That does not prove your argument because its an appeal to emotion. Your argument has been illogical from the start and remains so.
But let's entertain your hypothetical scenario to see where it goes wrong. If Google Play had content exclusives, then I would have to make a choice: buy from them or do without it.
Right
Quote:
If I hated Google Play as much as you hate iTunes,
More stuff I've never said. But thanks for inventing positions and claiming I hold them.
Quote:
Because I consider myself honest, I wouldn't pirate the content. The people who pirate use excuses like "it costs too much" or "I hate Apple exclusives" as reasons to feel justified. All the pirates that I know use those justifications because no one wants to admit (to themselves) that they do unethical things. It's a two-wrongs-make-a-right philosophy that lets them feel good about themselves while they steal. And I see right through it. Do you?
So your example falls apart when you say you'd never pirate, so you'd just go without and reduce sales. Other people would actively pirate.
How is any of this good for Apple? You've played the morally superior than thou card a lot but you've yet to stop and think about what would benefit Apple.
The only exclusive content thing that really annoys me, but is mercifully rare, is when different stores have different exclusive content for the same item. It would be nice if you could buy just the exclusive content from a second vendor without having to buy a second copy of the main item. There have been things that I would be willing to pay a modest extra fee for.
I'd prefer to have all my digital stuff in one place (a la Steam for games -- still waiting on Mass Effect 3 there), but occasionally exclusive content pushes me to another vendor.
The simple psychological impact of raising the base price for a track from .99 cents to $1.29 and higher (and full albums from $9.99 to $12 or higher) is a direct contributor to the slow down.
That psychological difference affected me for sure. I went from buying a few albums and a few dozen songs a month (at prices I felt were both fair and a good value), to maybe an album and a few songs every few months... I know a lot of people who slowed purchasing after the increases, and these are not people who are hurting for money at all.
The issue is the balance between value and a fair price for what you're getting.
Good music sells well, and good music priced well will rocket off the charts... that's a big part of why iTunes succeeded in taking its place as the #1 music seller in the world. The labels decided to raise the prices (for no good reason, really, and doing that in the middle of a global economic downturn was pretty boneheaded) with a completely expected result.
It's easy. You got big fans Eg beliebers but some don't think HEY!!! Let's actually support them buy actually buying off of iTunes than get crap quality 80 from Mp3Skull
How about giving an example of how exclusive content is the only way Apple can attract customers, given that’s what you actually claimed, instead?
When they had no competition it didn't matter what they did. Now MANY cheap music discovery and delivery options are available, which while different take away users. iTunes as it is, either purchase or radio, isn't by a long stretch the gorilla in the room it once was. If they don't do a Beyonce style release once a season they'll be watching while everyone else does it. Plus, now that it's been done wildly successfully top shelf artists like Beyonce will insist on it, and if Apple doesn't do it someone else will. Do you really believe that Beyonce will now go non-exclusive? Or that Apple would leave the opening to do it with Jimmy Iovine from now on?
If Apple didn't feel they had to do it, they wouldn't, and it's the FACT that they're pushing for it that tells the tale. Nothing else needs to be said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I guess start with proving how “exclusive content” got them customers of all of their hardware and software products.
First you have to explain how that has anything to do with it. The exclusive content netted them a bucketload of sheer profit, and they didn't have to barely raise a finger. If you want me to prove how all that $$$$ from Beyonce's fans into the Apple coffers via iTunes got them hardware customers that's about as relevant as proving how profits from $75 ipad sleeves got them Apple TV customers. It's obviously simply not a requirement to prove it much less answer to it.
When they had no competition it didn't matter what they did.
If Apple didn't feel they had to do it, they wouldn't,
Apple does a great deal of things they don’t “have” to do.
…the RUMOR that they’re pushing for it…
Fixed.
First you have to explain how that has anything to do with it.
Well, throughout the naughties (and still now), 50% of Macs sold were to new customers. That inherently falls under your premise of “exclusive content is the only way Apple can attract customers”. So what exclusive content attracted them?
If you want me to prove how all that $$$$ from Beyonce’s fans into the Apple coffers via iTunes got them hardware customers…
You almost had a point here! End the sentence like above and the solution is instantly implied. I read it and was all, “Hey, finally! Someone else who doesn’t feel like he has to waste time and spell things out word for freaking word for people to comprehend it!”
…that’s about as relevant as proving how profits from $75 iPad sleeves got them Apple TV customers.
And then you stumbled on the landing. Still, it’s a separate point than the one I’ve brought up above.
Actually no. You do not have the right to sell your purchases or even your entire Apple ID. Neither can you give it to a relative when you die, the content will be assigned to you, whether you exist or want it or not. You do not own the files, you only own a licence to use them.
Actually no. You do not have the right to sell your purchases or even your entire Apple ID. Neither can you give it to a relative when you die, the content will be assigned to you, whether you exist or want it or not. You do not own the files, you only own a licence to use them.
I love how the companies in question pretend that. We all know it’s not true. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Not a rumor. Fact. The only reason Apple didn't do it before Beyonce is because that was their testing the waters, and now its tested. Here's a fact you shouldn't change at your whim: Apple has already started doing more exclusives, especially first release exclusives a week before available elsewhere. Currently one (only available as full album) is the #2 album on Soundscan, which is total sales across all outlets in the U.S. and Canada. Eight places above Beyonce's. And it wasn't even available elsewhere. When Billboard comes out tomorrow it will be top 5 in the Billboard 200.
These exclusives are to the downloading market what the streaming market was a year ago and what the download market itself was to the CD market 10 years ago, in the sense that some companies feel it will ruin the business but what are you going to do when a handful of the other guys start doing it? In that case the other guys will change the landscape. No one is worried about Amazon or Google. But companies like Beats have ridiculous amounts of cash and a built in customer base, and it fits their style perfectly. It's absolutely not a given that they won't try to be the only destination for million selling rap artists. I don't believe Apple will allow that to happen.
I'll leave the snarky, no-meat, pointless remarks to you.
It’s only snarky because you’re apparently incapable of reading two words. Or the title.
If I were only using the title of this AI post as my parameters, but this isn't a book report on the AI post.. Within the industry there isn't the "reportedly" about the meetings that took place during Grammys week.
You really have a strange way of responding to people. Always with one sentence pithy put downs that don't add anything. You often have the simple retort of "Why?" but then add nothing that gives any insight to the topic, just name calling. No one else here is so intent on insulting rather than making points.
Within the industry there isn't the "reportedly" about the meetings that took place during Grammys week.
So where’s the proof if it isn’t a rumor?
OH NO THAT WAS A ONE SENTENCE REPLY HOW HORRIBLE.
You often have the simple retort of "Why?" but then add nothing that gives any insight
It was because there is no insight presented that I have to ask why. If something doesn’t make sense, it’s not immediately the fault of the people to whom it doesn’t make sense.
If I were only using the title of this AI post as my parameters, but this isn't a book report on the AI post.. Within the industry there isn't the "reportedly" about the meetings that took place during Grammys week.
You really have a strange way of responding to people. Always with one sentence pithy put downs that don't add anything. You often have the simple retort of "Why?" but then add nothing that gives any insight to the topic, just name calling. No one else here is so intent on insulting rather than making points.
Rephrased: "No one else here is so intent on scoring points rather than making points."
I've moved during my time here from thinking that TS was the worst choice of moderator I'd ever seen on a forum (at least that's not true anymore, thank goodness) to trying to get him to understand how impossible his behavior is (later on often through frustrated mockery, I admit) to just trying to pretend he's not here. But his posts are so ubiquitous that it's hard. Participating in discussions on AI would be a more pleasant experience without him.
All this even though I agree with him about 75% of the time.
That said, I don't see that it much matters whether these meetings happened or not. People in the industry meet all the time about all sorts of actual and possible projects. From a customer point of view, we'll see whether anything comes of it. From an investor point of view, I'm glad that I don't trade my stocks directly, because all the rumors on AI and other sites would just give me heartburn.
Rephrased: "No one else here is so intent on scoring points rather than making points."
I've moved during my time here from thinking that TS was the worst choice of moderator I'd ever seen on a forum (at least that's not true anymore, thank goodness) to trying to get him to understand how impossible his behavior is (later on often through frustrated mockery, I admit) to just trying to pretend he's not here. But his posts are so ubiquitous that it's hard. Participating in discussions on AI would be a more pleasant experience without him.
All this even though I agree with him about 75% of the time.
That said, I don't see that it much matters whether these meetings happened or not. People in the industry meet all the time about all sorts of actual and possible projects. From a customer point of view, we'll see whether anything comes of it. From an investor point of view, I'm glad that I don't trade my stocks directly, because all the rumors on AI and other sites would just give me heartburn.
I disagree. This forum would be a poorer place without TS's wit. It's true that he is superb at getting people's back up; hence your post.
I've moved during my time here from thinking that TS was the worst choice of moderator I'd ever seen on a forum (at least that's not true anymore, thank goodness) to trying to get him to understand how impossible his behavior is (later on often through frustrated mockery, I admit) to just trying to pretend he's not here. But his posts are so ubiquitous that it's hard. Participating in discussions on AI would be a more pleasant experience without him.
Wanna know why I’m short with people? We have the ENTIRE INTERNET’S WORTH OF KNOWLEDGE literally at our fingertips and people refuse to take the time to know what they’re talking about before talking about it. I operate as though a lot of things are common knowledge–I guess more than most people and more than most here, or so. I imagine that’s why some of what I say comes off as ‘unfounded’. I’m not about to explain every single thing every single time. You want to know why I believe something; find out about it.
Comments
That does not prove your argument because its an appeal to emotion. Your argument has been illogical from the start and remains so.
But let's entertain your hypothetical scenario to see where it goes wrong. If Google Play had content exclusives, then I would have to make a choice: buy from them or do without it.
Right
More stuff I've never said. But thanks for inventing positions and claiming I hold them.
So your example falls apart when you say you'd never pirate, so you'd just go without and reduce sales. Other people would actively pirate.
How is any of this good for Apple? You've played the morally superior than thou card a lot but you've yet to stop and think about what would benefit Apple.
People who pirate anymore are just asshats.
What if they pirate BBC shows they can't get in a timely manner in the US. Like today's Top Gear episode?
They are common thieves.
The only exclusive content thing that really annoys me, but is mercifully rare, is when different stores have different exclusive content for the same item. It would be nice if you could buy just the exclusive content from a second vendor without having to buy a second copy of the main item. There have been things that I would be willing to pay a modest extra fee for.
I'd prefer to have all my digital stuff in one place (a la Steam for games -- still waiting on Mass Effect 3 there), but occasionally exclusive content pushes me to another vendor.
That psychological difference affected me for sure. I went from buying a few albums and a few dozen songs a month (at prices I felt were both fair and a good value), to maybe an album and a few songs every few months... I know a lot of people who slowed purchasing after the increases, and these are not people who are hurting for money at all.
The issue is the balance between value and a fair price for what you're getting.
Good music sells well, and good music priced well will rocket off the charts... that's a big part of why iTunes succeeded in taking its place as the #1 music seller in the world. The labels decided to raise the prices (for no good reason, really, and doing that in the middle of a global economic downturn was pretty boneheaded) with a completely expected result.
How about giving an example of how exclusive content is the only way Apple can attract customers, given that’s what you actually claimed, instead?
When they had no competition it didn't matter what they did. Now MANY cheap music discovery and delivery options are available, which while different take away users. iTunes as it is, either purchase or radio, isn't by a long stretch the gorilla in the room it once was. If they don't do a Beyonce style release once a season they'll be watching while everyone else does it. Plus, now that it's been done wildly successfully top shelf artists like Beyonce will insist on it, and if Apple doesn't do it someone else will. Do you really believe that Beyonce will now go non-exclusive? Or that Apple would leave the opening to do it with Jimmy Iovine from now on?
If Apple didn't feel they had to do it, they wouldn't, and it's the FACT that they're pushing for it that tells the tale. Nothing else needs to be said.
Quote:
I guess start with proving how “exclusive content” got them customers of all of their hardware and software products.
First you have to explain how that has anything to do with it. The exclusive content netted them a bucketload of sheer profit, and they didn't have to barely raise a finger. If you want me to prove how all that $$$$ from Beyonce's fans into the Apple coffers via iTunes got them hardware customers that's about as relevant as proving how profits from $75 ipad sleeves got them Apple TV customers. It's obviously simply not a requirement to prove it much less answer to it.
Apple does a great deal of things they don’t “have” to do.
Fixed.
Well, throughout the naughties (and still now), 50% of Macs sold were to new customers. That inherently falls under your premise of “exclusive content is the only way Apple can attract customers”. So what exclusive content attracted them?
You almost had a point here! End the sentence like above and the solution is instantly implied. I read it and was all, “Hey, finally! Someone else who doesn’t feel like he has to waste time and spell things out word for freaking word for people to comprehend it!”
And then you stumbled on the landing. Still, it’s a separate point than the one I’ve brought up above.
Actually no. You do not have the right to sell your purchases or even your entire Apple ID. Neither can you give it to a relative when you die, the content will be assigned to you, whether you exist or want it or not. You do not own the files, you only own a licence to use them.
I love how the companies in question pretend that. We all know it’s not true.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Fixed.
Don't change my words to your foolishness.
Not a rumor. Fact. The only reason Apple didn't do it before Beyonce is because that was their testing the waters, and now its tested. Here's a fact you shouldn't change at your whim: Apple has already started doing more exclusives, especially first release exclusives a week before available elsewhere. Currently one (only available as full album) is the #2 album on Soundscan, which is total sales across all outlets in the U.S. and Canada. Eight places above Beyonce's. And it wasn't even available elsewhere. When Billboard comes out tomorrow it will be top 5 in the Billboard 200.
These exclusives are to the downloading market what the streaming market was a year ago and what the download market itself was to the CD market 10 years ago, in the sense that some companies feel it will ruin the business but what are you going to do when a handful of the other guys start doing it? In that case the other guys will change the landscape. No one is worried about Amazon or Google. But companies like Beats have ridiculous amounts of cash and a built in customer base, and it fits their style perfectly. It's absolutely not a given that they won't try to be the only destination for million selling rap artists. I don't believe Apple will allow that to happen.
I'll leave the snarky, no-meat, pointless remarks to you.
Don't change my words to your foolishness.
Uh… huh.
Apple reportedly…
It’s only snarky because you’re apparently incapable of reading two words. Or the title.
It’s only snarky because you’re apparently incapable of reading two words. Or the title.
If I were only using the title of this AI post as my parameters, but this isn't a book report on the AI post.. Within the industry there isn't the "reportedly" about the meetings that took place during Grammys week.
You really have a strange way of responding to people. Always with one sentence pithy put downs that don't add anything. You often have the simple retort of "Why?" but then add nothing that gives any insight to the topic, just name calling. No one else here is so intent on insulting rather than making points.
Within the industry there isn't the "reportedly" about the meetings that took place during Grammys week.
So where’s the proof if it isn’t a rumor?
OH NO THAT WAS A ONE SENTENCE REPLY HOW HORRIBLE.
It was because there is no insight presented that I have to ask why. If something doesn’t make sense, it’s not immediately the fault of the people to whom it doesn’t make sense.
If I were only using the title of this AI post as my parameters, but this isn't a book report on the AI post.. Within the industry there isn't the "reportedly" about the meetings that took place during Grammys week.
You really have a strange way of responding to people. Always with one sentence pithy put downs that don't add anything. You often have the simple retort of "Why?" but then add nothing that gives any insight to the topic, just name calling. No one else here is so intent on insulting rather than making points.
Rephrased: "No one else here is so intent on scoring points rather than making points."
I've moved during my time here from thinking that TS was the worst choice of moderator I'd ever seen on a forum (at least that's not true anymore, thank goodness) to trying to get him to understand how impossible his behavior is (later on often through frustrated mockery, I admit) to just trying to pretend he's not here. But his posts are so ubiquitous that it's hard. Participating in discussions on AI would be a more pleasant experience without him.
All this even though I agree with him about 75% of the time.
That said, I don't see that it much matters whether these meetings happened or not. People in the industry meet all the time about all sorts of actual and possible projects. From a customer point of view, we'll see whether anything comes of it. From an investor point of view, I'm glad that I don't trade my stocks directly, because all the rumors on AI and other sites would just give me heartburn.
I disagree. This forum would be a poorer place without TS's wit. It's true that he is superb at getting people's back up; hence your post.
I've moved during my time here from thinking that TS was the worst choice of moderator I'd ever seen on a forum (at least that's not true anymore, thank goodness) to trying to get him to understand how impossible his behavior is (later on often through frustrated mockery, I admit) to just trying to pretend he's not here. But his posts are so ubiquitous that it's hard. Participating in discussions on AI would be a more pleasant experience without him.
Wanna know why I’m short with people? We have the ENTIRE INTERNET’S WORTH OF KNOWLEDGE literally at our fingertips and people refuse to take the time to know what they’re talking about before talking about it. I operate as though a lot of things are common knowledge–I guess more than most people and more than most here, or so. I imagine that’s why some of what I say comes off as ‘unfounded’. I’m not about to explain every single thing every single time. You want to know why I believe something; find out about it.
Who's gonna win the lawsuit if you challenge it?