a way that makes it harder to do that GUI - so fix it. Do some markup on your site so that the e-reader app can insert a link back to the app. Whatever.

But you're right that they do get the $ part - they always have, whether trying to make a closed environment where they get royalties for betamax, Blue-ray, their strange proprietary flash-RAM formats, etc. Funny they don't like other companies building the same types of walls.

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.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #92 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.

Actually, it is way better because Apple still allows you to sell through other channels as well.
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 #93 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Never buy your customer.

Apple should stay out of the content business altogether.

That is one reason that I think iAds will fail. It doesn't support hardware sales. No one buys a device so they can watch ads.

I'm not sure about that, but I do think this points to part of Sony's problem. They should divest their content business and focus on the electronics. Competing labels and studios are unlikely to form partnership deals with Sony, and thus Sony's efforts in the electronics market are inherently handicapped.
post #94 of 158
Here is a better title for this article: "Sony threatens to shoot self in the foot"

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #95 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by nunyabinez View Post

I agree that there will be some kind of an agreement because it will be better for both to stay. My main point was a disagreement that it would be worse for Apple if Sony pulled out than it would be for Sony. And therefore Apple would be stupid to not give in.

I also think that many people use iTunes as a way to discover music. You are right that if I am looking for a specific title and can't find it I may go elsewhere, but I might just be interested in cool jazz. So, I browse through and don't even realize that Coltrane isn't there because, uh he isn't there. I find another artist that is also good and download that instead.

It sounds to me like you are also an album buyer (as am I) and a lot of what makes iTunes great for a lot of people is singles downloading. So, if I can't get the song I want because it's Sony and my only choice is to buy the whole album, then I'm likely to head to the bit torrents. But again, I agree, they will work this out.

I do both albums and singles. I often buy singles when I hear a song from somewhere, use either Shazam or Soundhound to identify it, buy it and download it to my phone. Or when a song gets caught in my head and I must satisfy that immediate need.

I don't use itunes to look for new music. Pandora often introduces me to music I haven't heard before or haven't heard in a long time.

By the way, Amazon does singles as well.
post #96 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.)

Imagine this scenario. I create a magazine app and put it on the app store for free. Then I sell issues every month to all the people who downloaded it via a web link. What has Apple gotten from it? Nothing. What did Apple provide me with? A distribution channel where my customers can buy things from me that I don't have to pay for. Apple pays for the servers, the maintenance, associated with the app store and got nothing out of it.

So, they say, "hey since we are providing you with new customers and incurring expenses on your behalf, how about you make it an option for your customers who want to, to buy in app?". We will take our usual cut, but if they want to go to the browser and use extra steps, we won't worry about it. Just how is this unfair? What is unfair is companies making money of the back of Apple and not wanting to pay them for the new revenue that they are sending their way. If you don't like it, then just don't have a purchase option in the app at all. Have customers purchase it from their computer and Apple won't care. These publishers should be happy that there is some mechanism to save their dying print business not biting the hand that is going to feed them.
post #97 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by nunyabinez View Post

Imagine this scenario. I create a magazine app and put it on the app store for free. Then I sell issues every month to all the people who downloaded it via a web link. What has Apple gotten from it? Nothing. What did Apple provide me with? A distribution channel where my customers can buy things from me that I don't have to pay for. Apple pays for the servers, the maintenance, associated with the app store and got nothing out of it.

So, they say, "hey since we are providing you with new customers and incurring expenses on your behalf, how about you make it an option for your customers who want to, to buy in app?". We will take our usual cut, but if they want to go to the browser and use extra steps, we won't worry about it. Just how is this unfair? What is unfair is companies making money of the back of Apple and not wanting to pay them for the new revenue that they are sending their way. If you don't like it, then just don't have a purchase option in the app at all. Have customers purchase it from their computer and Apple won't care. These publishers should be happy that there is some mechanism to save their dying print business not biting the hand that is going to feed them.

Your comments might have a bit too much logic and common sense in them for some.
post #98 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by nunyabinez View Post

Imagine this scenario. I create a magazine app and put it on the app store for free. Then I sell issues every month to all the people who downloaded it via a web link. What has Apple gotten from it? Nothing. What did Apple provide me with? A distribution channel where my customers can buy things from me that I don't have to pay for. Apple pays for the servers, the maintenance, associated with the app store and got nothing out of it.

So, they say, "hey since we are providing you with new customers and incurring expenses on your behalf, how about you make it an option for your customers who want to, to buy in app?". We will take our usual cut, but if they want to go to the browser and use extra steps, we won't worry about it. Just how is this unfair? What is unfair is companies making money of the back of Apple and not wanting to pay them for the new revenue that they are sending their way. If you don't like it, then just don't have a purchase option in the app at all. Have customers purchase it from their computer and Apple won't care. These publishers should be happy that there is some mechanism to save their dying print business not biting the hand that is going to feed them.


The original cost to Apple is the hosting of the original app. That cost exists only because Apple curates the store. No subsequent costs exist.

Imagine this scenario.

1) MS, in a copying of the iPad, makes Windows a curated environment.
2) Sales are only though the Windows App Store.
3) Itunes is free so it does not pay 30% to Windows on download.
4) Every song, album, movie, or other digital content purchased from within iTunes ( forced to use the Windows IAP) sees 30% go to MS who dont host, own or distribute the content. Fair?

Quote:
If you don't like it, then just don't have a purchase option in the app at all. Have customers purchase it from their computer and Apple won't care. These publishers should be happy that there is some mechanism to save their dying print business not biting the hand that is going to feed them.

Not true. The very existence of a website puts you in violation of the new reading of IAP.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #99 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Of course.... someone at Sony could be a complete and utter moron...

Well, these days the witty remark is "Of course.... someone at Sony could be NOT a complete and utter moron.. " Yes, but he's busy mopping the floors at night.
post #100 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by drdb View Post

That's not a problem, they pull they're stuff from iTunes and more people will pirate it. They'll do great from that won't they? Sony lost the plot years ago.

I think Sony I counting on google to provide an iTunes knock off so. They can jump ship
Just like how Time and others are going to do
post #101 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribbean_mac View Post

I think Sony I counting on google to provide an iTunes knock off so. They can jump ship
Just like how Time and others are going to do

Alright, so Android will have Sony, Kindle, Skype ( also in violation), and any other content owner who has an app for content, funtionality, or service using their own IAP; and a google iTunes type store

This iPad will have iTunes.

Good move Apple.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #102 of 158
And iBooks
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #103 of 158
That's about the emptiest threat I've heard in a long time. That's like Joan Rivers threatening to "withhold her favors".
post #104 of 158
Quote:
Not true. The very existence of a website puts you in violation of the new reading of IAP.

You may have access to more information than I do. Here is what was reported: "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase." Emphasis added. My interpretation of that was that it is specific to the app. Not if your company offers an option to buy. But that is part of the problem with this whole thing. There is a lot of FUD and apparently Apple hasn't been interested in clearing it up yet.
post #105 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by nunyabinez View Post

You may have access to more information than I do. Here is what was reported: "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase." Emphasis added. My interpretation of that was that it is specific to the app. Not if your company offers an option to buy. But that is part of the problem with this whole thing. There is a lot of FUD and apparently Apple hasn't been interested in clearing it up yet.

Outside the app could be a website. Here is what I know.

A digital content provider ( in the UK) submits a player app only. No IAP. It is for playing previously bought content.

Rejected under the new rules as the website is the only mechanism to buy, although not referenced in the app. IAP has to be added although the devs had no intention of ever buying within the app, or linking from it.

Yeah, Apple need to actually word things properly. It's all done on a per-submission ( and appeal) basis.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #106 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

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.

Perfect? No that's impossible. But better, yes. I would say they make better products than anyone in the computer and consumer electronics branch the last 6 or 7 years or so.

J.
post #107 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post

It may work, provided their crappy mp3 players become relevant in an iPod dominated world...

But be careful when you download any song from their store... root *cough* kit *cough*

Yes, you are trying to make a joke. But it wasn't Sony that did the root kit, it was SonyBMG, sure they owned part of it, but it was managed by BMG
post #108 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by crustyjusty View Post

I wonder when Sony and Amazon will allow iTunes / iBooks purchases on their e-readers.

You would have to ask Apple that, they are the ones controlling their DRM
post #109 of 158
It's sort of amazing how some little snippets of press releases from two giant companies, both of which were probably authored by committee or at least more than one person, can still come across as bitchy.
post #110 of 158
Apple has the money and the world wide distribution in place and millions of music players in the hands of consumers. If they wanted to it would take very little effort on Apple's part to go into the Record/Music Business and start signing up acts. See if Sony could swallow that.
post #111 of 158
I think it is silly to characterize this as "tension" between companies, or even to suggest that an App Store rejection has anything to do with Sony Music's decision to build out their own online music distribution channel. The decision to pull Sony Music catalog from iTunes sounds to be completely self-motivated by Sony wanting to expand their online music distribution business.

AppleInsider is trying too hard to create a story here. The truth is, Apple partners with many companies that it competes with, and the same is true for plenty of tech companies. Apple vs Samsung, but Apple buys Samsung components. Sony competes with Microsoft while partnering with Microsoft. I mean, Sony licenses Windows for it's VAIO computers, and it's computer entertainment division sells MMORPGs that run on Windows, but that division also competes with Microsoft's Xbox. And Microsoft write more commercial software for Mac OS X than any other vendor, but obviously, they compete in other areas, like iOS. Not that it has stopped Microsoft from releasing software for iOS. Tension? I think that's stretching it.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #112 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post

Actually, it is way better because Apple still allows you to sell through other channels as well.

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:

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.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nunyabinez View Post

Imagine this scenario. I create a magazine app and put it on the app store for free. Then I sell issues every month to all the people who downloaded it via a web link. What has Apple gotten from it? Nothing. What did Apple provide me with? A distribution channel where my customers can buy things from me that I don't have to pay for. Apple pays for the servers, the maintenance, associated with the app store and got nothing out of it.

So, they say, "hey since we are providing you with new customers and incurring expenses on your behalf, how about you make it an option for your customers who want to, to buy in app?". We will take our usual cut, but if they want to go to the browser and use extra steps, we won't worry about it. Just how is this unfair? What is unfair is companies making money of the back of Apple and not wanting to pay them for the new revenue that they are sending their way. If you don't like it, then just don't have a purchase option in the app at all. Have customers purchase it from their computer and Apple won't care. These publishers should be happy that there is some mechanism to save their dying print business not biting the hand that is going to feed them.

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.
post #113 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post

Can someone please explain to me why I so many companies and developers are throwing a fit about this? If Apple is not stopping these purchases, but rather just trying to require for the conveniece of users that there is a choice between buying through a web portal or through the App itself, then why does Sony care? Am I missing something huge here? It seems ridiculous to resist providing an in-app purchase method.

Because Apple make more than the store selling the product. Payment gateways usually charge up to 5% and Apple charges 30%, all because they control the market and therefore can.
post #114 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?


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.
post #115 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!

ATRAC, Minidisc, Memory Stick. Sony has worked harder to lock people into their ecosystem than any other CE company.
post #116 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

how about this clever approach
follow the rules resubmit and talk to SJ

apple could buy sony shut down its losing areas or buy the movies and song division

something big is going to happen with all those billions SJ is stockpiling

Unless things really go south for Sony, they will never sell off Sony Entertainment Group. They have factored it into all their CE products.
post #117 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

The app rejection and the revenues Sony would lose seem to make this sound like it's an excuse or red herring since the the things are so far apart in reality from a business stand point. The real reason is more likely their own rival to iTunes not wanting the iTunes competition. This is a wreck in the making for Sony imo. It is sobering to think that yesterdays weird dip in AAPL was a 10 billion dollar movement which was a mere blip for Apple but about one third of Sony's entire market cap! 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.

I think Apple would love to have Sony Music Group and Sony Pictures, but I don't see Sony willing to cut them lose. As for Apple buying Sony, too many businesses for Apple to unwind unless they could find a partner(s) to buy the parts they are not interested in.
post #118 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by cliffjumper68 View Post

Sony owns alot of the content on iTunes being the largest of the big four music firms so this would put a dent in Apple.

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

Quote:

What is crazy is that it also includes the Beatles catalog (michael jackson leveraged with Sony) that Apple just promoted insanely around the world. I do not think Apple wants this head ache especially over policies they do and don't enforce (kindle, nook, marvel ect.) and that are likely to get them in anti-trust trouble with the FTC. This might actually improve and open up the iOS, at least that is my hope.

Or not. Because there is nothing antitrust about any of it. If there was it would have been shut down ages ago. As would the Zune etc.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #119 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

One question, if Apple states they've always enforced the rule, why is the Kindle app still available on iTunes?

I think a lot of this is just a matter of unfortunate timing.

Apple has clearly changed the rules. But I think that Apple also intends on announcing a workable solution for resellers like Kindle and E-reader as part of the formal subscription announcement in the next few weeks. In all likelihood, they are working (or already have worked) out an arrangement with Amazon and are just waiting for the announcement.

Apple should have just left the E-reader app in limbo until the announcement rather than rejecting it. Sony would have bitched about it but it would not have gained nearly as much attention.
post #120 of 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by cliffjumper68 View Post

Sony owns alot of the content on iTunes being the largest of the big four music firms so this would put a dent in Apple. What is crazy is that it also includes the Beatles catalog (michael jackson leveraged with Sony) that Apple just promoted insanely around the world. I do not think Apple wants this head ache especially over policies they do and don't enforce (kindle, nook, marvel ect.) and that are likely to get them in anti-trust trouble with the FTC. This might actually improve and open up the iOS, at least that is my hope.

Universal Music Group is the largest of the four majors; Sony is second.

Sony owns only the publishing rights to the Beatles music. EMI and Apple Corps control the distribution of the Beatles catalog.

I really doubt this rises to any level of anti-trust issue since the same music is available from so many other venues. As some have argued, iTunes would lose the music at their own peril, or so some think.
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