Sony hints it could pull its music from iTunes in ongoing war with Apple - Page 3

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.

DRM is mostly gone, though. To be fair, Apple doesnt really care about DRM. The content providers do.

deleted

deleted

You mean we were better off buying whole albums with lots of crap "filler songs" instead?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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


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.

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.

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

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.

Here is a better title for this article: "Sony threatens to shoot self in the foot"

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.

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.

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?


Not true. The very existence of a website puts you in violation of the new reading of IAP.

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.

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.

And iBooks

That's about the emptiest threat I've heard in a long time. That's like Joan Rivers threatening to "withhold her favors".

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.

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.

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

You would have to ask Apple that, they are the ones controlling their DRM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ATRAC, Minidisc, Memory Stick. Sony has worked harder to lock people into their ecosystem than any other CE company.

Unless things really go south for Sony, they will never sell off Sony Entertainment Group. They have factored it into all their CE products.

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.

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


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.

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.

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.