or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Reports: Apple and NBC mending fences
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Reports: Apple and NBC mending fences - Page 2

post #41 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

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.

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?
post #42 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

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.

That was never said.
post #43 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DalÃ* Debaser View Post

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

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

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

iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.10.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.

Reply

iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.10.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.

Reply
post #44 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That was never said.

There was a report in Variety that did say that.
post #45 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

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

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

Wow! Starting your first post with a racist comment. Welcome to AI, Jew hater.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #46 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ros3ntan View Post

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.

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?
post #47 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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

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.

iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.10.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.

Reply

iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.10.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.

Reply
post #48 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

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.

My big grinning emoticon and welcome were clues that I wasn't being serious.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

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.

Do you have proof that Eisner is a Zionist? I googled it and found nothing - I mean, he probably is based on him being a rich jew, but to assume it 100% is racism, IMHO.

100% chance that he is an asshole - less than 100% chance that he is a Zionist.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #50 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

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

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

You shouldn't have bothered. You call Eisner a racist for allegedly calling Jobs a "shiite muslim" and then you call Eisner a "zionist jew." Simply ridiculous.

Anyway, hopefully they'll get their act together. It's interesting that Jobs mentioned the writer's strike, as if they expect to have things patched up by the time it's over.
post #51 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

There was a report in Variety that did say that.

By whom?
post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

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.

Keep the crap out of the forum please.

He quoted a statement. There is NO need for you to give us your opinion on it. This is the wrong place for that.
post #53 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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?

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

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #54 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

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

Yes. I said that in the last paragraph.

But, it would be unlikely to see something such as a MS executive on Apple's board, and vica versa
post #55 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yes. I said that in the last paragraph.

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?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #56 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

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?

Not much. I wait things out. I learned long ago that it's not worth the hassle. In the end it all goes up.
post #57 of 67
iTunes, iTunes, iTunes! I've been saying it for a couple of years now.

iTunes is the secret sauce in Apple's recipe for colonizing the world's living rooms.

NBC found out the hard way that you can't fight iTunes. Tens of millions of people are addicted to it. If you don't have your content there, nobody will go look for it. Sony Pictures came aboard iTunes as well despite mumbled threats that competitive considerations weigh against it.

iTunes will stop Netflix's growth dead on its tracks too. Netflix may have 7 million subscribers but they'll soon find out that those tens of millions who are already using iTunes will refuse to bother to learn how to use Netflix's download site. No matter how easy, simple and attractive they make it. ("All my music, podcasts, and videos are managed through iTunes, why would I want to manage my movie rentals on a separate platform? Why would I even bother to learn a new platform? Especially now that movie rentals are available on iTunes?")
post #58 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

By whom?

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.
post #59 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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

I'm waiting it out too. I don't plan to sell any stock in 2008. I'm already going to be taxed more than money than I want to mention for 2007.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #60 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

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.

If it were credible, it would have been a big enough story to be carried by both the NYTimes and the WSJ business sections. I read both every day they are published. There were quotes from executives from both companies, and none ever said that they would not ever do business with Apple, and iTunes.

This was never said:

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

They did say that they would not renew contracts, at that time, but that's all. They didn't say "never".
post #61 of 67
Zucker is really a looser. Nice one Apple.
post #62 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntercr View Post

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?

Exactly, you get the point. I totally agree
post #63 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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

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.
Mr. Scott
Reply
Mr. Scott
Reply
post #64 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ros3ntan View Post

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.

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.
Mr. Scott
Reply
Mr. Scott
Reply
post #65 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Scott View Post

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.

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.
post #66 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.

Nice way of putting it.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #67 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Scott View Post

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.

I've said it before. The studios, and Tv companies, do not get significant revenue, or profits, from the Tv shows, and movies, sold on iTunes, or anywhere else.

This is what's called a nescient industry. It's just started up. The amount of money that's changed hands is just a small percentage of their total business. What they are trying to avoid, is what's happening to the music industry.

There, CD sales are dropping like a stone. Internet sales are ramping up well, but not fast enough to make up for it. 23% drop over last holiday season! They don't want Apple to become the only major distributer.

You can see how they are now offering DRM-free songs, but except for EMI, not on iTunes. They don't seem to have any pricing advantage by going with Amazon, but they want a counterweight to Apple.

One of the big disappointments of Macworld, was the lack of an announcement about bringing those companies aboard. jobs has missed his date for having at least 50% of songs on iTunes DRM-free.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Reports: Apple and NBC mending fences