The article states clearly that an indefinite delay is being caused by Apple because they cannot get iTunes to work properly for subscriptions.
That does not sound like much of a lifeline to me.
Hmm... Firstly the article is based on sources/rumour etc. Secondly, let's re-examine:
However, Peter Kafka of MediaMemo reported Wednesday that next week's planned announcement has been moved back, according to sources familiar with the companies' plans. Kafka's sources told him the plans have been tabled "for weeks, not months."
...A new subscription feature that Apple is building into iTunes is apparently the cause of the delay, the report noted.
You say that there is an indefinite delay. The article does not say that.
You say that there is an indefinite delay because "Apple cannot get iTunes to work properly for subscriptions". Whereas the article says "a subscription feature is the cause of the delay". Two different things. To think Apple is delaying subscriptions "indefinitely" because they "cannot get iTunes to work properly" is ridiculous. One of the largest tech companies in the world and they simply can't pull this of because of, what, lack of expertise? Come on. Sure, there are bugs, niggles, things to sort out (with publishers themselves and billing systems perhaps), etc. but "Apple can't get iTunes to work properly"? When they create and maintain a few different operating systems and write software for Mac, Windows and ARM? Nice try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgrisar
I do read a lot of naivity in your post.
1) You seem to say that basically the technology to deliver content is more valuable than content in itself (which, you claim, you can simply look up for free). May I doubt that? You can find a lot on the Internet but how much of that content is objective, factual, complete and relevant? As an example, look up the Wikipedia stats. You'd be staggered comparing the A grade articles to the rest.
2) How can you say that all the "perfect" things Apple offers are for free and Apple still wanting a 30% cut in the subscriptions?
3) Why do the publishers have to share their customer base. I'm an Apple customer for my Mac, my 3 iPods, my iPhone and my iPad. I don't see what Apple has to do with me reading Nature, SA, NG, ...
4) Apple seems to say that their technology should be more expensive when information is more expensive. That doesn't strike you as bizarre?
Now, who seems to be greedy?
Sure, I may be naive, but let's look at the situation. Would we say that publishers are waltzing into the digital age with grace and experiencing good profits and success? Most people would say, no. Therefore, something needs to be done, or something needs to stop being done to improve the situation.
1) I don't think the technology is more valuable than the content. But we need to understand what value is. Websites have value in that I can access information instantly and quickly. But magazines have value in terms of the writing, compilation of information and selection of topics they focus on. If I need to look up certain information fairly efficiently, then certain mediums eg. websites, Wikipedia offer more value depending on my needs. If I want to enjoy a good read and well-researched articles of substantial length, then certain mediums eg. Macworld, Economist magazines offer real value to me. The publication industry has to understand where their value lies. They cannot take your stance and say, oh, but look at websites they have crappy writing... They need to understand what people need and what people value and adapt and offer accordingly.
2) There is a different between cost and commission. Apple offers the hosting, cataloging, advertising (of the App Store etc) and transaction processes for free. In that there is no fixed monthly cost for the publishers. There is simply a commission, which is only taken when a sale is made. This is very different then if there was a service whereby publishers had to host and run their own digital stores with fixed costs not related to sales made. So the compromise is, Apple does this for free, but gets 30% *commission*. Publishers, well, I think Apple is offering some pretty good value as it is now. Think about individual publishers or even large companies trying to put together and run a direct-to-consumer digital store that comes anywhere close to the App Store. They'd probably go broke pretty fast, let alone whether they have the expertise and management skills. They could pull off a Hulu like the media companies, even so, it's not very likely at this stage.
3) Right. So Apple gets the publisher's customer base. What about the publishers getting Apples *entire* iDevice and Mac user customer base? Sounds like Apple is the one giving away the customers to publishers. Regardless, the customer is not some prize that is to be hoarded by companies. That's old thinking. The new thinking is the customer is king. If you can meet their needs with valuable products and services, they will engage your business. In the age where a customer and a business can connect seamlessly across so many mediums of communication and experiences, who-is-who's customer is really a stone age concept.
4) I'm not sure I follow you. All I would say is it is not an issue of "pricing" technology or information or anything. The thing that matters is what value does a product or service represent to a customer. Then, what are they willing to pay or do to enjoy that value.
Comments
The article states clearly that an indefinite delay is being caused by Apple because they cannot get iTunes to work properly for subscriptions.
That does not sound like much of a lifeline to me.
Hmm... Firstly the article is based on sources/rumour etc. Secondly, let's re-examine:
However, Peter Kafka of MediaMemo reported Wednesday that next week's planned announcement has been moved back, according to sources familiar with the companies' plans. Kafka's sources told him the plans have been tabled "for weeks, not months."
...A new subscription feature that Apple is building into iTunes is apparently the cause of the delay, the report noted.
You say that there is an indefinite delay. The article does not say that.
You say that there is an indefinite delay because "Apple cannot get iTunes to work properly for subscriptions". Whereas the article says "a subscription feature is the cause of the delay". Two different things. To think Apple is delaying subscriptions "indefinitely" because they "cannot get iTunes to work properly" is ridiculous. One of the largest tech companies in the world and they simply can't pull this of because of, what, lack of expertise? Come on. Sure, there are bugs, niggles, things to sort out (with publishers themselves and billing systems perhaps), etc. but "Apple can't get iTunes to work properly"? When they create and maintain a few different operating systems and write software for Mac, Windows and ARM? Nice try.
I do read a lot of naivity in your post.
1) You seem to say that basically the technology to deliver content is more valuable than content in itself (which, you claim, you can simply look up for free). May I doubt that? You can find a lot on the Internet but how much of that content is objective, factual, complete and relevant? As an example, look up the Wikipedia stats. You'd be staggered comparing the A grade articles to the rest.
2) How can you say that all the "perfect" things Apple offers are for free and Apple still wanting a 30% cut in the subscriptions?
3) Why do the publishers have to share their customer base. I'm an Apple customer for my Mac, my 3 iPods, my iPhone and my iPad. I don't see what Apple has to do with me reading Nature, SA, NG, ...
4) Apple seems to say that their technology should be more expensive when information is more expensive. That doesn't strike you as bizarre?
Now, who seems to be greedy?
Sure, I may be naive, but let's look at the situation. Would we say that publishers are waltzing into the digital age with grace and experiencing good profits and success? Most people would say, no. Therefore, something needs to be done, or something needs to stop being done to improve the situation.
1) I don't think the technology is more valuable than the content. But we need to understand what value is. Websites have value in that I can access information instantly and quickly. But magazines have value in terms of the writing, compilation of information and selection of topics they focus on. If I need to look up certain information fairly efficiently, then certain mediums eg. websites, Wikipedia offer more value depending on my needs. If I want to enjoy a good read and well-researched articles of substantial length, then certain mediums eg. Macworld, Economist magazines offer real value to me. The publication industry has to understand where their value lies. They cannot take your stance and say, oh, but look at websites they have crappy writing... They need to understand what people need and what people value and adapt and offer accordingly.
2) There is a different between cost and commission. Apple offers the hosting, cataloging, advertising (of the App Store etc) and transaction processes for free. In that there is no fixed monthly cost for the publishers. There is simply a commission, which is only taken when a sale is made. This is very different then if there was a service whereby publishers had to host and run their own digital stores with fixed costs not related to sales made. So the compromise is, Apple does this for free, but gets 30% *commission*. Publishers, well, I think Apple is offering some pretty good value as it is now. Think about individual publishers or even large companies trying to put together and run a direct-to-consumer digital store that comes anywhere close to the App Store. They'd probably go broke pretty fast, let alone whether they have the expertise and management skills. They could pull off a Hulu like the media companies, even so, it's not very likely at this stage.
3) Right. So Apple gets the publisher's customer base. What about the publishers getting Apples *entire* iDevice and Mac user customer base? Sounds like Apple is the one giving away the customers to publishers. Regardless, the customer is not some prize that is to be hoarded by companies. That's old thinking. The new thinking is the customer is king. If you can meet their needs with valuable products and services, they will engage your business. In the age where a customer and a business can connect seamlessly across so many mediums of communication and experiences, who-is-who's customer is really a stone age concept.
4) I'm not sure I follow you. All I would say is it is not an issue of "pricing" technology or information or anything. The thing that matters is what value does a product or service represent to a customer. Then, what are they willing to pay or do to enjoy that value.
Are you a Windows user? I ask because in my experience iTunes works very well on my Macs.
No he is the resident troll or one of them anyway
At least in OSX 10.6.6, they created a Mac App application separate from iTunes. Promising.
They did that because the Mac App Store doesn't work on Windows
They did that because the Mac App Store doesn't work on Windows
Also, the App Store is a separate app on the iPad, so it's consistent with that.