For some in the beleaguered music industry - which has seen compact disc sales plummet in recent years due to rampant piracy - the prospect of a tech giant like Apple or Microsoft delving into the music business is an affirmation that it is possible to make digital downloading profitable.
It's nice to see "beleaguered" and "Apple" in the same sentance, without one being the adjective of the other!
It's a bug, it can't properly post upper ascii values (ie accented characters TM, R, C... lots of other stuff in everyday "English" usage).
HTML entities work just find on the board, though, so you can use ™ to get a ™ when you want one. There are plenty of other entities available.
One of the things Microsoft is fond of doing is making noises about a company, exercizing due diligence and talking to a lot of people, and then backing out. Reason: The discovery phase allows them to figure out who the really key people are, and what the best assets are. MS then dips into its unparallelled coffers and makes those people offers they can't refuse, leaving the company that much poorer and MS that much richer, and without MS assuming the expense of a full buyout.
So my guess is that Gates noticed that Universal had suddenly become interesting, and he's introducing some uncertainty and doing some investigation, and maybe to cherry-pick the best talent sub rosa after someone else (including Vivendi, if no-one bites) has assumed all the risk and the debt.
One of the things Microsoft is fond of doing is making noises about a company, exercizing due diligence and talking to a lot of people, and then backing out. Reason: The discovery phase allows them to figure out who the really key people are, and what the best assets are. MS then dips into its unparallelled coffers and makes those people offers they can't refuse, leaving the company that much poorer and MS that much richer, and without MS assuming the expense of a full buyout.
God I hate it when Microsoft's business practices are put that succinctly. uugghh. Maybe I should make a new bumper sticker
HTML entities work just find on the board, though, so you can use ™ to get a ™ when you want one. There are plenty of other entities available.
Right, but HTML entities aren't what get posted, it's a hexadecimal code for upper ascii, ie & or & is an html entity for ampersand (&), but as form data it gets sent as %26.
Spaces also get encoded. As an example "apples & oranges" as form data would be "apples%20%26%20oranges".
Right, but HTML entities aren't what get posted, it's a hexadecimal code for upper ascii, ie & or & is an html entity for ampersand (&), but as form data it gets sent as %26.
Maybe and maybe not. I've posted numerous HTML entities (including the ones in the post you quoted) from Safari, and on edit they appear to be exactly what I typed. Whatever the exact form mechanism is, it bypasses Safari's bug and maintains the integrity of whatever I typed.
So I maintain that using HTML entities is a perfectly valid way to post characters like ™ to this board from Safari. I do it all the time, and never once has Safari had trouble posting or displaying them.
So I maintain that using HTML entities is a perfectly valid way to post characters like ™ to this board from Safari. I do it all the time, and never once has Safari had trouble posting or displaying them.
Ok, I gotcha. You're saying you manually encode the entities and so type out ™ to get the trademark. Sure you can do that, but it relies on you knowing or looking up all the entities you want to use - bit of a drag to say the least.
The ampersand will get encoded as I earlier stated, but it's in the lower ascii set so bypasses the Safari bug. The TM is in upper ascii, so if you hit (opt-2/opt-shift-2) and actually see the character in the text area it'll mess up when you post.
Microsoft has enough failed ventures on it's hands, with the X-box an tablet. As much money as they still have, they can't afford to plop 6 billion for a music label.
I don't believe in all this. But I've just had an idea.
A conspiracy theory(Warning: absolutely crazy one)
Universal is just a recoding label. A big one, though. Apple buys Universal and gets control of a huge catalog. Then Apple trims Universal stuff. Then Apple starts selling songs for 25 cents and normal CDs for $5. Piracy suffers (there's less urge to buy a pirated CD since the price is not that high) as much as other music monsters (whose budget includes multibillion expenses to support their own pants). Musicians switch to Apple because while they still get their $3 for a CD, the chances their CDs are bought are higher with Apple. Sony Music and Warner Bros go bankrupt. Apple becomes a music industry monopolist and gets enough resources to fund hardware/software development. Bill Gates shoots himself in his toilet.
What is sad is that this you think this is crazy. It's a good idea. You can add that there is less piracy as the user experience is a bazillion times better then Kazaa.
Quote:
Originally posted by costique
I don't believe in all this. But I've just had an idea.
A conspiracy theory(Warning: absolutely crazy one)
Universal is just a recoding label. A big one, though. Apple buys Universal and gets control of a huge catalog. Then Apple trims Universal stuff. Then Apple starts selling songs for 25 cents and normal CDs for $5. Piracy suffers (there's less urge to buy a pirated CD since the price is not that high) as much as other music monsters (whose budget includes multibillion expenses to support their own pants). Musicians switch to Apple because while they still get their $3 for a CD, the chances their CDs are bought are higher with Apple. Sony Music and Warner Bros go bankrupt. Apple becomes a music industry monopolist and gets enough resources to fund hardware/software development. Bill Gates shoots himself in his toilet.
Ok, I gotcha. You're saying you manually encode the entities and so type out ™ to get the trademark. Sure you can do that, but it relies on you knowing or looking up all the entities you want to use - bit of a drag to say the least.
Yeah, but if you want to get those characters posted — and, I might add, comprehensible to any browser regardless of its default character set — it's not a bad thing to learn a few entities.
I don't believe in all this. But I've just had an idea.
A conspiracy theory(Warning: absolutely crazy one)
Universal is just a recoding label. A big one, though. Apple buys Universal and gets control of a huge catalog. Then Apple trims Universal stuff. Then Apple starts selling songs for 25 cents and normal CDs for $5. Piracy suffers (there's less urge to buy a pirated CD since the price is not that high) as much as other music monsters (whose budget includes multibillion expenses to support their own pants). Musicians switch to Apple because while they still get their $3 for a CD, the chances their CDs are bought are higher with Apple. Sony Music and Warner Bros go bankrupt. Apple becomes a music industry monopolist and gets enough resources to fund hardware/software development. Bill Gates shoots himself in his toilet.
It is absolutely crazy.
The *only* way they could ever hope to achieve that price is if they sell direct. (your store charges a 50% markup. the distributor charges the store 5-10%) Record companies actually don't get that much out of a CD. Selling CDs direct will take years, even if they move aggressively.
Not with online distribution, no. The cost of coverting an album (sound & art) to digital is about it.
Bandwidth and servers and admins to run them. Bandwidth is by far the biggest cost if you've ever had to run a web server that primarily features downloadables.
Most people believe bandwidth grows on trees. They point to cheap dsl. Well, that's really not a lot of bandwidth, especially upload bandwidth. That's where companies make their money, selling the excess upload bandwidth at outrageous prices.
Well, the cost of the bandwidth necessary for a song is built into the price of that song. So whenever it's purchased the cost of delivery is paid in advance. If it's never bought, virtually no cost is necessary. Most large companies pay by the byte so the bandwidth would be purchased as necessary rather than buying millions of dollars worth every month in advance.
Sure there is storage, but that's inconsequential. Someone to watch over the system is necessary anyway.
I'm just saying that with everything from 2000 and before, all of the money necessary to make that album an album has already been spent. Any downloads from this point forward would be pure profit with respect to the costs of producing an album, including the physical product.
The *only* way they could ever hope to achieve that price is if they sell direct.
Directly downloading from Apple servers is just it. Bandwidth cost per song is too small to be an issue in a 6-7 billion matter. I think it's $5-$10 per GB (1 to 5 cents per song of an average length). Anyone cares to provide more exact figures? The service will require a server room, a team of sysadmins, tech support and other necessary staff. They will influence the price, of course, but the more clients, the less the difference. The thing is, it is all technically possible, but will definitely entail a war in the whole music and mass media industry, destabilizing economy and leading to the risk of criminalization of it. I am afraid some billionaires may find it cheaper to kill a dozen of the most active persons than to see the whole bloated world burst.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
None of that matters for your back catalogue.
Cost of pressing, distribution, retail mark-up, distributor mark-up, failed bands don't matter for back catalogue!?
It's all money and it all contributes to profit and loss.
Originally posted by Kenneth
So M$ wanna have some fun too?
NYPOST.COM Business: NOW IT'S M'SOFT By TIM ARANGO and ERICA COPULSKY
From the article
For some in the beleaguered music industry - which has seen compact disc sales plummet in recent years due to rampant piracy - the prospect of a tech giant like Apple or Microsoft delving into the music business is an affirmation that it is possible to make digital downloading profitable.
It's nice to see "beleaguered" and "Apple" in the same sentance, without one being the adjective of the other!
Barto
Originally posted by Clive
It's a bug, it can't properly post upper ascii values (ie accented characters TM, R, C... lots of other stuff in everyday "English" usage).
HTML entities work just find on the board, though, so you can use ™ to get a ™ when you want one. There are plenty of other entities available.
That'll get around Safari's little issue.
Originally posted by Kenneth
So M$ wanna have some fun too?
NYPOST.COM Business: NOW IT'S M'SOFT By TIM ARANGO and ERICA COPULSKY
microsoft again?
do these guys copy everything apple does?
So my guess is that Gates noticed that Universal had suddenly become interesting, and he's introducing some uncertainty and doing some investigation, and maybe to cherry-pick the best talent sub rosa after someone else (including Vivendi, if no-one bites) has assumed all the risk and the debt.
Originally posted by Amorph
One of the things Microsoft is fond of doing is making noises about a company, exercizing due diligence and talking to a lot of people, and then backing out. Reason: The discovery phase allows them to figure out who the really key people are, and what the best assets are. MS then dips into its unparallelled coffers and makes those people offers they can't refuse, leaving the company that much poorer and MS that much richer, and without MS assuming the expense of a full buyout.
God I hate it when Microsoft's business practices are put that succinctly. uugghh. Maybe I should make a new bumper sticker
if you're not scared of Microsoft
then you aren't paying attention
Originally posted by Amorph
HTML entities work just find on the board, though, so you can use ™ to get a ™ when you want one. There are plenty of other entities available.
Right, but HTML entities aren't what get posted, it's a hexadecimal code for upper ascii, ie & or & is an html entity for ampersand (&), but as form data it gets sent as %26.
Spaces also get encoded. As an example "apples & oranges" as form data would be "apples%20%26%20oranges".
(edit because the entity string didn't show)
Originally posted by Clive
Right, but HTML entities aren't what get posted, it's a hexadecimal code for upper ascii, ie & or & is an html entity for ampersand (&), but as form data it gets sent as %26.
Maybe and maybe not. I've posted numerous HTML entities (including the ones in the post you quoted) from Safari, and on edit they appear to be exactly what I typed. Whatever the exact form mechanism is, it bypasses Safari's bug and maintains the integrity of whatever I typed.
So I maintain that using HTML entities is a perfectly valid way to post characters like ™ to this board from Safari. I do it all the time, and never once has Safari had trouble posting or displaying them.
Originally posted by Amorph
So I maintain that using HTML entities is a perfectly valid way to post characters like ™ to this board from Safari. I do it all the time, and never once has Safari had trouble posting or displaying them.
Ok, I gotcha. You're saying you manually encode the entities and so type out ™ to get the trademark. Sure you can do that, but it relies on you knowing or looking up all the entities you want to use - bit of a drag to say the least.
The ampersand will get encoded as I earlier stated, but it's in the lower ascii set so bypasses the Safari bug. The TM is in upper ascii, so if you hit (opt-2/opt-shift-2) and actually see the character in the text area it'll mess up when you post.
A conspiracy theory (Warning: absolutely crazy one)
Universal is just a recoding label. A big one, though. Apple buys Universal and gets control of a huge catalog. Then Apple trims Universal stuff. Then Apple starts selling songs for 25 cents and normal CDs for $5. Piracy suffers (there's less urge to buy a pirated CD since the price is not that high) as much as other music monsters (whose budget includes multibillion expenses to support their own pants). Musicians switch to Apple because while they still get their $3 for a CD, the chances their CDs are bought are higher with Apple. Sony Music and Warner Bros go bankrupt. Apple becomes a music industry monopolist and gets enough resources to fund hardware/software development. Bill Gates shoots himself in his toilet.
Originally posted by costique
I don't believe in all this. But I've just had an idea.
A conspiracy theory (Warning: absolutely crazy one)
Universal is just a recoding label. A big one, though. Apple buys Universal and gets control of a huge catalog. Then Apple trims Universal stuff. Then Apple starts selling songs for 25 cents and normal CDs for $5. Piracy suffers (there's less urge to buy a pirated CD since the price is not that high) as much as other music monsters (whose budget includes multibillion expenses to support their own pants). Musicians switch to Apple because while they still get their $3 for a CD, the chances their CDs are bought are higher with Apple. Sony Music and Warner Bros go bankrupt. Apple becomes a music industry monopolist and gets enough resources to fund hardware/software development. Bill Gates shoots himself in his toilet.
Originally posted by Clive
Cost of pressing, distribution, retail mark-up, distributor mark-up, failed bands don't matter for back catalogue!?
Not with online distribution, no. The cost of coverting an album (sound & art) to digital is about it.
Originally posted by Clive
Ok, I gotcha. You're saying you manually encode the entities and so type out ™ to get the trademark. Sure you can do that, but it relies on you knowing or looking up all the entities you want to use - bit of a drag to say the least.
Yeah, but if you want to get those characters posted — and, I might add, comprehensible to any browser regardless of its default character set — it's not a bad thing to learn a few entities.
Originally posted by costique
Bill Gates shoots himself in his toilet.
Hooray!
Originally posted by costique
I don't believe in all this. But I've just had an idea.
A conspiracy theory (Warning: absolutely crazy one)
Universal is just a recoding label. A big one, though. Apple buys Universal and gets control of a huge catalog. Then Apple trims Universal stuff. Then Apple starts selling songs for 25 cents and normal CDs for $5. Piracy suffers (there's less urge to buy a pirated CD since the price is not that high) as much as other music monsters (whose budget includes multibillion expenses to support their own pants). Musicians switch to Apple because while they still get their $3 for a CD, the chances their CDs are bought are higher with Apple. Sony Music and Warner Bros go bankrupt. Apple becomes a music industry monopolist and gets enough resources to fund hardware/software development. Bill Gates shoots himself in his toilet.
It is absolutely crazy.
The *only* way they could ever hope to achieve that price is if they sell direct. (your store charges a 50% markup. the distributor charges the store 5-10%) Record companies actually don't get that much out of a CD. Selling CDs direct will take years, even if they move aggressively.
Originally posted by bunge
Not with online distribution, no. The cost of coverting an album (sound & art) to digital is about it.
Bandwidth and servers and admins to run them. Bandwidth is by far the biggest cost if you've ever had to run a web server that primarily features downloadables.
Most people believe bandwidth grows on trees. They point to cheap dsl. Well, that's really not a lot of bandwidth, especially upload bandwidth. That's where companies make their money, selling the excess upload bandwidth at outrageous prices.
Originally posted by Nebrie
Bandwidth....
Well, the cost of the bandwidth necessary for a song is built into the price of that song. So whenever it's purchased the cost of delivery is paid in advance. If it's never bought, virtually no cost is necessary. Most large companies pay by the byte so the bandwidth would be purchased as necessary rather than buying millions of dollars worth every month in advance.
Sure there is storage, but that's inconsequential. Someone to watch over the system is necessary anyway.
I'm just saying that with everything from 2000 and before, all of the money necessary to make that album an album has already been spent. Any downloads from this point forward would be pure profit with respect to the costs of producing an album, including the physical product.
Record companies actually don't get that much out of a CD.
ha ha ha !
shouldn't that line read " ARTISTS ... actually don't get that much out of a CD."
Originally posted by Nebrie
The *only* way they could ever hope to achieve that price is if they sell direct.
Directly downloading from Apple servers is just it. Bandwidth cost per song is too small to be an issue in a 6-7 billion matter. I think it's $5-$10 per GB (1 to 5 cents per song of an average length). Anyone cares to provide more exact figures? The service will require a server room, a team of sysadmins, tech support and other necessary staff. They will influence the price, of course, but the more clients, the less the difference. The thing is, it is all technically possible, but will definitely entail a war in the whole music and mass media industry, destabilizing economy and leading to the risk of criminalization of it. I am afraid some billionaires may find it cheaper to kill a dozen of the most active persons than to see the whole bloated world burst.