or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Warner Music may not renew yearly iTunes contract - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Warner Music may not renew yearly iTunes contract - report - Page 2

post #41 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Silly question as it has nothing to do with this.

I think he's saying that if you want to try anything else, chances are you have to be on a PC to use it.
post #42 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

If any of you owned warner music you would be singing a completely different tune.
imagine you sell product X until everyone learns how to get it for free, then a company comes along and says it can convince people who are getting your product for free to pay for it. you play along until you realize that you're stuck working with a monopoly [how far is iTunes from a monopoly?] you want competition, and someone [amazon, napster, etc] comes along and says they'll play the way you want them to. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

The major complaint with the labels is that they don't have a vision anymore. Their vision for the last ten years has been to convert people to a pay - per - play model at a time where music was becoming more readily available over the internet for free.

I do own NBC stock... ok it is a very small part of GE... and it troubles me that they are stuck in the same problem that the record industry was-- they are stuck on a business model of providing entertainment exactly good enough for consumers to watch through the commercials, in an environment that they control.

What the record companies (and TV distributors... and eventually movies) need to determine is how they will chose to add value in the future if they can't compete in the pure distribution and advertising sales market. Many of those companies do actually have strengths in promoting and helping to deliver a product for the consumer. Or, they can compete with Apple and offer the content directly-- it's a question of short term and long-term objectives and profits.
post #43 of 110
to simplify, evil (i.e., big music companys) was on the ropes, good (i.e., AAPL) came along and as good often does because it's (i.e., AAPL) good, decided to help evil. But, now that evil is seemingly back on its feet, evil wants to break off and kill the good that helped him. This is all political and nasty. I don't think any existing company can unseat AAPL right now, it would take a new, supercompany, run by superheroes of coolness and smarts, maybe 10-20 years from now...
post #44 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

They are perfectly happy for you to do 6)

#6 was to purchase CD's


However, I do most of my purchasing late at night when bored, can't get to sleep. Not in the clear light of day. I rarely buy a CD unless I want it in a very high bit rate form. I'm betting I can get as good a music from the indies.
post #45 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

maybe they can buy apple records and sign musicians for iTunes only distribution... then they can take ALL of the Record Label's coin.

I believe they pretty much bought out Apple Records when they settled the lawsuit with that company recently. I'm hoping Apple does become a music label.
post #46 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Let's not kid ourselves about this.

This is a far bigger problem for Apple than most people can seem to see.

...

My wife and I watch the Sci-Fi channel. Our DVR just died, and all of the content died along with it. Normally, we will buy shows from iTunes if somehow we miss it. If that's no longer going to be possible, we will find other ways, and places, we can buy those shows. We won't be the only ones. Apple will lose big from this.

It's not the first time that Job's rigidity has cost him. I fear it won't be the last.

But what may also be food-for-thought is that, as Apple only gets around 5% per item and the media company gets around 10x this, the media Company will be 'losing' more rapidly!
post #47 of 110
Well Back To The Free/pirated Downloads
post #48 of 110
There are two formats that I buy: iTunes and Blu-Ray. As far as I'm concerned any company that's dumb enough to not release on those formats doesn't deserve my money and I'll get their content the old pre-iTunes/Blu-Ray way: free downloads. If it's not compatible with my iPod or PS3 I absolutely refuse to pay for it. I've already been forced to do this with Heroes' second season and with Transformers.

I'd really like to see musicians and filmmakers start dumping their labels and studios and start self-distributing over the internet. The big labels/studios just get in the way and piss everyone off anyway.
post #49 of 110
So what is Warner leaves for a while? They are going to need to convince their top dollar performers that their income won't drop. They will have to PAY for the promotion impact that the FREE top spot on iTunes weekly mailer got them. ANd they are going to need to generate the sales from somewhere that they would have received from iTunes. That's a big job, will be costly and will fail.

While iTunes customers will miss some of the music they already have their iPod and have already invested money into downloaded music for it. Who really believes that they will drop the iPod simply to get an album or two from Warner. A few friends get together and buy the CD, rip it to all of their computers (plus burn a CD for everyone) and load the CD into their iPod.

Warner has nothing to gain if you're pragmatic and a lot to loose - especially their most important performers who will be looking to move to an iTunes friendly label when their contract expires.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #50 of 110
So when exactly do you think we'll see the iTunes Music Label? They have the server farms already, they have the software to make the music already. They have the software to distribute the music already, and they already have the hardware most people use to listen to music.

The missing piece is the iTunes Music Label.

Personally, I'd love to see music stay at .99 a song and see musicians get more of a cut per song because there's no longer a middle man between artist and distributor (record companies).
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #51 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland View Post

It will be interesting to see whether Radiohead platforms the new album to iTunes for some exclusive period before making it available on CD; the choose-your-own-price deal has been a good stunt, but it's not going to last forever.

I would love to see more artists control their own catalogs and then make deals with iTunes, Amazon, distributors, etc., on their own terms.

I agree 100 percent. I should have mentioned that I was not alluding to the "choose-your-own price" stunt which Radiohead did rather than just the fact that they went on their own on the internet to sell music.

I too hope Apple starts dealing directly with big name artists.
post #52 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

They are perfectly happy for you to do 6)

What about used CDs of of ebay?
post #53 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

What about used CDs of of ebay?

I considered that the same as swapping (i think she had that number 7
but i am not going back to look)
post #54 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

thank you, but wasn't your point that losing content from the iTunes store
would cause Apple to lose computer sales?

It's not really losing sales in a tangible way, you can't lose sales that you haven't made yet.

It's really losing an avenue for marketing. The point is that the content might help draw in people in that might eventually buy their computers. It's kind of a tenuous chain though, I don't think anyone's nailed down exactly how strong the halo effect is or how much of it is a factor in buying a computer. Anyways, once this person drawn in by the iPod/iTunes/store becomes a computer customer, they probably aren't going to jump ship soon.
post #55 of 110
Whoever is writing these articles really needs to come up with another way to talk about Apple as a company. Every single article has Cupertino-based company in it. I dont know, but you could just say Apple and be done with it.
post #56 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Meanwhile, Universal Music Group -- the world's largest collection of record labels -- told Apple earlier this year that it would not renew its yearly exclusive contract and instead would go month-to-month so it could be free to deal with other distributors.

The more distributors, the better. And month-to-month still works.
post #57 of 110
Greed! Greed! Greed!

These content providers are going to let their greed ruin a good thing. Have they forgotten the good old days when everyone just stole their music and there was no alternative to over priced CDs?

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #58 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Your argument isn't very impressive. Show us where they are charging more? They aren't. In fact, they forced Apple to LOWER prices. That was a first. And don't think that Apple didn't do that because they were concerned about this new DRM-free service from Amazon, because you would be wrong about that.

People like you are a very small minority. The general public simply isn't interested in these battles. All they want is to get their content. If it isn't on iTunes any longer, they will get from where i'ts gone. Don't think otherwise.

Beating iTunes is not going to be easy. The music labels are free to reinvent the wheel if they want. Don't believe for a second that they are doing so because they want to give the customer more choice. As for DRM, I believe Apple was the first one to drop DRM. Had they not dropped it first, Amazon would not be selling DRM free music now. DRM was something that the music industry insisted on, not Apple. The reason that Amazon is able to sell music without DRM is that Universal and other labels want to compete against Apple and the iTunes store. They know that they are weak as long as iTunes is the market leader. They want to kill iTunes so they can charge more, not less. The music labels want to charge us more for the new stuff, something that Apple refused to do. NBC left iTunes because they wanted to charge more for shows and because they wanted to bundle some crappy shows with better ones. Apple told them to SIOOMA.

The music labels don't care about making things easier for the customer or about fair play. They care about one thing only, squeezing as much money out of each song as they can get away with. Apple is standing in their way and they know that if Apple beats them, they are done for. So buy from Amazon and from other vendors if you want to make more money for the music labels. I am going to buy the bulk of my music from iTunes. The time has come for the music labels to be put down. Every song you buy from iTunes, is one more nail in the coffin of the old music industry.
--
Alex Abate
Reply
--
Alex Abate
Reply
post #59 of 110
Those greedy bustards are biting at their own behinds. As Apple grows larger, they'll wish they hadn't struck out on their own and come back begging when their own strategy fails.

You'd figure they'd be happy to sit back and let Apple take care of all the paperwork and servers and such and just share in the profits. But no, they have to figure, if Apple can do it, they can easily do it and get all the profit. We'll see how well they do. They'd still be back in the Stone Ages if it wasn't for Apple. Ungrateful louts.
post #60 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Perception is very important. The average consumer doesn't understand what's happening any more than some here There is a political threat going on. I've said that others might try to duplicate what Universal is doing, and quite a few here said that it would never happen. Well, it is.
.

Yes I argued with you on this point and you may very well be right.

I still think that 100 million iPod users will be hard to ignore but the record and movie studios are fighting very hard on this issue.
post #61 of 110
I own 1000+ DVDs. I stopped counting.
I own 100s of CDs. I stopped counting.

When I met my wife we had so much fun using Napster, because it was fun. Name one song, you can get it in a snap.
I didn't convert more than 50 CDs to MP3. Too much work, no time, never listen to this music anymore...

When iPod arrived I bought one (Now I don't count anymore!!). When iTunes Music Store opened, I purchased right away music. Why? So convenient, so fast so easy and reliability was perfect. Peer to peer prepared me to use iTunes in fact. Speed was not strongest point and quality even less!!

Why did I stop buying CDs in first place? Space. I don't even know what to do with all those CDs, DVDs, and other boxes our modern life makes us buy. I stopped buying DVDs after I spent $20000 in furnitures to store them. For what?
Basically they are useless, last time I watched a DVD??? I don't even remember. I am thinking selling all of them on eBay.

Now to go back to the topic. I think these companies have a big problem. They are useless. They don't find new talents, they just make money for the profit of their shareholders, they bring nothing to the customers. They even want to make their life uneasy.

I believe Apple huge success and trend is because nobody has no time to mess with unfinished product like PCs. When they use iPod they have everything, when they use iPhone they rediscover the Phone, same when those people discover the mac. PC for the office, the mac at home. When you have no time to waste or don't want to be an IT (I am one!!) buy a mac, otherwise... buy a Mac (if you don't you are simply unlucky). Honestly who cares about installing a driver??

So I am not afraid of customers leaving Apple because there will be less content. I believe customers won't want to change from an easy solution to something too complex. Think about it! Why do you buy something? Because the sales guy won't put tons of restrictions between me and the product (carry the reference, have stock, payments is easy,...). So if the content is not on iTunes, I don't buy. Why would I make my life too complicated, I'll spend my money wih someone else on iTunes. So if the Majors quit iTunes, they may loose their spot and never regain it.

When you think Mika was refused by Majors, it makes me wonder how useful those people really are. And now they indeed show Apple the way to go. I think they understood that Apple will take their spot. Artists will start up direct relationship with Apple. No big deal!
post #62 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by aznewcastle View Post

Whoever is writing these articles really needs to come up with another way to talk about Apple as a company. Every single article has Cupertino-based company in it. I dont know, but you could just say Apple and be done with it.

They might want to stop writing BS about how Apple "saved" the music industry while they're at it:

Quote:
Steve Jobs helped save a sinking music industry by courting struggling record labels...

Right...Am I supposed to believe that Warner or Universal would have filed for bankruptcy by now if it wasn't for iTunes? Digital downloads STILL only account for 10% of all music sold. 10%.

Steve Jobs, Savior of the Music Industry. What utter nonsense.

And I may be fighting a tidal wave, but I don't want digital downloads to become the future especially when it comes video. We are decades away from video downloads meeting the quality of physical HD formats available today. I don't want to spend the whole day waiting for a 20GB movie to download. Nor do I want to spend more money on less than DVD-quality movies from iTunes. And worse, I don't want to be stuck using whatever device Apple deems good enough to watch my content on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by loloeroket

I stopped buying DVDs after I spent $20000 in furnitures to store them.

Was that a typo or am I supposed to believe you spent $20K on shelving for DVDs? Sorry if I don't feel sorry about your storage issues if you can amass a 1000+ DVD collection, presumably a 1000+ CD collection, and then top it off with $20K in storage furniture.

Problem is if all that content was digital, it would be more complex as having to deal with physical media. Multiple hard drives, presumably managing backups in case of a hard drive failure, networking issues, cabling, content management, etc. That to me sounds more complex than scanning an alphabetically arranged collection of cases.
post #63 of 110
I wish apple would buy some of these companies with loose change
post #64 of 110
In the same way that music labels forget that their content is available on unprotected CDs, NBC forgets that most of their content can be recorded from FREE TV, and all of it from either free or cable/satellite TV, even HD. Which means that it can easily be gotten from torrents. Which means that content for iPods is assured without paying NBC another cent.

NBC, like the labels, forget that people pay NOT for the digital CONTENT, but for the CONVENIENCE of getting the digital content.

So it wouldn't surprise me if Apple unveils their trump card, which is, add a very easy-to-use DVR to the AppleTV, or buy TiVo and integrate it with AppleTV and iTunes.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #65 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

They might want to stop writing BS about how Apple "saved" the music industry while they're at it:



Right...Am I supposed to believe that Warner or Universal would have filed for bankruptcy by now if it wasn't for iTunes? Digital downloads STILL only account for 10% of all music sold. 10%.

Steve Jobs, Savior of the Music Industry. What utter nonsense.

And I may be fighting a tidal wave, but I don't want digital downloads to become the future especially when it comes video. We are decades away from video downloads meeting the quality of physical HD formats available today. I don't want to spend the whole day waiting for a 20GB movie to download. Nor do I want to spend more money on less than DVD-quality movies from iTunes. And worse, I don't want to be stuck using whatever device Apple deems good enough to watch my content on.



Was that a typo or am I supposed to believe you spent $20K on shelving for DVDs? Sorry if I don't feel sorry about your storage issues if you can amass a 1000+ DVD collection, presumably a 1000+ CD collection, and then top it off with $20K in storage furniture.

Problem is if all that content was digital, it would be more complex as having to deal with physical media. Multiple hard drives, presumably managing backups in case of a hard drive failure, networking issues, cabling, content management, etc. That to me sounds more complex than scanning an alphabetically arranged collection of cases.

Quote:
Was that a typo or am I supposed to believe you spent $20K on shelving for DVDs? Sorry if I don't feel sorry about your storage issues if you can amass a 1000+ DVD collection, presumably a 1000+ CD collection, and then top it off with $20K in storage furniture.

Well it was acquired with time and no need to feel sorry at all for me. I don't think I asked for it. I wanted simply to illustrate that there is a limit of buying physical medias. And also I won't buy any HD/BLU RAY DVD even if quality is good because it is obsolete.
Now I am sorry to disapoint you but still extra hard drive is less complex to handle. And it exists now simple solutions for any size of medias. For $20K, you can purchase a nice XServe and a XRAID with a sweet Rack for 1/10th of the space with convenient and safe storing for your data.
Not to mention all virtual solutions offered on the web. No I don't see any problem with this.
post #66 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

In the same way that music labels forget that their content is available on unprotected CDs, NBC forgets that most of their content can be recorded from FREE TV, and all of it from either free or cable/satellite TV, even HD. Which means that it can easily be gotten from torrents. Which means that content for iPods is assured without paying NBC another cent.

NBC, like the labels, forget that people pay NOT for the digital CONTENT, but for the CONVENIENCE of getting the digital content.

So it wouldn't surprise me if Apple unveils their trump card, which is, add a very easy-to-use DVR to the AppleTV, or buy TiVo and integrate it with AppleTV and iTunes.

Very true. It meets my point!
post #67 of 110
When are they going to realize this. Apple didn't "revolutionize the music industry." They just got people to pay for music. Before Apple and iTunes, there was Limewire and Kazaa and Bearshare and Napster(pre-legalized days). Free music for all. Then Apple came along with iTunes and all of a sudden people started paying for their music and movies. These companies keep seeing "oh, we are the reason people buy iPods. See how much they spend on OUR music! We can leave anytime we want to so better give in to our demands" when really its the other way around. Before iTunes, people were downloading these songs for free. iTunes actually helped these industries more than they helped Apple. Once they leave, people will just go back to illegaly downloading. It's so easy to open iTunes(which automatically opens when you plug in your iPod) and oh, I want a song. Click buy. Your done. Now how many people will goto amazon and such just to get that song they can get easily on Limewire?
post #68 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

thank you, but wasn't your point that losing content from the iTunes store
would cause Apple to lose computer sales?

From PC's to Macs. Not from Macs to PC's.
post #69 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunbow View Post

But what may also be food-for-thought is that, as Apple only gets around 5% per item and the media company gets around 10x this, the media Company will be 'losing' more rapidly!


Of course, most of what they get also goes to pay expenses, so they lose about as much profit as Apple does.

But, they are thinking long term. lose some money now for long term profitabliity.

Mind you, I'm not saying that what they are doing will be successful, but it might be. Things aren't static forever.

And if they are wrong about what they want, Apple should let them try it. If it fails, they will stay with Apple, and not be frustrated that Apple didn't allow the experiment. Apple has its pride, but so do they.
post #70 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

So when exactly do you think we'll see the iTunes Music Label? They have the server farms already, they have the software to make the music already. They have the software to distribute the music already, and they already have the hardware most people use to listen to music.

The missing piece is the iTunes Music Label.

Personally, I'd love to see music stay at .99 a song and see musicians get more of a cut per song because there's no longer a middle man between artist and distributor (record companies).

I hope that never happens. That's the last thing Apople should do. Do people who advocate this actually understand the music business? Does anyone understand how different the business is today from what it was? How little profit they make? How variable it is? How much money those companies have to pour into an act to try to make a success, and just how few of them actually make any return on those investments?

I don't think so.
post #71 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by cygnusrk727 View Post

I agree 100 percent. I should have mentioned that I was not alluding to the "choose-your-own price" stunt which Radiohead did rather than just the fact that they went on their own on the internet to sell music.

I too hope Apple starts dealing directly with big name artists.

Are you aware of the fact that despite the more than fair aspect of what they are trying, more than 500 thousand copies of that were already pirated?

It's not a methodology that's likely to work.
post #72 of 110
Would losing content from iTunes Store hurt iPod (or iPhone) sales?
1. If the content from other places is still playable on iPods, then I think NO, because iPods are still considered by most to be the best players out there (Even without an iTunes Store, most would consider iPods the best players; iTunes just adds to the lead).
2. If the content from any one store is more than iTunes, AND the content from that store is not playable on iPods, AND there is a really really good (but not necessarily the best) player that syncs and plays the content from that store, then YES.

Would losing content from iTunes Store hurt Mac sales?
1. iTunes is available on a PC, so very few buy Macs just to use iTunes. (I believe iTunes works better on a Mac than on a PC, but I don't think most people know or care about this.)
2. PC users who have iPods usually use iTunes, and the iTunes Store is the most convenient, so these users will still be exposed to Mac-like software, so I doubt it will hurt Mac switch sales.
3. For PC users who don't have iPods BUT would've used iTunes Store because it had the MOST content, but now will no longer use iTunes, then yes, they will not be exposed to Mac-like software and will be more likely to not switch to Macs. However, I think most PC users who don't have iPods, don't use iTunes, so I don't think this is a large group.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #73 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandro View Post

Beating iTunes is not going to be easy. The music labels are free to reinvent the wheel if they want. Don't believe for a second that they are doing so because they want to give the customer more choice. As for DRM, I believe Apple was the first one to drop DRM. Had they not dropped it first, Amazon would not be selling DRM free music now. DRM was something that the music industry insisted on, not Apple. The reason that Amazon is able to sell music without DRM is that Universal and other labels want to compete against Apple and the iTunes store. They know that they are weak as long as iTunes is the market leader. They want to kill iTunes so they can charge more, not less. The music labels want to charge us more for the new stuff, something that Apple refused to do. NBC left iTunes because they wanted to charge more for shows and because they wanted to bundle some crappy shows with better ones. Apple told them to SIOOMA.

The music labels don't care about making things easier for the customer or about fair play. They care about one thing only, squeezing as much money out of each song as they can get away with. Apple is standing in their way and they know that if Apple beats them, they are done for. So buy from Amazon and from other vendors if you want to make more money for the music labels. I am going to buy the bulk of my music from iTunes. The time has come for the music labels to be put down. Every song you buy from iTunes, is one more nail in the coffin of the old music industry.

I'm not assuming anything about what's good for the customer. Apple certainly doesn't care about what's good for the customer either.

The fact is that no successful company cares about what's good for the customer.

What they care about is what the customer will pay for a certain product or service that the company can make the greatest return on.

If they are right, they do well, if they are wrong, they don't.

People are delusional if they think there is a war between good and evil here. Jobs figured that customers would be willing to pay 99 cents per song. He was right. He wasn't thinking that he's going to do right for his customers. He doesn't care about that. I hope he never cares about that, because if he does, there goes Apple's profits, and then the company follows.

The best companies think about what's best for them and their stockholders. If their guesses happen to coincide with what their customers think is also best for them, then Hallalujua! Everyone's happy.
post #74 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

In the same way that music labels forget that their content is available on unprotected CDs, NBC forgets that most of their content can be recorded from FREE TV, and all of it from either free or cable/satellite TV, even HD. Which means that it can easily be gotten from torrents. Which means that content for iPods is assured without paying NBC another cent.

NBC, like the labels, forget that people pay NOT for the digital CONTENT, but for the CONVENIENCE of getting the digital content.

So it wouldn't surprise me if Apple unveils their trump card, which is, add a very easy-to-use DVR to the AppleTV, or buy TiVo and integrate it with AppleTV and iTunes.

Ah, but you see, that's old thinking.

The reason why these companies are so concerned is because they can see the day when ALL content will be downloaded. When Jobs states that there are CD's that are unprotected, he's right. But what will be 10 years from now? 20?

These companies are looking to the future which APPLE is trying to bring forwards, the download only future. Then things will be different. That's why they are concerned with DRM. I DRM persists, there will be NO form of media that is not protected. That' been their long term goal.

Jobs has been very disingenuous about this.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with the idea about DRM, but that's been the point.

and we always pay for the content, one way or another. We have to.

We may pay more for convenience.
post #75 of 110
Sorry about the posts, but I just got back.
post #76 of 110
I think the bigger trouble is video content. I don't think that alternative music download sources will affect iPod Sales, you can still just go and buy the CD and dump that on the iPod. After all there probably are more people with iPods then people who buy music from iTunes.

The problem with video is that DVD comes in MPEG-2, to get it to work on the iPod you have to encode it in MPEF-4 AVC, even if apple made it as easy as AIFF (CD) to AAC/MP3 it still takes a very long time compared to a CD. Even if NBC offered non DRM Video Downloads, yuo would still have to convert them to iPod format.

HD Video is more difficult because while MPEG-2 is simple to decode, MPEG-4 and VC-1 are more difficult. And even if they use the same codec iPod supports they do not use the same bitrate and resolution.

And btw. the technology used in HD Video has been used on the internet for pirated videos and fansubs for the past 10 years. Ever hear of DivX? Yeah, thats essentially what HD Video is based off of, which in turn was based off Microsoft MPEG-4 based off a specification that chose Apple's Quicktime format as the containter.
post #77 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by suhail View Post

That's right, and the content on it can be downloaded for free.

Well, if that ever becomes true, then all other mp3 players will be as good as the ipod since you can download music for any mp3 player. I am not sure people in this forum know this but you do realize you are in a minority right?. When warner announces bilions in revenue, you are a very small part (and by you, i mean people who download for free).

Secondly, people who download for free are for the most part, still downloading for free.. NBC music removing their music from itunes is not gonna effect that number significantly.. yeah, sure, some people stopped downloading for free and used itunes but those people represent an extremely small percentage of the free downloaders.
post #78 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic View Post

Does he remember the ipod was a huge success BEFORE video came to it?
I still don't get how they can complain that Apple is giving them a new revenue stream that exists only because of Apple and their ipod.


Content implies music and video and whatever else is on the ipod. The statement is a general one and is not specific to video. He's right in a sense.. if ipod had no content, how useful can it be?. But apple would be right to say that the ipod helps music companies and music companies help the ipod.. it's a symbiotic relationship.
I think the media companies are resentful of apple acting as if this is a one way street.. the media companies either fall in line or suffer the consequences..

I think i've said this a million times (you can seach for all my post)... you cannot mess with the people who have the marbles. They can always pick up their marbles and go home (ie, they can chose to lose money).. how does this help apple?. They can spitefully decide to hurt the ipod and themselves just to prove a point. Also, since they own the content and it's in demand, they can always distribute it. Apple may think they are in a dominant position but they are not. It's the same with computers.. if microsoft had not made word for mac, where would apple be today?.. i don't get how owning the hardware gives you power. Hardware is useless without software.The ipod is hardware.
post #79 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by markb View Post

It sickens me that these content providers just dont give a @#$! about their customers. They are perfectly willing to essentially trash a great service like iTunes and offer NO viable alternative.

Case in point: Me and the wife watched Heros season one as downloads from iTunes. Tried watching season two from NBC site.....besides the really annoying forced commercials, the quality was crap and I couldnt put it on my TV. Had to watch it on my notebook.

Yeah but you watched it.. curious.. you didn't think apple crappy encoding was an issue but commercials were an issue?. Interesting. You watched video from itunes on a tv and thought it was quality?. wow.
post #80 of 110
Once they are used to a convenient service with good quality, people will not go back to services of worse quality even if you cut off the convenient one, because those will be perceived as ripoffs. When they're being inconvenienced anyway, they might as well take the time to search for the torrent. After they do, you need not only a more convenient service but a reasonably cheap one to lure them back.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Warner Music may not renew yearly iTunes contract - report