Sony hints it could pull its music from iTunes in ongoing war with Apple

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 156
    Quote:

    Not true. The very existence of a website puts you in violation of the new reading of IAP.



    You may have access to more information than I do. Here is what was reported: "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase." Emphasis added. My interpretation of that was that it is specific to the app. Not if your company offers an option to buy. But that is part of the problem with this whole thing. There is a lot of FUD and apparently Apple hasn't been interested in clearing it up yet.
  • Reply 102 of 156
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nunyabinez View Post


    You may have access to more information than I do. Here is what was reported: "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase." Emphasis added. My interpretation of that was that it is specific to the app. Not if your company offers an option to buy. But that is part of the problem with this whole thing. There is a lot of FUD and apparently Apple hasn't been interested in clearing it up yet.



    Outside the app could be a website. Here is what I know.



    A digital content provider ( in the UK) submits a player app only. No IAP. It is for playing previously bought content.



    Rejected under the new rules as the website is the only mechanism to buy, although not referenced in the app. IAP has to be added although the devs had no intention of ever buying within the app, or linking from it.



    Yeah, Apple need to actually word things properly. It's all done on a per-submission ( and appeal) basis.
  • Reply 103 of 156
    jnjnjnjnjnjn Posts: 588member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    If you've bought as many Macs as I have you'd know that Apple doesn't make perfect products any more than anyone else in this imperfect world.



    Perfect? No that's impossible. But better, yes. I would say they make better products than anyone in the computer and consumer electronics branch the last 6 or 7 years or so.



    J.
  • Reply 104 of 156
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post


    It may work, provided their crappy mp3 players become relevant in an iPod dominated world...



    But be careful when you download any song from their store... root *cough* kit *cough*



    Yes, you are trying to make a joke. But it wasn't Sony that did the root kit, it was SonyBMG, sure they owned part of it, but it was managed by BMG
  • Reply 105 of 156
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by crustyjusty View Post


    I wonder when Sony and Amazon will allow iTunes / iBooks purchases on their e-readers.



    You would have to ask Apple that, they are the ones controlling their DRM
  • Reply 106 of 156
    jonyojonyo Posts: 117member
    It's sort of amazing how some little snippets of press releases from two giant companies, both of which were probably authored by committee or at least more than one person, can still come across as bitchy.
  • Reply 107 of 156
    Apple has the money and the world wide distribution in place and millions of music players in the hands of consumers. If they wanted to it would take very little effort on Apple's part to go into the Record/Music Business and start signing up acts. See if Sony could swallow that.
  • Reply 108 of 156
    I think it is silly to characterize this as "tension" between companies, or even to suggest that an App Store rejection has anything to do with Sony Music's decision to build out their own online music distribution channel. The decision to pull Sony Music catalog from iTunes sounds to be completely self-motivated by Sony wanting to expand their online music distribution business.



    AppleInsider is trying too hard to create a story here. The truth is, Apple partners with many companies that it competes with, and the same is true for plenty of tech companies. Apple vs Samsung, but Apple buys Samsung components. Sony competes with Microsoft while partnering with Microsoft. I mean, Sony licenses Windows for it's VAIO computers, and it's computer entertainment division sells MMORPGs that run on Windows, but that division also competes with Microsoft's Xbox. And Microsoft write more commercial software for Mac OS X than any other vendor, but obviously, they compete in other areas, like iOS. Not that it has stopped Microsoft from releasing software for iOS. Tension? I think that's stretching it.
  • Reply 109 of 156
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post


    Actually, it is way better because Apple still allows you to sell through other channels as well.



    Which I clearly stated in my 2nd paragraph which you conveniently deleted from your reply to my post. Don't selectively quote someone just so you can have an excuse to be argumentative. You've contributed nothing to this conversation.



    My orignal post:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    IF you think about it, Apple's behavior here isn't that much different than MS telling PC manufacturer's that they must pay for a license to install Windows on every PC they sell, even if the customer only wanted Linux and not Windows on their computer.



    Apple still allows purchases outside of iTunes, as long as the iTunes option is also available. That's the only thing keeping them out of hot water...but they are dangerously close to getting the attention of regulators and losing the trust of developers and customers. (In my opinion.)



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nunyabinez View Post


    Imagine this scenario. I create a magazine app and put it on the app store for free. Then I sell issues every month to all the people who downloaded it via a web link. What has Apple gotten from it? Nothing. What did Apple provide me with? A distribution channel where my customers can buy things from me that I don't have to pay for. Apple pays for the servers, the maintenance, associated with the app store and got nothing out of it.



    So, they say, "hey since we are providing you with new customers and incurring expenses on your behalf, how about you make it an option for your customers who want to, to buy in app?". We will take our usual cut, but if they want to go to the browser and use extra steps, we won't worry about it. Just how is this unfair? What is unfair is companies making money of the back of Apple and not wanting to pay them for the new revenue that they are sending their way. If you don't like it, then just don't have a purchase option in the app at all. Have customers purchase it from their computer and Apple won't care. These publishers should be happy that there is some mechanism to save their dying print business not biting the hand that is going to feed them.



    And if I only subsquently purchase 1 issue (or even none) vs if I then purchase 100 issues over the next couple of years, why should Apple be compensated 100x more when the original app was only downloaded once? Apple created the problem buy insisting all app distribution goes through them. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but they also need to recognize the problems it creates. A 30% cut is probably reasonable for applications because of the marketing iTunes provides. But it's unreasonable for content if all Apple is doing is act as a data pipe from the application to the providers content. If I recall, the estimates for music was that Apple got about 10% of the sale price, the rest went to the content owner. Why then 30% for a magazine or book?



    If Apple were trying to be "fair" (vs just plain greedy), they would create a more flexible pricing structure. A few possibilities:



    1. Charge a lower commision (ie, 10%) for in-app content purchases via the iTunes infrastructure than for application sales (30%).

    2. No longer allow free commerical applications. You'd need to define "commercial"...such as an application which was meant to generate revenue for the developer via content subscriptions. This would allow Apple to be compensated for distributing the orignal application which is currently free.

    3. (Not sure if the current rules already allow for this one) Allow the developer to have different prices for in-app content purchases via iTunes vs. non-iTunes distribution of content. So I could charge $10 for my content if you get if from me, $13 if you get it from Apple. This lets the customer decide if Apple's channel is enough of a convenience to justify Apple getting a 30% cut.



    #2 isn't really feasible. #3 creates confusion for the user and would make Apple look bad for being greedy for "taxing" content purchases through their store. #1 seems like the best, most "fair" solution.



    If it were MS doing something like this, every single person here would be calling them pure evil for it. To pretend otherwise would be naive Apple fanboy-ism.
  • Reply 110 of 156
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post


    Can someone please explain to me why I so many companies and developers are throwing a fit about this? If Apple is not stopping these purchases, but rather just trying to require for the conveniece of users that there is a choice between buying through a web portal or through the App itself, then why does Sony care? Am I missing something huge here? It seems ridiculous to resist providing an in-app purchase method.



    Because Apple make more than the store selling the product. Payment gateways usually charge up to 5% and Apple charges 30%, all because they control the market and therefore can.
  • Reply 111 of 156
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    Which I clearly stated in my 2nd paragraph which you conveniently deleted from your reply to my post. Don't selectively quote someone just so you can have an excuse to be argumentative. You've contributed nothing to this conversation.



    My orignal post:











    And if I only subsquently purchase 1 issue (or even none) vs if I then purchase 100 issues over the next couple of years, why should Apple be compensated 100x more when the original app was only downloaded once? Apple created the problem buy insisting all app distribution goes through them. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but they also need to recognize the problems it creates. A 30% cut is probably reasonable for applications because of the marketing iTunes provides. But it's unreasonable for content if all Apple is doing is act as a data pipe from the application to the providers content. If I recall, the estimates for music was that Apple got about 10% of the sale price, the rest went to the content owner. Why then 30% for a magazine or book?





    Apple's cut is not for you downloading the app. It is for giving the app's developer the channel to reach a customer, and customer utilizing that channel to make a purchase. Each time you buy something through the app, it's another instance of that channel facilitating a transaction between the developer and the customer. So Apple asking for a cut of the deal for each transaction is totally within the norm of such business practices. Take a real estate agent for example, you only have to sign with this agent once, but every property you buy through this agent, and no matter how many you buy each time, you have to pay a cut of commission on every single property's price.



    Rest of your point on how much Apple should charge is certainly something Apple should do some serious thinking on to arrive at a good equilibrium.
  • Reply 112 of 156
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by VinitaBoy View Post


    I have loathed Sony--and not supported them in any fashion--ever since their little rootkit/copy protection scheme back in 2005. Remember that little debacle? Scroom. Let the entire company go the way of the Walkman. They deserve it!



    ATRAC, Minidisc, Memory Stick. Sony has worked harder to lock people into their ecosystem than any other CE company.
  • Reply 113 of 156
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post


    how about this clever approach

    follow the rules resubmit and talk to SJ



    apple could buy sony shut down its losing areas or buy the movies and song division



    something big is going to happen with all those billions SJ is stockpiling



    Unless things really go south for Sony, they will never sell off Sony Entertainment Group. They have factored it into all their CE products.
  • Reply 114 of 156
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    The app rejection and the revenues Sony would lose seem to make this sound like it's an excuse or red herring since the the things are so far apart in reality from a business stand point. The real reason is more likely their own rival to iTunes not wanting the iTunes competition. This is a wreck in the making for Sony imo. It is sobering to think that yesterdays weird dip in AAPL was a 10 billion dollar movement which was a mere blip for Apple but about one third of Sony's entire market cap! I still wonder if Sony might not make a nice department for Apple Inc. The music rights alone would be sweet and think of all those nice HD cameras and professional equipment.



    I think Apple would love to have Sony Music Group and Sony Pictures, but I don't see Sony willing to cut them lose. As for Apple buying Sony, too many businesses for Apple to unwind unless they could find a partner(s) to buy the parts they are not interested in.
  • Reply 115 of 156
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cliffjumper68 View Post


    Sony owns alot of the content on iTunes being the largest of the big four music firms so this would put a dent in Apple.




    Apparently this game of Sony's is a subscription service. Home grown Zunepass without the ten tracks a month or whatever it is. Who knows if that will take off or not



    Quote:



    What is crazy is that it also includes the Beatles catalog (michael jackson leveraged with Sony) that Apple just promoted insanely around the world. I do not think Apple wants this head ache especially over policies they do and don't enforce (kindle, nook, marvel ect.) and that are likely to get them in anti-trust trouble with the FTC. This might actually improve and open up the iOS, at least that is my hope.



    Or not. Because there is nothing antitrust about any of it. If there was it would have been shut down ages ago. As would the Zune etc.
  • Reply 116 of 156
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gustav View Post


    One question, if Apple states they've always enforced the rule, why is the Kindle app still available on iTunes?



    I think a lot of this is just a matter of unfortunate timing.



    Apple has clearly changed the rules. But I think that Apple also intends on announcing a workable solution for resellers like Kindle and E-reader as part of the formal subscription announcement in the next few weeks. In all likelihood, they are working (or already have worked) out an arrangement with Amazon and are just waiting for the announcement.



    Apple should have just left the E-reader app in limbo until the announcement rather than rejecting it. Sony would have bitched about it but it would not have gained nearly as much attention.
  • Reply 117 of 156
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cliffjumper68 View Post


    Sony owns alot of the content on iTunes being the largest of the big four music firms so this would put a dent in Apple. What is crazy is that it also includes the Beatles catalog (michael jackson leveraged with Sony) that Apple just promoted insanely around the world. I do not think Apple wants this head ache especially over policies they do and don't enforce (kindle, nook, marvel ect.) and that are likely to get them in anti-trust trouble with the FTC. This might actually improve and open up the iOS, at least that is my hope.



    Universal Music Group is the largest of the four majors; Sony is second.



    Sony owns only the publishing rights to the Beatles music. EMI and Apple Corps control the distribution of the Beatles catalog.



    I really doubt this rises to any level of anti-trust issue since the same music is available from so many other venues. As some have argued, iTunes would lose the music at their own peril, or so some think.
  • Reply 118 of 156
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yeshuawatso View Post


    You're ignoring fiduciary responsibilities Sony's managers have to their shareholders. If Sony could drop iTunes and use other distribution channels that offer a greater profit return, even at lower revenues, then they have an obligation to provide the greatest return for their shareholders investment. Business wise, I understand why Sony is upset about the ereader problem. For starters, Apple is competing with them with hardware, software, and slowly encroaching on their digital content. Second, Apple is reducing Sony's contribution margin on books that Apple dictated the price to while keeping their contribution margins lower. This forces Sony to raise their prices higher than Apple's to make up that 30% cut, effectively cutting off Sony, and all other book distributors, from competing fairly (at least on iOS). Strategically, utilizing a core component of iTunes as a way to muscle one of your distributors is a reasonable decision, and possibly one of Sony's last efforts.



    Now, everything I said above can be applied to Apple in reverse as to why Apple would do such things to provide a greater return for their shareholders. Unfortunately, the only people who lose are consumers and iOS owners, as Apple has effectively killed off all competition to the products and services Apple offers on these devices. Let's just hope Sony prevails so you, as consumers, get better competition and the lower prices that usually come with it.



    I certainly do not wish to see Sony prevail. If they had in the past we would be locked into ATRAC, Minidisc, Memory Stick and who knows how many other proprietary systems.
  • Reply 119 of 156
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    What you guys don't get is that the music companies are desperate because their business is dying. Music sales in the U.S. are half of their 1999 peak. Citibank just took over an in-default EMI and has put it quickly up for sale in order to beat Warner Music putting themselves up for sale.



    There are only four large music companies left (EMI, Sony, Warner Music Group and Universal). If Sony did pull out of iTunes, that would be a big blow for iTunes, no matter how much you guys love Apple and hate Sony.



    I think there is a real chance that WMG will double-down and buy EMI. Here are a couple of related articles:

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/01/...-on-the-block/



    http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/indus...05015022.story



    The question then is would Apple ever consider buying Warner/EMI? They could certainly afford it but is not the best fit for their business.
  • Reply 120 of 156
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    Regardless of the fact that Sony has been losing money, the market cap on Sony is $35 billion. Apple would have to pay a premium to buy it. Japanese regulations probably wouldn't permit a non-Japanese company to buy it anyway. Why would Apple buy it?



    In 2009, Sony had 171,000 employees. Apple has about 37,000 employees. Absorbing Sony would be completely overwhelming to Apple. You can't run a company the size of Sony the way that Apple is run (with a very hands-on executive team). Apple has a relatively few number of products and services. Sony has tens of thousands, if not more.



    It would never happen and if it did, it would kill Apple. Get real. The only possibility is that Sony decides to get out of the music business, but I doubt U.S. regulators would permit Apple, as the largest distributor of online music, to buy one of the remaining four large music companies. But even if the regulators permitted it, Sony would never sell, if only for face-saving reasons and especially after absorbing most of BMG (RCA).



    Apple would only be willing to buy a few parts of Sony - basically, Sony Entertainment (Sony Music Entertainment and Sony Pictures). Unless they teamed with some other parties to divvy up the businesses they didn't want, Apple would never get drawn into this.



    Apple might consider buying a combined Warner Music Group and EMI but it's not the best fit for them.



    I doubt they would have any problems with the FTC or DOJ if they considered such a purchase. After all, they just approved Comcast (the largest cable company) purchasing NBC Universal. I think an Apple purchase of a record label would suffer far less scrutiny.
Sign In or Register to comment.