The only purpose in life for the ATv that really matters, IS content from the iTunes store.
That's nonsense. My own (and countless others') personal use case would be as the most seamless streaming/storage for music available, bar none. That alone is worth the price. I paid $300 for a Slimbox that is far less functional. (BTW I've never gotten onto Slim forums to bash them for not releasing the be-all-end-all product right out of the chute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
If either one of those areas fails, the entire premise fails.
I had this problem with my own company. My partner had the same ideas about business that Jobs has.
His concept was that if the deals we made pleased our partners, we didn't do well enough. he felt that there was more he could squeeze out of them. Only once he squeezed as much as he could, so that they were unhappy, did he feel that he got as much as he should.
I had to constantly restrain him from his inherent desires.
Good for you. That's admirable.
You'd be toast in the big leagues.
Jobs is not dealing with reasonable people.
The entertainment industry consists essentially of wolves who want to drain every penny they can out of both their talent and their customers. Ask anyone who's ever dealt with record labels. I have.
Ask the writers who are trying to get a paltry 4% for their work on sales that the moguls , in bald faced lie, say doesn't exist. (Otherwise what's the big deal about givint them 4% of nothing?)
Ask anyone who's ever bought a $20 CD with 1 good song and 11 crap ones.
Listen. I understand the frustration with the fact the neither ITV or ATV are mature.
But your previous comment to the effect that its somehow common for companies to release fully mature products right off the bat is just silly. That is NEVER how it works.
That's nonsense. My own (and countless others') personal use case would be as the most seamless streaming/storage for music available, bar none. That alone is worth the price.
But if that's all you're using it for, an Airport Express would be as useful. I had an AE till it blew up! and it was a handy little gadget and also was quite useful as a network extender and makeshift portable wireless hotspot.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what the difference is between an Apple TV with an LCD screen and a lap top or iMac.
Why would Apple spend effort adding a screen when everyone has stated that what is missing is a DVD player and HD content and the ability to play it.
Well an Apple TV with an LDC (Plasma) screen would be an actual TV, that's the difference. Yeah though, It'd still be missing the DVD slot, the HD content, the movie rentals, the TV show iTunes subscription service, the 5.1 surround iTunes content, and the direct iTunes store connectivity - not to mention the ability to play full 1080p.
Or you think that apple will roll over and play dead, and give away this whole market to someone else?
If Apple don't come up with some decent deals on video content soon the whole iPod line is shot. AppleTV potentially holds the strategic high-end of iTunes video content but without those media deals in place the only real contender here is MicroSoft. MCE/Zune/Xbox may be less polished that iTunes/iPod/AppleTV but with Global, HD Marketplace to back it up - right now it's the best solution it's where Apple should be and they're not. Apple can hold that combination off by existing iPod market traction but for how long?
MS have really blind-sided Apple this time - sad to say.
I hope that early adopters of the iPhone will get an offer to upgrade to the 2nd Gen iPhone. Being locked into an 18 month contract means that we could end up being stuck with our 1st Gen iPhone for a little while longer after the 2nd Gen revision comes out.
Here's your offer - retail price Sell you old one for $200 or $250 easily. You won't have to extend your contact. Happy?
Yep although I guess you can still argue that that isn't the true un-subsidised cost. Orange France could just be profiteering.
I do fail to see why it's as expensive as it is when an iPod Touch is £199 here and there's no way on earth adding the features of a very average 2G camera phone adds £70 never mind the £250 extra Orange want for a totally unlocked phone.
Why are truffles so expensive? You dig them up out of the ground for free!
The industry is evolving, and Apple must evolve with it. There are far more places for this content to be offered.
Even with Apple's current content situation, no one is yet even close to matching iTunes TV or movie sales.
Quote:
It worked for music, though now there could be problems. But for movie content, and Tv content, it hasn't worked as well as they thought it would. They thought the studios would roll over for them on the alter of sales, but that didn't happen.
The content providers are certainly not victims in all of this. They are fully invested in their old business model and are not at all adept at taking advantage of new media. In the case of the music downloading Apple's bulldosing benefited the entire market. The content providers are fully invested in their old business models and have no sense of the changing times. Had it been left up to the music industry they would have bulldozed the retail sites into selling music for far more than most people would want to pay for it.
The reason TV/movie studios are balking at iTunes is because it was a success. It sold content at a price people were satisfied to pay. Because of this success the de-facto price of online music is 99 cents. It is very difficult for anyone to sell music for more than 99 cents. The music industry is not at all happy about that.
The studios don't want iTunes becoming success at selling television and movies for $9.99. Forcing the de-facto price for the entire interweb. They want the flexibility of charging as much as they want. Even if it means short term profit hurting the long term online market.
Quote:
The problem with Jobs & co. is that they have gotten too arrogant. They try to bulldoze their way through everything. Sometimes that works, but sometimes it doesn't.
The one place in all of this I would call Apple overly arrogant is in not sharing AppleTV with partners. Apple should have partnered with Netflix, they both offer what the other needs. Netflix has the content and loyal customer base, but no elegant way of getting that content from the internet onto a television. Apple has the elegant solution for getting content from the internet onto the television.
Apple not making such a deal has limited ATV adoption into the market place.
Quote:
If Apple isn't careful, someone will hit upon the right combination, and Apple will be left standing alone,
What combination is that? After five years no has been able to even recreate the success of iTunes + iPod.
Apple would repeat the success of music in video if the studios would cooperate. But that exact scenario is what they fear the most.
Quote:
Amazon started their music service, by lowering the price for DRM-less music. You don't think Apple wanted to do that, do you? For the first time they were caught flatfooted with higher pricing.
Apple had nothing to particularly to gain from selling DRM-less music at $1.99. It could have been a move to tempt other record labels to offer DRM-less music on iTunes. Apple would allow them to sell it for more money, which is what the argument has been about. Once Amazon was free to sell it for .99 there was no reason for Apple to charge more.
Quote:
I'm hoping that there is some work going on behind the scenes that will help to resolve this, but we can't assume that there is.
There is rumor that Apple will capitulate and offer movies for $14.99. You think Apple is the bad guy in this?
Quote:
At least the Netflix service doesn't require devices that can only be made by one company.
I'm sure they'd rather have that device if it were an elegant solution for getting their internet movies on to a television sold by the same company that invented the iPod.
At least the Netflix service doesn't require devices that can only be made by one company.
Yeah, the movies keep coming and it works on every DVD player in my house. I just come home, grab the mail, plop the disc into the player and hit play. If someone tries to download a movie in our household, all hell would break loose because our internet would slow to a crawl for the rest of the family.
That's nonsense. My own (and countless others') personal use case would be as the most seamless streaming/storage for music available, bar none. That alone is worth the price. I paid $300 for a Slimbox that is far less functional. (BTW I've never gotten onto Slim forums to bash them for not releasing the be-all-end-all product right out of the chute.
Get to know the big leagues first. I was ther too.
Jobs is simply unreasonable sometimes. It has nothing to do with anyone else.
Quote:
The entertainment industry consists essentially of wolves who want to drain every penny they can out of both their talent and their customers. Ask anyone who's ever dealt with record labels. I have.
Ask the writers who are trying to get a paltry 4% for their work on sales that the moguls , in bald faced lie, say doesn't exist. (Otherwise what's the big deal about givint them 4% of nothing?)
I don't know you think you spoke to, but I've dealt with them professionally, and know more than a few professional musicians who have recording contracts. People who say what you are saying don't know the music industry. The profits aren't all that great. And they spend all of the money doing the recordings, promotions, recruiting, etc. The musicians spend none of their own money for that. And most acts are failures. Who do you think pays for that as well?
Quote:
Ask anyone who's ever bought a $20 CD with 1 good song and 11 crap ones.
First of all, you've overpaid for that recording. Secondly, that's the fault of the act. It's their music and performance. You should listen to the music before you plunk down the dollars.
Quote:
Listen. I understand the frustration with the fact the neither ITV or ATV are mature.
It's more than that. It wasn't even well thought out before it was released. Apple should have at least secured the majors before releasing the device and the service. Even if it took some months before enough content came out, it would be assured that it would.
Quote:
But your previous comment to the effect that its somehow common for companies to release fully mature products right off the bat is just silly. That is NEVER how it works.
Not fully mature. Fully prepared. That's the difference. Apple wasn't fully prepared to come out with the service when they opened it. They had no idea if the other studios would come around, and some good reasons to think they wouldn't.
Even with Apple's current content situation, no one is yet even close to matching iTunes TV or movie sales.
The content providers are certainly not victims in all of this. They are fully invested in their old business model and are not at all adept at taking advantage of new media. In the case of the music downloading Apple's bulldosing benefited the entire market. The content providers are fully invested in their old business models and have no sense of the changing times. Had it been left up to the music industry they would have bulldozed the retail sites into selling music for far more than most people would want to pay for it.
The reason TV/movie studios are balking at iTunes is because it was a success. It sold content at a price people were satisfied to pay. Because of this success the de-facto price of online music is 99 cents. It is very difficult for anyone to sell music for more than 99 cents. The music industry is not at all happy about that.
The studios don't want iTunes becoming success at selling television and movies for $9.99. Forcing the de-facto price for the entire interweb. They want the flexibility of charging as much as they want. Even if it means short term profit hurting the long term online market.
The one place in all of this I would call Apple overly arrogant is in not sharing AppleTV with partners. Apple should have partnered with Netflix, they both offer what the other needs. Netflix has the content and loyal customer base, but no elegant way of getting that content from the internet onto a television. Apple has the elegant solution for getting content from the internet onto the television.
Apple not making such a deal has limited ATV adoption into the market place.
What combination is that? After five years no has been able to even recreate the success of iTunes + iPod.
Apple would repeat the success of music in video if the studios would cooperate. But that exact scenario is what they fear the most.
Apple had nothing to particularly to gain from selling DRM-less music at $1.99. It could have been a move to tempt other record labels to offer DRM-less music on iTunes. Apple would allow them to sell it for more money, which is what the argument has been about. Once Amazon was free to sell it for .99 there was no reason for Apple to charge more.
There is rumor that Apple will capitulate and offer movies for $14.99. You think Apple is the bad guy in this?
I'm sure they'd rather have that device if it were an elegant solution for getting their internet movies on to a television sold by the same company that invented the iPod.
No disrespect intended, but I'm just too tired to answer another long post point for point after having just done so, so I'll be fairly brief.
things change all the time. no one ever thought that IBM would be knocked offits PC perch. no one thought that Ford would be knowcked off its. No one thought there was a chance that MS could lose significant marketshare.
I could point to plenty of others, but so could you.
The fact that right now, Apple is sitting pretty with downloads, doesn't mean that they will always do so.
And are those video numbers before, or after Universal/NBC left? Lets see new ones a month or two from now, because they were 30% of Apple's sales there. Look at those numbers and subtract 30% from Apples current numbers, and distribute them around. That will give some idea. Apple goes from 42% down to 28%. That's a big difference, and would put them about equal to Vongo.
You also have to think that Apple's movie download service would be much better if APPLE would cooperate.
It's a two way street. Both sides have to give way. This isn't a game of chicken, or at least, it's not supposed to be.
The fact that right now, Apple is sitting pretty with downloads, doesn't mean that they will always do so.
Very true but Apple does not take this for granted as iPod and iTunes are ever changing and adapting. I agree iTunes will not last forever, thus far however we see nothing on the near horizon to take its place.
Quote:
And are those video numbers before, or after Universal/NBC left? Lets see new ones a month or two from now, Look at those numbers and subtract 30% from Apples current numbers, and distribute them around.
These numbers are before NBC left. This assumes the same number of people who would have bought NBC content from iTunes will buy it from what ever other service NBC sells it from. That more than likely will not happen. Plus NBC hasn't spread its content evenly around to Apple's competitors.
NBC does not hold all of the power simply because it owns the content. iTunes is nearly all gain with virtually no cost for studios. All they have to do is provide content that already exists. Their basically are no other costs to them and they make 70% pure profit in perpetuity.
NBC is risking sure sales leaving the largest media downloading retailer for start-ups that have little chance at equal success.
Quote:
You also have to think that Apple's movie download service would be much better if APPLE would cooperate.
Not if the studios forced Apple into charging more money than most people are willing to pay.
Very true but Apple does not take this for granted as iPod and iTunes are ever changing and adapting. I agree it is possible for someone to come up with a better idea, thus far we see nothing on the near horizon.
These numbers are before NBC left. This assumes the same number of people who would have bought NBC content from iTunes will buy it from what ever other service NBC sells it from. That more than likely will not happen. Plus NBC hasn't spread its content evenly around to Apple's competitors.
NBC does not hold all of the power simply because it owns the content. iTunes is nearly all gain with virtually no cost for studios. All they have to do is provide content that already exists. Their basically are no other costs to them and they make 70% pure profit in perpetuity.
NBC is risking sure sales leaving the largest media downloading retailer for start-ups that have little chance at equal success.
Not if the studios forced Apple into charging more money than most people are willing to pay.
It isn't just NBC here. It's all of universal. This includes the SCi Fi channel as well as others. One of the best selling downloads has been Battlestar Galactica. That's gone as well as many others.
And it doesn't really matter which of the other download sites get this stuff. They are also giving ad supported downloads, which are becoming more popular because they fit the "free" category.
If we include ALL downloads of these content categories, then Apple's share will likely be much smaller than it is now, and will be much smaller still in the near future. Apple doesn't have as much power in the video download area as may be assumed.
We don't really know what most people will pay, because Apple hasn't tried it. I'm saying that they should compromise. If sales go down, then it would be seen that it wasn't working. they could then have the chance to reevaluate the price structure, and try again.
It's better than nothing, which is where we're going now.
Comments
I think Netflix has 4,000 films in their online catalog. Why not Apple?
I'd add a zero. They claim to have 90,000 titles. I can see 40k of them being theatrical films.
I'd add a zero. They claim to have 90,000 titles. I can see 40k of them being theatrical films.
I just remember the number from their opening day, i've never actually gone to the site.
But that just makes the comparison worse, doesn't it?
The only purpose in life for the ATv that really matters, IS content from the iTunes store.
That's nonsense. My own (and countless others') personal use case would be as the most seamless streaming/storage for music available, bar none. That alone is worth the price. I paid $300 for a Slimbox that is far less functional. (BTW I've never gotten onto Slim forums to bash them for not releasing the be-all-end-all product right out of the chute.
If either one of those areas fails, the entire premise fails.
They're hardly failing.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/1...wnload-market/
I had this problem with my own company. My partner had the same ideas about business that Jobs has.
His concept was that if the deals we made pleased our partners, we didn't do well enough. he felt that there was more he could squeeze out of them. Only once he squeezed as much as he could, so that they were unhappy, did he feel that he got as much as he should.
I had to constantly restrain him from his inherent desires.
Good for you. That's admirable.
You'd be toast in the big leagues.
Jobs is not dealing with reasonable people.
The entertainment industry consists essentially of wolves who want to drain every penny they can out of both their talent and their customers. Ask anyone who's ever dealt with record labels. I have.
Ask the writers who are trying to get a paltry 4% for their work on sales that the moguls , in bald faced lie, say doesn't exist. (Otherwise what's the big deal about givint them 4% of nothing?)
Ask anyone who's ever bought a $20 CD with 1 good song and 11 crap ones.
Listen. I understand the frustration with the fact the neither ITV or ATV are mature.
But your previous comment to the effect that its somehow common for companies to release fully mature products right off the bat is just silly. That is NEVER how it works.
I just remember the number from their opening day, i've never actually gone to the site.
But that just makes the comparison worse, doesn't it?
And you can download these titles to own, and easily stream them to any device in your home? And they're 1080p?
My god... why aren't you beating down the door to buy their product? (Oh yeah, they don't have one.)
That's nonsense. My own (and countless others') personal use case would be as the most seamless streaming/storage for music available, bar none. That alone is worth the price.
But if that's all you're using it for, an Airport Express would be as useful. I had an AE till it blew up! and it was a handy little gadget and also was quite useful as a network extender and makeshift portable wireless hotspot.
And you can download these titles to own, and easily stream them to any device in your home? And they're 1080p?
My god... why aren't you beating down the door to buy their product? (Oh yeah, they don't have one.)
At least the Netflix service doesn't require devices that can only be made by one company.
Why would Apple spend effort adding a screen when everyone has stated that what is missing is a DVD player and HD content and the ability to play it.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what the difference is between an Apple TV with an LCD screen and a lap top or iMac.
Why would Apple spend effort adding a screen when everyone has stated that what is missing is a DVD player and HD content and the ability to play it.
Well an Apple TV with an LDC (Plasma) screen would be an actual TV, that's the difference. Yeah though, It'd still be missing the DVD slot, the HD content, the movie rentals, the TV show iTunes subscription service, the 5.1 surround iTunes content, and the direct iTunes store connectivity - not to mention the ability to play full 1080p.
Or you think that apple will roll over and play dead, and give away this whole market to someone else?
If Apple don't come up with some decent deals on video content soon the whole iPod line is shot. AppleTV potentially holds the strategic high-end of iTunes video content but without those media deals in place the only real contender here is MicroSoft. MCE/Zune/Xbox may be less polished that iTunes/iPod/AppleTV but with Global, HD Marketplace to back it up - right now it's the best solution it's where Apple should be and they're not. Apple can hold that combination off by existing iPod market traction but for how long?
MS have really blind-sided Apple this time - sad to say.
McD
I hope that early adopters of the iPhone will get an offer to upgrade to the 2nd Gen iPhone. Being locked into an 18 month contract means that we could end up being stuck with our 1st Gen iPhone for a little while longer after the 2nd Gen revision comes out.
Here's your offer - retail price
Yep although I guess you can still argue that that isn't the true un-subsidised cost. Orange France could just be profiteering.
I do fail to see why it's as expensive as it is when an iPod Touch is £199 here and there's no way on earth adding the features of a very average 2G camera phone adds £70 never mind the £250 extra Orange want for a totally unlocked phone.
Why are truffles so expensive? You dig them up out of the ground for free!
The industry is evolving, and Apple must evolve with it. There are far more places for this content to be offered.
Even with Apple's current content situation, no one is yet even close to matching iTunes TV or movie sales.
It worked for music, though now there could be problems. But for movie content, and Tv content, it hasn't worked as well as they thought it would. They thought the studios would roll over for them on the alter of sales, but that didn't happen.
The content providers are certainly not victims in all of this. They are fully invested in their old business model and are not at all adept at taking advantage of new media. In the case of the music downloading Apple's bulldosing benefited the entire market. The content providers are fully invested in their old business models and have no sense of the changing times. Had it been left up to the music industry they would have bulldozed the retail sites into selling music for far more than most people would want to pay for it.
The reason TV/movie studios are balking at iTunes is because it was a success. It sold content at a price people were satisfied to pay. Because of this success the de-facto price of online music is 99 cents. It is very difficult for anyone to sell music for more than 99 cents. The music industry is not at all happy about that.
The studios don't want iTunes becoming success at selling television and movies for $9.99. Forcing the de-facto price for the entire interweb. They want the flexibility of charging as much as they want. Even if it means short term profit hurting the long term online market.
The problem with Jobs & co. is that they have gotten too arrogant. They try to bulldoze their way through everything. Sometimes that works, but sometimes it doesn't.
The one place in all of this I would call Apple overly arrogant is in not sharing AppleTV with partners. Apple should have partnered with Netflix, they both offer what the other needs. Netflix has the content and loyal customer base, but no elegant way of getting that content from the internet onto a television. Apple has the elegant solution for getting content from the internet onto the television.
Apple not making such a deal has limited ATV adoption into the market place.
If Apple isn't careful, someone will hit upon the right combination, and Apple will be left standing alone,
What combination is that? After five years no has been able to even recreate the success of iTunes + iPod.
Apple would repeat the success of music in video if the studios would cooperate. But that exact scenario is what they fear the most.
Amazon started their music service, by lowering the price for DRM-less music. You don't think Apple wanted to do that, do you? For the first time they were caught flatfooted with higher pricing.
Apple had nothing to particularly to gain from selling DRM-less music at $1.99. It could have been a move to tempt other record labels to offer DRM-less music on iTunes. Apple would allow them to sell it for more money, which is what the argument has been about. Once Amazon was free to sell it for .99 there was no reason for Apple to charge more.
I'm hoping that there is some work going on behind the scenes that will help to resolve this, but we can't assume that there is.
There is rumor that Apple will capitulate and offer movies for $14.99. You think Apple is the bad guy in this?
At least the Netflix service doesn't require devices that can only be made by one company.
I'm sure they'd rather have that device if it were an elegant solution for getting their internet movies on to a television sold by the same company that invented the iPod.
At least the Netflix service doesn't require devices that can only be made by one company.
Yeah, the movies keep coming and it works on every DVD player in my house. I just come home, grab the mail, plop the disc into the player and hit play. If someone tries to download a movie in our household, all hell would break loose because our internet would slow to a crawl for the rest of the family.
That's nonsense. My own (and countless others') personal use case would be as the most seamless streaming/storage for music available, bar none. That alone is worth the price. I paid $300 for a Slimbox that is far less functional. (BTW I've never gotten onto Slim forums to bash them for not releasing the be-all-end-all product right out of the chute.
They're hardly failing.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/1...wnload-market/
Interesting, but hardly applicable.
Good for you. That's admirable.
You'd be toast in the big leagues.
Jobs is not dealing with reasonable people.
Get to know the big leagues first. I was ther too.
Jobs is simply unreasonable sometimes. It has nothing to do with anyone else.
The entertainment industry consists essentially of wolves who want to drain every penny they can out of both their talent and their customers. Ask anyone who's ever dealt with record labels. I have.
Ask the writers who are trying to get a paltry 4% for their work on sales that the moguls , in bald faced lie, say doesn't exist. (Otherwise what's the big deal about givint them 4% of nothing?)
I don't know you think you spoke to, but I've dealt with them professionally, and know more than a few professional musicians who have recording contracts. People who say what you are saying don't know the music industry. The profits aren't all that great. And they spend all of the money doing the recordings, promotions, recruiting, etc. The musicians spend none of their own money for that. And most acts are failures. Who do you think pays for that as well?
Ask anyone who's ever bought a $20 CD with 1 good song and 11 crap ones.
First of all, you've overpaid for that recording. Secondly, that's the fault of the act. It's their music and performance. You should listen to the music before you plunk down the dollars.
Listen. I understand the frustration with the fact the neither ITV or ATV are mature.
It's more than that. It wasn't even well thought out before it was released. Apple should have at least secured the majors before releasing the device and the service. Even if it took some months before enough content came out, it would be assured that it would.
But your previous comment to the effect that its somehow common for companies to release fully mature products right off the bat is just silly. That is NEVER how it works.
Not fully mature. Fully prepared. That's the difference. Apple wasn't fully prepared to come out with the service when they opened it. They had no idea if the other studios would come around, and some good reasons to think they wouldn't.
That's the problem.
And you can download these titles to own, and easily stream them to any device in your home? And they're 1080p?
My god... why aren't you beating down the door to buy their product? (Oh yeah, they don't have one.)
Who cares about owning? Most people would like to download them to watch once or twice.
I buy DVD's sometimes, but also don't always get to watch them. I'd rather download it for a few bucks. I'm nowhere alone in this.
1080p is a bunch of crap as an argument right now. Perhaps in a year or two.
Even with Apple's current content situation, no one is yet even close to matching iTunes TV or movie sales.
The content providers are certainly not victims in all of this. They are fully invested in their old business model and are not at all adept at taking advantage of new media. In the case of the music downloading Apple's bulldosing benefited the entire market. The content providers are fully invested in their old business models and have no sense of the changing times. Had it been left up to the music industry they would have bulldozed the retail sites into selling music for far more than most people would want to pay for it.
The reason TV/movie studios are balking at iTunes is because it was a success. It sold content at a price people were satisfied to pay. Because of this success the de-facto price of online music is 99 cents. It is very difficult for anyone to sell music for more than 99 cents. The music industry is not at all happy about that.
The studios don't want iTunes becoming success at selling television and movies for $9.99. Forcing the de-facto price for the entire interweb. They want the flexibility of charging as much as they want. Even if it means short term profit hurting the long term online market.
The one place in all of this I would call Apple overly arrogant is in not sharing AppleTV with partners. Apple should have partnered with Netflix, they both offer what the other needs. Netflix has the content and loyal customer base, but no elegant way of getting that content from the internet onto a television. Apple has the elegant solution for getting content from the internet onto the television.
Apple not making such a deal has limited ATV adoption into the market place.
What combination is that? After five years no has been able to even recreate the success of iTunes + iPod.
Apple would repeat the success of music in video if the studios would cooperate. But that exact scenario is what they fear the most.
Apple had nothing to particularly to gain from selling DRM-less music at $1.99. It could have been a move to tempt other record labels to offer DRM-less music on iTunes. Apple would allow them to sell it for more money, which is what the argument has been about. Once Amazon was free to sell it for .99 there was no reason for Apple to charge more.
There is rumor that Apple will capitulate and offer movies for $14.99. You think Apple is the bad guy in this?
I'm sure they'd rather have that device if it were an elegant solution for getting their internet movies on to a television sold by the same company that invented the iPod.
No disrespect intended, but I'm just too tired to answer another long post point for point after having just done so, so I'll be fairly brief.
things change all the time. no one ever thought that IBM would be knocked offits PC perch. no one thought that Ford would be knowcked off its. No one thought there was a chance that MS could lose significant marketshare.
I could point to plenty of others, but so could you.
The fact that right now, Apple is sitting pretty with downloads, doesn't mean that they will always do so.
And are those video numbers before, or after Universal/NBC left? Lets see new ones a month or two from now, because they were 30% of Apple's sales there. Look at those numbers and subtract 30% from Apples current numbers, and distribute them around. That will give some idea. Apple goes from 42% down to 28%. That's a big difference, and would put them about equal to Vongo.
You also have to think that Apple's movie download service would be much better if APPLE would cooperate.
It's a two way street. Both sides have to give way. This isn't a game of chicken, or at least, it's not supposed to be.
The fact that right now, Apple is sitting pretty with downloads, doesn't mean that they will always do so.
Very true but Apple does not take this for granted as iPod and iTunes are ever changing and adapting. I agree iTunes will not last forever, thus far however we see nothing on the near horizon to take its place.
And are those video numbers before, or after Universal/NBC left? Lets see new ones a month or two from now, Look at those numbers and subtract 30% from Apples current numbers, and distribute them around.
These numbers are before NBC left. This assumes the same number of people who would have bought NBC content from iTunes will buy it from what ever other service NBC sells it from. That more than likely will not happen. Plus NBC hasn't spread its content evenly around to Apple's competitors.
NBC does not hold all of the power simply because it owns the content. iTunes is nearly all gain with virtually no cost for studios. All they have to do is provide content that already exists. Their basically are no other costs to them and they make 70% pure profit in perpetuity.
NBC is risking sure sales leaving the largest media downloading retailer for start-ups that have little chance at equal success.
You also have to think that Apple's movie download service would be much better if APPLE would cooperate.
Not if the studios forced Apple into charging more money than most people are willing to pay.
Very true but Apple does not take this for granted as iPod and iTunes are ever changing and adapting. I agree it is possible for someone to come up with a better idea, thus far we see nothing on the near horizon.
These numbers are before NBC left. This assumes the same number of people who would have bought NBC content from iTunes will buy it from what ever other service NBC sells it from. That more than likely will not happen. Plus NBC hasn't spread its content evenly around to Apple's competitors.
NBC does not hold all of the power simply because it owns the content. iTunes is nearly all gain with virtually no cost for studios. All they have to do is provide content that already exists. Their basically are no other costs to them and they make 70% pure profit in perpetuity.
NBC is risking sure sales leaving the largest media downloading retailer for start-ups that have little chance at equal success.
Not if the studios forced Apple into charging more money than most people are willing to pay.
It isn't just NBC here. It's all of universal. This includes the SCi Fi channel as well as others. One of the best selling downloads has been Battlestar Galactica. That's gone as well as many others.
And it doesn't really matter which of the other download sites get this stuff. They are also giving ad supported downloads, which are becoming more popular because they fit the "free" category.
If we include ALL downloads of these content categories, then Apple's share will likely be much smaller than it is now, and will be much smaller still in the near future. Apple doesn't have as much power in the video download area as may be assumed.
We don't really know what most people will pay, because Apple hasn't tried it. I'm saying that they should compromise. If sales go down, then it would be seen that it wasn't working. they could then have the chance to reevaluate the price structure, and try again.
It's better than nothing, which is where we're going now.
Then you aren't the targeted audience for the ATv.
Who exactly is the targeted audience? People who enjoy lighting their money on fire?