Universal didn't really leave iTunes, they are the only one that's going the equivalent of month-to-month.
I beg to differ. You are correct about the facts but missing the bigger picture, I think. They are pulling out of iTunes a little at a time. Already, there are some hit TV shows that did not make the trip this time around. The RIAA is cutting off their nose to spite their face, as my mother used to say. Universal is the ring leader in trying to cobble together a coalition of studios to stand against the iTunes juggernaut. At this point, They are giving better deals to iTunes competitors, hoping that they can create enough of a revenue stream to pull out of iTunes altogether.
Quit bickering among yourselves and nitpicking minutia. Don't forget who the real enemy is.
I beg to differ. You are correct about the facts but missing the bigger picture, I think. They are pulling out of iTunes a little at a time. Already, there are some hit TV shows that did not make the trip this time around.
NBCU is not the same company as the Universal record label. They were broken up and have different owners.
Quote:
Quit bickering among yourselves and nitpicking minutia. Don't forget who the real enemy is.
In case there's any confusion, I'm not trying to present you or any other forum member as an enemy. I don't remember anyone else in this thread doing that either.
If the label in question is an "enemy", then is it really so bad that they are trying to leave? If it's true that they will only manage to spite themselves as you say, then to me, that doesn't sound like a problem except for themselves. They can go off and do that if they like, it's not really going to hurt you, me or Apple.
I beg to differ. You are correct about the facts but missing the bigger picture, I think. They are pulling out of iTunes a little at a time. Already, there are some hit TV shows that did not make the trip this time around. The RIAA is cutting off their nose to spite their face, as my mother used to say. Universal is the ring leader in trying to cobble together a coalition of studios to stand against the iTunes juggernaut. At this point, They are giving better deals to iTunes competitors, hoping that they can create enough of a revenue stream to pull out of iTunes altogether.
Quit bickering among yourselves and nitpicking minutia. Don't forget who the real enemy is.
There is no enemy. Universal wants to control the distribution of its own material. There isn't anything wrong with that.
If you were in their position, you would do the same thing.
We may, or may not, like what they are doing, but it's understandable. they want to help create a more level playing field in online downloads, so they won't be beholden to any one (now iTunes) service.
Would you like to buy cars from only one dealership? Or electronics? Or books?
If iTunes was an MS service, you would be applauding this move, even if MS offered the same pricing (which of course, they do) as Apple does now.
So let's face it, it's only because it's Apple that you are angry, not the principle.
There is no enemy. Universal wants to control the distribution of its own material. There isn't anything wrong with that.
If you were in their position, you would do the same thing.
We may, or may not, like what they are doing, but it's understandable. they want to help create a more level playing field in online downloads, so they won't be beholden to any one (now iTunes) service.
Would you like to buy cars from only one dealership? Or electronics? Or books?
If iTunes was an MS service, you would be applauding this move, even if MS offered the same pricing (which of course, they do) as Apple does now.
So let's face it, it's only because it's Apple that you are angry, not the principle.
Again, I beg to differ. This just may be a matter of personal opinion, but I believe the RIAA/MPAA is the enemy of progress. I do not know of any other industry who shows as much contempt towards their customers as these groups. When I speak of enemies, I do not speak of artists or, for that matter, any members of this forum.
As I said, this is not about competition. I am all for competition. But in a truly open and fair competition, someone has to win. Apple was not the first to enter the MP3 player market. Nor were they the first to establish an online store. They simply did it better than anyone else on the planet. They are the #3 seller of music in America. They are making more money for the RIAA faster than the RIAA can release entertainment worth buying. The RIAA is not getting a bad deal from Apple. Apple practically saved them from themselves. The RIAA just wants more. It is not about business or shareholder returns, IMO. It is personal. They are not giving all of the other failed services the same deal as they give Apple. They are offering a better deal to competitors. This, in fact, might well have the result of undermining the iTunes success. But do not mistake it for business as usual. This is a purposeful and concerted effort by some in the industry who feel like they have lost their outdated distribution model to Apple. SJ probably made some powerful enemies along the way. And now, they are simply trying to punish him. Think about it. All of a sudden, they care less about DRM and more about making sure that Apple does not have the opportunity to capitalize on DRM-free music.
Again, this is not competitive forces at work. This is not about iTunes, vs. Amazon, vs. the Zune market place. This is not about purchasing vs. subscriptions. This is not about the iPod vs. the Creative Zen. This is about trying to hurt Apple. From a none legal point of view, it seems like the RIAA is playing dirty pool by giving others more and better cards to play with than Apple. The consumer will not be the winner if the Zune becomes the MP3 player king of the mountain because of preferential treatment by the RIAA/MPAA.
Amazon's music store is not a good sign for consumers. It is a short-term victory that is designed to artificially eliminate Apple from the equation. Really, who would you rather control media distribution, the RI/MPAA, or SJ? If they are successful at marginalizing iTunes and the iPod, I think the community will redouble their efforts to pirate them out of existence.
Again, I beg to differ. This just may be a matter of personal opinion, but I believe the RIAA/MPAA is the enemy of progress. I do not know of any other industry who shows as much contempt towards their customers as these groups. When I speak of enemies, I do not speak of artists or, for that matter, any members of this forum.
As I said, this is not about competition. I am all for competition. But in a truly open and fair competition, someone has to win. Apple was not the first to enter the MP3 player market. Nor were they the first to establish an online store. They simply did it better than anyone else on the planet. They are the #3 seller of music in America. They are making more money for the RIAA faster than the RIAA can release entertainment worth buying. The RIAA is not getting a bad deal from Apple. Apple practically saved them from themselves. The RIAA just wants more. It is not about business or shareholder returns, IMO. It is personal. They are not giving all of the other failed services the same deal as they give Apple. They are offering a better deal to competitors. This, in fact, might well have the result of undermining the iTunes success. But do not mistake it for business as usual. This is a purposeful and concerted effort by some in the industry who feel like they have lost their outdated distribution model to Apple. SJ probably made some powerful enemies along the way. And now, they are simply trying to punish him. Think about it. All of a sudden, they care less about DRM and more about making sure that Apple does not have the opportunity to capitalize on DRM-free music.
Again, this is not competitive forces at work. This is not about iTunes, vs. Amazon, vs. the Zune market place. This is not about purchasing vs. subscriptions. This is not about the iPod vs. the Creative Zen. This is about trying to hurt Apple. From a none legal point of view, it seems like the RIAA is playing dirty pool by giving others more and better cards to play with than Apple. The consumer will not be the winner if the Zune becomes the MP3 player king of the mountain because of preferential treatment by the RIAA/MPAA.
Amazon's music store is not a good sign for consumers. It is a short-term victory that is designed to artificially eliminate Apple from the equation. Really, who would you rather control media distribution, the RI/MPAA, or SJ? If they are successful at marginalizing iTunes and the iPod, I think the community will redouble their efforts to pirate them out of existence.
Universal is not the RIAA, though they are one of its employeers.
I can separate out the dispute they and Apple are having, from the work the RIAA is doing to prevent theft, which I do agree is not good for the industry that Apple itself now belongs to.
But, the RIAA's work, overhanded as it is, is another issue entirely from Universal's dispute with Apple.
You're wrong about Amazon's music store. It IS a good thing for consumers. Did you say the same thing about iTunes when it lowered the price of downloaded music?
Competition is good for the consumer.
As Apple makes very little profis from iTunes sales, this won't hurt Apple in that sense. It's even oriented towards iTunes and the iPod. Amazon isn't run by a dummy. Bezos understands how it works.
You're wrong about Amazon's music store. It IS a good thing for consumers. Did you say the same thing about iTunes when it lowered the price of downloaded music?
Competition is good for the consumer.
As Apple makes very little profis from iTunes sales, this won't hurt Apple in that sense. It's even oriented towards iTunes and the iPod. Amazon isn't run by a dummy. Bezos understands how it works.
Again, I must beg to differ. I am starting to feel like a beggar.
By the way, do you actually do anything besides post on Appleinsider? Please take no offense. I mean it with humor.
Apple lowered its price when it could. If not for Apple, there would be no DRM-free, online music store. At risk of repeating myself, this is not an example of competition in the free market. Amazon did not negotiate a better deal than Apple. IT is not charging more than they have to and then bending to competitive pressure. This is Universal trying to pull the rug out from under Apple. Period. This is likely what Jobs was pushing for in the first place. It was inevitable that it would happen. Universal and the rest of Job's enemies in the music business are going to make SJ pay for forcing this issue. That is not competitive; that is anti-competitive. The consumer is not benefitting from competitive forces. The third largest, most innovative, and consumer-friendly music store is going to suffer. All of the people who bought iPods for its seamless integration with iTunes and the best outlet for legal downloads is going to suffer. That is a whole lot of people for Universal to piss off. I am reading the future, which is the same as yesterday's newspaper. When people do not find their song or album on iTunes in a DRM-free download, sales of xtorrent and Aquisition are going to skyrocket. This is the worst case scenario for the consumer, the artist, and the bone-headed labels.
Again, I must beg to differ. I am starting to feel like a beggar.
By the way, do you actually do anything besides post on Appleinsider? Please take no offense. I mean it with humor.
I retired three years ago when my partner and I sold our business. I decided to stay out of the rat race and bother you.
Quote:
Apple lowered its price when it could. If not for Apple, there would be no DRM-free, online music store. At risk of repeating myself, this is not an example of competition in the free market. Amazon did not negotiate a better deal than Apple. IT is not charging more than they have to and then bending to competitive pressure. This is Universal trying to pull the rug out from under Apple. Period. This is likely what Jobs was pushing for in the first place. It was inevitable that it would happen. Universal and the rest of Job's enemies in the music business are going to make SJ pay for forcing this issue. That is not competitive; that is anti-competitive. The consumer is not benefitting from competitive forces. The third largest, most innovative, and consumer-friendly music store is going to suffer. All of the people who bought iPods for its seamless integration with iTunes and the best outlet for legal downloads is going to suffer. That is a whole lot of people for Universal to piss off. I am reading the future, which is the same as yesterday's newspaper. When people do not find their song or album on iTunes in a DRM-free download, sales of xtorrent and Aquisition are going to skyrocket. This is the worst case scenario for the consumer, the artist, and the bone-headed labels.
Apple lowered its price when it saw serious competition for the first time. It wasn't by free choice.
DRM=free music from the majors started with EMI. They announced they were going to do that some time before their DRM songs showed up at iTunes, at higher prices. They also showed up on other music download sites, as EMI didn't just license them to Apple.
Those are the corrected facts.
Competition is the idea of "pulling the rung" out from under your competitor. so yes, it is competition.
It's not competition when Apple charges $129 for its OS vs MS charging up to $399?
It wasn't competition when Apple negotiated the original 99 cent deals? Was Apple trying to pull the rug out from under all the other online music stores? No?
You don't know what Jobs was pushing for.
Anti-competitive behavior is when one company forces others who are dependent upon it, to bow to its rules, and pricing models. Who is doing this in the music industry? The name is on the tip of my tongue...Oh yes, it's Apple!
Anti-competitive behavior is when one company forces others who are dependent upon it, to bow to its rules, and pricing models. Who is doing this in the music industry? The name is on the tip of my tongue...Oh yes, it's Apple!
SACRILEGE!
If MS were to make a better music player and create a better online store and wrap it all up in a better user experience, I would be the first to sing its praises. I have only been using Macs and Apple products for the last four years. I haven't drank enough of the Kool-aid to make me a mindless Apple drone. I understand that does not happen until the fifth year.
I'm not sure which of us has the facts. My understanding of the timeline of things is that France and other countries, started making noise about DRM and Apple. SJ published his open letter saying that he has always wanted DRM-free music. It was the labels that would not allow it. EMI followed with a statement that they agreed with SJ. Soon after that, Apple released DRM-free tracks for slightly more than the regular price. This was an iTunes exclusive for a short time, if I am not mistaken. I truly believe that Apple had no interest in making those tracks more expensive. They had to negotiate with a label. Apple lowered the price when they could do so. The machinations of the music industry is intentionally trying to make Apple look like the bad Guy. That's rich.
Amazon did not negotiate a better deal with Universal. They did not create a better store or create a better user experience. That is what real competition brings to the consumer. The powers that be at Universal and the like, simply hate SJ. This is not about business. They are not making more money from Amazon. If anything, they are making less. Likely, Universal demanded that Apple give them a $1 for every iPod sold, or they would give the competitors a better deal so as to marginalize the iPod. SJ told them to go stuff themselves. They are now attacking Apple by giving competitors a better deal. This is a deadly game of chicken that no one, especially the consumer, will benefit from.
By the way, when has iTunes/iPod not had competition? Not a day passes that another iKiller is announced. Not a day passes that another iKiller bites the dust. That's competition. Apple just keeps winning and everyone else keeps sucking. Universal is not trying to foster healthy competition. They are trying to kill Apple. That is not the same thing. They have artificially set up a competitor for Apple. They have given Apple a short sword and their gladiator, a machine gun. So forgive those of us who hopes Apple is packing a grenade or two, just to keep things interesting.
By the way, I am on short-term disability with an upcoming surgery rapidly approaching. That's why I have so much free time on my hands.
If MS were to make a better music player and create a better online store and wrap it all up in a better user experience, I would be the first to sing its praises. I have only been using Macs and Apple products for the last four years. I haven't drank enough of the Kool-aid to make me a mindless Apple drone. I understand that does not happen until the fifth year.
Welcome to your shortly to be upgraded status.
Quote:
I'm not sure which of us has the facts. My understanding of the timeline of things is that France and other countries, started making noise about DRM and Apple. SJ published his open letter saying that he has always wanted DRM-free music. It was the labels that would not allow it. EMI followed with a statement that they agreed with SJ. Soon after that, Apple released DRM-free tracks for slightly more than the regular price. This was an iTunes exclusive for a short time, if I am not mistaken. I truly believe that Apple had no interest in making those tracks more expensive. They had to negotiate with a label. Apple lowered the price when they could do so. The machinations of the music industry is intentionally trying to make Apple look like the bad Guy. That's rich.
I'm not going to deny that Jobs has said that he wan't in favor of DRM a while ago, but that didn't denote any action on Apple's part. And action is what's needed, not words.
EMI didn't say that they were doing this because of Jobs, they were doing it because they desperately needed a new business model. They are the smallest of the big music companies, and are spilling red ink. They figured that they had to try something. This was their model. If it worked, fine. If not, they could always go back to DRM.
But the question that is hanging above all of this is why Apple didn't offer DRM-free tracks years ago. There was no reason why they couldn't, as EMusic has been legally selling DRM-free indie tracks for years, almost 2 million, I believe. They have been the second largest site after iTunes, though no where near its sales. Apple could have done this as well. The ball was always in their coiurt, but they didn't pick it up.
While 30 cents seems to be "slightly more", it's actually 30% more. That's a big jump. If someone bought 1,000 songs over a few years, it would have cost them an additional $300. That's 300 songs worth.
The argument in France, and other places, has nothing to do with DRM-free songs, but with interchangability of the DRM itself, something Apple refuses to do with it's monopoly on downloads in most places.
Apple doesn't mind people going through the hassle of burning the songs to disk to get them to other players, but they don't want it to happen directly?too easy.
I'm inclined to think that Jobs didn't know tht EMI was going to do what it did when he made his remarks about dropping DRM in the EU, but when it did, he had no choice but to go along.
Quote:
Amazon did not negotiate a better deal with Universal. They did not create a better store or create a better user experience. That is what real competition brings to the consumer. The powers that be at Universal and the like, simply hate SJ. This is not about business. They are not making more money from Amazon. If anything, they are making less. Likely, Universal demanded that Apple give them a $1 for every iPod sold, or they would give the competitors a better deal so as to marginalize the iPod. SJ told them to go stuff themselves. They are now attacking Apple by giving competitors a better deal. This is a deadly game of chicken that no one, especially the consumer, will benefit from.
I'm sure there was negotiation. There always is. Amazon is in no way going to do something that is not to their benefit. And look at what it does to those songs, it interfaces them to iTunes! Not bad.
But, the ones mostly hurt here could be Universal itself, if it is licensing to Amazon for less than it's getting from Apple.That's the entire point here. Apple doesn't care that much about the prices on iTunes, though I'm sure they would rather make a small profit than a small loss. iPods, now iPhones, and ultimately computer sales is what Apple is looking to. Universal can't do that. Their content is the company.
Look, I'm not thrilled about this situation either, but Universal, and other content companies, are not comfortable allowing everything to go through Apple. That's why the movie companies have been holding back. They don't want to get caught in the same situation, where Apple dictates prices to them. Their responsibility is to their shareholders and not to Apple
Quote:
By the way, when has iTunes/iPod not had competition? Not a day passes that another iKiller is announced. Not a day passes that another iKiller bites the dust. That's competition. Apple just keeps winning and everyone else keeps sucking. Universal is not trying to foster healthy competition. They are trying to kill Apple. That is not the same thing. They have artificially set up a competitor for Apple. They have given Apple a short sword and their gladiator, a machine gun. So forgive those of us who hopes Apple is packing a grenade or two, just to keep things interesting.
Competition is not an announcement of another service that doesn't get off the ground. It's a service that's strong enough to make the others(s) rewrite their policies and prices. Until this Amazon service came about, that didn't happen. Apple dictated the rules in the industry. Even MS wasn't able to make a dent.
Quote:
By the way, I am on short-term disability with an upcoming surgery rapidly approaching. That's why I have so much free time on my hands.
Your serve...
Good luck, I know what you're going through. I hope it's not too serious.
But the question that is hanging above all of this is why Apple didn't offer DRM-free tracks years ago. There was no reason why they couldn't, as EMusic has been legally selling DRM-free indie tracks for years, almost 2 million, I believe. They have been the second largest site after iTunes, though no where near its sales. Apple could have done this as well. The ball was always in their coiurt, but they didn't pick it up.
This is an easy one. eMusic was not selling anything that people wanted. Sorry, that's a bit harsh as some of my favorite music is indie music. The fact of the matter is the iPod/iTunes combo depended on sales of popular singles and albums. The only reason they are bringing on more indies now is because the big labels won't let Apple sell non-DRM music from their catalogues. Without the big 5, you do not have a music store. That is what I call a monopoly; OK, fine, a pentopoly. I think you get my point.
By the way, before iTunes, the number 1 distribution method for music was P2P. Probably still is. But Apple provided these bast...s with a revenue model that they didn't imagine before. They take at least $.70 out of the $.99 you pay per song. I bet they are not making that kind of profit from Wal Mart. Their business was in the toilet before iTunes. If they alienate iTunes users, they have got three choices as I see it: They can go to Amazon and make less money per track and get half the sales as they would have through iTunes; they can go back to the good old days of P2P where they make no money; or they can go to Hell! The way these clowns have handled the entertainment industry, I suspect they will do all three.
As for the rest, I will bow to the wisdom of the elder statesman. I think we have hit enough volleys. Time for the gallery to pick a winner. Will it be the grumpy old man who speaks sacrilege against His Steveness? Or, will it be the younger man, more fleet of whit and able to invent facts and coin new words faster than he can type them?
This is an easy one. eMusic was not selling anything that people wanted. Sorry, that's a bit harsh as some of my favorite music is indie music. The fact of the matter is the iPod/iTunes combo depended on sales of popular singles and albums. The only reason they are bringing on more indies now is because the big labels won't let Apple sell non-DRM music from their catalogues. Without the big 5, you do not have a music store. That is what I call a monopoly; OK, fine, a pentopoly. I think you get my point.
By the way, before iTunes, the number 1 distribution method for music was P2P. Probably still is. But Apple provided these bast...s with a revenue model that they didn't imagine before. They take at least $.70 out of the $.99 you pay per song. I bet they are not making that kind of profit from Wal Mart. Their business was in the toilet before iTunes. If they alienate iTunes users, they have got three choices as I see it: They can go to Amazon and make less money per track and get half the sales as they would have through iTunes; they can go back to the good old days of P2P where they make no money; or they can go to Hell! The way these clowns have handled the entertainment industry, I suspect they will do all three.
As for the rest, I will bow to the wisdom of the elder statesman. I think we have hit enough volleys. Time for the gallery to pick a winner. Will it be the grumpy old man who speaks sacrilege against His Steveness? Or, will it be the younger man, more fleet of whit and able to invent facts and coin new words faster than he can type them?
Ok, I'll get my last one in then I'll stop as well.
EMusic has about 2 million tracks. I'm not sure if you thought I meant that they sold 2 million tracks. As of a bit under a year ago, they had sold well over 100 million tracks, plus their subscription model, or however it works.
The tracks that Apple released recently, DRM-free, to make up what Jobs called the most DRM-free tracks on any download service, mostly consisted of those tracks, and the EMI tracks.
Comments
Universal didn't really leave iTunes, they are the only one that's going the equivalent of month-to-month.
I beg to differ. You are correct about the facts but missing the bigger picture, I think. They are pulling out of iTunes a little at a time. Already, there are some hit TV shows that did not make the trip this time around. The RIAA is cutting off their nose to spite their face, as my mother used to say. Universal is the ring leader in trying to cobble together a coalition of studios to stand against the iTunes juggernaut. At this point, They are giving better deals to iTunes competitors, hoping that they can create enough of a revenue stream to pull out of iTunes altogether.
Quit bickering among yourselves and nitpicking minutia. Don't forget who the real enemy is.
I beg to differ. You are correct about the facts but missing the bigger picture, I think. They are pulling out of iTunes a little at a time. Already, there are some hit TV shows that did not make the trip this time around.
NBCU is not the same company as the Universal record label. They were broken up and have different owners.
Quit bickering among yourselves and nitpicking minutia. Don't forget who the real enemy is.
In case there's any confusion, I'm not trying to present you or any other forum member as an enemy. I don't remember anyone else in this thread doing that either.
If the label in question is an "enemy", then is it really so bad that they are trying to leave? If it's true that they will only manage to spite themselves as you say, then to me, that doesn't sound like a problem except for themselves. They can go off and do that if they like, it's not really going to hurt you, me or Apple.
I beg to differ. You are correct about the facts but missing the bigger picture, I think. They are pulling out of iTunes a little at a time. Already, there are some hit TV shows that did not make the trip this time around. The RIAA is cutting off their nose to spite their face, as my mother used to say. Universal is the ring leader in trying to cobble together a coalition of studios to stand against the iTunes juggernaut. At this point, They are giving better deals to iTunes competitors, hoping that they can create enough of a revenue stream to pull out of iTunes altogether.
Quit bickering among yourselves and nitpicking minutia. Don't forget who the real enemy is.
There is no enemy. Universal wants to control the distribution of its own material. There isn't anything wrong with that.
If you were in their position, you would do the same thing.
We may, or may not, like what they are doing, but it's understandable. they want to help create a more level playing field in online downloads, so they won't be beholden to any one (now iTunes) service.
Would you like to buy cars from only one dealership? Or electronics? Or books?
If iTunes was an MS service, you would be applauding this move, even if MS offered the same pricing (which of course, they do) as Apple does now.
So let's face it, it's only because it's Apple that you are angry, not the principle.
There is no enemy. Universal wants to control the distribution of its own material. There isn't anything wrong with that.
If you were in their position, you would do the same thing.
We may, or may not, like what they are doing, but it's understandable. they want to help create a more level playing field in online downloads, so they won't be beholden to any one (now iTunes) service.
Would you like to buy cars from only one dealership? Or electronics? Or books?
If iTunes was an MS service, you would be applauding this move, even if MS offered the same pricing (which of course, they do) as Apple does now.
So let's face it, it's only because it's Apple that you are angry, not the principle.
Again, I beg to differ. This just may be a matter of personal opinion, but I believe the RIAA/MPAA is the enemy of progress. I do not know of any other industry who shows as much contempt towards their customers as these groups. When I speak of enemies, I do not speak of artists or, for that matter, any members of this forum.
As I said, this is not about competition. I am all for competition. But in a truly open and fair competition, someone has to win. Apple was not the first to enter the MP3 player market. Nor were they the first to establish an online store. They simply did it better than anyone else on the planet. They are the #3 seller of music in America. They are making more money for the RIAA faster than the RIAA can release entertainment worth buying. The RIAA is not getting a bad deal from Apple. Apple practically saved them from themselves. The RIAA just wants more. It is not about business or shareholder returns, IMO. It is personal. They are not giving all of the other failed services the same deal as they give Apple. They are offering a better deal to competitors. This, in fact, might well have the result of undermining the iTunes success. But do not mistake it for business as usual. This is a purposeful and concerted effort by some in the industry who feel like they have lost their outdated distribution model to Apple. SJ probably made some powerful enemies along the way. And now, they are simply trying to punish him. Think about it. All of a sudden, they care less about DRM and more about making sure that Apple does not have the opportunity to capitalize on DRM-free music.
Again, this is not competitive forces at work. This is not about iTunes, vs. Amazon, vs. the Zune market place. This is not about purchasing vs. subscriptions. This is not about the iPod vs. the Creative Zen. This is about trying to hurt Apple. From a none legal point of view, it seems like the RIAA is playing dirty pool by giving others more and better cards to play with than Apple. The consumer will not be the winner if the Zune becomes the MP3 player king of the mountain because of preferential treatment by the RIAA/MPAA.
Amazon's music store is not a good sign for consumers. It is a short-term victory that is designed to artificially eliminate Apple from the equation. Really, who would you rather control media distribution, the RI/MPAA, or SJ? If they are successful at marginalizing iTunes and the iPod, I think the community will redouble their efforts to pirate them out of existence.
Again, I beg to differ. This just may be a matter of personal opinion, but I believe the RIAA/MPAA is the enemy of progress. I do not know of any other industry who shows as much contempt towards their customers as these groups. When I speak of enemies, I do not speak of artists or, for that matter, any members of this forum.
As I said, this is not about competition. I am all for competition. But in a truly open and fair competition, someone has to win. Apple was not the first to enter the MP3 player market. Nor were they the first to establish an online store. They simply did it better than anyone else on the planet. They are the #3 seller of music in America. They are making more money for the RIAA faster than the RIAA can release entertainment worth buying. The RIAA is not getting a bad deal from Apple. Apple practically saved them from themselves. The RIAA just wants more. It is not about business or shareholder returns, IMO. It is personal. They are not giving all of the other failed services the same deal as they give Apple. They are offering a better deal to competitors. This, in fact, might well have the result of undermining the iTunes success. But do not mistake it for business as usual. This is a purposeful and concerted effort by some in the industry who feel like they have lost their outdated distribution model to Apple. SJ probably made some powerful enemies along the way. And now, they are simply trying to punish him. Think about it. All of a sudden, they care less about DRM and more about making sure that Apple does not have the opportunity to capitalize on DRM-free music.
Again, this is not competitive forces at work. This is not about iTunes, vs. Amazon, vs. the Zune market place. This is not about purchasing vs. subscriptions. This is not about the iPod vs. the Creative Zen. This is about trying to hurt Apple. From a none legal point of view, it seems like the RIAA is playing dirty pool by giving others more and better cards to play with than Apple. The consumer will not be the winner if the Zune becomes the MP3 player king of the mountain because of preferential treatment by the RIAA/MPAA.
Amazon's music store is not a good sign for consumers. It is a short-term victory that is designed to artificially eliminate Apple from the equation. Really, who would you rather control media distribution, the RI/MPAA, or SJ? If they are successful at marginalizing iTunes and the iPod, I think the community will redouble their efforts to pirate them out of existence.
Universal is not the RIAA, though they are one of its employeers.
I can separate out the dispute they and Apple are having, from the work the RIAA is doing to prevent theft, which I do agree is not good for the industry that Apple itself now belongs to.
But, the RIAA's work, overhanded as it is, is another issue entirely from Universal's dispute with Apple.
You're wrong about Amazon's music store. It IS a good thing for consumers. Did you say the same thing about iTunes when it lowered the price of downloaded music?
Competition is good for the consumer.
As Apple makes very little profis from iTunes sales, this won't hurt Apple in that sense. It's even oriented towards iTunes and the iPod. Amazon isn't run by a dummy. Bezos understands how it works.
You're wrong about Amazon's music store. It IS a good thing for consumers. Did you say the same thing about iTunes when it lowered the price of downloaded music?
Competition is good for the consumer.
As Apple makes very little profis from iTunes sales, this won't hurt Apple in that sense. It's even oriented towards iTunes and the iPod. Amazon isn't run by a dummy. Bezos understands how it works.
Again, I must beg to differ. I am starting to feel like a beggar.
By the way, do you actually do anything besides post on Appleinsider? Please take no offense. I mean it with humor.
Apple lowered its price when it could. If not for Apple, there would be no DRM-free, online music store. At risk of repeating myself, this is not an example of competition in the free market. Amazon did not negotiate a better deal than Apple. IT is not charging more than they have to and then bending to competitive pressure. This is Universal trying to pull the rug out from under Apple. Period. This is likely what Jobs was pushing for in the first place. It was inevitable that it would happen. Universal and the rest of Job's enemies in the music business are going to make SJ pay for forcing this issue. That is not competitive; that is anti-competitive. The consumer is not benefitting from competitive forces. The third largest, most innovative, and consumer-friendly music store is going to suffer. All of the people who bought iPods for its seamless integration with iTunes and the best outlet for legal downloads is going to suffer. That is a whole lot of people for Universal to piss off. I am reading the future, which is the same as yesterday's newspaper. When people do not find their song or album on iTunes in a DRM-free download, sales of xtorrent and Aquisition are going to skyrocket. This is the worst case scenario for the consumer, the artist, and the bone-headed labels.
Again, I must beg to differ. I am starting to feel like a beggar.
By the way, do you actually do anything besides post on Appleinsider? Please take no offense. I mean it with humor.
I retired three years ago when my partner and I sold our business. I decided to stay out of the rat race and bother you.
Apple lowered its price when it could. If not for Apple, there would be no DRM-free, online music store. At risk of repeating myself, this is not an example of competition in the free market. Amazon did not negotiate a better deal than Apple. IT is not charging more than they have to and then bending to competitive pressure. This is Universal trying to pull the rug out from under Apple. Period. This is likely what Jobs was pushing for in the first place. It was inevitable that it would happen. Universal and the rest of Job's enemies in the music business are going to make SJ pay for forcing this issue. That is not competitive; that is anti-competitive. The consumer is not benefitting from competitive forces. The third largest, most innovative, and consumer-friendly music store is going to suffer. All of the people who bought iPods for its seamless integration with iTunes and the best outlet for legal downloads is going to suffer. That is a whole lot of people for Universal to piss off. I am reading the future, which is the same as yesterday's newspaper. When people do not find their song or album on iTunes in a DRM-free download, sales of xtorrent and Aquisition are going to skyrocket. This is the worst case scenario for the consumer, the artist, and the bone-headed labels.
Apple lowered its price when it saw serious competition for the first time. It wasn't by free choice.
DRM=free music from the majors started with EMI. They announced they were going to do that some time before their DRM songs showed up at iTunes, at higher prices. They also showed up on other music download sites, as EMI didn't just license them to Apple.
Those are the corrected facts.
Competition is the idea of "pulling the rung" out from under your competitor. so yes, it is competition.
It's not competition when Apple charges $129 for its OS vs MS charging up to $399?
It wasn't competition when Apple negotiated the original 99 cent deals? Was Apple trying to pull the rug out from under all the other online music stores? No?
You don't know what Jobs was pushing for.
Anti-competitive behavior is when one company forces others who are dependent upon it, to bow to its rules, and pricing models. Who is doing this in the music industry? The name is on the tip of my tongue...Oh yes, it's Apple!
Anti-competitive behavior is when one company forces others who are dependent upon it, to bow to its rules, and pricing models. Who is doing this in the music industry? The name is on the tip of my tongue...Oh yes, it's Apple!
SACRILEGE!
If MS were to make a better music player and create a better online store and wrap it all up in a better user experience, I would be the first to sing its praises. I have only been using Macs and Apple products for the last four years. I haven't drank enough of the Kool-aid to make me a mindless Apple drone. I understand that does not happen until the fifth year.
I'm not sure which of us has the facts. My understanding of the timeline of things is that France and other countries, started making noise about DRM and Apple. SJ published his open letter saying that he has always wanted DRM-free music. It was the labels that would not allow it. EMI followed with a statement that they agreed with SJ. Soon after that, Apple released DRM-free tracks for slightly more than the regular price. This was an iTunes exclusive for a short time, if I am not mistaken. I truly believe that Apple had no interest in making those tracks more expensive. They had to negotiate with a label. Apple lowered the price when they could do so. The machinations of the music industry is intentionally trying to make Apple look like the bad Guy. That's rich.
Amazon did not negotiate a better deal with Universal. They did not create a better store or create a better user experience. That is what real competition brings to the consumer. The powers that be at Universal and the like, simply hate SJ. This is not about business. They are not making more money from Amazon. If anything, they are making less. Likely, Universal demanded that Apple give them a $1 for every iPod sold, or they would give the competitors a better deal so as to marginalize the iPod. SJ told them to go stuff themselves. They are now attacking Apple by giving competitors a better deal. This is a deadly game of chicken that no one, especially the consumer, will benefit from.
By the way, when has iTunes/iPod not had competition? Not a day passes that another iKiller is announced. Not a day passes that another iKiller bites the dust. That's competition. Apple just keeps winning and everyone else keeps sucking. Universal is not trying to foster healthy competition. They are trying to kill Apple. That is not the same thing. They have artificially set up a competitor for Apple. They have given Apple a short sword and their gladiator, a machine gun. So forgive those of us who hopes Apple is packing a grenade or two, just to keep things interesting.
By the way, I am on short-term disability with an upcoming surgery rapidly approaching. That's why I have so much free time on my hands.
Your serve...
SACRILEGE!
If MS were to make a better music player and create a better online store and wrap it all up in a better user experience, I would be the first to sing its praises. I have only been using Macs and Apple products for the last four years. I haven't drank enough of the Kool-aid to make me a mindless Apple drone. I understand that does not happen until the fifth year.
Welcome to your shortly to be upgraded status.
I'm not sure which of us has the facts. My understanding of the timeline of things is that France and other countries, started making noise about DRM and Apple. SJ published his open letter saying that he has always wanted DRM-free music. It was the labels that would not allow it. EMI followed with a statement that they agreed with SJ. Soon after that, Apple released DRM-free tracks for slightly more than the regular price. This was an iTunes exclusive for a short time, if I am not mistaken. I truly believe that Apple had no interest in making those tracks more expensive. They had to negotiate with a label. Apple lowered the price when they could do so. The machinations of the music industry is intentionally trying to make Apple look like the bad Guy. That's rich.
I'm not going to deny that Jobs has said that he wan't in favor of DRM a while ago, but that didn't denote any action on Apple's part. And action is what's needed, not words.
EMI didn't say that they were doing this because of Jobs, they were doing it because they desperately needed a new business model. They are the smallest of the big music companies, and are spilling red ink. They figured that they had to try something. This was their model. If it worked, fine. If not, they could always go back to DRM.
But the question that is hanging above all of this is why Apple didn't offer DRM-free tracks years ago. There was no reason why they couldn't, as EMusic has been legally selling DRM-free indie tracks for years, almost 2 million, I believe. They have been the second largest site after iTunes, though no where near its sales. Apple could have done this as well. The ball was always in their coiurt, but they didn't pick it up.
While 30 cents seems to be "slightly more", it's actually 30% more. That's a big jump. If someone bought 1,000 songs over a few years, it would have cost them an additional $300. That's 300 songs worth.
The argument in France, and other places, has nothing to do with DRM-free songs, but with interchangability of the DRM itself, something Apple refuses to do with it's monopoly on downloads in most places.
Apple doesn't mind people going through the hassle of burning the songs to disk to get them to other players, but they don't want it to happen directly?too easy.
I'm inclined to think that Jobs didn't know tht EMI was going to do what it did when he made his remarks about dropping DRM in the EU, but when it did, he had no choice but to go along.
Amazon did not negotiate a better deal with Universal. They did not create a better store or create a better user experience. That is what real competition brings to the consumer. The powers that be at Universal and the like, simply hate SJ. This is not about business. They are not making more money from Amazon. If anything, they are making less. Likely, Universal demanded that Apple give them a $1 for every iPod sold, or they would give the competitors a better deal so as to marginalize the iPod. SJ told them to go stuff themselves. They are now attacking Apple by giving competitors a better deal. This is a deadly game of chicken that no one, especially the consumer, will benefit from.
I'm sure there was negotiation. There always is. Amazon is in no way going to do something that is not to their benefit. And look at what it does to those songs, it interfaces them to iTunes! Not bad.
But, the ones mostly hurt here could be Universal itself, if it is licensing to Amazon for less than it's getting from Apple.That's the entire point here. Apple doesn't care that much about the prices on iTunes, though I'm sure they would rather make a small profit than a small loss. iPods, now iPhones, and ultimately computer sales is what Apple is looking to. Universal can't do that. Their content is the company.
Look, I'm not thrilled about this situation either, but Universal, and other content companies, are not comfortable allowing everything to go through Apple. That's why the movie companies have been holding back. They don't want to get caught in the same situation, where Apple dictates prices to them. Their responsibility is to their shareholders and not to Apple
By the way, when has iTunes/iPod not had competition? Not a day passes that another iKiller is announced. Not a day passes that another iKiller bites the dust. That's competition. Apple just keeps winning and everyone else keeps sucking. Universal is not trying to foster healthy competition. They are trying to kill Apple. That is not the same thing. They have artificially set up a competitor for Apple. They have given Apple a short sword and their gladiator, a machine gun. So forgive those of us who hopes Apple is packing a grenade or two, just to keep things interesting.
Competition is not an announcement of another service that doesn't get off the ground. It's a service that's strong enough to make the others(s) rewrite their policies and prices. Until this Amazon service came about, that didn't happen. Apple dictated the rules in the industry. Even MS wasn't able to make a dent.
By the way, I am on short-term disability with an upcoming surgery rapidly approaching. That's why I have so much free time on my hands.
Your serve...
Good luck, I know what you're going through. I hope it's not too serious.
But the question that is hanging above all of this is why Apple didn't offer DRM-free tracks years ago. There was no reason why they couldn't, as EMusic has been legally selling DRM-free indie tracks for years, almost 2 million, I believe. They have been the second largest site after iTunes, though no where near its sales. Apple could have done this as well. The ball was always in their coiurt, but they didn't pick it up.
This is an easy one. eMusic was not selling anything that people wanted. Sorry, that's a bit harsh as some of my favorite music is indie music. The fact of the matter is the iPod/iTunes combo depended on sales of popular singles and albums. The only reason they are bringing on more indies now is because the big labels won't let Apple sell non-DRM music from their catalogues. Without the big 5, you do not have a music store. That is what I call a monopoly; OK, fine, a pentopoly. I think you get my point.
By the way, before iTunes, the number 1 distribution method for music was P2P. Probably still is. But Apple provided these bast...s with a revenue model that they didn't imagine before. They take at least $.70 out of the $.99 you pay per song. I bet they are not making that kind of profit from Wal Mart. Their business was in the toilet before iTunes. If they alienate iTunes users, they have got three choices as I see it: They can go to Amazon and make less money per track and get half the sales as they would have through iTunes; they can go back to the good old days of P2P where they make no money; or they can go to Hell! The way these clowns have handled the entertainment industry, I suspect they will do all three.
As for the rest, I will bow to the wisdom of the elder statesman. I think we have hit enough volleys. Time for the gallery to pick a winner. Will it be the grumpy old man who speaks sacrilege against His Steveness? Or, will it be the younger man, more fleet of whit and able to invent facts and coin new words faster than he can type them?
This is an easy one. eMusic was not selling anything that people wanted. Sorry, that's a bit harsh as some of my favorite music is indie music. The fact of the matter is the iPod/iTunes combo depended on sales of popular singles and albums. The only reason they are bringing on more indies now is because the big labels won't let Apple sell non-DRM music from their catalogues. Without the big 5, you do not have a music store. That is what I call a monopoly; OK, fine, a pentopoly. I think you get my point.
By the way, before iTunes, the number 1 distribution method for music was P2P. Probably still is. But Apple provided these bast...s with a revenue model that they didn't imagine before. They take at least $.70 out of the $.99 you pay per song. I bet they are not making that kind of profit from Wal Mart. Their business was in the toilet before iTunes. If they alienate iTunes users, they have got three choices as I see it: They can go to Amazon and make less money per track and get half the sales as they would have through iTunes; they can go back to the good old days of P2P where they make no money; or they can go to Hell! The way these clowns have handled the entertainment industry, I suspect they will do all three.
As for the rest, I will bow to the wisdom of the elder statesman. I think we have hit enough volleys. Time for the gallery to pick a winner. Will it be the grumpy old man who speaks sacrilege against His Steveness? Or, will it be the younger man, more fleet of whit and able to invent facts and coin new words faster than he can type them?
Ok, I'll get my last one in then I'll stop as well.
EMusic has about 2 million tracks. I'm not sure if you thought I meant that they sold 2 million tracks. As of a bit under a year ago, they had sold well over 100 million tracks, plus their subscription model, or however it works.
The tracks that Apple released recently, DRM-free, to make up what Jobs called the most DRM-free tracks on any download service, mostly consisted of those tracks, and the EMI tracks.
Grumpy, eh?