This is the time for Apple to join forces with production companies (just like Netflix, Sundance, Starbucks, et al, are doing) and co-create content... and like Madonna is doing, Apple could co-sponsor tours.
No biggie.
That won't work. All Apple could do would be to get involved in a few of these events, not nearly enough to make a difference. And it would still require them to deal with content companies. There is no guarantee that small companies wouldn't take a look at what the big companies are doing, and demand the same things from Apple.
I think people are becomming sophisticated enough to deal with differencial opricing, as long as the differences aren't too great.
In fact, I think Apple should embrace what the content companies want. If it succeeds, then no skin off Apple's nose. If it fails, then the companies will know that their ideas were wrong.
If the people who think that the iPod's sales will continue at the same pace even if content leaves iTunes, then they should feel the same way if content prices on iTunes varies. Ther is no logical reason not to.
Apple should allow the content companies have their way, with some provise that if it fails, they will re-negotiate. I can't see them disagreeing with that, as it's what they would want to do anyway.
Warners, NBC and Universal can go and try to reinvent the wheel, if they want. Good luck to them, they'll need it. They have forgotten what the online market was before the iTunes store, nonexistent.
I am not going to pay more for music or video than I do on iTunes. When I purchase music I will always check iTunes first, then maybe Amazon MP3, and then P2P. If the content publishers don't want to make it easy for me to buy their content, I won't buy it, end of story. If they make it hard for me to put it in my iPod, I won't use it. They seem to think we can't live without their crappy content. They need to wake up, realize this is the 21st century and that they ain't the only show in town no more. Before the iTunes store, piracy ruled the market. Piracy hasn't gone away and will no doubt redouble if the content providers start abusing their customers again. With You Tube and all the user created video content on the web, people can get free entertainment easily. The old school content providers have to be very careful, once they alienate their customers and these former customers in turn, find other sources of free content, they will likely be lost forever. The old school content providers may rue the day, that they abandoned the iTunes store. I hope they learn the hard way not to take their customers for granted.
The iTunes customers are some the few people left who are still willing to pay for the convenience of buying music. Once Warner, NBC, Universal and Sony BMG piss us off, who is going to buy their content? Do they think that punishing us and making it harder for us to get their content is a good business model? I'd do some market research on that, if I were them. I hope they don't see the light, I can't wait till they go out of business.
? They (music industry) is going to listen to the plea's and open up music to non DRM formated files.
? They do not renew their contracts with Apple and be selfish and create their own system.
? Users will get frustrated and begin pirating music again (or a lot more).
Apple is the only company that get's it.
Don't think that all of that will happen so certainly. If Amazon's service does even moderately well, other companies will join it with the same pricing and DRM-free content. If they also don't offer that DRM-free content to Apple, what do you think will happen?
While I don't think that most people give a rat's ass about DRM one way or the other, those who do, will flock to Amazon.
But, Amazon is being cagy about all of this. They are are sellers of Apple's products as well. They certainly don't want to take the chance of losing that. They've arranged songs sold on their site to be very iTunes friendly, even using an iPod as the picture they have as they symbol for a music player.
And don't forget that Amazon has a very strong internet presence. They aren't some pirate organization trying to go straight.
I really appreciate and respect what Radiohead did, but their strategy is simply not viable for most every band or artist out there. Radiohead have an extremely loyal and informed following, so they can afford not to have to do the kind of marketing and distribution that most bands wrestle with. The point is, I don't see what an upcoming band (or even an established one with a weaker fan base than Radiohead - i.e. every band but Radiohead, pretty much) can learn from Radiohead's example.
Many bands have really strong fanbases, and these bands are typically the cash cows for the record industry. Once these bands see how much money can be made from going without a label,and dealing direct to their own fans, there may be a mass exodus of bands from labels. Bands make almost no money from record sales presently. Labels are now trying to get bands to agree to share profits from money made from touring, which the bands are loathe to do. If record labels went back to doing what they should be doing, ie selling records at reasonable prices and various media types, at the same time giving artists their fair share, I would have no problems with them. The labels seem to think that they have a god given right to their non functional business plans.
Warners, NBC and Universal can go and try to reinvent the wheel, if they want. Good luck to them, they'll need it. They have forgotten what the online market was before the iTunes store, nonexistent.
I am not going to pay more for music or video than I do on iTunes. When I purchase music I will always check iTunes first, then maybe Amazon MP3, and then P2P. If the content publishers don't want to make it easy for me to buy their content, I won't buy it, end of story. If they make it hard for me to put it in my iPod, I won't use it. They seem to think we can't live without their crappy content. They need to wake up, realize this is the 21st century and that they ain't the only show in town no more. Before the iTunes store, piracy ruled the market. Piracy hasn't gone away and will no doubt redouble if the content providers start abusing their customers again. With You Tube and all the user created video content on the web, people can get free entertainment easily. The old school content providers have to be very careful, once they alienate their customers and these former customers in turn, find other sources of free content, they will likely be lost forever. The old school content providers may rue the day, that they abandoned the iTunes store. I hope they learn the hard way not to take their customers for granted.
The iTunes customers are some the few people left who are still willing to pay for the convenience of buying music. Once Warner, NBC, Universal and Sony BMG piss us off, who is going to buy their content? Do they think that punishing us and making it harder for us to get their content is a good business model? I'd do some market research on that, if I were them. I hope they don't see the light, I can't wait till they go out of business.
Your argument isn't very impressive. Show us where they are charging more? They aren't. In fact, they forced Apple to LOWER prices. That was a first. And don't think that Apple didn't do that because they were concerned about this new DRM-free service from Amazon, because you would be wrong about that.
People like you are a very small minority. The general public simply isn't interested in these battles. All they want is to get their content. If it isn't on iTunes any longer, they will get from where i'ts gone. Don't think otherwise.
With Radiohead putting out their own album and Apple now courting artist directly, you can finally start seeing the unraveling of the present day recording industry. Apple has a chance to become the new record industry but if artist go all the way themselves then even Apple's days are numbered in the music biz.
It will be interesting to see whether Radiohead platforms the new album to iTunes for some exclusive period before making it available on CD; the choose-your-own-price deal has been a good stunt, but it's not going to last forever.
I would love to see more artists control their own catalogs and then make deals with iTunes, Amazon, distributors, etc., on their own terms.
If any of you owned warner music you would be singing a completely different tune.
imagine you sell product X until everyone learns how to get it for free, then a company comes along and says it can convince people who are getting your product for free to pay for it. you play along until you realize that you're stuck working with a monopoly [how far is iTunes from a monopoly?] you want competition, and someone [amazon, napster, etc] comes along and says they'll play the way you want them to. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
Jobs needs to realize that consumers aren't morons. sure 99 cents a song is simple, but i don't complain because every book at the bookstore isn't the same price. i can figure out for myself how much a song is worth to me personally. somewhere between 59 cents for the B sides and 1.29 for a new release sounds fair to me.
If labels keep jumping ship, Apple is going to have to go after Musicians themselves in a HUGE way - maybe they can buy apple records and sign musicians for iTunes only distribution... then they can take ALL of the Record Label's coin.
Your argument isn't very impressive. Show us where they are charging more? They aren't. In fact, they forced Apple to LOWER prices. That was a first. And don't think that Apple didn't do that because they were concerned about this new DRM-free service from Amazon, because you would be wrong about that.
People like you are a very small minority. The general public simply isn't interested in these battles. All they want is to get their content. If it isn't on iTunes any longer, they will get from where i'ts gone. Don't think otherwise.
That will only be true if consumers accept those new distribution outlets. I think his argument is that Apple will continue to have enough of a critical mass of players on the market that if NBC Universal or whoever else drops out of iTunes, a big chunk of the iTunes consumers will not follow them.
Apple and Disney have a strong enough relationship with Disney that "Desperate Housewives," "Lost," etc., will continue to be fixtures in the iTunes Store, and other content providers will want to be right beside them. NBC Universal is missing the fact that it's very early in the electronic distribution game to be scratching options off the list.
Also, NBC.com isn't much help if no one watches the shows anyway. iTunes Store gives content providers the kind of exposure they can't drum up on their own.
That will only be true if consumers accept those new distribution outlets. I think his argument is that Apple will continue to have enough of a critical mass of players on the market that if NBC Universal or whoever else drops out of iTunes, a big chunk of the iTunes consumers will not follow them.
Apple and Disney have a strong enough relationship with Disney that "Desperate Housewives," "Lost," etc., will continue to be fixtures in the iTunes Store, and other content providers will want to be right beside them. NBC Universal is missing the fact that it's very early in the electronic distribution game to be scratching options off the list.
Also, NBC.com isn't much help if no one watches the shows anyway. iTunes Store gives content providers the kind of exposure they can't drum up on their own.
Let's not kid ourselves about this.
This is a far bigger problem for Apple than most people can seem to see.
While some think that Apple's interest here is in selling iPods, that's only part of Apple's strategy.
Look at what they're doing. first iTunes moves to the PC (that's after Quicktime, allowing PC users to play its content). Jobs proclaims that iTunes is the largest program base on the PC.
Then Apple ports Safari over to the PC.
We hear constantly that the "halo" effect is bringing Windows users to the Mac computer platform.
This quarter, computers again, after a while, counted as 50% of Apple's sales.
Do you see a trend here?
Itunes is a very important element of Apple's strategy of getting Windows users to find Apple's software, and other products, as being desirable, and therefore to nudge them over into buying a Mac when they want to replace their present computer.
If iTunes ends up with less content that competing services such as Amazon's, people will find less use for that product, and will have less interest in using Apple hardware.
Look at what's happening to 10.5. Even though many comments here have been that they aren't too happy about the iTunes metaphor taking over the GUI, Apple is doing it anyway.
Why is that?
It's because, in part, Windows users are familiar with it, and if they go to an Apple store, or Mac dealer, and see that familiar interface on the OS, they will feel much more comfortable with it, and will be more likely to want to buy that Mac.
But, if they start moving away from iTunes, that won't happen. And they will start moving away if Apple ends up with less content.
The adage that "content is king" is as true today as it ever was.
Companies are not sitting still, they will find ways to enable users to get their content in ways that they will be willing to do so.
My wife and I watch the Sci-Fi channel. Our DVR just died, and all of the content died along with it. Normally, we will buy shows from iTunes if somehow we miss it. If that's no longer going to be possible, we will find other ways, and places, we can buy those shows. We won't be the only ones. Apple will lose big from this.
It's not the first time that Job's rigidity has cost him. I fear it won't be the last.
"The iPod is only as good as the content on it," he said.
Haha, we have another brain child here. Where was he when iTune started? So which came first? chicken or the egg?
Right now, iPod/iTune is a proven and established technology. Anyone of these so-called "content provider" thinks they should/could reinvent the wheel without taking a big hit are kidding themselves.
It's not just the price of content that matters to end users but the ease of the technology as well. Take a look at how many other portable devices that can play digital music and video on the market, how many of these are easy to use for your non-geek users and still has a big coolness factor in the public?
Apple is selling iPod/iTune as a life style not just a mere digital player and this is what these content providers don't get. No one drops down $400 for an Xbox or $600 for PS3 just to play video games. It's a life styles, a proven machine that comes with great games makes that life style more enjoyable. PS3 would have been leading Xbox and Wii if Sony isn't trying to force Blu-Ray down everyone's throat. This isn't what Apple is doing.
Quote:
The adage that "content is king" is as true today as it ever was.
This is only true, if and only if, content is good quality. Assuming it's so good that people are willing to pay for it.
1. Apple approaches record companies about selling digital music in a big way. "Har!" the executives say. "This digitable model of yours amuses us! Why should we enter such a niche market? Away with you!"
2. Apple launches iPod + iTunes with a relatively small music catalog. It catches on anyway.
3. The executives now say, "well, perhaps there is something to this so-called "i-tunes". Here's some music we're sending out to every radio station in Poughkeepsie - see if you can sell it." It sells, and in a matter of years, the model becomes very, very successful.
4. The executives now go, "hey, good merchant - could you not sell this music of ours for more, or give us a bigger cut?" Apple goes, "dude, we think we have the prices pretty well figured out. Chill. It's only going to get sweeter from this point on.
5. The execs go, "Bah humbug! Then we shall launch our own service! How hard could it be? We've been in this business forever! Sure, it'll take some computer know-how and design and a radical rethinking of our current model and an ecosystem that supports our store... how hard could it be? Har!"
The optimistic view for the future is, they realize they can't really do this - hopefully sooner rather than later. The pessimistic view is, while their actual sales go down, they make more per sale and they invest more money in advertising and promotions and similar dangling carrots which eventually draw begrudging crowds... and we have the same lame music distribution model we had in the pre-digital days.
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. The execs are idiots.
Of course these companies are going to opt out of iTunes and open up their own shops. More money for them. Makes sense. But they'll always need portals like iTunes because who the hell can remember what label your favorite artist is on? Apple will simply chage it's business model to linking to music rather than hosting it. Let them deal with DRM and pricing and hosting and all that other crap. A wireless iPod and iTunes will remain the easiest way to quickly find your music and purchase it.
1. Great at displaying content in a user friendly way.
2. I want to purchase music / video and not rent it.
3. I don't want commercials. - my time is precious.
4. I want to be able to play on multiple systems (appleTV/tv, etc)
5. SIngle source to retrieve purchased content.... I don't want my cc info in too many hands on the internet.
6. I believe in paying for my entertainment.
7. Pricing is simple. I don't have to pay a lot of attention to prices --- I know for the most part the $$ are consistent. (I do a lot of late night purchasing when attention isn't too good).
8. Extremely easy.
If content providers don't put content on iTunes I can:
1) Record my own content from cable via Elgato products and/or tivo.
2) Put content in iPod/AppleTv format in same manner.
3) Stop watching/listening.
4) Start paying much more attention to other types of on-line content - You Tube etc.
5) Go out and get more excercise.
6) Purchase CD's.
7) Swap CD's.
8) Live entertainement.
9) Start my anti-content web site.
10) And the list goes on. .......
I am 50. I want to pay for content. I want others to be compensated for what I consume. So I hope some reason comes into the picture.
This is a far bigger problem for Apple than most people can seem to see.
...
If iTunes ends up with less content that competing services such as Amazon's, people will find less use for that product, and will have less interest in using Apple hardware.
...
My wife and I watch the Sci-Fi channel. Our DVR just died, and all of the content died along with it. Normally, we will buy shows from iTunes if somehow we miss it. If that's no longer going to be possible, we will find other ways, and places, we can buy those shows. We won't be the only ones. Apple will lose big from this.
this is music to my ears, so they will still be on itunes but not just on a exclusive contract! perfect that means there goin to force itunes to DRM free there music if it has not done so, so it can be leak all across the web, then i get it for free, and they will still be on itunes, so i can get my album covers for free also, lol perfect
1. Great at displaying content in a user friendly way.
2. I want to purchase music / video and not rent it.
3. I don't want commercials. - my time is precious.
4. I want to be able to play on multiple systems (appleTV/tv, etc)
5. SIngle source to retrieve purchased content.... I don't want my cc info in too many hands on the internet.
6. I believe in paying for my entertainment.
7. Pricing is simple. I don't have to pay a lot of attention to prices --- I know for the most part the $$ are consistent. (I do a lot of late night purchasing when attention isn't too good).
8. Extremely easy.
If content providers don't put content on iTunes I can:
1) Record my own content from cable via Elgato products and/or tivo.
2) Put content in iPod/AppleTv format in same manner.
3) Stop watching/listening.
4) Start paying much more attention to other types of on-line content - You Tube etc.
5) Go out and get more excercise.
6) Purchase CD's.
7) Swap CD's.
8) Live entertainement.
9) Start my anti-content web site.
10) And the list goes on. .......
I am 50. I want to pay for content. I want others to be compensated for what I consume. So I hope some reason comes into the picture.
Comments
● They (music industry) is going to listen to the plea's and open up music to non DRM formated files.
● They do not renew their contracts with Apple and be selfish and create their own system.
● Users will get frustrated and begin pirating music again (or a lot more).
Apple is the only company that get's it.
This is the time for Apple to join forces with production companies (just like Netflix, Sundance, Starbucks, et al, are doing) and co-create content... and like Madonna is doing, Apple could co-sponsor tours.
No biggie.
That won't work. All Apple could do would be to get involved in a few of these events, not nearly enough to make a difference. And it would still require them to deal with content companies. There is no guarantee that small companies wouldn't take a look at what the big companies are doing, and demand the same things from Apple.
I think people are becomming sophisticated enough to deal with differencial opricing, as long as the differences aren't too great.
In fact, I think Apple should embrace what the content companies want. If it succeeds, then no skin off Apple's nose. If it fails, then the companies will know that their ideas were wrong.
If the people who think that the iPod's sales will continue at the same pace even if content leaves iTunes, then they should feel the same way if content prices on iTunes varies. Ther is no logical reason not to.
Apple should allow the content companies have their way, with some provise that if it fails, they will re-negotiate. I can't see them disagreeing with that, as it's what they would want to do anyway.
I am not going to pay more for music or video than I do on iTunes. When I purchase music I will always check iTunes first, then maybe Amazon MP3, and then P2P. If the content publishers don't want to make it easy for me to buy their content, I won't buy it, end of story. If they make it hard for me to put it in my iPod, I won't use it. They seem to think we can't live without their crappy content. They need to wake up, realize this is the 21st century and that they ain't the only show in town no more. Before the iTunes store, piracy ruled the market. Piracy hasn't gone away and will no doubt redouble if the content providers start abusing their customers again. With You Tube and all the user created video content on the web, people can get free entertainment easily. The old school content providers have to be very careful, once they alienate their customers and these former customers in turn, find other sources of free content, they will likely be lost forever. The old school content providers may rue the day, that they abandoned the iTunes store. I hope they learn the hard way not to take their customers for granted.
The iTunes customers are some the few people left who are still willing to pay for the convenience of buying music. Once Warner, NBC, Universal and Sony BMG piss us off, who is going to buy their content? Do they think that punishing us and making it harder for us to get their content is a good business model? I'd do some market research on that, if I were them. I hope they don't see the light, I can't wait till they go out of business.
I see the industry going full circle.
? They (music industry) is going to listen to the plea's and open up music to non DRM formated files.
? They do not renew their contracts with Apple and be selfish and create their own system.
? Users will get frustrated and begin pirating music again (or a lot more).
Apple is the only company that get's it.
Don't think that all of that will happen so certainly. If Amazon's service does even moderately well, other companies will join it with the same pricing and DRM-free content. If they also don't offer that DRM-free content to Apple, what do you think will happen?
While I don't think that most people give a rat's ass about DRM one way or the other, those who do, will flock to Amazon.
But, Amazon is being cagy about all of this. They are are sellers of Apple's products as well. They certainly don't want to take the chance of losing that. They've arranged songs sold on their site to be very iTunes friendly, even using an iPod as the picture they have as they symbol for a music player.
And don't forget that Amazon has a very strong internet presence. They aren't some pirate organization trying to go straight.
I really appreciate and respect what Radiohead did, but their strategy is simply not viable for most every band or artist out there. Radiohead have an extremely loyal and informed following, so they can afford not to have to do the kind of marketing and distribution that most bands wrestle with. The point is, I don't see what an upcoming band (or even an established one with a weaker fan base than Radiohead - i.e. every band but Radiohead, pretty much) can learn from Radiohead's example.
Many bands have really strong fanbases, and these bands are typically the cash cows for the record industry. Once these bands see how much money can be made from going without a label,and dealing direct to their own fans, there may be a mass exodus of bands from labels. Bands make almost no money from record sales presently. Labels are now trying to get bands to agree to share profits from money made from touring, which the bands are loathe to do. If record labels went back to doing what they should be doing, ie selling records at reasonable prices and various media types, at the same time giving artists their fair share, I would have no problems with them. The labels seem to think that they have a god given right to their non functional business plans.
Warners, NBC and Universal can go and try to reinvent the wheel, if they want. Good luck to them, they'll need it. They have forgotten what the online market was before the iTunes store, nonexistent.
I am not going to pay more for music or video than I do on iTunes. When I purchase music I will always check iTunes first, then maybe Amazon MP3, and then P2P. If the content publishers don't want to make it easy for me to buy their content, I won't buy it, end of story. If they make it hard for me to put it in my iPod, I won't use it. They seem to think we can't live without their crappy content. They need to wake up, realize this is the 21st century and that they ain't the only show in town no more. Before the iTunes store, piracy ruled the market. Piracy hasn't gone away and will no doubt redouble if the content providers start abusing their customers again. With You Tube and all the user created video content on the web, people can get free entertainment easily. The old school content providers have to be very careful, once they alienate their customers and these former customers in turn, find other sources of free content, they will likely be lost forever. The old school content providers may rue the day, that they abandoned the iTunes store. I hope they learn the hard way not to take their customers for granted.
The iTunes customers are some the few people left who are still willing to pay for the convenience of buying music. Once Warner, NBC, Universal and Sony BMG piss us off, who is going to buy their content? Do they think that punishing us and making it harder for us to get their content is a good business model? I'd do some market research on that, if I were them. I hope they don't see the light, I can't wait till they go out of business.
Your argument isn't very impressive. Show us where they are charging more? They aren't. In fact, they forced Apple to LOWER prices. That was a first. And don't think that Apple didn't do that because they were concerned about this new DRM-free service from Amazon, because you would be wrong about that.
People like you are a very small minority. The general public simply isn't interested in these battles. All they want is to get their content. If it isn't on iTunes any longer, they will get from where i'ts gone. Don't think otherwise.
With Radiohead putting out their own album and Apple now courting artist directly, you can finally start seeing the unraveling of the present day recording industry. Apple has a chance to become the new record industry but if artist go all the way themselves then even Apple's days are numbered in the music biz.
It will be interesting to see whether Radiohead platforms the new album to iTunes for some exclusive period before making it available on CD; the choose-your-own-price deal has been a good stunt, but it's not going to last forever.
I would love to see more artists control their own catalogs and then make deals with iTunes, Amazon, distributors, etc., on their own terms.
imagine you sell product X until everyone learns how to get it for free, then a company comes along and says it can convince people who are getting your product for free to pay for it. you play along until you realize that you're stuck working with a monopoly [how far is iTunes from a monopoly?] you want competition, and someone [amazon, napster, etc] comes along and says they'll play the way you want them to. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
Jobs needs to realize that consumers aren't morons. sure 99 cents a song is simple, but i don't complain because every book at the bookstore isn't the same price. i can figure out for myself how much a song is worth to me personally. somewhere between 59 cents for the B sides and 1.29 for a new release sounds fair to me.
If labels keep jumping ship, Apple is going to have to go after Musicians themselves in a HUGE way - maybe they can buy apple records and sign musicians for iTunes only distribution... then they can take ALL of the Record Label's coin.
Your argument isn't very impressive. Show us where they are charging more? They aren't. In fact, they forced Apple to LOWER prices. That was a first. And don't think that Apple didn't do that because they were concerned about this new DRM-free service from Amazon, because you would be wrong about that.
People like you are a very small minority. The general public simply isn't interested in these battles. All they want is to get their content. If it isn't on iTunes any longer, they will get from where i'ts gone. Don't think otherwise.
That will only be true if consumers accept those new distribution outlets. I think his argument is that Apple will continue to have enough of a critical mass of players on the market that if NBC Universal or whoever else drops out of iTunes, a big chunk of the iTunes consumers will not follow them.
Apple and Disney have a strong enough relationship with Disney that "Desperate Housewives," "Lost," etc., will continue to be fixtures in the iTunes Store, and other content providers will want to be right beside them. NBC Universal is missing the fact that it's very early in the electronic distribution game to be scratching options off the list.
Also, NBC.com isn't much help if no one watches the shows anyway. iTunes Store gives content providers the kind of exposure they can't drum up on their own.
That will only be true if consumers accept those new distribution outlets. I think his argument is that Apple will continue to have enough of a critical mass of players on the market that if NBC Universal or whoever else drops out of iTunes, a big chunk of the iTunes consumers will not follow them.
Apple and Disney have a strong enough relationship with Disney that "Desperate Housewives," "Lost," etc., will continue to be fixtures in the iTunes Store, and other content providers will want to be right beside them. NBC Universal is missing the fact that it's very early in the electronic distribution game to be scratching options off the list.
Also, NBC.com isn't much help if no one watches the shows anyway. iTunes Store gives content providers the kind of exposure they can't drum up on their own.
Let's not kid ourselves about this.
This is a far bigger problem for Apple than most people can seem to see.
While some think that Apple's interest here is in selling iPods, that's only part of Apple's strategy.
Look at what they're doing. first iTunes moves to the PC (that's after Quicktime, allowing PC users to play its content). Jobs proclaims that iTunes is the largest program base on the PC.
Then Apple ports Safari over to the PC.
We hear constantly that the "halo" effect is bringing Windows users to the Mac computer platform.
This quarter, computers again, after a while, counted as 50% of Apple's sales.
Do you see a trend here?
Itunes is a very important element of Apple's strategy of getting Windows users to find Apple's software, and other products, as being desirable, and therefore to nudge them over into buying a Mac when they want to replace their present computer.
If iTunes ends up with less content that competing services such as Amazon's, people will find less use for that product, and will have less interest in using Apple hardware.
Look at what's happening to 10.5. Even though many comments here have been that they aren't too happy about the iTunes metaphor taking over the GUI, Apple is doing it anyway.
Why is that?
It's because, in part, Windows users are familiar with it, and if they go to an Apple store, or Mac dealer, and see that familiar interface on the OS, they will feel much more comfortable with it, and will be more likely to want to buy that Mac.
But, if they start moving away from iTunes, that won't happen. And they will start moving away if Apple ends up with less content.
The adage that "content is king" is as true today as it ever was.
Companies are not sitting still, they will find ways to enable users to get their content in ways that they will be willing to do so.
My wife and I watch the Sci-Fi channel. Our DVR just died, and all of the content died along with it. Normally, we will buy shows from iTunes if somehow we miss it. If that's no longer going to be possible, we will find other ways, and places, we can buy those shows. We won't be the only ones. Apple will lose big from this.
It's not the first time that Job's rigidity has cost him. I fear it won't be the last.
"The iPod is only as good as the content on it," he said.
Haha, we have another brain child here. Where was he when iTune started? So which came first? chicken or the egg?
Right now, iPod/iTune is a proven and established technology. Anyone of these so-called "content provider" thinks they should/could reinvent the wheel without taking a big hit are kidding themselves.
It's not just the price of content that matters to end users but the ease of the technology as well. Take a look at how many other portable devices that can play digital music and video on the market, how many of these are easy to use for your non-geek users and still has a big coolness factor in the public?
Apple is selling iPod/iTune as a life style not just a mere digital player and this is what these content providers don't get. No one drops down $400 for an Xbox or $600 for PS3 just to play video games. It's a life styles, a proven machine that comes with great games makes that life style more enjoyable. PS3 would have been leading Xbox and Wii if Sony isn't trying to force Blu-Ray down everyone's throat. This isn't what Apple is doing.
The adage that "content is king" is as true today as it ever was.
This is only true, if and only if, content is good quality. Assuming it's so good that people are willing to pay for it.
Right on the nose. It goes like this:
1. Apple approaches record companies about selling digital music in a big way. "Har!" the executives say. "This digitable model of yours amuses us! Why should we enter such a niche market? Away with you!"
2. Apple launches iPod + iTunes with a relatively small music catalog. It catches on anyway.
3. The executives now say, "well, perhaps there is something to this so-called "i-tunes". Here's some music we're sending out to every radio station in Poughkeepsie - see if you can sell it." It sells, and in a matter of years, the model becomes very, very successful.
4. The executives now go, "hey, good merchant - could you not sell this music of ours for more, or give us a bigger cut?" Apple goes, "dude, we think we have the prices pretty well figured out. Chill. It's only going to get sweeter from this point on.
5. The execs go, "Bah humbug! Then we shall launch our own service! How hard could it be? We've been in this business forever! Sure, it'll take some computer know-how and design and a radical rethinking of our current model and an ecosystem that supports our store... how hard could it be? Har!"
The optimistic view for the future is, they realize they can't really do this - hopefully sooner rather than later. The pessimistic view is, while their actual sales go down, they make more per sale and they invest more money in advertising and promotions and similar dangling carrots which eventually draw begrudging crowds... and we have the same lame music distribution model we had in the pre-digital days.
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. The execs are idiots.
I purchase from iTunes because:
1. Great at displaying content in a user friendly way.
2. I want to purchase music / video and not rent it.
3. I don't want commercials. - my time is precious.
4. I want to be able to play on multiple systems (appleTV/tv, etc)
5. SIngle source to retrieve purchased content.... I don't want my cc info in too many hands on the internet.
6. I believe in paying for my entertainment.
7. Pricing is simple. I don't have to pay a lot of attention to prices --- I know for the most part the $$ are consistent. (I do a lot of late night purchasing when attention isn't too good).
8. Extremely easy.
If content providers don't put content on iTunes I can:
1) Record my own content from cable via Elgato products and/or tivo.
2) Put content in iPod/AppleTv format in same manner.
3) Stop watching/listening.
4) Start paying much more attention to other types of on-line content - You Tube etc.
5) Go out and get more excercise.
6) Purchase CD's.
7) Swap CD's.
8) Live entertainement.
9) Start my anti-content web site.
10) And the list goes on. .......
I am 50. I want to pay for content. I want others to be compensated for what I consume. So I hope some reason comes into the picture.
Thanks for this forum.
Let's not kid ourselves about this.
This is a far bigger problem for Apple than most people can seem to see.
...
If iTunes ends up with less content that competing services such as Amazon's, people will find less use for that product, and will have less interest in using Apple hardware.
...
My wife and I watch the Sci-Fi channel. Our DVR just died, and all of the content died along with it. Normally, we will buy shows from iTunes if somehow we miss it. If that's no longer going to be possible, we will find other ways, and places, we can buy those shows. We won't be the only ones. Apple will lose big from this.
...
so are you switching to a PC?
so are you switching to a PC?
Silly question as it has nothing to do with this.
To Content Providers:
I purchase from iTunes because:
1. Great at displaying content in a user friendly way.
2. I want to purchase music / video and not rent it.
3. I don't want commercials. - my time is precious.
4. I want to be able to play on multiple systems (appleTV/tv, etc)
5. SIngle source to retrieve purchased content.... I don't want my cc info in too many hands on the internet.
6. I believe in paying for my entertainment.
7. Pricing is simple. I don't have to pay a lot of attention to prices --- I know for the most part the $$ are consistent. (I do a lot of late night purchasing when attention isn't too good).
8. Extremely easy.
If content providers don't put content on iTunes I can:
1) Record my own content from cable via Elgato products and/or tivo.
2) Put content in iPod/AppleTv format in same manner.
3) Stop watching/listening.
4) Start paying much more attention to other types of on-line content - You Tube etc.
5) Go out and get more excercise.
6) Purchase CD's.
7) Swap CD's.
8) Live entertainement.
9) Start my anti-content web site.
10) And the list goes on. .......
I am 50. I want to pay for content. I want others to be compensated for what I consume. So I hope some reason comes into the picture.
Thanks for this forum.
They are perfectly happy for you to do 6)
Silly question as it has nothing to do with this.
thank you, but wasn't your point that losing content from the iTunes store
would cause Apple to lose computer sales?
Silly question as it has nothing to do with this.
I think he's saying that if you want to try anything else, chances are you have to be on a PC to use it.