or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple wants over-the-air music downloads for 3G iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wants over-the-air music downloads for 3G iPhone - Page 3

post #81 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

And melgross is saying this play is a long-term loose proposition, because the labels are intentionally undercutting Apple, via Amazon, so they can regain bargaining control and ultimately raise your prices.

If that's the labels' plan, they will lose, again.

What little Apple and Amazon are doing right is just barely slowing the tide of P2P use. Eliminate a well-priced and well-positioned source for the express purpose of raising prices, and piracy will just take up the slack, not the higher priced product. Sales will drop again until the prices get lower still. Long term, again, consumer wins.
post #82 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I will concede to that.

If we are including bad moves then we can't leave out Walmart's online store.

But there, WalMart pressured the labels, possibly by threatening to remove them from the shelves. Apple has no such bargaining power.

They may, in a coupe of years, and that's what they're (the labels) trying to avoid now.
post #83 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But there, WalMart pressured the labels, possibly by threatening to remove them from the shelves. Apple has no such bargaining power.

They may, in a coupe of years, and that's what they're (the labels) trying to avoid now.

Some reasons why I think Walmart failed and why Amazon works:
  1. Brand Image: No one thinks of Walmart when it comes to online shopping but people do think of Amazon.
  2. DRM: PlayForSure. Not compatible the most popular PMP, the iPod, and it won't even work on the Zune. Two devices that Walmart sells. How confusing is that?
  3. Software: Not cross platform, only works on Windows.

I wonder if the labels figured this out with the Walmart debacle and went to Amazon with their proposal. Amazon surely has declining CD sales too so the sell wouldn't have been a hard one. Even if the labels say, you won't make a dime while we sell tracks at $.89 but if we unseat iTunes then you'll have countless years of reaping the rewards as a popular online distributer. And then they'd reassure Amazon that it can't possibly fail as they'd be the only online distributer with all the major labels aboard offering no DRM, a more compatible file format, cheaper prices and double the higher bitrate. I think I would have seen this as a smart move too.
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 #84 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Some reasons why I think Walmart failed and why Amazon works:
  1. Brand Image: No one thinks of Walmart when it comes to online shopping but people do think of Amazon.
  2. DRM: PlayForSure. Not compatible the most popular PMP, the iPod, and it won't even work on the Zune. Two devices that Walmart sells. How confusing is that?
  3. Software: Not cross platform, only works on Windows.

I wonder if the labels figured this out with the Walmart debacle and went to Amazon with their proposal. Amazon surely has declining CD sales too so the sell wouldn't have been a hard one. Even if the labels say, you won't make a dime while we sell tracks at $.89 but if we unseat iTunes then you'll have countless years of reaping the rewards as a popular online distributer. And then they'd reassure Amazon that it can't possibly fail as they'd be the only online distributer with all the major labels aboard offering no DRM, a more compatible file format, cheaper prices and double the higher bitrate. I think I would have seen this as a smart move too.

The first two points are certainly correct. the third is a bit unclear. Apple hasn't had enough marketshare to affect total sales too much. even on itunes the large majority of buyers are Windows users.

Amazon is likely making some money from this. I think the labels are the ones sucking it in. They are the ones with the most to lose from their standpoint.
post #85 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If they vote like you, then the sky WILL fall.

Then Apple will go away and someone else will take their place. It is not my job to support Apple. I want more bang for my buck and Amazon currently supplies this. If the sky falls on Apple, then if falls.
post #86 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

If that's the labels' plan, they will lose, again.

What little Apple and Amazon are doing right is just barely slowing the tide of P2P use. Eliminate a well-priced and well-positioned source for the express purpose of raising prices, and piracy will just take up the slack, not the higher priced product. Sales will drop again until the prices get lower still. Long term, again, consumer wins.

People have demostrated that $.99 is the price point at which they will pay for purchased songs with DRM and 128 bitrates. Amazon came in with $.89, 256 bit rate, and no DRM. You do the math. If Apple can not match this because of the record industry then that is the way it is. Not to mention that some record companies are surely making this a personal thing against Apple and its CEO but that too is the way it is.
post #87 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The first two points are certainly correct. the third is a bit unclear. Apple hasn't had enough marketshare to affect total sales too much. even on itunes the large majority of buyers are Windows users.

Amazon is likely making some money from this. I think the labels are the ones sucking it in. They are the ones with the most to lose from their standpoint.

Wait, are you now saying it is okay for Amazon to make money and the record companies to lose, or is okay just as long as Apple doesn't lose?
post #88 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

There is always the "battle vs. war" argument but I don't recall Melgross stating that we should support Apple.

Outside of the labels not offering Apple the same deals as Amazon in way of bitrate and DRM, I don't see why Apple would care. Most of these Amazon bought tracks are still ending up on iPods.


PS: I'm too modest to say I'm 10000000000% correct... I'm only 100% correct.

Excerpt from post #21

Quote:
You aren't really naive enough to think that the 89© Amazon charges is something the labels want to do, do you?

You do understand that the only reason why they are doing that is to break itunes?

The point being that they could then RAISE prices to the levels they are crying for.

And, of course, that you are helping them to do that.

By buying from Amazon, people will make it impossible for Apple to get the deal they want.

But that thinking is too long term, right?

So in reality he did infer that my purchasing (and that of others) from Amazon was hurting Apple, and not supporting them. I still could not care less if Apple can not get the deals they want. Someone else will. People are not willing to pay more than $.99 for a song, and this will determine the market value.
post #89 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Excerpt from post #21



So in reality he did infer that my purchasing (and that of others) from Amazon was hurting Apple, and not supporting them. I still could not care less if Apple can not get the deals they want. Someone else will. People are not willing to pay more than $.99 for a song, and this will determine the market value.

The only reason it appears that people aren't willing to pay more than 99¢ a song is that that is the price that Apple has made ubiquitous. They've been able to do that because they struck deals with the labels back when the labels thought Apple land was a safe little test bed for online sales.

Now that Apple has become the dominate player in online music sales, they have the clout to enforce a pricing structure the labels don't like. If the labels succeed in breaking Apple's dominate position, they will change that pricing structure. That should be clear enough-- it's the only possible reason for providing Amazon with DRM free songs while withholding them from Apple.

If the labels won't provide material to the company charging 99¢ a track (which they can't get away with at the moment because of that company's market dominance, but are doing everything they can to end that dominance), then it won't matter at all what you think people are willing to pay-- they'll pay whatever the prevailing rate is. If labels can steer enough business to Amazon to be able to simply withhold hot new titles from Apple, then they can charge whatever they want.

Mel is telling you that you are supporting that scenario, which is ultimately self defeating. It has nothing to do with protecting "Apple", per se, just the pricing structure.

Really, dude, you need to get over this "everybody thinks they must bow down to the great Jobs" chip you have on your shoulder. You detect it everywhere, and it makes you seem less credible than you otherwise seem to be.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #90 of 103
The thing is Apple is a bigger player than Amazon, and is arguably bigger than Walmart.
If Apple's growth continues, it will have more that 50% of ALL music sales.

In that world, why would an artist trust any label which was playing such a silly game with Apple?

For that matter, why would any band, simply not sell their content directly to Apple and cut-out the middle man?

Very small bands, and very large bands can forgo the need for a label altogether.

C.
post #91 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The only reason it appears that people aren't willing to pay more than 99¢ a song is that that is the price that Apple has made ubiquitous. They've been able to do that because they struck deals with the labels back when the labels thought Apple land was a safe little test bed for online sales.

Now that Apple has become the dominate player in online music sales, they have the clout to enforce a pricing structure the labels don't like. If the labels succeed in breaking Apple's dominate position, they will change that pricing structure. That should be clear enough-- it's the only possible reason for providing Amazon with DRM free songs while withholding them from Apple.

If the labels won't provide material to the company charging 99¢ a track (which they can't get away with at the moment because of that company's market dominance, but are doing everything they can to end that dominance), then it won't matter at all what you think people are willing to pay-- they'll pay whatever the prevailing rate is. If labels can steer enough business to Amazon to be able to simply withhold hot new titles from Apple, then they can charge whatever they want.

Mel is telling you that you are supporting that scenario, which is ultimately self defeating. It has nothing to do with protecting "Apple", per se, just the pricing structure.

You make a great point but I think (my opinion here) the moment the record companies, artists, valets, etc..... are seen as being even more greedy than they are now, people will simply go back to "REALLY" stealing music, and this time they probably will not come back to the record companies. I have no doubt that Apple did some extensive market research to see what the market would bear in terms of pricing. I even remember some website conducting similar polls to this effect as well, and more or less they reached the same conclusion: People will pay $.99 for a song but more than that, they crank up the old P2P software. I agree (again) that teh record companies are going after Apple, some for biz reasons, some because they hate Steve Jobs and this is a good way to attack him, and some for a combination of both. Either way, there is nothing I can do about it, other than purchase lower qualitys songs, at a higher price, that are DRM'd. It is up to Apple to figure a way to maintain its dominance without me having to pay their higher prices. If they can't then they will flounder. This is how biz runs I guess. In the end, there will always be someone to fill that void, so I am not worried about it as much as some here who see the sky falling. I honestly think that people, after having tasted $.99 musical download nirvana, simply will not buckle to the roecord companies.

Quote:
Really, dude, you need to get over this "everybody thinks they must bow down to the great Jobs" chip you have on your shoulder. You detect it everywhere, and it makes you seem less credible than you otherwise seem to be.


Another point, but my statements regarding Jobs only comes out when some here start to take his word as Gospel, and afford him deity status. He is a guy just like the rest of us. He sells things that most of us want to buy ( I know I do), but he is also human and can make mistakes. Credibility is a two way street, it can be equally earned as it can be taken away.
post #92 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Then Apple will go away and someone else will take their place. It is not my job to support Apple. I want more bang for my buck and Amazon currently supplies this. If the sky falls on Apple, then if falls.

For crying out loud, he's not saying the sky will fall on Apple, he's saying it will fall on all of us.

You keep saying you understand this idea - and if you disagree with the idea fine - but your words seem to alternately indicate you do in one post, and that you have no clue in another.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #93 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

For crying out loud, he's not saying the sky will fall on Apple, he's saying it will fall on all of us.

You keep saying you understand this idea - and if you disagree with the idea fine - but your words seem to alternately indicate you do in one post, and that you have no clue in another.

Actually I was talking about the sky falling in general but okay. Now we know. It is my opinion that users, subscribers, etc.... will not turn back from the path that was set with the $.99 download. I could be wrong but I do not think so. Apple was instrumental in this and the market has evolved. After NBC ( I know it is not music) decided to pull their shows people simply went back to P2P networks to get what was no longer available. The execs at NBC should be fired for that boneheaded move.

For clarification, while I do understand the point of the debate, two things are prevailent for me:

1. I think customers will revolt against the record companies en mass over sudden and massive price hikes for the same content. The easiest way to hurt them is to boycott their products and then fire up the old P2P network software.
2. I reallydo not care if Apple loses or wins in all of this. Either way, the content will be made available. So I will continue to purchase cheaper songs with higher bit rates and no DRM. If Apple can match this, then they get my money, if not, oh well.
post #94 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

You make a great point but I think (my opinion here) the moment the record companies, artists, valets, etc..... are seen as being even more greedy than they are now, people will simply go back to "REALLY" stealing music, and this time they probably will not come back to the record companies. I have no doubt that Apple did some extensive market research to see what the market would bear in terms of pricing. I even remember some website conducting similar polls to this effect as well, and more or less they reached the same conclusion: People will pay $.99 for a song but more than that, they crank up the old P2P software. I agree (again) that teh record companies are going after Apple, some for biz reasons, some because they hate Steve Jobs and this is a good way to attack him, and some for a combination of both. Either way, there is nothing I can do about it, other than purchase lower qualitys songs, at a higher price, that are DRM'd. It is up to Apple to figure a way to maintain its dominance without me having to pay their higher prices. If they can't then they will flounder. This is how biz runs I guess. In the end, there will always be someone to fill that void, so I am not worried about it as much as some here who see the sky falling. I honestly think that people, after having tasted $.99 musical download nirvana, simply will not buckle to the roecord companies.

That really seems like a cop out, to me-- that either Apple can figure out a way to keep the labels from undercutting their business model or we'll just steal music. You're essentially acknowledging here that it's up to Apple to create and maintain an equitable online music sales infrastructure, but then casually dismissing them if their push-back against the labels isn't entirely successful.

Quote:
Another point, but my statements regarding Jobs only comes out when some here start to take his word as Gospel, and afford him deity status. He is a guy just like the rest of us. He sells things that most of us want to buy ( I know I do), but he is also human and can make mistakes. Credibility is a two way street, it can be equally earned as it can be taken away.

Yeah, so I guess we disagree on how prevalent (or extreme) that attitude is. I see it as largely a straw man, since I really can't think of any instances of anyone taking Jobs' words as gospel or affording him deity status. My impression is that where I read "what Apple is doing here is better for consumers than the alternatives" you see "OMG Jobs loves us and wants us to have his babies OMG", or something. Certainly just my impression, though.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #95 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

That really seems like a cop out, to me-- that either Apple can figure out a way to keep the labels from undercutting their business model or we'll just steal music. You're essentially acknowledging here that it's up to Apple to create and maintain an equitable online music sales infrastructure, but then casually dismissing them if their push-back against the labels isn't entirely successful.

What seems to be a cop out to you is entirely up to you. Doesn't bother me in the least. I think I made it quite clear that people were/are pretty content to pay $.99 for songs, but more than that, they will go back to stealing. It seems, and correct me if I am wrong that several members here feel that buy purchasing from Amazon amounts to treason by not supporting Apple in their battle with the record companies. My still continued argument is this (again)-- I do not care if Apple wins or loses. Someone will fill the void and figure a way to offer what Apple couldn't. Maybe I am wrong, but then again who knows. My supposition is no less valid then those who say that purchasing from Amazon will help the record companies. That is unless these "download" prophets have the ability to look into the future. In this war against the record companies, it is up to Apple to create a winning strategy and I am willing to pay, but right now I can bet better quality, with no DRM for less money. If Apple can match this, they get my money, if they can't then I will purchase less and less from iTunes.

Quote:
Yeah, so I guess we disagree on how prevalent (or extreme) that attitude is. I see it as largely a straw man, since I really can't think of any instances of anyone taking Jobs' words as gospel or affording him deity status. My impression is that where I read "what Apple is doing here is better for consumers than the alternatives" you see "OMG Jobs loves us and wants us to have his babies OMG", or something. Certainly just my impression, though.

Agree or disagree, it's really irrelevant anyway. You can read it any way you like. It does not matter to me. I see it simply as Steve Jobs, the businessman, doing what he can to make his company more profitable. I do not see him doing anything out of the "goodness' of his heart. If it makes money for Apple he would do it, and I see nothig wrong with this. I do have a problem with some here actually thinking that Steve Jobs is looking out for us. Steve is loyal to Mrs. Jobs, the kids, and the shareholders.
post #96 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

It seems, and correct me if I am wrong that several members here feel that buy purchasing from Amazon amounts to treason by not supporting Apple in their battle with the record companies.

You're totally wrong. That's a gross mischaracterization of the points various posters have been attempting to make with you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

I do have a problem with some here actually thinking that Steve Jobs is looking out for us. Steve is loyal to Mrs. Jobs, the kids, and the shareholders.

Again, you've totally missed the point people have been attempting to make with you. The point has been that it's possible for the best interest of a company and the best interest of the consumer to be in alignment, and that in fact they are in this instance. No one has posited that Steve Jobs is looking out for us, just that in this instance the interests of Apple and consumers, in relationship to the record labels, are common.


How many times do these points have to be repeated before you either understand them, or stop deliberately mischaracterizing them to suit your argument? Clearly you're doing one of the two.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #97 of 103
[QUOTE=Flounder;1253989]You're totally wrong. That's a gross mischaracterization of the points various posters have been attempting to make with you./QUOTE]

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Quote:
Again, you've totally missed the point people have been attempting to make with you. The point has been that it's possible for the best interest of a company and the best interest of the consumer to be in alignment, and that in fact they are in this instance. No one has posited that Steve Jobs is looking out for us, just that in this instance the interests of Apple and consumers, in relationship to the record labels, are common.

Then great. Your argument then proves the point that Amazon's interest is also in my best interest as well. They are offering quality downloads, with no DRM for a cheaper price.

Quote:
How many times do these points have to be repeated before you either understand them, or stop deliberately mischaracterizing them to suit your argument? Clearly you're doing one of the two.

Clearly it is either agree with a certain cabal here or else. I do not know how many times I have to repeat this as well. I do not care if you or anyone else agrees or disagrees with me. Funny though how my opinions were inline with a few other ones here and I do not see you following them around to comment on their posts.
post #98 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Then great. Your argument then proves the point that Amazon's interest is also in my best interest as well. They are offering quality downloads, with no DRM for a cheaper price.

If you think that's the case, then you truly have not understood - disagree with them or not - the arguments being made.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Clearly it is either agree with a certain cabal here or else. I do not know how many times I have to repeat this as well. I do not care if you or anyone else agrees or disagrees with me. Funny though how my opinions were inline with a few other ones here and I do not see you following them around to comment on their posts.

I'm following you around? That's news to me.

The difference is that others respond to the actual arguments being made. You do not. It has nothing to do with requiring you agree, it has to do with getting you to engage in a functional conversation. You - either deliberately or though pure obtuseness - misconstrue the arguments.

When you repeatedly respond to arguments that are wholly different than the ones being proffered, it makes it difficult to have a conversation, and highly frustrating.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #99 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

If you think that's the case, then you truly have not understood - disagree with them or not - the arguments being made.

I know it never crossed your mind but maybe, just maybe I do not agree with your argument. Thus, on this site to disagree with or have another opinion = you do not understand, because it is all about Apple. How about seeing it from Amazon's prospective. They are not some fly by night company that just sprang up. I am sure now that they have a growing customer base, the last thing they want is the record companies coming in and trying to raise prices especially after people have grown accustom to $.89, DRM free, 256 kb songs. As it is the price point is $.99 that people will pay for songs. If the record companies try for more, people will revolt. Just like everything in your "argument" is supposition so is mine. Your points are no more valid than mine. By your logic, I can say you don't understand my point as well. Plus-minus = zero.

Quote:
I'm following you around? That's news to me.

The difference is that others respond to the actual arguments being made. You do not. It has nothing to do with requiring you agree, it has to do with getting you to engage in a functional conversation. You - either deliberately or though pure obtuseness - misconstrue the arguments.

Yes, yes, I know, I know. I misconstrue, don't understand, obfuscate, etc.... anything but just agree with what you are saying.

When you repeatedly respond to arguments that are wholly different than the ones being proffered, it makes it difficult to have a conversation, and highly frustrating.[/QUOTE]
post #100 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

I know it never crossed your mind but maybe, just maybe I do not agree with your argument.


My god, I'm well aware you don't agree with the argument. You just don't get it. Disagree all you want. That's super! It leads to good conversation.

But when you write, disagree with, and address, the points people are ACTUALLY making, not the points you either mistakenly think they are making, or twist the words into making. That leads to incredibly annoying conversations, like the one we're having now.

That's all I've got to say on the matter.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #101 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

My god, I'm well aware you don't agree with the argument. You just don't get it. Disagree all you want. That's super! It leads to good conversation.

But when you write, disagree with, and address, the points people are ACTUALLY making, not the points you either mistakenly think they are making, or twist the words into making. That leads to incredibly annoying conversations, like the one we're having now.

That's all I've got to say on the matter.

Oh come on. I am sure you have more to say, or did I misunderstand this too?

Anyway, let me put it one final way. While the points being made here have merit, I simply do not agree with all of them. When someone made a particular point that I supported, I agreed, when not, I said so. Period.
post #102 of 103
The artical mentions ringback tones: these are so damnd annoying., they should be banned. I should not have to listen to 50 cent at 20Kbps just because I am calling someone with no taste. Ringtones are fine, but ringback tones invade my space, STOP IT ALREADY, and DONT MAKE ME PAY EXTRA NOT TO HEAR THEM!

Communications have standards for a reason: If I hear a song on a phone, I would think that my call was picked up by a cue in a pbx somewhere, not awaiting answer on the PSTN
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #103 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

The artical mentions ringback tones: these are so damnd annoying., they should be banned. I should not have to listen to 50 cent at 20Kbps just because I am calling someone with no taste. Ringtones are fine, but ringback tones invade my space, STOP IT ALREADY, and DONT MAKE ME PAY EXTRA NOT TO HEAR THEM!

Communications have standards for a reason: If I hear a song on a phone, I would think that my call was picked up by a cue in a pbx somewhere, not awaiting answer on the PSTN

I agree, it's like a popup ad for your phone that the user is paying the label for*. If phone companies want to offer them, that is fine, but they should also offer me a free way to have them ignored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringbac...ring-back_tone * I also feel strongly about paying a band $35 for a T-shirt so I can advertise for them.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple wants over-the-air music downloads for 3G iPhone