That'd be nice, but if you think about it, it's a little much to ask. All of these things have vastly different file sizes, so they require different amounts of bandwidth in order to be transmitted; it costs different amounts of money, therefore, to get them to consumers when downloaded over the internet. If anything, there should be a standard, per-gigabyte price of transmission (25c per gig sounds about right to me).
That assumes that the bandwidth is the dominant cost factor in making and distributing a downloaded show. I am almost totally certain that It is not, unless you're talking about some small video podcast.
"It is clear that Apple?s retail pricing strategy for its iTunes service is designed to drive sales of Apple devices," Shields asserted," at the expense of those who create the content that make these devices worth buying."
What???? The current pricing is too expensive for something that does not exist (not physical or material).
The price of any full CD, DVD or Blu-ray downloaded should be $1. Then piracy will be over overnignt and they will boost sales thousands of times all over the world with huge profits.
That's precisely what I'm coming do. .25 a track for music is about right to end piracy, too. Sales would boom. However, it would make music and video a commodity. This is verboten in the world of Hollywood.
The other day, I saw the former Disney head, Michael Eisner, explain the world view of these jerks: "First," he said, "U.S. wealth was in land, and then in fixed assets (steel factories, railroads), and now, it's in intellectual property." Uh-oh, who let Uncle Fester in here to run the country? This is not going to happen, especially not since we have the world's best, unstoppable distributor of intellectual property, the Internet. I mean, how lame is this? Eisner said, to catcalls in the very polite audience, that Universal is thinking about a lawsuit against Google! He thinks that the Google search engine should disallow searches for torrents! And porn!
In other words, Hollywood types think their lawyers can put them in control of all this. How stupid can you get? Uncle Fester Eisner is coming close.
"It is clear that Apple?s retail pricing strategy for its iTunes service is designed to drive sales of Apple devices," Shields asserted," at the expense of those who create the content that make these devices worth buying."
Really? Then how do you explain Amazon selling the same content for the SAME price?? These executives take the masses for a bunch of idiots. The reason for all of this is to hike up the prices on iTunes ahead of the October launch of NBC and Fox's Hulu.
This war can be traced back to Universal demanding a cut of all iPods sold. Microsoft gave in and they are pissed that Apple said no way.
The above statement makes it clear that Shields thinks that they diserve all your money. After all you should be paying more because he runs a company that pays Actors, Directors, and Producers outragous sums of money. Not to mention the Gaffer making $120,000. a year to set the lights on the set!
Apple is the 600 pound gorilla in this business. While some companies (Walmart) can try offering lower prices, none can offer higher ones. Whatever prices Apple has, others demand that as well.
It's pretty obvious that if, a smaller company tried to offer content at higher prices than Apple, they wouldn't sell much.
If Apple allows higher prices, then they to can offer higher prices.
That's why no one offers songs higher that Apples prices (at least locked songs). Apple's pricing became the industry pricing model.
As someone else said in another thread, Apple wants the price low to not only sell a lot of content, and so sell a lot of iPods, but to also keep that barely break-even pricing to make it difficult for other sites that don't sell nearly as much content as Apple does, from making a decent profit. That gives Apple more power, as they don't rely on the sales of content for their own profits. MS operates the same way, pricing the XBox and Zune below a viable price point for years, because their other highly profitable products allow them to do so.
As someone else said in another thread, Apple wants the price low to not only sell a lot of content, and so sell a lot of iPods, but to also keep that barely break-even pricing to make it difficult for other sites that don't sell nearly as much content as Apple does, from making a decent profit. That gives Apple more power, as they don't rely on the sales of content for their own profits. MS operates the same way, pricing the XBox and Zune below a viable price point for years, because their other highly profitable products allow them to do so.
Apple makes very little money on each file sold. After their costs, they might make a nickel. On a .99 cent song, the credit card takes a quarter per transaction. So, you raise the price of a video to 1.99, and the credit card still takes a quarter, I would bet Apple only takes a dime instead of a nickel, and the rest goes to NBC. You have to ask, how much of what Apple gives them goes to the artist, actually? You'd have to look at the latest negotiations with talent to know that. Of course, Hollywood does the accounting, so you know that the same bunch who figure that every movie ever made is still losing money is being very creative with what they're doing with their payouts.
All the broadcast networks are looking for a way to get back to the period when they had 100% of the audience, and a broadcast license was a license to print money.
Yikes, there some embarrassingly SERIOUS factual errors in this report.
NBC-Universal is owned by GE. (Vivendi sold the Universal film/tv division to GE a few years ago, for $14 billion.)
Universal Music, on the other hand (as I recall; I have not looked this up prior to writing, but I am nearly 100% sure) is still owned by Vivendi.
I don't think that the "Universal" that belongs to NBC (film/video) has anything to do with the "Universal" that belongs to Vivendi (music) -- they are not "sister companies."
This is an interesting point, and not one that I've seen mentioned anywhere else. It's certainly difficult not to see the move by Universal (music) one week, and then see the move by NBC (TV) the next week, and then to see the phrase "NBC-Universal" and not think that this is two prongs of the same attack by the same company. I'd be very interested in hearing confirmation about your point.
Another thing that seems to sit easily in my "Conspiracy Lobe" is another phrase that I've not seen pointed out anywhere: "MSNBC".
In the past, we've seen Microsoft encourage one company to attack a competitor to the defitine detriment of the first and the hoped-for detriment of the second (SCO, anyone?). And it's very hard not to wonder if there's not a lot of that kind of thing in this dispute.
I know that a fight along these lines has been brewing for awhile, and it was bound to be someone. Interesting to see, though, that it was NBC after all. I wonder if anyone has had the same thoughts.
Another thing, too: Shields at NBC was quoted by Arstechnica as saying "We never asked to double the wholesale price for our TV shows." Notice that he is not denying that they intended to do precisely and exactly that. He's just said they never asked to double the wholesale price for their shows. Perhaps they asked to double the retail price of the shows. Perhaps they didn't "ask" to do that, but clearly intended to anyhow. Perhaps they asked to raise the price from $1.99 to $4.99, and then made the above statement thinking "Well technically we're telling the truth, because double $1.99 is $3.98, not $4.99."
If there were any real journalists running around, someone would corner Mr Shields and pin him down on this statement. I'd also like someone to ask these guys what changes they want to see in the DRM. They always get away with vague statements that they're dissarisfied with Apple's video DRM. But what precisely do they want changed, and why. Assuming I'm abiding strictly to the current Apple DRM rules, would their changes result in a restriction of my current choices? The answer is amost certainly yes, since I'm in agreement with a bunch of others posting before me, that I'm not aware of the video DRM having been hacked (to what point, anyway? what with BitTorrent being out there).
In the past, we've seen Microsoft encourage one company to attack a competitor to the defitine detriment of the first and the hoped-for detriment of the second (SCO, anyone?). And it's very hard not to wonder if there's not a lot of that kind of thing in this dispute.
Funny you should say that. Apple did the same thing with their payout to Creative.
Quote:
Another thing, too: Shields at NBC was quoted by Arstechnica as saying "We never asked to double the wholesale price for our TV shows." Notice that he is not denying that they intended to do precisely and exactly that. He's just said they never asked to double the wholesale price for their shows. Perhaps they asked to double the retail price of the shows. Perhaps they didn't "ask" to do that, but clearly intended to anyhow. Perhaps they asked to raise the price from $1.99 to $4.99, and then made the above statement thinking "Well technically we're telling the truth, because double $1.99 is $3.98, not $4.99."
You are stretching it a bit. But, even if they did ask for $3.98 (as a beginning negotiating position), that would be a lie from Apple, would it not? Apple did say that they want $4.99.
If there were any real journalists running around, someone would corner Mr Shields and pin him down on this statement. I'd also like someone to ask these guys what changes they want to see in the DRM. They always get away with vague statements that they're dissarisfied with Apple's video DRM. But what precisely do they want changed, and why. Assuming I'm abiding strictly to the current Apple DRM rules, would their changes result in a restriction of my current choices? The answer is amost certainly yes, since I'm in agreement with a bunch of others posting before me, that I'm not aware of the video DRM having been hacked (to what point, anyway? what with BitTorrent being out there).[/QUOTE]
Someone should also pin Jobs down. He is very slippery, and does only "friendly" interviews, and few of those.
Mind you, I have a fair amount of Apple stock, so I'm not against Apple, but the truth doesn't always come from the one you want to believe (or, not all of it).
I agree that its not binary, but Apple isn't interested in promoting consumer confusion in its own marketplace. This idea that people need to scout around looking for "deals" is stupid. Apple decided that songs on iTunes was 99 cents here in the U.S. that's the price of a song, and I'm sure they've defined a song further by its length. I've been looking at Amazon too. If NBC's proposals are so consumer-friendly, they should start forcing Amazon to take on these new "ideas" for "bundles" and "flexible pricing". In some ways they have.
I am tired of people talking about Apple and its single-price scheme. They make people sound like idiots. "Oh, I can't figure out what I want to pay for this and that. It's so confusing" I thought Apple users (and mac users, esp.) were supposed to be intelligent. Are they not intelligent enough to look at a price and decide whether its worth it to them?
<i>I've seen some things on Amazon cheaper than on iTunes, but other things MORE expensive. That indecisiveness was enough to make me stop looking. Everytime I see a DVD with little extras selling at Best Buy for $19.99 or $24.99 I scowl and keep moving. I keep thinking "Are you people HIGH?" Then I see the standard prices in supermarkets starting to excite people with a $9.99 and 2 for $15 bin. </i>
Do you know why they sell those DVDs for $20-$25? Because there are people who will buy it. But its up to the people who produce the content to decide what they want to sell it for. Its up to the consumers to decide what to pay for it. If you don't like the price (and you don't), don't buy it. But just because you don't, that doesn't mean there aren't people who will.
As for 'deals' and single pricing, this is just you. I prefer to have a chance to look around and find a better deal. There's reasons people like the 2/15 bin. Because they like the thought of getting a deal. That's why cars, furniture, houses, etc, have a 'list' price, and people know they will sell for less. Its what people like to do (hell, you can ask anyone who's ever had a garage sale and they'll tell you someone's come to them, looking at an item for 50 cents, and say they'd give them a quarter. Regardless of what it is). If you prefer everything in life be price-fixed (so you know wherever you go, its the exact same price), fine. Work on that. But that doesn't happen in the real world for anything. Why should online music/video (or even DVD be the same).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleverboy
Honestly, I'd by more movies if they all just cost $9.99. Really... I'd just BUY and BUY and BUY and BUY. As it is, I skulk around looking for this kind of pricing. If certain tv shows on iTunes started becoming $4.99, I'd probably browse less. I'd even want a feature that ONLY shows me $1.99 or less tv shows, because seeing anything higher would simply be annoying to even see.
Movies on iTMS are $9.99. Oh wait, they all aren't, are they. There's variable pricing of movies. Apparently the world's collective heads haven't exploded, so it must not be so bad for people. When I'm on the iTMS, there's a lot of stuff I won't buy for the price, audiobooks esp (those are just WAY overpriced). You know what I do? I don't buy them. There, wasn't that easy. I don't protest, I don't shout up and down about how much they should cost, I just don't buy them. When they're having a sale, I check out what's there, and maybe buy one or two. Same goes with albums.
If enough people did that, the price would come down. Its called the free-market system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleverboy
If NBC is ending its deal with Apple... they should insert half-seasons into iTunes. It ruins the "season-pass" feature, and forces Apple to simply shut it off for NBC shows. If I used that feature, it'd be irritating to think I'm paying more per episodes knowing that I won't be able to finish the series.
So, you're irritated by this whole thing, yet you don't even use the service? Or do you not just get season passes?
BTW, its Apple who's getting out. They're the ones not signing on the dotted line.
Yikes, there some embarrassingly SERIOUS factual errors in this report.
NBC-Universal is owned by GE. (Vivendi sold the Universal film/tv division to GE a few years ago, for $14 billion.)
Universal Music, on the other hand (as I recall; I have not looked this up prior to writing, but I am nearly 100% sure) is still owned by Vivendi.
I don't think that the "Universal" that belongs to NBC (film/video) has anything to do with the "Universal" that belongs to Vivendi (music) -- they are not "sister companies."
At one time pre iPod, Mr. Jobs wanted Apple to buy Universal Music, but Apple stock droped on the news and he backed off. He had a plan.
BTW, its Apple who's getting out. They're the ones not signing on the dotted line.
I really don't know about that, I'm not sure how that can be the conclusion. Both sides have demands and neither side is budging. Who is "backing out"? It sounds a lot like a stalemate to me, not a one-sided cancellation.
Has anyone read the terms of use for hulu.com? The following is from the "FEES AND PAYMENTS" section:
Hulu reserves the right at any time to charge fees for access to portions of the Site or the Site as a whole. However, in no event will you be charged for access to the Site unless we obtain your prior agreement to pay such charges. Thus, if at any time the Site requires a fee for portions of the Site that are now free, the Site will give you advance notice of such fees and the opportunity to cancel the account before such charges are imposed.
I can see it now; wait for a section of the site to get popular, then charge to access it.
Funny you should say that. Apple did the same thing with their payout to Creative.
I'm not sure I see the connection. Perhaps I didn't follow that story closely enough. I'm saying Company A sues company B. They both use a lot of capital resources in the process and are diminished in the process. Company C stands somewhere in the shadowy background, playing a very indirect role in having encouraged the action, to its own benefit. After the A vs B action is complete, C is the one to most effectively benefit. In the SCO debacle, there was certainly a large number of people thinking that Microsoft was encouraging the action and attempting to profit from it. (Judging by the Arstechnica discussion boards, at any rate).
In the Creative-Apple thing, I presume you mean Creative was "Company A" and Apple was "Company B" in the framework above. Who was "Company C", and why? If you're just saying it was a lawsuit that seemed to benefit no one, then I certainly agree. Fair enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You are stretching it a bit. But, even if they did ask for $3.98 (as a beginning negotiating position), that would be a lie from Apple, would it not? Apple did say that they want $4.99.
I don't think so. It's certainly not my intention. The point was that NBC might well have asked for egregious price increases (even double) and put out this statement, with the idea that a very slight change in language allows them to keep a straight face and say "I was't lying." Remember the Clinton definition of sex. Real people make these arguments. I was just pointing out something that I hadn't seen anyone mention yet.
As far as the $4.99, though, you're right. I appear to have gotten caught up in all the stories that are proliferating, and I lost track of what was a quote and what wasn't. I think your own site had said
Quote:
?We are disappointed to see NBC leave iTunes because we would not agree to their dramatic price increase,? said Eddy Cue, Apple?s vice president of iTunes.
So no, I think it wouldn't have been a lie from Apple to have said this, if NBC had asked for $3.98, even if that was only a starting bid. Double would have counted in my mind as "a dramatic price increase."
I'm curious, though, and perhaps you can help me out. If Apple didn't say "double", then where did it come from? (And where did that $4.99 thing start??) If nobody official actually said double, then why did the NBC guy say that? (Ars quoted him as saying that, at any rate). If no one up until then had said "double" then I think my comments were even MORE pertinent, weren't they?
And as far as the last bit you said, I don't believe I said who I believed, or even that I believed one side and not the other. I think there is truth to NBC's complaint that Apple's pricing structure is partly to benefit Apple. That might be a very legitimate complaint from them. But it's enough to my benefit, that I say, "More power to Apple if that's the case." I've also heard mentioned several times that the companies make more from the iTMS than they do from brick-and-mortar store sales. That might just apply to music, but if it applies to video as well, then I have even less sympathy for the media companies.
But who do I believe? I think Apple was probably telling the truth about NBC wanting a big price hike. I think NBC was being truthful about their position about Apple's motives for wanting prices low. I also think they find themselves in an invidious position, though, because it's hard to do good public relations when you're wanting to charge that public more money. Even if it might be fair. (From my standpoint, it's neither fair nor unfair. It's a business thing. If I don't like what they do, I can put my media on my computer and my iPods a different way. But I do like Apple and like their business model, even if it doesn't benefit everyone. I'm not sure of a lot of business models that do) (And no, that's not because business is evil, it's just the nature of such things)
I am tired of people talking about Apple and its single-price scheme. They make people sound like idiots. "Oh, I can't figure out what I want to pay for this and that. It's so confusing" I thought Apple users (and mac users, esp.) were supposed to be intelligent. Are they not intelligent enough to look at a price and decide whether its worth it to them?
<i>I've seen some things on Amazon cheaper than on iTunes, but other things MORE expensive. That indecisiveness was enough to make me stop looking. Everytime I see a DVD with little extras selling at Best Buy for $19.99 or $24.99 I scowl and keep moving. I keep thinking "Are you people HIGH?" Then I see the standard prices in supermarkets starting to excite people with a $9.99 and 2 for $15 bin. </i>
Do you know why they sell those DVDs for $20-$25? Because there are people who will buy it. But its up to the people who produce the content to decide what they want to sell it for. Its up to the consumers to decide what to pay for it. If you don't like the price (and you don't), don't buy it. But just because you don't, that doesn't mean there aren't people who will.
As for 'deals' and single pricing, this is just you. I prefer to have a chance to look around and find a better deal. There's reasons people like the 2/15 bin. Because they like the thought of getting a deal. That's why cars, furniture, houses, etc, have a 'list' price, and people know they will sell for less. Its what people like to do (hell, you can ask anyone who's ever had a garage sale and they'll tell you someone's come to them, looking at an item for 50 cents, and say they'd give them a quarter. Regardless of what it is). If you prefer everything in life be price-fixed (so you know wherever you go, its the exact same price), fine. Work on that. But that doesn't happen in the real world for anything. Why should online music/video (or even DVD be the same).
Movies on iTMS are $9.99. Oh wait, they all aren't, are they. There's variable pricing of movies. Apparently the world's collective heads haven't exploded, so it must not be so bad for people. When I'm on the iTMS, there's a lot of stuff I won't buy for the price, audiobooks esp (those are just WAY overpriced). You know what I do? I don't buy them. There, wasn't that easy. I don't protest, I don't shout up and down about how much they should cost, I just don't buy them. When they're having a sale, I check out what's there, and maybe buy one or two. Same goes with albums.
If enough people did that, the price would come down. Its called the free-market system.
So, you're irritated by this whole thing, yet you don't even use the service? Or do you not just get season passes?
BTW, its Apple who's getting out. They're the ones not signing on the dotted line.
I agree with most of what you are saying here. I do the same when in Barnes & Noble. First I look through the bargain racks. I might find something that for $9.99, or $4.99, or $1.99 is something that I wouldn't have been interested in at the higher price. Then I go to find what I actually came in for, which is usually much more expensive (yes, I do have a membership card).
The only thing I don't agree with is the last statement about the contract. The way it works is that the contract automatically renews at the current pricing and conditions, unless one party gives 90 day notice to the contrary. Here, it was NBC that gave notice.
I'm not sure I see the connection. Perhaps I didn't follow that story closely enough. I'm saying Company A sues company B. They both use a lot of capital resources in the process and are diminished in the process. Company C stands somewhere in the shadowy background, playing a very indirect role in having encouraged the action, to its own benefit. After the A vs B action is complete, C is the one to most effectively benefit. In the SCO debacle, there was certainly a large number of people thinking that Microsoft was encouraging the action and attempting to profit from it. (Judging by the Arstechnica discussion boards, at any rate).
In the Creative-Apple thing, I presume you mean Creative was "Company A" and Apple was "Company B" in the framework above. Who was "Company C", and why? If you're just saying it was a lawsuit that seemed to benefit no one, then I certainly agree. Fair enough?
Not quite.
After Apple and Creative came to an agreement, the concept was that Creative was now free to sue others, with Apple benefitting as company "C". Each company Creative sued that lost, would have resulted in a diminution of Apple's $100 million agreement.
Whether Creative actually does sue is something else, though I know that they did warn a few companies, possibly including MS.
Quote:
I don't think so. It's certainly not my intention. The point was that NBC might well have asked for egregious price increases (even double) and put out this statement, with the idea that a very slight change in language allows them to keep a straight face and say "I was't lying." Remember the Clinton definition of sex. Real people make these arguments. I was just pointing out something that I hadn't seen anyone mention yet.
As far as the $4.99, though, you're right. I appear to have gotten caught up in all the stories that are proliferating, and I lost track of what was a quote and what wasn't. I think your own site had said
So no, I think it wouldn't have been a lie from Apple to have said this, if NBC had asked for $3.98, even if that was only a starting bid. Double would have counted in my mind as "a dramatic price increase."
I'm curious, though, and perhaps you can help me out. If Apple didn't say "double", then where did it come from? (And where did that $4.99 thing start??) If nobody official actually said double, then why did the NBC guy say that? (Ars quoted him as saying that, at any rate). If no one up until then had said "double" then I think my comments were even MORE pertinent, weren't they?
And as far as the last bit you said, I don't believe I said who I believed, or even that I believed one side and not the other. I think there is truth to NBC's complaint that Apple's pricing structure is partly to benefit Apple. That might be a very legitimate complaint from them. But it's enough to my benefit, that I say, "More power to Apple if that's the case." I've also heard mentioned several times that the companies make more from the iTMS than they do from brick-and-mortar store sales. That might just apply to music, but if it applies to video as well, then I have even less sympathy for the media companies.
But who do I believe? I think Apple was probably telling the truth about NBC wanting a big price hike. I think NBC was being truthful about their position about Apple's motives for wanting prices low. I also think they find themselves in an invidious position, though, because it's hard to do good public relations when you're wanting to charge that public more money. Even if it might be fair. (From my standpoint, it's neither fair nor unfair. It's a business thing. If I don't like what they do, I can put my media on my computer and my iPods a different way. But I do like Apple and like their business model, even if it doesn't benefit everyone. I'm not sure of a lot of business models that do) (And no, that's not because business is evil, it's just the nature of such things)
I haven't tried to answer your post more thoroughly because I'd have to start looking up those statements, and I have to leave within 30 minutes, and have a few other things to do now.
But, they are interesting points, and I'd also like to know exactly who said exactly what.
we/I want HD 720p versions for ALL video media on iTS, and hopefully apple gets DRM out of the equation for people that can view h264/mpeg4/mpeg2 1080i/p on their media servers...
i can't believe that there's still no HD media available... and that in europe there's no video avaiable @ ALL!!! the EU media execs should be fired, all of them!
and if the media companies want to charge extra for HD i can tell them right now: HD i gonna flop big time....
when the switch was made from b/w to color TV no one charged more for TV programing! why wold anyone think that the switch from SDTV to HDTV resolution should be any different...???
the story is still the same, runtime is still the same... only the picture is clearer and more watch-able @ home or on the go...
I am tired of people talking about Apple and its single-price scheme. They make people sound like idiots. "Oh, I can't figure out what I want to pay for this and that. It's so confusing" I thought Apple users (and mac users, esp.) were supposed to be intelligent. Are they not intelligent enough to look at a price and decide whether its worth it to them?
I think you don't get it. If NBC can sour this market, they can make their other venues seem more popular. They set to make more money from endeavors like Hulu, but only if they can attract a large audience. If they can confuse the iTunes market enough, by charging variable pricing and making people hunt for "bargains" they'll come running to Hulu. At least that's the theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer
Do you know why they sell those DVDs for $20-$25? Because there are people who will buy it.
Wow, thanks for clearing that up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer
But its up to the people who produce the content to decide what they want to sell it for. Its up to the consumers to decide what to pay for it. If you don't like the price (and you don't), don't buy it. But just because you don't, that doesn't mean there aren't people who will.
Simply brilliant. Here's another scenario. The content industry was engaged in a series of money-losing enterprises, and iTunes came along with a simple format and flat pricing scheme that has won throngs of customers. It's been this way for YEARS now. It's the ONLY format that has been phenomenally successful. iTunes doesn't carry every content under the sun... do you realize this?
Here's a secret. Not every TV show and existence appears on iTunes. They only list the ones that agree to sell for $1.99 cents per episode. Whether its a tv show, music video, or short movie consumers can count on that $1.99 price point. If you want variable pricing, maybe some content simply isn't available on iTunes... maybe you need to buy it on Amazon. Feel free. I'll stick with using iTunes and their signature stand on value. If someone wants "flexible" pricing and higher fees, they can take their product elsewhere. Chicken and egg. iTunes is popular BECAUSE of its simple value proposition.
It is IDIOTIC to think that iTunes is popular and therefore can pour ANYTHING into its store, and let the market decide. Stores like Trader Joe's and Walmart (on the larger scale) are VERY sensitive to the pricing of products they allow in their store. For instance, Walmart is clearly waiting for stand alone HD players to come under a certain price before offering them. Should they let the consumer decide and offer EVERYTHING? No. If presented with unsavory options it would reflect DIRECTLY on the store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer
As for 'deals' and single pricing, this is just you.
No it isn't. You're confused already. If Walmart constantly listed high end pricing and low end pricing, people wouldn't go there as often. They go to Walmart for a consistant value proposition. For high-end products, they simply shop at a different store. Like Lord & Taylor or Macy for high end clothes. Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer
If you prefer everything in life be price-fixed (so you know wherever you go, its the exact same price), fine. Work on that. But that doesn't happen in the real world for anything. Why should online music/video (or even DVD be the same).
Hm. Actually in the real world, there are these things called "dollar-stores". You may have heard of them. When you're there, there is a specific break-down of goods that you can by at a consistant price. It's how certain markets are built, based on a simple value proposition for customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer
Movies on iTMS are $9.99. Oh wait, they all aren't, are they. There's variable pricing of movies. Apparently the world's collective heads haven't exploded, so it must not be so bad for people.
If you don't understand the way movies are priced on iTunes (according to release date), then I won't help you out. You're being very lazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer
If enough people did that, the price would come down. Its called the free-market system.
The free-market is still at work. It's called "shop somewhere else". There are plenty of online models. Do you know that eMusic allows 25 cent downloads? A number of venues throughout the REAL-WORLD work off of a specific value proposition for consumers. When iTunes was conceived, the 99 cent price-point was invented as a way to remove hesitation from the buying decision. A friend of mine considered putting her music on iTunes and went ahead with it, for exposure. She'd been selling her album off of her website for $12.99. iTunes pricing was $9.99. She weighed the benefits, and the clear optimizations of non-physical distributions, and thought it more than made sense for her music.
If all song tracks were available for the same price, consumers could make a purchase decision before they even opened the iTunes application. Same way for tv shows. --Ok, I'll help you out... with movies, if its a new release, you can pre-order it for $12.95, or buy it for $14.95 in some cases. Most all other movies are $9.99 (library items, movies that have been in publication for some time). Many of these internal category distinctions also exist in Walmart or Best Buy, although issues of production runs, manufacturing, and shipping come into play and pricing is often times artificially deflated as incentive for people to physically show up and generate foot traffic for the potential of other sales. This has been such a concern that as early as last year, Best Buy began talking about the need to "fire" certain customers who ONLY show up for deals they make no money on. Everyone has a different model of doing business in retail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer
So, you're irritated by this whole thing, yet you don't even use the service? Or do you not just get season passes?
I just don't get season passes, silly. Clearly I've downloaded episodes here and there, or I wouldn't care. For instance, last season I think I downloaded 2-3 eps of Heroes to watch on my iPod. I downloaded 2 episodes of the Black Donnolies, and a bunch of The Office and Lost episodes (especially the season finale, which I wanted to watch a few times).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer
BTW, its Apple who's getting out. They're the ones not signing on the dotted line.
Now you're just lying. That's sad.
Last I heard? The contract renews at the same terms if NBC didn't give the 90 day notice. Make sense now? NBC didn't want to automatically "renew". Having it automatically "renew" means Apple wouldn't get any new concessions either, they just continue operating in the same fashion as before with no new offerings/services.
Personally I don't see how this paints Apple as anything but vindicated. To try and shift the blame on iPod sales vs. paying more than you do for a better quality DVD is ridiculous. We are talking about free programming, and they still want to charge more than $1.99. They could eat my ass, and I'd still not pay a dime for a free show. What TF do iPods have to do with charging more for a digital download than it does for a better quality DVD anyway? Not a damn thing. NBC is totally unrealistic about the value of what is actually free programming. They are lucky anybody is buying that shit at all, and now they decide that it may be the opportune time to rape you for it. ƒu¢k them!
I agree with most of what you are saying here. I do the same when in Barnes & Noble. First I look through the bargain racks. I might find something that for $9.99, or $4.99, or $1.99 is something that I wouldn't have been interested in at the higher price. Then I go to find what I actually came in for, which is usually much more expensive (yes, I do have a membership card).
Don't be so quick to agree. Notice what we're talking about. Until iTunes, you could NOT buy a single track of music unless the company had published the song in the format called, aptly... a "single". The single died for a number of reasons, mostly, it wasn't financially viable from the manufacturing end.
Prior to iTunes, you couldn't purchase a single episode of a TV Show, or a single music video. These are NEW products that have only previously been available in aggregate. Apple still has provisions for variable pricing on "seasons" or "albums". It's still there. Most music albums are $9.99, but some aren't. What Apple doesn't practice variable pricing on, are the smallest increments of their sales. These are things that represent "impulse buys" for most people.
iTunes enjoys many thousands of impulse buys every hour of every day. They regularly have sales on music albums and audiobooks, further creating "attractive" values for consumers. The idea of futzing with the pricing on their "impulse buy" products, is fairly silly if you think about it. It's like McDonald's having a dollar menu with $1.30 items speckled throughout it. Also, its important to note, that uniformity of pricing works for and against. It means that while you can get most all library title movies for $9.99, some movies that are clearly not popular, ALSO cost $9.99, where they might otherwise go at 2 for $9.99. I think the trade-off is perfectly fine though. Sometimes, simply NOT BUYING something, doesn't really send a specific message. That's where popular retailers come in to encourage better value from their sales experience and customer feedback.
If iTunes has strict pricing requirements in specific sections of its product catalog, its their prerogative. Some items to a business structure aren't negotiable. This just means that we won't see certain products on iTunes. I think that's perfectly fine. The comments people make that this is "wrong" strike me as really strange though. It's like getting mad at Walmart because they won't carry Bose sound systems. Or criticizing McDonald's for not carrying shrimp or caviar. If a certain movie is determined by a studio to cost $20, and it can't stomach EVER selling it for $9.99, *even if* they aren't paying physical costs, that's fine. Don't sign with iTunes. More than a few people laugh at Amazon for listing new movies at $21.99 digital downloads, when the DVDs cost exactly the same, and allow much more playback flexibility, content and value. --But the studios are very scared of undermining their soundscan numbers and need to be strongly encouraged to embrace the new realties in the marketplace. That's my opinion. I don't blame them, but no one said transitioning to the future would be easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The only thing I don't agree with is the last statement about the contract. The way it works is that the contract automatically renews at the current pricing and conditions, unless one party gives 90 day notice to the contrary. Here, it was NBC that gave notice.
Comments
But what they're not being honest about is that they did, as apple claims, double the wholesale price.
Please get your facts straight. Both this story and the previous one said *more than* double.
That'd be nice, but if you think about it, it's a little much to ask. All of these things have vastly different file sizes, so they require different amounts of bandwidth in order to be transmitted; it costs different amounts of money, therefore, to get them to consumers when downloaded over the internet. If anything, there should be a standard, per-gigabyte price of transmission (25c per gig sounds about right to me).
That assumes that the bandwidth is the dominant cost factor in making and distributing a downloaded show. I am almost totally certain that It is not, unless you're talking about some small video podcast.
"It is clear that Apple?s retail pricing strategy for its iTunes service is designed to drive sales of Apple devices," Shields asserted," at the expense of those who create the content that make these devices worth buying."
What???? The current pricing is too expensive for something that does not exist (not physical or material).
The price of any full CD, DVD or Blu-ray downloaded should be $1. Then piracy will be over overnignt and they will boost sales thousands of times all over the world with huge profits.
That's precisely what I'm coming do. .25 a track for music is about right to end piracy, too. Sales would boom. However, it would make music and video a commodity. This is verboten in the world of Hollywood.
The other day, I saw the former Disney head, Michael Eisner, explain the world view of these jerks: "First," he said, "U.S. wealth was in land, and then in fixed assets (steel factories, railroads), and now, it's in intellectual property." Uh-oh, who let Uncle Fester in here to run the country? This is not going to happen, especially not since we have the world's best, unstoppable distributor of intellectual property, the Internet. I mean, how lame is this? Eisner said, to catcalls in the very polite audience, that Universal is thinking about a lawsuit against Google! He thinks that the Google search engine should disallow searches for torrents! And porn!
In other words, Hollywood types think their lawyers can put them in control of all this. How stupid can you get? Uncle Fester Eisner is coming close.
"It is clear that Apple?s retail pricing strategy for its iTunes service is designed to drive sales of Apple devices," Shields asserted," at the expense of those who create the content that make these devices worth buying."
Really? Then how do you explain Amazon selling the same content for the SAME price?? These executives take the masses for a bunch of idiots. The reason for all of this is to hike up the prices on iTunes ahead of the October launch of NBC and Fox's Hulu.
This war can be traced back to Universal demanding a cut of all iPods sold. Microsoft gave in and they are pissed that Apple said no way.
The above statement makes it clear that Shields thinks that they diserve all your money. After all you should be paying more because he runs a company that pays Actors, Directors, and Producers outragous sums of money. Not to mention the Gaffer making $120,000. a year to set the lights on the set!
Apple is the 600 pound gorilla in this business. While some companies (Walmart) can try offering lower prices, none can offer higher ones. Whatever prices Apple has, others demand that as well.
It's pretty obvious that if, a smaller company tried to offer content at higher prices than Apple, they wouldn't sell much.
If Apple allows higher prices, then they to can offer higher prices.
That's why no one offers songs higher that Apples prices (at least locked songs). Apple's pricing became the industry pricing model.
As someone else said in another thread, Apple wants the price low to not only sell a lot of content, and so sell a lot of iPods, but to also keep that barely break-even pricing to make it difficult for other sites that don't sell nearly as much content as Apple does, from making a decent profit. That gives Apple more power, as they don't rely on the sales of content for their own profits. MS operates the same way, pricing the XBox and Zune below a viable price point for years, because their other highly profitable products allow them to do so.
As someone else said in another thread, Apple wants the price low to not only sell a lot of content, and so sell a lot of iPods, but to also keep that barely break-even pricing to make it difficult for other sites that don't sell nearly as much content as Apple does, from making a decent profit. That gives Apple more power, as they don't rely on the sales of content for their own profits. MS operates the same way, pricing the XBox and Zune below a viable price point for years, because their other highly profitable products allow them to do so.
Apple makes very little money on each file sold. After their costs, they might make a nickel. On a .99 cent song, the credit card takes a quarter per transaction. So, you raise the price of a video to 1.99, and the credit card still takes a quarter, I would bet Apple only takes a dime instead of a nickel, and the rest goes to NBC. You have to ask, how much of what Apple gives them goes to the artist, actually? You'd have to look at the latest negotiations with talent to know that. Of course, Hollywood does the accounting, so you know that the same bunch who figure that every movie ever made is still losing money is being very creative with what they're doing with their payouts.
All the broadcast networks are looking for a way to get back to the period when they had 100% of the audience, and a broadcast license was a license to print money.
Yikes, there some embarrassingly SERIOUS factual errors in this report.
NBC-Universal is owned by GE. (Vivendi sold the Universal film/tv division to GE a few years ago, for $14 billion.)
Universal Music, on the other hand (as I recall; I have not looked this up prior to writing, but I am nearly 100% sure) is still owned by Vivendi.
I don't think that the "Universal" that belongs to NBC (film/video) has anything to do with the "Universal" that belongs to Vivendi (music) -- they are not "sister companies."
This is an interesting point, and not one that I've seen mentioned anywhere else. It's certainly difficult not to see the move by Universal (music) one week, and then see the move by NBC (TV) the next week, and then to see the phrase "NBC-Universal" and not think that this is two prongs of the same attack by the same company. I'd be very interested in hearing confirmation about your point.
Another thing that seems to sit easily in my "Conspiracy Lobe" is another phrase that I've not seen pointed out anywhere: "MSNBC".
In the past, we've seen Microsoft encourage one company to attack a competitor to the defitine detriment of the first and the hoped-for detriment of the second (SCO, anyone?). And it's very hard not to wonder if there's not a lot of that kind of thing in this dispute.
I know that a fight along these lines has been brewing for awhile, and it was bound to be someone. Interesting to see, though, that it was NBC after all. I wonder if anyone has had the same thoughts.
Another thing, too: Shields at NBC was quoted by Arstechnica as saying "We never asked to double the wholesale price for our TV shows." Notice that he is not denying that they intended to do precisely and exactly that. He's just said they never asked to double the wholesale price for their shows. Perhaps they asked to double the retail price of the shows. Perhaps they didn't "ask" to do that, but clearly intended to anyhow. Perhaps they asked to raise the price from $1.99 to $4.99, and then made the above statement thinking "Well technically we're telling the truth, because double $1.99 is $3.98, not $4.99."
If there were any real journalists running around, someone would corner Mr Shields and pin him down on this statement. I'd also like someone to ask these guys what changes they want to see in the DRM. They always get away with vague statements that they're dissarisfied with Apple's video DRM. But what precisely do they want changed, and why. Assuming I'm abiding strictly to the current Apple DRM rules, would their changes result in a restriction of my current choices? The answer is amost certainly yes, since I'm in agreement with a bunch of others posting before me, that I'm not aware of the video DRM having been hacked (to what point, anyway? what with BitTorrent being out there).
In the past, we've seen Microsoft encourage one company to attack a competitor to the defitine detriment of the first and the hoped-for detriment of the second (SCO, anyone?). And it's very hard not to wonder if there's not a lot of that kind of thing in this dispute.
Funny you should say that. Apple did the same thing with their payout to Creative.
Another thing, too: Shields at NBC was quoted by Arstechnica as saying "We never asked to double the wholesale price for our TV shows." Notice that he is not denying that they intended to do precisely and exactly that. He's just said they never asked to double the wholesale price for their shows. Perhaps they asked to double the retail price of the shows. Perhaps they didn't "ask" to do that, but clearly intended to anyhow. Perhaps they asked to raise the price from $1.99 to $4.99, and then made the above statement thinking "Well technically we're telling the truth, because double $1.99 is $3.98, not $4.99."
You are stretching it a bit. But, even if they did ask for $3.98 (as a beginning negotiating position), that would be a lie from Apple, would it not? Apple did say that they want $4.99.
If there were any real journalists running around, someone would corner Mr Shields and pin him down on this statement. I'd also like someone to ask these guys what changes they want to see in the DRM. They always get away with vague statements that they're dissarisfied with Apple's video DRM. But what precisely do they want changed, and why. Assuming I'm abiding strictly to the current Apple DRM rules, would their changes result in a restriction of my current choices? The answer is amost certainly yes, since I'm in agreement with a bunch of others posting before me, that I'm not aware of the video DRM having been hacked (to what point, anyway? what with BitTorrent being out there).[/QUOTE]
Someone should also pin Jobs down. He is very slippery, and does only "friendly" interviews, and few of those.
Mind you, I have a fair amount of Apple stock, so I'm not against Apple, but the truth doesn't always come from the one you want to believe (or, not all of it).
I agree that its not binary, but Apple isn't interested in promoting consumer confusion in its own marketplace. This idea that people need to scout around looking for "deals" is stupid. Apple decided that songs on iTunes was 99 cents here in the U.S. that's the price of a song, and I'm sure they've defined a song further by its length. I've been looking at Amazon too. If NBC's proposals are so consumer-friendly, they should start forcing Amazon to take on these new "ideas" for "bundles" and "flexible pricing". In some ways they have.
I am tired of people talking about Apple and its single-price scheme. They make people sound like idiots. "Oh, I can't figure out what I want to pay for this and that. It's so confusing" I thought Apple users (and mac users, esp.) were supposed to be intelligent. Are they not intelligent enough to look at a price and decide whether its worth it to them?
<i>I've seen some things on Amazon cheaper than on iTunes, but other things MORE expensive. That indecisiveness was enough to make me stop looking. Everytime I see a DVD with little extras selling at Best Buy for $19.99 or $24.99 I scowl and keep moving. I keep thinking "Are you people HIGH?" Then I see the standard prices in supermarkets starting to excite people with a $9.99 and 2 for $15 bin. </i>
Do you know why they sell those DVDs for $20-$25? Because there are people who will buy it. But its up to the people who produce the content to decide what they want to sell it for. Its up to the consumers to decide what to pay for it. If you don't like the price (and you don't), don't buy it. But just because you don't, that doesn't mean there aren't people who will.
As for 'deals' and single pricing, this is just you. I prefer to have a chance to look around and find a better deal. There's reasons people like the 2/15 bin. Because they like the thought of getting a deal. That's why cars, furniture, houses, etc, have a 'list' price, and people know they will sell for less. Its what people like to do (hell, you can ask anyone who's ever had a garage sale and they'll tell you someone's come to them, looking at an item for 50 cents, and say they'd give them a quarter. Regardless of what it is). If you prefer everything in life be price-fixed (so you know wherever you go, its the exact same price), fine. Work on that. But that doesn't happen in the real world for anything. Why should online music/video (or even DVD be the same).
Honestly, I'd by more movies if they all just cost $9.99. Really... I'd just BUY and BUY and BUY and BUY. As it is, I skulk around looking for this kind of pricing. If certain tv shows on iTunes started becoming $4.99, I'd probably browse less. I'd even want a feature that ONLY shows me $1.99 or less tv shows, because seeing anything higher would simply be annoying to even see.
Movies on iTMS are $9.99. Oh wait, they all aren't, are they. There's variable pricing of movies. Apparently the world's collective heads haven't exploded, so it must not be so bad for people. When I'm on the iTMS, there's a lot of stuff I won't buy for the price, audiobooks esp (those are just WAY overpriced). You know what I do? I don't buy them. There, wasn't that easy. I don't protest, I don't shout up and down about how much they should cost, I just don't buy them. When they're having a sale, I check out what's there, and maybe buy one or two. Same goes with albums.
If enough people did that, the price would come down. Its called the free-market system.
If NBC is ending its deal with Apple... they should insert half-seasons into iTunes. It ruins the "season-pass" feature, and forces Apple to simply shut it off for NBC shows. If I used that feature, it'd be irritating to think I'm paying more per episodes knowing that I won't be able to finish the series.
So, you're irritated by this whole thing, yet you don't even use the service? Or do you not just get season passes?
BTW, its Apple who's getting out. They're the ones not signing on the dotted line.
Yikes, there some embarrassingly SERIOUS factual errors in this report.
NBC-Universal is owned by GE. (Vivendi sold the Universal film/tv division to GE a few years ago, for $14 billion.)
Universal Music, on the other hand (as I recall; I have not looked this up prior to writing, but I am nearly 100% sure) is still owned by Vivendi.
I don't think that the "Universal" that belongs to NBC (film/video) has anything to do with the "Universal" that belongs to Vivendi (music) -- they are not "sister companies."
At one time pre iPod, Mr. Jobs wanted Apple to buy Universal Music, but Apple stock droped on the news and he backed off. He had a plan.
BTW, its Apple who's getting out. They're the ones not signing on the dotted line.
I really don't know about that, I'm not sure how that can be the conclusion. Both sides have demands and neither side is budging. Who is "backing out"? It sounds a lot like a stalemate to me, not a one-sided cancellation.
Hulu reserves the right at any time to charge fees for access to portions of the Site or the Site as a whole. However, in no event will you be charged for access to the Site unless we obtain your prior agreement to pay such charges. Thus, if at any time the Site requires a fee for portions of the Site that are now free, the Site will give you advance notice of such fees and the opportunity to cancel the account before such charges are imposed.
I can see it now; wait for a section of the site to get popular, then charge to access it.
Funny you should say that. Apple did the same thing with their payout to Creative.
I'm not sure I see the connection. Perhaps I didn't follow that story closely enough. I'm saying Company A sues company B. They both use a lot of capital resources in the process and are diminished in the process. Company C stands somewhere in the shadowy background, playing a very indirect role in having encouraged the action, to its own benefit. After the A vs B action is complete, C is the one to most effectively benefit. In the SCO debacle, there was certainly a large number of people thinking that Microsoft was encouraging the action and attempting to profit from it. (Judging by the Arstechnica discussion boards, at any rate).
In the Creative-Apple thing, I presume you mean Creative was "Company A" and Apple was "Company B" in the framework above. Who was "Company C", and why? If you're just saying it was a lawsuit that seemed to benefit no one, then I certainly agree. Fair enough?
You are stretching it a bit. But, even if they did ask for $3.98 (as a beginning negotiating position), that would be a lie from Apple, would it not? Apple did say that they want $4.99.
I don't think so. It's certainly not my intention. The point was that NBC might well have asked for egregious price increases (even double) and put out this statement, with the idea that a very slight change in language allows them to keep a straight face and say "I was't lying." Remember the Clinton definition of sex. Real people make these arguments. I was just pointing out something that I hadn't seen anyone mention yet.
As far as the $4.99, though, you're right. I appear to have gotten caught up in all the stories that are proliferating, and I lost track of what was a quote and what wasn't. I think your own site had said
?We are disappointed to see NBC leave iTunes because we would not agree to their dramatic price increase,? said Eddy Cue, Apple?s vice president of iTunes.
So no, I think it wouldn't have been a lie from Apple to have said this, if NBC had asked for $3.98, even if that was only a starting bid. Double would have counted in my mind as "a dramatic price increase."
I'm curious, though, and perhaps you can help me out. If Apple didn't say "double", then where did it come from? (And where did that $4.99 thing start??) If nobody official actually said double, then why did the NBC guy say that? (Ars quoted him as saying that, at any rate). If no one up until then had said "double" then I think my comments were even MORE pertinent, weren't they?
And as far as the last bit you said, I don't believe I said who I believed, or even that I believed one side and not the other. I think there is truth to NBC's complaint that Apple's pricing structure is partly to benefit Apple. That might be a very legitimate complaint from them. But it's enough to my benefit, that I say, "More power to Apple if that's the case." I've also heard mentioned several times that the companies make more from the iTMS than they do from brick-and-mortar store sales. That might just apply to music, but if it applies to video as well, then I have even less sympathy for the media companies.
But who do I believe? I think Apple was probably telling the truth about NBC wanting a big price hike. I think NBC was being truthful about their position about Apple's motives for wanting prices low. I also think they find themselves in an invidious position, though, because it's hard to do good public relations when you're wanting to charge that public more money. Even if it might be fair. (From my standpoint, it's neither fair nor unfair. It's a business thing. If I don't like what they do, I can put my media on my computer and my iPods a different way. But I do like Apple and like their business model, even if it doesn't benefit everyone. I'm not sure of a lot of business models that do) (And no, that's not because business is evil, it's just the nature of such things)
I am tired of people talking about Apple and its single-price scheme. They make people sound like idiots. "Oh, I can't figure out what I want to pay for this and that. It's so confusing" I thought Apple users (and mac users, esp.) were supposed to be intelligent. Are they not intelligent enough to look at a price and decide whether its worth it to them?
<i>I've seen some things on Amazon cheaper than on iTunes, but other things MORE expensive. That indecisiveness was enough to make me stop looking. Everytime I see a DVD with little extras selling at Best Buy for $19.99 or $24.99 I scowl and keep moving. I keep thinking "Are you people HIGH?" Then I see the standard prices in supermarkets starting to excite people with a $9.99 and 2 for $15 bin. </i>
Do you know why they sell those DVDs for $20-$25? Because there are people who will buy it. But its up to the people who produce the content to decide what they want to sell it for. Its up to the consumers to decide what to pay for it. If you don't like the price (and you don't), don't buy it. But just because you don't, that doesn't mean there aren't people who will.
As for 'deals' and single pricing, this is just you. I prefer to have a chance to look around and find a better deal. There's reasons people like the 2/15 bin. Because they like the thought of getting a deal. That's why cars, furniture, houses, etc, have a 'list' price, and people know they will sell for less. Its what people like to do (hell, you can ask anyone who's ever had a garage sale and they'll tell you someone's come to them, looking at an item for 50 cents, and say they'd give them a quarter. Regardless of what it is). If you prefer everything in life be price-fixed (so you know wherever you go, its the exact same price), fine. Work on that. But that doesn't happen in the real world for anything. Why should online music/video (or even DVD be the same).
Movies on iTMS are $9.99. Oh wait, they all aren't, are they. There's variable pricing of movies. Apparently the world's collective heads haven't exploded, so it must not be so bad for people. When I'm on the iTMS, there's a lot of stuff I won't buy for the price, audiobooks esp (those are just WAY overpriced). You know what I do? I don't buy them. There, wasn't that easy. I don't protest, I don't shout up and down about how much they should cost, I just don't buy them. When they're having a sale, I check out what's there, and maybe buy one or two. Same goes with albums.
If enough people did that, the price would come down. Its called the free-market system.
So, you're irritated by this whole thing, yet you don't even use the service? Or do you not just get season passes?
BTW, its Apple who's getting out. They're the ones not signing on the dotted line.
I agree with most of what you are saying here. I do the same when in Barnes & Noble. First I look through the bargain racks. I might find something that for $9.99, or $4.99, or $1.99 is something that I wouldn't have been interested in at the higher price. Then I go to find what I actually came in for, which is usually much more expensive (yes, I do have a membership card).
The only thing I don't agree with is the last statement about the contract. The way it works is that the contract automatically renews at the current pricing and conditions, unless one party gives 90 day notice to the contrary. Here, it was NBC that gave notice.
I'm not sure I see the connection. Perhaps I didn't follow that story closely enough. I'm saying Company A sues company B. They both use a lot of capital resources in the process and are diminished in the process. Company C stands somewhere in the shadowy background, playing a very indirect role in having encouraged the action, to its own benefit. After the A vs B action is complete, C is the one to most effectively benefit. In the SCO debacle, there was certainly a large number of people thinking that Microsoft was encouraging the action and attempting to profit from it. (Judging by the Arstechnica discussion boards, at any rate).
In the Creative-Apple thing, I presume you mean Creative was "Company A" and Apple was "Company B" in the framework above. Who was "Company C", and why? If you're just saying it was a lawsuit that seemed to benefit no one, then I certainly agree. Fair enough?
Not quite.
After Apple and Creative came to an agreement, the concept was that Creative was now free to sue others, with Apple benefitting as company "C". Each company Creative sued that lost, would have resulted in a diminution of Apple's $100 million agreement.
Whether Creative actually does sue is something else, though I know that they did warn a few companies, possibly including MS.
I don't think so. It's certainly not my intention. The point was that NBC might well have asked for egregious price increases (even double) and put out this statement, with the idea that a very slight change in language allows them to keep a straight face and say "I was't lying." Remember the Clinton definition of sex. Real people make these arguments. I was just pointing out something that I hadn't seen anyone mention yet.
As far as the $4.99, though, you're right. I appear to have gotten caught up in all the stories that are proliferating, and I lost track of what was a quote and what wasn't. I think your own site had said
So no, I think it wouldn't have been a lie from Apple to have said this, if NBC had asked for $3.98, even if that was only a starting bid. Double would have counted in my mind as "a dramatic price increase."
I'm curious, though, and perhaps you can help me out. If Apple didn't say "double", then where did it come from? (And where did that $4.99 thing start??) If nobody official actually said double, then why did the NBC guy say that? (Ars quoted him as saying that, at any rate). If no one up until then had said "double" then I think my comments were even MORE pertinent, weren't they?
And as far as the last bit you said, I don't believe I said who I believed, or even that I believed one side and not the other. I think there is truth to NBC's complaint that Apple's pricing structure is partly to benefit Apple. That might be a very legitimate complaint from them. But it's enough to my benefit, that I say, "More power to Apple if that's the case." I've also heard mentioned several times that the companies make more from the iTMS than they do from brick-and-mortar store sales. That might just apply to music, but if it applies to video as well, then I have even less sympathy for the media companies.
But who do I believe? I think Apple was probably telling the truth about NBC wanting a big price hike. I think NBC was being truthful about their position about Apple's motives for wanting prices low. I also think they find themselves in an invidious position, though, because it's hard to do good public relations when you're wanting to charge that public more money. Even if it might be fair. (From my standpoint, it's neither fair nor unfair. It's a business thing. If I don't like what they do, I can put my media on my computer and my iPods a different way. But I do like Apple and like their business model, even if it doesn't benefit everyone. I'm not sure of a lot of business models that do) (And no, that's not because business is evil, it's just the nature of such things)
I haven't tried to answer your post more thoroughly because I'd have to start looking up those statements, and I have to leave within 30 minutes, and have a few other things to do now.
But, they are interesting points, and I'd also like to know exactly who said exactly what.
this is a huge bummer...
we/I want HD 720p versions for ALL video media on iTS, and hopefully apple gets DRM out of the equation for people that can view h264/mpeg4/mpeg2 1080i/p on their media servers...
i can't believe that there's still no HD media available... and that in europe there's no video avaiable @ ALL!!! the EU media execs should be fired, all of them!
when the switch was made from b/w to color TV no one charged more for TV programing! why wold anyone think that the switch from SDTV to HDTV resolution should be any different...???
the story is still the same, runtime is still the same... only the picture is clearer and more watch-able @ home or on the go...
I guess the question is: Who is lying, Apple or NBC?
My guess is NBC.
I'd say both. Business is business and lying (or exaggeration) is common.
I am tired of people talking about Apple and its single-price scheme. They make people sound like idiots. "Oh, I can't figure out what I want to pay for this and that. It's so confusing" I thought Apple users (and mac users, esp.) were supposed to be intelligent. Are they not intelligent enough to look at a price and decide whether its worth it to them?
I think you don't get it. If NBC can sour this market, they can make their other venues seem more popular. They set to make more money from endeavors like Hulu, but only if they can attract a large audience. If they can confuse the iTunes market enough, by charging variable pricing and making people hunt for "bargains" they'll come running to Hulu. At least that's the theory.
Do you know why they sell those DVDs for $20-$25? Because there are people who will buy it.
Wow, thanks for clearing that up.
But its up to the people who produce the content to decide what they want to sell it for. Its up to the consumers to decide what to pay for it. If you don't like the price (and you don't), don't buy it. But just because you don't, that doesn't mean there aren't people who will.
Simply brilliant. Here's another scenario. The content industry was engaged in a series of money-losing enterprises, and iTunes came along with a simple format and flat pricing scheme that has won throngs of customers. It's been this way for YEARS now. It's the ONLY format that has been phenomenally successful. iTunes doesn't carry every content under the sun... do you realize this?
Here's a secret. Not every TV show and existence appears on iTunes. They only list the ones that agree to sell for $1.99 cents per episode. Whether its a tv show, music video, or short movie consumers can count on that $1.99 price point. If you want variable pricing, maybe some content simply isn't available on iTunes... maybe you need to buy it on Amazon. Feel free. I'll stick with using iTunes and their signature stand on value. If someone wants "flexible" pricing and higher fees, they can take their product elsewhere. Chicken and egg. iTunes is popular BECAUSE of its simple value proposition.
It is IDIOTIC to think that iTunes is popular and therefore can pour ANYTHING into its store, and let the market decide. Stores like Trader Joe's and Walmart (on the larger scale) are VERY sensitive to the pricing of products they allow in their store. For instance, Walmart is clearly waiting for stand alone HD players to come under a certain price before offering them. Should they let the consumer decide and offer EVERYTHING? No. If presented with unsavory options it would reflect DIRECTLY on the store.
As for 'deals' and single pricing, this is just you.
No it isn't. You're confused already. If Walmart constantly listed high end pricing and low end pricing, people wouldn't go there as often. They go to Walmart for a consistant value proposition. For high-end products, they simply shop at a different store. Like Lord & Taylor or Macy for high end clothes. Right?
If you prefer everything in life be price-fixed (so you know wherever you go, its the exact same price), fine. Work on that. But that doesn't happen in the real world for anything. Why should online music/video (or even DVD be the same).
Hm. Actually in the real world, there are these things called "dollar-stores". You may have heard of them. When you're there, there is a specific break-down of goods that you can by at a consistant price. It's how certain markets are built, based on a simple value proposition for customers.
Movies on iTMS are $9.99. Oh wait, they all aren't, are they. There's variable pricing of movies. Apparently the world's collective heads haven't exploded, so it must not be so bad for people.
If you don't understand the way movies are priced on iTunes (according to release date), then I won't help you out. You're being very lazy.
If enough people did that, the price would come down. Its called the free-market system.
The free-market is still at work. It's called "shop somewhere else". There are plenty of online models. Do you know that eMusic allows 25 cent downloads? A number of venues throughout the REAL-WORLD work off of a specific value proposition for consumers. When iTunes was conceived, the 99 cent price-point was invented as a way to remove hesitation from the buying decision. A friend of mine considered putting her music on iTunes and went ahead with it, for exposure. She'd been selling her album off of her website for $12.99. iTunes pricing was $9.99. She weighed the benefits, and the clear optimizations of non-physical distributions, and thought it more than made sense for her music.
If all song tracks were available for the same price, consumers could make a purchase decision before they even opened the iTunes application. Same way for tv shows. --Ok, I'll help you out... with movies, if its a new release, you can pre-order it for $12.95, or buy it for $14.95 in some cases. Most all other movies are $9.99 (library items, movies that have been in publication for some time). Many of these internal category distinctions also exist in Walmart or Best Buy, although issues of production runs, manufacturing, and shipping come into play and pricing is often times artificially deflated as incentive for people to physically show up and generate foot traffic for the potential of other sales. This has been such a concern that as early as last year, Best Buy began talking about the need to "fire" certain customers who ONLY show up for deals they make no money on. Everyone has a different model of doing business in retail.
So, you're irritated by this whole thing, yet you don't even use the service? Or do you not just get season passes?
I just don't get season passes, silly. Clearly I've downloaded episodes here and there, or I wouldn't care. For instance, last season I think I downloaded 2-3 eps of Heroes to watch on my iPod. I downloaded 2 episodes of the Black Donnolies, and a bunch of The Office and Lost episodes (especially the season finale, which I wanted to watch a few times).
BTW, its Apple who's getting out. They're the ones not signing on the dotted line.
Now you're just lying. That's sad.
Last I heard? The contract renews at the same terms if NBC didn't give the 90 day notice. Make sense now? NBC didn't want to automatically "renew". Having it automatically "renew" means Apple wouldn't get any new concessions either, they just continue operating in the same fashion as before with no new offerings/services.
~ CB
I agree with most of what you are saying here. I do the same when in Barnes & Noble. First I look through the bargain racks. I might find something that for $9.99, or $4.99, or $1.99 is something that I wouldn't have been interested in at the higher price. Then I go to find what I actually came in for, which is usually much more expensive (yes, I do have a membership card).
Don't be so quick to agree. Notice what we're talking about. Until iTunes, you could NOT buy a single track of music unless the company had published the song in the format called, aptly... a "single". The single died for a number of reasons, mostly, it wasn't financially viable from the manufacturing end.
Prior to iTunes, you couldn't purchase a single episode of a TV Show, or a single music video. These are NEW products that have only previously been available in aggregate. Apple still has provisions for variable pricing on "seasons" or "albums". It's still there. Most music albums are $9.99, but some aren't. What Apple doesn't practice variable pricing on, are the smallest increments of their sales. These are things that represent "impulse buys" for most people.
iTunes enjoys many thousands of impulse buys every hour of every day. They regularly have sales on music albums and audiobooks, further creating "attractive" values for consumers. The idea of futzing with the pricing on their "impulse buy" products, is fairly silly if you think about it. It's like McDonald's having a dollar menu with $1.30 items speckled throughout it. Also, its important to note, that uniformity of pricing works for and against. It means that while you can get most all library title movies for $9.99, some movies that are clearly not popular, ALSO cost $9.99, where they might otherwise go at 2 for $9.99. I think the trade-off is perfectly fine though. Sometimes, simply NOT BUYING something, doesn't really send a specific message. That's where popular retailers come in to encourage better value from their sales experience and customer feedback.
If iTunes has strict pricing requirements in specific sections of its product catalog, its their prerogative. Some items to a business structure aren't negotiable. This just means that we won't see certain products on iTunes. I think that's perfectly fine. The comments people make that this is "wrong" strike me as really strange though. It's like getting mad at Walmart because they won't carry Bose sound systems. Or criticizing McDonald's for not carrying shrimp or caviar. If a certain movie is determined by a studio to cost $20, and it can't stomach EVER selling it for $9.99, *even if* they aren't paying physical costs, that's fine. Don't sign with iTunes. More than a few people laugh at Amazon for listing new movies at $21.99 digital downloads, when the DVDs cost exactly the same, and allow much more playback flexibility, content and value. --But the studios are very scared of undermining their soundscan numbers and need to be strongly encouraged to embrace the new realties in the marketplace. That's my opinion. I don't blame them, but no one said transitioning to the future would be easy.
The only thing I don't agree with is the last statement about the contract. The way it works is that the contract automatically renews at the current pricing and conditions, unless one party gives 90 day notice to the contrary. Here, it was NBC that gave notice.
Exactly.
~ CB