No, your wrong. RIAA will simply refuse to let anyone provide the product and then bitch that bit-torrent and digital downloads is destroying CD sales.
Bitchin' don't pay the bills.
iTunes is becoming a nice source of money for record companies. If Apple were forced to use more open DRM, to license their DRM, or even drop their DRM, and Apple can say, "I'm sorry, RIAA, this isn't our call" would the RIAA act like spoiled brats and take their ball and go home, or would they decide to keep a profitable operation going and stick it out to see if it remained profitable, if the money were better than their imagined losses from piracy?
If it's just one or two small countries making Apple change, I can easily see them taking the spoiled brat approach -- yeah, we'll show those Norwegians what's what! No iTunes for you!
If many countries starting standing up and winning the battle to get a better deal for consumers, however, that dynamic would have to change. The RIAA et al might bitch a lot, but they'd have to grudgingly go along, unless they're so institutionally stupid (not impossible) that they'd rather cut off their collective nose to spite their collective face.
Apple had to fight to get us the least restrictive DRM available for legally downloadable music.
I'm interested to find out that you were in the room when Jobs was negotiating with the record companies, which is obviously how you know what Apple had to fight for. Oh, you weren't? You're just going on a casual statement that Jobs made ages ago? Oh well.
Quote:
Originally posted by macbear01
Not to mention, Apple stood their ground when the record labels were pushing hard to raise prices under the variable pricing structure.
Actually, the record companies were asking for variable pricing, not increased pricing. What they wanted to to charge more for new music, but reduce the price for older and less popular stuff. For those, like me, who couldn't give a rats ass about Britney's new single, that would probably have led to a saving.
Quote:
Originally posted by macbear01 But maybe the single most important thing is that NO ONE IS FORCED TO CHOOSE iPOD or iTMS FOR ANYTHING. Where is the freakin' consumer's responsibility to do a little research before they buy and make their choices based on the devices/applications/DRM that they think they can live with? God, people are so f'ing lazy. It's always someone else's fault. I'm not sure I believe that Apple would even have DRM if they could have gotten the recording industry's buy-in for the whole music download thing without it.
No one is forced to use Windows or Office or anything either, but it didn't stop Microsoft being guilty of using a monopoly position to protect its market share.
Quote:
Originally posted by macbear01
Don't be so naive as to think that Microsoft is looking out for you. I would have been so inclined to say the same about Apple until Steve Jobs fought the industry for the 99¢ song price.
How the heck can you accuse other of naivety and then state that Steve Jobs is "fighting the industry", like it's for the benefit of consumers? What Steve Jobs does is for the benefit of Apple and its shareholders - NOT for the benefit of consumers.
Actually, the record companies were asking for variable pricing, not increased pricing. What they wanted to to charge more for new music, but reduce the price for older and less popular stuff. For those, like me, who couldn't give a rats ass about Britney's new single, that would probably have led to a saving.
Right. Because the RIAA cares about you so much, that they were going to give you so many discounts on all your favorite artists.
Quote:
How the heck can you accuse other of naivety and then state that Steve Jobs is "fighting the industry", like it's for the benefit of consumers? What Steve Jobs does is for the benefit of Apple and its shareholders - NOT for the benefit of consumers.
9 times out of 10, in a very consumer oriented company like Apple, those are the same things. Unlike the RIAA, which while hated, is not on a consumer's mind when purchasing music, Apple is on the consumer's mind when buying computers/music/etc... If Apple doesn't please customers, it won't make money.
Actually, the record companies were asking for variable pricing, not increased pricing. What they wanted to to charge more for new music, but reduce the price for older and less popular stuff. For those, like me, who couldn't give a rats ass about Britney's new single, that would probably have led to a saving.
The record companies were pushing for a way to MAKE MORE MONEY, plain and simple. Apple resisted because Jobs felt the new pricing would be more confusing and therefore a WORSE EXPERIENCE FOR THE CONSUMER. Your particular buying habits really have no bearing on the argument of whether or not Apple took a stance for the consumer. Did Apple also feel keeping the current price structure would be better for them overall? Sure. But since Apple makes nothing off the ITMS directly, I think they should get the benefit of the doubt in this argument.
Right. Because the RIAA cares about you so much, that they were going to give you so many discounts on all your favorite artists.
I don't know where you live, but when I go into record stores I see a lot of discounted CDs that cost way under the "standard" price. I don't see anything like that on iTunes.
Quote:
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
9 times out of 10, in a very consumer oriented company like Apple, those are the same things. Unlike the RIAA, which while hated, is not on a consumer's mind when purchasing music, Apple is on the consumer's mind when buying computers/music/etc... If Apple doesn't please customers, it won't make money. [/B]
LOL you are obviously extremely naive about business. You could easily use your argument about the RIAA: after all, low cost songs = more songs sold = happy consumers = more profit. But it doesn't work like that in the real world.
Apple is no more or less "consumer-oriented" than Microsoft, Coca-Cola or McDonalds. All exist to make profits. That's all there is to it. They're not "on your side".
The record companies were pushing for a way to MAKE MORE MONEY, plain and simple. Apple resisted because Jobs felt the new pricing would be more confusing and therefore a WORSE EXPERIENCE FOR THE CONSUMER.
Making more money doesn't necessarily mean increasing prices, as an elementary look at the history of most businesses would tell you.
Why do you think Jobs cares about the experience of the consumer? Because a bad experience = less money for Apple. However, if he seriously thought that consumers are confused by variable prices, he really needs to take a Sales and Marketing 101 course. I know he's not that dumb, though.
Whatever Jobs did, he did because it would make Apple more money - that's all businesses do, that's what they exist to do and, as a director of Apple, that's what Jobs' legal duty is (and THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!)
He believed that the current pricing structure would make Apple more money. That's all there is to it. So don't give me any hippy-dippy hogwash about Jobs being on "our side" somehow, because it isn't true.
He believed that the current pricing structure would make Apple more money. That's all there is to it. So don't give me any hippy-dippy hogwash about Jobs being on "our side" somehow, because it isn't true.
Who made the statement that Apple is "on our side" that you keep quoting? I assume somewhere in this thread someone made that statement since you have twice put it in quotes.
Just because all companies exist to make money doesn't mean they all go about it the same way. Enron and WorldComm come to mind, for example. In my opinion, the RIAA has shown by its hostilities towards consumers that it intends to be as ruthless and cut-throat as possible to make its money. When Apple starts suing people for re-ripping burned CDs of ITMS purchases, then I'll believe that Apple is no better than the RIAA. Until then, I'll remain blissfully naive that a company or organiztaion doesn't have to seek to screw consumers to turn a profit.
I don't know where you live, but when I go into record stores I see a lot of discounted CDs that cost way under the "standard" price. I don't see anything like that on iTunes.
I've never seen non-used CD's below $9.99.
Quote:
Originally posted by EvilMole
LOL you are obviously extremely naive about business. You could easily use your argument about the RIAA: after all, low cost songs = more songs sold = happy consumers = more profit. But it doesn't work like that in the real world.
I think you're responding to someone else? You're not really making a point so much as throwing around half-assed insults.
Quote:
Originally posted by EvilMole
Apple is no more or less "consumer-oriented" than Microsoft, Coca-Cola or McDonalds. All exist to make profits. That's all there is to it. They're not "on your side".
Yes, um, that's my point. Microsoft, Coca-Cola, and McDonalds are all very consumer oriented, unlike the RIAA. That's why McDonalds has it's dollar menu and tries to offer healthy choices like salads, Microsoft offers discounts to businesses and market segments Windows, and why Coca-Cola and Pepsi carefully keep their prices matched, etc...
The RIAA, which is what we are discussing, isn't consumer-oriented at all.
European governments have no right to force Apple to make downloads from iTunes compatible with the products of its rivals.
If music listeners don't like the limitations of Apple's products and want to be able to play purchased music on any device they own, they are free not to buy from Apple and to look for alternatives. They, or their representatives, have no right to dictate to Apple what capabilities to include in its products.
The violation of Apple's property rights, as well as those of Microsoft and other American companies, is a serious threat to innovation and technological progress. If these companies are not free to create products as they see fit, and are not allowed to profit from their new creations, innovation will decline.
European governments have no right to force Apple to make downloads from iTunes compatible with the products of its rivals.
If music listeners don't like the limitations of Apple's products and want to be able to play purchased music on any device they own, they are free not to buy from Apple and to look for alternatives. They, or their representatives, have no right to dictate to Apple what capabilities to include in its products.
The violation of Apple's property rights, as well as those of Microsoft and other American companies, is a serious threat to innovation and technological progress. If these companies are not free to create products as they see fit, and are not allowed to profit from their new creations, innovation will decline.
David Holcberg
They do have a right to dictate what Apple can and cannot do in their country. The US Govt. dictates all the time what products can and cannot be sold within the United State.
It is more a violation of the consumers rights if you ask me. It has always been really simple when you would buy a movie or song. If you bought a CD it would play in all CD players no matter what brand, if you bought a DVD it would play in all DVD players no matter what brand, and the list goes on.... Is it too much to believe that consumers feel it should be the same way that if you buy and MP3 it should play in all MP3 players? Only now that we have the technology to prevent that from happening, and force us to rebuy our media each time we want to use a different playback option. If this does threaten innovation in DRM, good since DRM is unwanted by consumers.
Consumers have no right to music sold by anyone, except on the terms set by the seller. The consumer's only right is to receive what he pays for, per the terms of the contract he willingly enters into. The fact that the U.S. dictates the terms of contracts does not validate the practice.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
Apple is not "top dog" in Europe; the iPod and iTMS don't have anywhere near the dominance that they do in the U.S.
[/B]
I have never seen any figures that show anything but Apple as a clear market leader in Europe. If you have any such figures, please share them.
Originally posted by aresee
No, your wrong. RIAA will simply refuse to let anyone provide the product and then bitch that bit-torrent and digital downloads is destroying CD sales.
Bitchin' don't pay the bills.
iTunes is becoming a nice source of money for record companies. If Apple were forced to use more open DRM, to license their DRM, or even drop their DRM, and Apple can say, "I'm sorry, RIAA, this isn't our call" would the RIAA act like spoiled brats and take their ball and go home, or would they decide to keep a profitable operation going and stick it out to see if it remained profitable, if the money were better than their imagined losses from piracy?
If it's just one or two small countries making Apple change, I can easily see them taking the spoiled brat approach -- yeah, we'll show those Norwegians what's what! No iTunes for you!
If many countries starting standing up and winning the battle to get a better deal for consumers, however, that dynamic would have to change. The RIAA et al might bitch a lot, but they'd have to grudgingly go along, unless they're so institutionally stupid (not impossible) that they'd rather cut off their collective nose to spite their collective face.
Originally posted by macbear01
Apple had to fight to get us the least restrictive DRM available for legally downloadable music.
I'm interested to find out that you were in the room when Jobs was negotiating with the record companies, which is obviously how you know what Apple had to fight for. Oh, you weren't? You're just going on a casual statement that Jobs made ages ago? Oh well.
Originally posted by macbear01
Not to mention, Apple stood their ground when the record labels were pushing hard to raise prices under the variable pricing structure.
Actually, the record companies were asking for variable pricing, not increased pricing. What they wanted to to charge more for new music, but reduce the price for older and less popular stuff. For those, like me, who couldn't give a rats ass about Britney's new single, that would probably have led to a saving.
Originally posted by macbear01 But maybe the single most important thing is that NO ONE IS FORCED TO CHOOSE iPOD or iTMS FOR ANYTHING. Where is the freakin' consumer's responsibility to do a little research before they buy and make their choices based on the devices/applications/DRM that they think they can live with? God, people are so f'ing lazy. It's always someone else's fault. I'm not sure I believe that Apple would even have DRM if they could have gotten the recording industry's buy-in for the whole music download thing without it.
No one is forced to use Windows or Office or anything either, but it didn't stop Microsoft being guilty of using a monopoly position to protect its market share.
Originally posted by macbear01
Don't be so naive as to think that Microsoft is looking out for you. I would have been so inclined to say the same about Apple until Steve Jobs fought the industry for the 99¢ song price.
How the heck can you accuse other of naivety and then state that Steve Jobs is "fighting the industry", like it's for the benefit of consumers? What Steve Jobs does is for the benefit of Apple and its shareholders - NOT for the benefit of consumers.
Originally posted by EvilMole
Actually, the record companies were asking for variable pricing, not increased pricing. What they wanted to to charge more for new music, but reduce the price for older and less popular stuff. For those, like me, who couldn't give a rats ass about Britney's new single, that would probably have led to a saving.
Right. Because the RIAA cares about you so much, that they were going to give you so many discounts on all your favorite artists.
How the heck can you accuse other of naivety and then state that Steve Jobs is "fighting the industry", like it's for the benefit of consumers? What Steve Jobs does is for the benefit of Apple and its shareholders - NOT for the benefit of consumers.
9 times out of 10, in a very consumer oriented company like Apple, those are the same things. Unlike the RIAA, which while hated, is not on a consumer's mind when purchasing music, Apple is on the consumer's mind when buying computers/music/etc... If Apple doesn't please customers, it won't make money.
Originally posted by EvilMole
Actually, the record companies were asking for variable pricing, not increased pricing. What they wanted to to charge more for new music, but reduce the price for older and less popular stuff. For those, like me, who couldn't give a rats ass about Britney's new single, that would probably have led to a saving.
The record companies were pushing for a way to MAKE MORE MONEY, plain and simple. Apple resisted because Jobs felt the new pricing would be more confusing and therefore a WORSE EXPERIENCE FOR THE CONSUMER. Your particular buying habits really have no bearing on the argument of whether or not Apple took a stance for the consumer. Did Apple also feel keeping the current price structure would be better for them overall? Sure. But since Apple makes nothing off the ITMS directly, I think they should get the benefit of the doubt in this argument.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Right. Because the RIAA cares about you so much, that they were going to give you so many discounts on all your favorite artists.
I don't know where you live, but when I go into record stores I see a lot of discounted CDs that cost way under the "standard" price. I don't see anything like that on iTunes.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
9 times out of 10, in a very consumer oriented company like Apple, those are the same things. Unlike the RIAA, which while hated, is not on a consumer's mind when purchasing music, Apple is on the consumer's mind when buying computers/music/etc... If Apple doesn't please customers, it won't make money. [/B]
LOL you are obviously extremely naive about business. You could easily use your argument about the RIAA: after all, low cost songs = more songs sold = happy consumers = more profit. But it doesn't work like that in the real world.
Apple is no more or less "consumer-oriented" than Microsoft, Coca-Cola or McDonalds. All exist to make profits. That's all there is to it. They're not "on your side".
Originally posted by coxnvox
The record companies were pushing for a way to MAKE MORE MONEY, plain and simple. Apple resisted because Jobs felt the new pricing would be more confusing and therefore a WORSE EXPERIENCE FOR THE CONSUMER.
Making more money doesn't necessarily mean increasing prices, as an elementary look at the history of most businesses would tell you.
Why do you think Jobs cares about the experience of the consumer? Because a bad experience = less money for Apple. However, if he seriously thought that consumers are confused by variable prices, he really needs to take a Sales and Marketing 101 course. I know he's not that dumb, though.
Whatever Jobs did, he did because it would make Apple more money - that's all businesses do, that's what they exist to do and, as a director of Apple, that's what Jobs' legal duty is (and THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!)
He believed that the current pricing structure would make Apple more money. That's all there is to it. So don't give me any hippy-dippy hogwash about Jobs being on "our side" somehow, because it isn't true.
Originally posted by EvilMole
He believed that the current pricing structure would make Apple more money. That's all there is to it. So don't give me any hippy-dippy hogwash about Jobs being on "our side" somehow, because it isn't true.
Who made the statement that Apple is "on our side" that you keep quoting? I assume somewhere in this thread someone made that statement since you have twice put it in quotes.
Just because all companies exist to make money doesn't mean they all go about it the same way. Enron and WorldComm come to mind, for example. In my opinion, the RIAA has shown by its hostilities towards consumers that it intends to be as ruthless and cut-throat as possible to make its money. When Apple starts suing people for re-ripping burned CDs of ITMS purchases, then I'll believe that Apple is no better than the RIAA. Until then, I'll remain blissfully naive that a company or organiztaion doesn't have to seek to screw consumers to turn a profit.
Originally posted by EvilMole
I don't know where you live, but when I go into record stores I see a lot of discounted CDs that cost way under the "standard" price. I don't see anything like that on iTunes.
I've never seen non-used CD's below $9.99.
Originally posted by EvilMole
LOL you are obviously extremely naive about business. You could easily use your argument about the RIAA: after all, low cost songs = more songs sold = happy consumers = more profit. But it doesn't work like that in the real world.
I think you're responding to someone else? You're not really making a point so much as throwing around half-assed insults.
Originally posted by EvilMole
Apple is no more or less "consumer-oriented" than Microsoft, Coca-Cola or McDonalds. All exist to make profits. That's all there is to it. They're not "on your side".
Yes, um, that's my point. Microsoft, Coca-Cola, and McDonalds are all very consumer oriented, unlike the RIAA. That's why McDonalds has it's dollar menu and tries to offer healthy choices like salads, Microsoft offers discounts to businesses and market segments Windows, and why Coca-Cola and Pepsi carefully keep their prices matched, etc...
The RIAA, which is what we are discussing, isn't consumer-oriented at all.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
I've never seen non-used CD's below $9.99.
Best Buy frequently sells new CDs below this price.
Originally posted by scavanger
Best Buy frequently sells new CDs below this price.
You're right. I just checked and came to delete that part
I generally shop for CDs at local stores, but lately I've stuck to Acquisition and iTunes.
European Governments vs. Apple's Rights
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
By: David Holcberg
Dear Editor:
European governments have no right to force Apple to make downloads from iTunes compatible with the products of its rivals.
If music listeners don't like the limitations of Apple's products and want to be able to play purchased music on any device they own, they are free not to buy from Apple and to look for alternatives. They, or their representatives, have no right to dictate to Apple what capabilities to include in its products.
The violation of Apple's property rights, as well as those of Microsoft and other American companies, is a serious threat to innovation and technological progress. If these companies are not free to create products as they see fit, and are not allowed to profit from their new creations, innovation will decline.
David Holcberg
Originally posted by Boulderlaw
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?pa...s_iv_ctrl=1223
European Governments vs. Apple's Rights
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
By: David Holcberg
Dear Editor:
European governments have no right to force Apple to make downloads from iTunes compatible with the products of its rivals.
If music listeners don't like the limitations of Apple's products and want to be able to play purchased music on any device they own, they are free not to buy from Apple and to look for alternatives. They, or their representatives, have no right to dictate to Apple what capabilities to include in its products.
The violation of Apple's property rights, as well as those of Microsoft and other American companies, is a serious threat to innovation and technological progress. If these companies are not free to create products as they see fit, and are not allowed to profit from their new creations, innovation will decline.
David Holcberg
They do have a right to dictate what Apple can and cannot do in their country. The US Govt. dictates all the time what products can and cannot be sold within the United State.
It is more a violation of the consumers rights if you ask me. It has always been really simple when you would buy a movie or song. If you bought a CD it would play in all CD players no matter what brand, if you bought a DVD it would play in all DVD players no matter what brand, and the list goes on.... Is it too much to believe that consumers feel it should be the same way that if you buy and MP3 it should play in all MP3 players? Only now that we have the technology to prevent that from happening, and force us to rebuy our media each time we want to use a different playback option. If this does threaten innovation in DRM, good since DRM is unwanted by consumers.
Originally posted by Boulderlaw
If these companies are not free to create products as they see fit, and are not allowed to profit from their new creations, innovation will decline.
In short, bullshit. Maybe tomorrow I'll have more energy for responding at length. aynrand.org indeed. Harrumph.