Reports: Apple and NBC mending fences - Page 2

Originally Posted by elroth

Disney is doing deals to Disney's advantage - there should be no consideration (by Jobs or anyone else at Disney) of whether Disney's deals benefit Apple or not.

Originally Posted by elroth

And yet, those same people stated emphatically that Sony and Universal would never be a part of Apple's rental movie service. It is guessing. Don't believe everything you read in the papers.

Originally Posted by DalÃ* Debaser

Later Eisner said this of Jobs: "It's impossible to negotiate with Steve Jobs. Jobs is a Shiite Muslim"

Originally Posted by melgross

That was never said.

Originally Posted by brlawyer

An excellent racist statement by a zionist jew, then...what else can we say? Simply ridiculous.

Longtime reader, first post (I couldn't resist).

Originally Posted by ros3ntan

Just to note.. apple did not make a single cent on itunes content.. they are only focus on their products which is the ipods.

to be honest, there is some truth to what NBC is saying about how apple only wants to promote its ipod through itunes and minimize the studio's profit. NBC just went the wrong way by going public.

Originally Posted by solipsism

Wow! Starting your first post with a racist comment. Welcome to AI, Jew hater.

Originally Posted by brlawyer

No need for childish labelling; zionism is racism and I am just reacting to it. Especially when calling someone else "muslim shiite" in a very demeaning manner seems to be acceptable to all here. So no double standards, please.

Originally Posted by brlawyer

No need for childish labelling; zionism is racism and I am just reacting to it. Especially when calling someone else "muslim shiite" in a very demeaning manner seems to be acceptable to all here. So no double standards, please.

Originally Posted by brlawyer

An excellent racist statement by a zionist jew, then...what else can we say? Simply ridiculous.

Longtime reader, first post (I couldn't resist).

Originally Posted by BRussell

There was a report in Variety that did say that.

Originally Posted by brlawyer

No need for childish labelling; zionism is racism and I am just reacting to it. Especially when calling someone else "muslim shiite" in a very demeaning manner seems to be acceptable to all here. So no double standards, please.

Originally Posted by melgross

That's exactly what I said, in effect.

I've described the board member responsibilities before.

When Jobs sits on Disney's board, he is required, by law, to work for their interests. If that conflicts with any other company he may be an executive of, or any other company on whose board he may sit, he must vacate one (or more) of those positions.

That doesn't mean that it will happen, but that's the legal theory.

It's also when we see board members from other companies on Apple's board, we shouldn't take that to mean that suddenly, that other company will stop doing everything that won't benefit Apple, or hurt it.

Of course, no one would appoint someone to the board if they or their company is hostile, or too much in competition. If that happens as a normal matter of business discourse, that member will leave, so that a true conflict of interest doesn't occur. If it's one issue, they may simply recuse themselves when issues surrounding that issue are discussed and decided upon.

Sufficient?

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Might it also be sufficient for Jobs to recuse himself from board votes that put him in a position of conflict of interest?

Originally Posted by melgross

Yes. I said that in the last paragraph.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Sorry, mel. I'm in the middle of adjusting my portfolio to take advantage of any sharp drops in the market tomorrow...

What are you doing, btw?

Originally Posted by melgross

By whom?

Originally Posted by melgross

Not much. I wait things out. I learned long ago that it's not worth the hassle. In the end it all goes up.

Originally Posted by BRussell

It was reported both in Variety and in a piece here at AI summarizing the Variety article. They weren't specific as to who said Universal and Sony weren't going to go along with Apple, but it was there, and it seemed quite plausible to me when I read it.

elroth:
And yet, those same people stated emphatically that Sony and Universal would never be a part of Apple's rental movie service

Originally Posted by huntercr

Actually apple reports $0.07 of revenue per song, or at least they did back in 2005 when I last looked. The other $.92 cents goes to the record company.

That's a hell of alot of money going to the record company for free distribution, free advertising, and not to mention exposure to a market of people who are willing to buy individual songs, where they wouldn't have bought the whole album.

They are only crying about it because they have a giant "consumer advocate" they have to get by every time they want to mess with price. Apple's interest is in keeping people very happy buying songs for the ipod, and they will fight tooth and nail for anything that might make the ipod look less desirable. That has the nice side effect of Apple being a big price and availability protector.

They also can't raise their CD prices very much because retailers are forced by extension to keep pricing near the sum of the itunes pricing.

The music companies secretly love digital distribution... this about it. No CD pressing, no literature, no packing, no shipping, no shelf space, no unsold lots ( this happens at the wholesale level when an artist's album is anticipated to be more successful than it turned out to be ) , no inventory, no backorders, no merchandise returns.

The only thing they hate, is that they have to go looking for artists with more talent. They can't have too many more artists with only one hit song, because they're no onger selling 10 songs on the success of 1. It's more like 1 or 2 sales per hit song now.

Is that such a bad thing?

Originally Posted by melgross

It was ABC that was the black sheep. most years, NBC did fine.

Originally Posted by ros3ntan

Just to note.. apple did not make a single cent on itunes content.. they are only focus on their products which is the ipods.

to be honest, there is some truth to what NBC is saying about how apple only wants to promote its ipod through itunes and minimize the studio's profit. NBC just went the wrong way by going public.

Originally Posted by Mr.Scott

But weren't they the first and only company to back out of the itunes deal? It makes no since to me why they would go against the grain. I know it sometimes good to throw a stone in the pond to make a wave, but sounds like to me and from what I have read NBC was just going to piss a lot of folks off and at the same time have the limelight shine on the the other company. It kind of a win for Apple and for ABC and the lot the way I see it. Maybe I just don't get it. Not afraid to admit it too.

Originally Posted by melgross

This is all so complex. We look at whatever any company that hurts apple does, as being wrong, or stupid.

I'm not saying that I agree, from our perspective, but from theirs, it's clearly different. they want to protect their business. They don't, and shouldn't, care about how that affects Apple.

It's like when auto workers go on strike. The pick one auto company to strike against. The results of that strike will then affect the entire industry.

Here, it's only Apple, but many "unions" so to speak. Every content company will look at the result from this, and then will decide what to do next.

If NBC gets concessions, they will expect, and likely get, them too.

Meanwhile, they are all trying alternative distribution methods.

Originally Posted by Mr.Scott

I agree. But, with out the invention of the iPod (Thanks Steve) where would any of this/us be? Granted NBC was looking at their investment and Apple gave them a audience to promote their shows and that of whoever wanted to join the band. I'm all for competition, but if a model works as good as Apples, perhaps not upsetting the giant is a good idea until you have a better model. I give it up to NBC for making waves but maybe the wave was a little to big? One more thing...sorry nothing personal just on a rant...what is easier? iTunes + iPod seamless integration or other iPod want-to-bes and...oh you get the picture. (No pun intended)

Thanks for the opinion. Keep'em coming.