Silly question. We'll just have to wait and see. Much movie and Tv production has gone from the US to Canada the past few years because of costs. Movies have also gone to Eastern Europe for almost three decades for the same reason.
As China builds up its infrastructure, it will begin to move there as well. The animation studios have already been discussing this. Chinese animators cost much less than those here, and are just as good.
Give it, what, between five and ten years?
As long as selling prices keep being pushed down, the costs have to go that way as well.
Don't forget about India. Education levels are generally higher and there isn't a significant language barrier due to widespread English language use.
China certainly could build studio facilities to attract big budget Hollywood films. There are already many countries doing this, Canada, Australia, Eastern Europe. Production will still take American crews, because of skill levels and language barriers can be too much of a problem. But their are practicalities in producing music, television, and movies that will keep the majority of it in the US. At least in our life time.
Language barriers are falling quickly. China requires all students above a certain grade (don't remember which) to take English. Skills can be learned. Remember that China has a pretty good major film industry right now.
Quote:
Much of the cost of the movie is pay for the actors. Their salaries and residuals can be multiple of what it costs to pay for everything else that makes the movie.
That's partly true. but locations costs are horrendous! I know. Even for the Tv commercials I used to shoot, the costs were high.
And even though it's coming down, the costs for effects can be a third, or more of the cost of production.
Language barriers are falling quickly. China requires all students above a certain grade (don't remember which) to take English. Skills can be learned. Remember that China has a pretty good major film industry right now.
The Chinese also have their own way of making movies that is different from how we do it in the US. The culture and nomenclature are completely different.
Quote:
That's partly true. but locations costs are horrendous! I know. Even for the Tv commercials I used to shoot, the costs were high.
Depends on the location and the situation. At times production pays nothing for the location itself, most of the cost is in transportation and lodging. TV commercials burn through money, they don't care.
Quote:
Actors are often taking percentages these days.
Will Smith was payed $20 million dollar salary for "I Am Legend". His back-end is expected to be $50 million. To make "I Am Legend" cost $120 million.
The Chinese also have their own way of making movies that is different from how we do it in the US. The culture and nomenclature are completely different.
Of course. That's why American films will, as always, have American producers, directors, and editing. The rest can be local.
Quote:
Depends on the location and the situation. At times production pays nothing for the location itself, most of the cost is in transportation and lodging. TV commercials burn through money, they don't care.
It's not always paying for use of a location, though sometimes that does occur, it's paying for everything else.
Major films have an army of people, who have to be paid union rates (here, which is why it's moving off shore), get fed, pay for the manufacture of costumes, sets and props, as well as insurance. Plus other costs which can be high.
Quote:
Will Smith was payed $20 million dollar salary for "I Am Legend". His back-end is expected to be $50 million. To make "I Am Legend" cost $120 million.
He may have been paid that, but the $50 million will come out of box office receipts, and possibly DVD sales, if they reach whatever point they start to kick in at.
All Amazon can hope for is incremental income, if even that. My guess is that Amazon is losing money on every sale right now. Apple doesn't make much money from selling songs, they make money from selling iPods (hardware). Amazon does not have the complete chain, like Apple has.
Which is why this doesn't really Apple's profit in the short or long term. Sure, there will be mutterings of how Apple's iTunes has fallen to the wayside while the iTunes program and the iPod line will be selling more than ever. Amazon is mostly likely the 1st or 2nd largest seller of iPod on the internet and their songs are DRM-free and blatantly advertise that they work in the iPod. The only losing profit here is the music companies who aren't letting the largest online music distributor, iTunes Store, sell their music DRM-free or at all.
Don't forget about India. Education levels are generally higher and there isn't a significant language barrier due to widespread English language use.
Just spent a good part of the last year in NW India. Most of the populace's English should be called Hinglish. Even when using the English term it was often very difficult to understand do to unique pronunciations and accents. I found it quite difficult to understand as I don't know more than a few Hindi greetings.
Of course. That's why American films will, as always, have American producers, directors, and editing. The rest can be local.
So far when production travel over seas much of the crew is still American. All of the crew heads of departments are from Hollywood, the grunts who do less skilled labor are local. The only place I've seen where they add a significant number local crew heads is in Canada. That's because their is no language or work barrier.
Quote:
Major films have an army of people, who have to be paid union rates (here, which is why it's moving off shore), get fed, pay for the manufacture of costumes, sets and props, as well as insurance. Plus other costs which can be high.
Without having to pay actors salaries most movies could be made for 20 million and under. Fully paying for everything. Most low budget movies and television don't leave US soil. The only movies that can afford to go overseas are the larger budget ones.
Their are a number of reasons films go over seas. Canada became so popular because it offered steep tax discounts. Which lowered the cost production would have to pay for logistics. Everyone is still payed their same rate, it just meant a little more money the producers could put in their pockets.
Canada has been less popular lately. Partially because of the weak dollar and partially because many states have begun to offer tax rebates that are just as competitive. No one really wants to go to Canada if they don't have to.
Quote:
He may have been paid that, but the $50 million will come out of box office receipts, and possibly DVD sales, if they reach whatever point they start to kick in at.
Yes the 50 is from box office, DVD, cable, internet downloads. And it comes directly out of the films profits.
Silly question. We'll just have to wait and see. Much movie and Tv production has gone from the US to Canada the past few years because of costs. Movies have also gone to Eastern Europe for almost three decades for the same reason.
As China builds up its infrastructure, it will begin to move there as well. The animation studios have already been discussing this. Chinese animators cost much less than those here, and are just as good.
Give it, what, between five and ten years?
As long as selling prices keep being pushed down, the costs have to go that way as well.
I disagree that it is a silly question. When you make such Olympian pronouncements you owe it
to the readers to be more specific.
I agree with your assertions about movies. I was focusing more on music production. I believe
the trend is more likely to be toward artists self-producing their own work, as excellent quality
audio equipment is priced low enough that even semi-pro musicians can afford to have a home studio, capable of making high quality recordings. Will Jay-Z be taking his entourage to Beijing
I know you did, but your explanation was wrong. Apple does not have the kind of control that you elude to. The concept of Apple not "allowing" them to control their products is just false. Apple merely got the better of them at the bargaining table the first time around.
Quote:
You don't have to agree.
But, it's still true. Minimum pricing laws were set so that a monopoly couldn't set pricing so low so as to force its competitors out of business.
No. Minimum pricing laws have nothing to do with monopoly status. Secondly, the ruling was established to protect the consumer from manufacturers setting a minimum price for their product at retail. It was a consumer protection to prevent a manufacturer from requiring a retailer to sell at a manufacturer specified minimum price. In essence, this was seen as being anti-competitive per se and harmful to the consumer.
Quote:
Large companies can always negotiate lower prices on many items?if there is enough profit to go around.
Apple is apparently cutting that profit to the bone, both for them, where they don't care, because it's something like a loss leader that stores use to get customers into the store, to the content makers, who do care, since content is their main income source.
It's also relative to how much profit the manufacturer needs to make. They always have a bottom number which they don't go below. I know how this works because I was a manufacturer. You don't negotiate a price below what you decide you need. Also, many manufacturers tell the distributors what price they want, and that's it. They decide the discount.
If your product is desirable, you also have power. Even WalMart can't dictate everything.
To a good degree that is true. Although that is a far cry from your previous statement that traditionally manufacturers set the price. It is always a give and take between two parties of differing power within a negotiation. Of course there is a bottom line at which profitability disappears. I took that as a given but no harm in mentioning it. If the manufacturer is in a position of strength they can very well set a wholesale price and say, "that's it". Of course the distributor can also say, "screw you". If the distributor is very large, the threat of walking away can influence the manufacturer to reconsider it's "take it or leave it" offer. That is the marketplace in action. There are many examples of manufacturers that entered into very unfavorable contracts with the likes of Wal-mart. The lure of having their products so widely distributed can be powerful to the point of manufacturers making such bad deals that they ultimately go out of business despite decent sales volumes.
Quote:
What's good for the consumer is that they have choices.
It's also true that just because the consumer wants to pay the lowest price possible, that price isn't necessarily fair.
We can look at what that attitude has been doing to our economy. By paying the lowest possible price, we ensured that companies here couldn't make a profit, so they took their factories first to Mexico, then through other countries, to China.
Now, high paying blue collar jobs are scarce, and more people can't afford to pay higher prices. It's a downward spiral.
Before you know it, all movies and music will be produced in China with Chinese crews. Maybe then, people will pay what they want.
I would think the record and movie companies have figured this out and factored that into their negotiated wholesale price. Again, I think you give too much credence to Apple's supposed monopoly power over these industries. The record companies miscalculated. They are wiser now - as is the movie industry as they had the benefit of seeing the mistakes.
Just spent a good part of the last year in NW India. Most of the populace's English should be called Hinglish. Even when using the English term it was often very difficult to understand do to unique pronunciations and accents. I found it quite difficult to understand as I don't know more than a few Hindi greetings.
"Most of the populace" is 'most' of of 1,100,000,000 people. Even if 2% speaks it well -- in actuality, a higher percentage does -- that's 22 million people. Plenty to go around.
To put this number into perspective, consider that ALL of the fabled IT/ITeS outsourcing industry in India directly employs less than 2 million currently (and less than 8 million, if both direct and indirect employment are included).
Of course, since you're only talking about NW India, it's alright to refer to "Hinglish." A more generalized reference would be "Inglish."
"Most of the populace" is 'most' of of 1,100,000,000 people. Even if 2% speaks it well -- in actuality, a higher percentage does -- that's 22 million people. Plenty to go around.
To put this number into perspective, consider that ALL of the fabled IT/ITeS outsourcing industry in India directly employs less than 2 million currently (and less than 8 million, if both direct and indirect employment are included).
Of course, since you're only talking about NW India, it's alright to refer to "Hinglish." A more generalized reference would be "Inglish."
"Most of the populace [I encountered]", to be more accurate.
I did travel all over India and spent some wonder weeks in the Himalays, but most of my time was spent in the NW.
$600 is not unreasonable. Maybe not in 18 months, but quite possibly in 24 to 30 months. The iPod continues to dominate. The iPhone is a runaway success and version 2 will debut in May/June right as they are going into the Asian market. People are moving towards smartphones and away from phones that don't browse the internet, and the iPhone is going to ride that wave. If Apple does video rentals right then the Apple TV will be THE thing to have. Who wouldn't want to get on the internet, pick the movie they want to watch, and go sit in front of their huge television to watch that movie all in a minute or less? That IS the future of home movie watching, and the Apple TV is at the front of that wave. All the iPod/iPhone/AppleTV success will continue to translate into more Mac sales and a bigger market share for OSX. Apple has a lot of room for growth and they are at the forefront of how we will do things in the future.
In regards to Warner, So let me get this straight...
"How dare you suggest dropping DRM Steve Jobs, you heretic! To punish you for stating such blasphemy, we will only be releasing our DRM-free music to amazon, so there!"
I disagree that it is a silly question. When you make such Olympian pronouncements you owe it
to the readers to be more specific.
I agree with your assertions about movies. I was focusing more on music production. I believe
the trend is more likely to be toward artists self-producing their own work, as excellent quality
audio equipment is priced low enough that even semi-pro musicians can afford to have a home studio, capable of making high quality recordings. Will Jay-Z be taking his entourage to Beijing
for his album in 2012? I doubt it.
It was silly, because how can anyone know a specific date for something like this? I'm sure that was understood when the question was asked, and the intent was to try to pin me down on something that can't be pinned down.
One of the biggest expenses, other than those accompanying high production values, and large groups of studio musicians, is publicity.
The majors do a great deal of this, and that, almost more than anything else, is what makes performers household names, even before their first album hits the streets.
Without that, even You Tube can't get people known to a buying audience.
Musicians are for the most part, local, they never make it beyond that. These people are no different from anyone else who perform. They want to become rich and famous. They aren't likely to do that on their own.
One thing we hear these days, is that its possible that eventually, the recordings may have to be given away, as publicity, and the money will be made from concerts. On the face of it that sounds good, but it isn't.
Only a very few performers, who are already well known, can make huge amounts of money from tours. The companies won't find that touring for others will be profit making.
The other part about that is that most performers like to do the occasional live event, but don't want to do that deay in and day out.
There are also just so many concerts that people will want to attend. The cost of going to a concert is also higher than the music on CD, or download.
I know you did, but your explanation was wrong. Apple does not have the kind of control that you elude to. The concept of Apple not "allowing" them to control their products is just false. Apple merely got the better of them at the bargaining table the first time around.
You're the one who is wrong here. You are apparently not following this situation at all if you think that.
Quote:
No. Minimum pricing laws have nothing to do with monopoly status. Secondly, the ruling was established to protect the consumer from manufacturers setting a minimum price for their product at retail. It was a consumer protection to prevent a manufacturer from requiring a retailer to sell at a manufacturer specified minimum price. In essence, this was seen as being anti-competitive per se and harmful to the consumer.
There are different laws concerning minimum pricing. One is for the purpose I gave. Another law, which governs what price might be charged, is the law regarding list prices, where manufacturers can't prevent retailers from charging less than the list, which is why we now see "suggested retail price".
Quote:
To a good degree that is true. Although that is a far cry from your previous statement that traditionally manufacturers set the price. It is always a give and take between two parties of differing power within a negotiation. Of course there is a bottom line at which profitability disappears. I took that as a given but no harm in mentioning it. If the manufacturer is in a position of strength they can very well set a wholesale price and say, "that's it". Of course the distributor can also say, "screw you". If the distributor is very large, the threat of walking away can influence the manufacturer to reconsider it's "take it or leave it" offer. That is the marketplace in action. There are many examples of manufacturers that entered into very unfavorable contracts with the likes of Wal-mart. The lure of having their products so widely distributed can be powerful to the point of manufacturers making such bad deals that they ultimately go out of business despite decent sales volumes.
Often there is a give and take, but not always. Are you arguing that Apple doesn't set the price for its iPods, for example? How much of a difference in pricing do you ever see there? Almost none. That's because APPLE sets the wholesale price, and the "suggested retail price" as well. You might see a few bucks off the price of a $249 iPod, but that's all. It doesn't matter who's selling it. Why do you think that is?
Quote:
I would think the record and movie companies have figured this out and factored that into their negotiated wholesale price. Again, I think you give too much credence to Apple's supposed monopoly power over these industries. The record companies miscalculated. They are wiser now - as is the movie industry as they had the benefit of seeing the mistakes.
There is no question that they miscalculated. But, at the time, they only saw the failure ofonline sales, so they took the chance. I've read more than once, executives stating that if they had any idea that sales would have gone so high, they never would have agreed to this fixed price from the beginning.
But, despite what you say, Apple does have the power. In fact, Apple has determined the pricing for the entire industry. no one would dare to charge more than iTunes.
The music industry is also becoming much more dependant on online sales, and they know that as well. As CD sales decline, and online sale rise, there will come a time when online sales make up the majority of income for them. They don't want Aple to continue selling 85% of all online music when that happens, particularly when Apple tells them no to every pricing idea they have.
Like it or not, that's power. I quote this from your own post as supporting my contention:
Quote:
There are many examples of manufacturers that entered into very unfavorable contracts with the likes of Wal-mart. The lure of having their products so widely distributed can be powerful to the point of manufacturers making such bad deals that they ultimately go out of business despite decent sales volumes.
You can't come down on both sides of an issue like that, when you deny the nature of Apple's relationship with the music companies.
All Amazon can hope for is incremental income, if even that. My guess is that Amazon is losing money on every sale right now. Apple doesn't make much money from selling songs, they make money from selling iPods (hardware). Amazon does not have the complete chain, like Apple has.
I seriously doubt Amazon is loosing money from the deal although perhaps they are not making much profit. Regardless, it is still a major coup for Amazon to gain the Warner DRM free business. The "complete chain" and Job's mouth are the things that are scaring labels away from Apple. The labels want it like CDs. Go buy it where ever you want so long as they get to set the wholesale prices as they please.
On a side note, Warner going DRM free is going to really kill the stupid subscription models. Good riddance.
I believe that Warner Music went with Amazon.com because Amazon's MP3 download service is actually pretty good and just about every MP3 player out there can play the 256 kbps variable data rate MP3 format used by Amazon for their download service.
I believe that Warner Music went with Amazon.com because Amazon's MP3 download service is actually pretty good and just about every MP3 player out there can play the 256 kbps variable data rate MP3 format used by Amazon for their download service.
Yup. The big deal here is that Amazon and studios without DRM can have their music play on the iPod/iPhone system, as well as on Mac's, and even Linux machines.
This is why it might very well lead to decline in Apple's iTunes sales, but not it's hardware sales, which, after all, is what selling through iTunes is all about.
If I was that Dell rep., my retort would have been, "get a life, nerd".
So one deserves to be attacked for doing a lot of research before spending over a thousand dollars on a new computer? That's not very nice
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You didn't actually READ what Mossberg said, did you?
Nope. My friend watched the video and then showed me it exclaiming he was going to buy a Dell One based off it, at which point I tried to convince him otherwise. I watched the video too, which left out a lot of that crucial information. I'm not saying that's a good reason not to read the article, I just figured that his video review wouldn't leave out crucial information like that and thus that viewing both would be unnecessary.
So, I guess I was wrong. Next time, I will read the article but not watch the video, in the hopes that he doesn't leave things out of the article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
He didn't speak to any Dell reps. He just wrote that for this thread.
There's no need to be mean. I spoke to two dell reps because I was trying to help my friend make a good choice with his money. There's no shame in that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Wow, you guys are rough on newbies...... trial by fire, Quine...
Oh, btw, welcome!
Thanks. I've been reading AI for a while I just avoid commenting on most sites because of...well, it's pretty self-evident
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer
Why is this a big deal. When Apple-folks like to point out that Dells aren't cheaper, then hack a ton of stuff into the Dell to get the price to be 'the same', they never change the mac.
Then again, it's hard to 'upgrade' the Mac to 8 USB ports, extra drive bays, PCI Express slots, etc, that your general PC has, so they kind of gloss over that ("Yeah, but I've got a built-in web cam! Sure, I never use it, nor did I want it, but it's there!")
Except the Dell One doesn't have most of those things, so it really is close to the iMac.
Oh, I just don't like mossberg because I think he leaves out important information and misleads people. That's all.
Comments
Silly question. We'll just have to wait and see. Much movie and Tv production has gone from the US to Canada the past few years because of costs. Movies have also gone to Eastern Europe for almost three decades for the same reason.
As China builds up its infrastructure, it will begin to move there as well. The animation studios have already been discussing this. Chinese animators cost much less than those here, and are just as good.
Give it, what, between five and ten years?
As long as selling prices keep being pushed down, the costs have to go that way as well.
Don't forget about India. Education levels are generally higher and there isn't a significant language barrier due to widespread English language use.
China certainly could build studio facilities to attract big budget Hollywood films. There are already many countries doing this, Canada, Australia, Eastern Europe. Production will still take American crews, because of skill levels and language barriers can be too much of a problem. But their are practicalities in producing music, television, and movies that will keep the majority of it in the US. At least in our life time.
Language barriers are falling quickly. China requires all students above a certain grade (don't remember which) to take English. Skills can be learned. Remember that China has a pretty good major film industry right now.
Much of the cost of the movie is pay for the actors. Their salaries and residuals can be multiple of what it costs to pay for everything else that makes the movie.
That's partly true. but locations costs are horrendous! I know. Even for the Tv commercials I used to shoot, the costs were high.
And even though it's coming down, the costs for effects can be a third, or more of the cost of production.
Actors are often taking percentages these days.
Don't forget about India. Education levels are generally higher and there isn't a significant language barrier due to widespread English language use.
I'm not Bollywood is the worlds biggest film producing industry.
Language barriers are falling quickly. China requires all students above a certain grade (don't remember which) to take English. Skills can be learned. Remember that China has a pretty good major film industry right now.
The Chinese also have their own way of making movies that is different from how we do it in the US. The culture and nomenclature are completely different.
That's partly true. but locations costs are horrendous! I know. Even for the Tv commercials I used to shoot, the costs were high.
Depends on the location and the situation. At times production pays nothing for the location itself, most of the cost is in transportation and lodging. TV commercials burn through money, they don't care.
Actors are often taking percentages these days.
Will Smith was payed $20 million dollar salary for "I Am Legend". His back-end is expected to be $50 million. To make "I Am Legend" cost $120 million.
The Chinese also have their own way of making movies that is different from how we do it in the US. The culture and nomenclature are completely different.
Of course. That's why American films will, as always, have American producers, directors, and editing. The rest can be local.
Depends on the location and the situation. At times production pays nothing for the location itself, most of the cost is in transportation and lodging. TV commercials burn through money, they don't care.
It's not always paying for use of a location, though sometimes that does occur, it's paying for everything else.
Major films have an army of people, who have to be paid union rates (here, which is why it's moving off shore), get fed, pay for the manufacture of costumes, sets and props, as well as insurance. Plus other costs which can be high.
Will Smith was payed $20 million dollar salary for "I Am Legend". His back-end is expected to be $50 million. To make "I Am Legend" cost $120 million.
He may have been paid that, but the $50 million will come out of box office receipts, and possibly DVD sales, if they reach whatever point they start to kick in at.
All Amazon can hope for is incremental income, if even that. My guess is that Amazon is losing money on every sale right now. Apple doesn't make much money from selling songs, they make money from selling iPods (hardware). Amazon does not have the complete chain, like Apple has.
Which is why this doesn't really Apple's profit in the short or long term. Sure, there will be mutterings of how Apple's iTunes has fallen to the wayside while the iTunes program and the iPod line will be selling more than ever. Amazon is mostly likely the 1st or 2nd largest seller of iPod on the internet and their songs are DRM-free and blatantly advertise that they work in the iPod. The only losing profit here is the music companies who aren't letting the largest online music distributor, iTunes Store, sell their music DRM-free or at all.
Don't forget about India. Education levels are generally higher and there isn't a significant language barrier due to widespread English language use.
Just spent a good part of the last year in NW India. Most of the populace's English should be called Hinglish. Even when using the English term it was often very difficult to understand do to unique pronunciations and accents. I found it quite difficult to understand as I don't know more than a few Hindi greetings.
Of course. That's why American films will, as always, have American producers, directors, and editing. The rest can be local.
So far when production travel over seas much of the crew is still American. All of the crew heads of departments are from Hollywood, the grunts who do less skilled labor are local. The only place I've seen where they add a significant number local crew heads is in Canada. That's because their is no language or work barrier.
Major films have an army of people, who have to be paid union rates (here, which is why it's moving off shore), get fed, pay for the manufacture of costumes, sets and props, as well as insurance. Plus other costs which can be high.
Without having to pay actors salaries most movies could be made for 20 million and under. Fully paying for everything. Most low budget movies and television don't leave US soil. The only movies that can afford to go overseas are the larger budget ones.
Their are a number of reasons films go over seas. Canada became so popular because it offered steep tax discounts. Which lowered the cost production would have to pay for logistics. Everyone is still payed their same rate, it just meant a little more money the producers could put in their pockets.
Canada has been less popular lately. Partially because of the weak dollar and partially because many states have begun to offer tax rebates that are just as competitive. No one really wants to go to Canada if they don't have to.
He may have been paid that, but the $50 million will come out of box office receipts, and possibly DVD sales, if they reach whatever point they start to kick in at.
Yes the 50 is from box office, DVD, cable, internet downloads. And it comes directly out of the films profits.
Silly question. We'll just have to wait and see. Much movie and Tv production has gone from the US to Canada the past few years because of costs. Movies have also gone to Eastern Europe for almost three decades for the same reason.
As China builds up its infrastructure, it will begin to move there as well. The animation studios have already been discussing this. Chinese animators cost much less than those here, and are just as good.
Give it, what, between five and ten years?
As long as selling prices keep being pushed down, the costs have to go that way as well.
I disagree that it is a silly question. When you make such Olympian pronouncements you owe it
to the readers to be more specific.
I agree with your assertions about movies. I was focusing more on music production. I believe
the trend is more likely to be toward artists self-producing their own work, as excellent quality
audio equipment is priced low enough that even semi-pro musicians can afford to have a home studio, capable of making high quality recordings. Will Jay-Z be taking his entourage to Beijing
for his album in 2012? I doubt it.
I already explained what, and why, that happened.
I know you did, but your explanation was wrong. Apple does not have the kind of control that you elude to. The concept of Apple not "allowing" them to control their products is just false. Apple merely got the better of them at the bargaining table the first time around.
You don't have to agree.
But, it's still true. Minimum pricing laws were set so that a monopoly couldn't set pricing so low so as to force its competitors out of business.
No. Minimum pricing laws have nothing to do with monopoly status. Secondly, the ruling was established to protect the consumer from manufacturers setting a minimum price for their product at retail. It was a consumer protection to prevent a manufacturer from requiring a retailer to sell at a manufacturer specified minimum price. In essence, this was seen as being anti-competitive per se and harmful to the consumer.
Large companies can always negotiate lower prices on many items?if there is enough profit to go around.
Apple is apparently cutting that profit to the bone, both for them, where they don't care, because it's something like a loss leader that stores use to get customers into the store, to the content makers, who do care, since content is their main income source.
It's also relative to how much profit the manufacturer needs to make. They always have a bottom number which they don't go below. I know how this works because I was a manufacturer. You don't negotiate a price below what you decide you need. Also, many manufacturers tell the distributors what price they want, and that's it. They decide the discount.
If your product is desirable, you also have power. Even WalMart can't dictate everything.
To a good degree that is true. Although that is a far cry from your previous statement that traditionally manufacturers set the price. It is always a give and take between two parties of differing power within a negotiation. Of course there is a bottom line at which profitability disappears. I took that as a given but no harm in mentioning it. If the manufacturer is in a position of strength they can very well set a wholesale price and say, "that's it". Of course the distributor can also say, "screw you". If the distributor is very large, the threat of walking away can influence the manufacturer to reconsider it's "take it or leave it" offer. That is the marketplace in action. There are many examples of manufacturers that entered into very unfavorable contracts with the likes of Wal-mart. The lure of having their products so widely distributed can be powerful to the point of manufacturers making such bad deals that they ultimately go out of business despite decent sales volumes.
What's good for the consumer is that they have choices.
It's also true that just because the consumer wants to pay the lowest price possible, that price isn't necessarily fair.
We can look at what that attitude has been doing to our economy. By paying the lowest possible price, we ensured that companies here couldn't make a profit, so they took their factories first to Mexico, then through other countries, to China.
Now, high paying blue collar jobs are scarce, and more people can't afford to pay higher prices. It's a downward spiral.
Before you know it, all movies and music will be produced in China with Chinese crews. Maybe then, people will pay what they want.
I would think the record and movie companies have figured this out and factored that into their negotiated wholesale price. Again, I think you give too much credence to Apple's supposed monopoly power over these industries. The record companies miscalculated. They are wiser now - as is the movie industry as they had the benefit of seeing the mistakes.
Just spent a good part of the last year in NW India. Most of the populace's English should be called Hinglish. Even when using the English term it was often very difficult to understand do to unique pronunciations and accents. I found it quite difficult to understand as I don't know more than a few Hindi greetings.
"Most of the populace" is 'most' of of 1,100,000,000 people. Even if 2% speaks it well -- in actuality, a higher percentage does -- that's 22 million people. Plenty to go around.
To put this number into perspective, consider that ALL of the fabled IT/ITeS outsourcing industry in India directly employs less than 2 million currently (and less than 8 million, if both direct and indirect employment are included).
Of course, since you're only talking about NW India, it's alright to refer to "Hinglish." A more generalized reference would be "Inglish."
"Most of the populace" is 'most' of of 1,100,000,000 people. Even if 2% speaks it well -- in actuality, a higher percentage does -- that's 22 million people. Plenty to go around.
To put this number into perspective, consider that ALL of the fabled IT/ITeS outsourcing industry in India directly employs less than 2 million currently (and less than 8 million, if both direct and indirect employment are included).
Of course, since you're only talking about NW India, it's alright to refer to "Hinglish." A more generalized reference would be "Inglish."
"Most of the populace [I encountered]", to be more accurate.
I did travel all over India and spent some wonder weeks in the Himalays, but most of my time was spent in the NW.
But you never know..........
"How dare you suggest dropping DRM Steve Jobs, you heretic! To punish you for stating such blasphemy, we will only be releasing our DRM-free music to amazon, so there!"
Signed,
Universal and Warner
Bipolar anyone? What a bunch of tools.
I disagree that it is a silly question. When you make such Olympian pronouncements you owe it
to the readers to be more specific.
I agree with your assertions about movies. I was focusing more on music production. I believe
the trend is more likely to be toward artists self-producing their own work, as excellent quality
audio equipment is priced low enough that even semi-pro musicians can afford to have a home studio, capable of making high quality recordings. Will Jay-Z be taking his entourage to Beijing
for his album in 2012? I doubt it.
It was silly, because how can anyone know a specific date for something like this? I'm sure that was understood when the question was asked, and the intent was to try to pin me down on something that can't be pinned down.
One of the biggest expenses, other than those accompanying high production values, and large groups of studio musicians, is publicity.
The majors do a great deal of this, and that, almost more than anything else, is what makes performers household names, even before their first album hits the streets.
Without that, even You Tube can't get people known to a buying audience.
Musicians are for the most part, local, they never make it beyond that. These people are no different from anyone else who perform. They want to become rich and famous. They aren't likely to do that on their own.
One thing we hear these days, is that its possible that eventually, the recordings may have to be given away, as publicity, and the money will be made from concerts. On the face of it that sounds good, but it isn't.
Only a very few performers, who are already well known, can make huge amounts of money from tours. The companies won't find that touring for others will be profit making.
The other part about that is that most performers like to do the occasional live event, but don't want to do that deay in and day out.
There are also just so many concerts that people will want to attend. The cost of going to a concert is also higher than the music on CD, or download.
I know you did, but your explanation was wrong. Apple does not have the kind of control that you elude to. The concept of Apple not "allowing" them to control their products is just false. Apple merely got the better of them at the bargaining table the first time around.
You're the one who is wrong here. You are apparently not following this situation at all if you think that.
No. Minimum pricing laws have nothing to do with monopoly status. Secondly, the ruling was established to protect the consumer from manufacturers setting a minimum price for their product at retail. It was a consumer protection to prevent a manufacturer from requiring a retailer to sell at a manufacturer specified minimum price. In essence, this was seen as being anti-competitive per se and harmful to the consumer.
There are different laws concerning minimum pricing. One is for the purpose I gave. Another law, which governs what price might be charged, is the law regarding list prices, where manufacturers can't prevent retailers from charging less than the list, which is why we now see "suggested retail price".
To a good degree that is true. Although that is a far cry from your previous statement that traditionally manufacturers set the price. It is always a give and take between two parties of differing power within a negotiation. Of course there is a bottom line at which profitability disappears. I took that as a given but no harm in mentioning it. If the manufacturer is in a position of strength they can very well set a wholesale price and say, "that's it". Of course the distributor can also say, "screw you". If the distributor is very large, the threat of walking away can influence the manufacturer to reconsider it's "take it or leave it" offer. That is the marketplace in action. There are many examples of manufacturers that entered into very unfavorable contracts with the likes of Wal-mart. The lure of having their products so widely distributed can be powerful to the point of manufacturers making such bad deals that they ultimately go out of business despite decent sales volumes.
Often there is a give and take, but not always. Are you arguing that Apple doesn't set the price for its iPods, for example? How much of a difference in pricing do you ever see there? Almost none. That's because APPLE sets the wholesale price, and the "suggested retail price" as well. You might see a few bucks off the price of a $249 iPod, but that's all. It doesn't matter who's selling it. Why do you think that is?
I would think the record and movie companies have figured this out and factored that into their negotiated wholesale price. Again, I think you give too much credence to Apple's supposed monopoly power over these industries. The record companies miscalculated. They are wiser now - as is the movie industry as they had the benefit of seeing the mistakes.
There is no question that they miscalculated. But, at the time, they only saw the failure ofonline sales, so they took the chance. I've read more than once, executives stating that if they had any idea that sales would have gone so high, they never would have agreed to this fixed price from the beginning.
But, despite what you say, Apple does have the power. In fact, Apple has determined the pricing for the entire industry. no one would dare to charge more than iTunes.
The music industry is also becoming much more dependant on online sales, and they know that as well. As CD sales decline, and online sale rise, there will come a time when online sales make up the majority of income for them. They don't want Aple to continue selling 85% of all online music when that happens, particularly when Apple tells them no to every pricing idea they have.
Like it or not, that's power. I quote this from your own post as supporting my contention:
There are many examples of manufacturers that entered into very unfavorable contracts with the likes of Wal-mart. The lure of having their products so widely distributed can be powerful to the point of manufacturers making such bad deals that they ultimately go out of business despite decent sales volumes.
You can't come down on both sides of an issue like that, when you deny the nature of Apple's relationship with the music companies.
All Amazon can hope for is incremental income, if even that. My guess is that Amazon is losing money on every sale right now. Apple doesn't make much money from selling songs, they make money from selling iPods (hardware). Amazon does not have the complete chain, like Apple has.
I seriously doubt Amazon is loosing money from the deal although perhaps they are not making much profit. Regardless, it is still a major coup for Amazon to gain the Warner DRM free business. The "complete chain" and Job's mouth are the things that are scaring labels away from Apple. The labels want it like CDs. Go buy it where ever you want so long as they get to set the wholesale prices as they please.
On a side note, Warner going DRM free is going to really kill the stupid subscription models. Good riddance.
I believe that Warner Music went with Amazon.com because Amazon's MP3 download service is actually pretty good and just about every MP3 player out there can play the 256 kbps variable data rate MP3 format used by Amazon for their download service.
Yup. The big deal here is that Amazon and studios without DRM can have their music play on the iPod/iPhone system, as well as on Mac's, and even Linux machines.
This is why it might very well lead to decline in Apple's iTunes sales, but not it's hardware sales, which, after all, is what selling through iTunes is all about.
That doesn't mean that Apple is happy about this.
If I was that Dell rep., my retort would have been, "get a life, nerd".
So one deserves to be attacked for doing a lot of research before spending over a thousand dollars on a new computer? That's not very nice
You didn't actually READ what Mossberg said, did you?
Nope. My friend watched the video and then showed me it exclaiming he was going to buy a Dell One based off it, at which point I tried to convince him otherwise. I watched the video too, which left out a lot of that crucial information. I'm not saying that's a good reason not to read the article, I just figured that his video review wouldn't leave out crucial information like that and thus that viewing both would be unnecessary.
So, I guess I was wrong. Next time, I will read the article but not watch the video, in the hopes that he doesn't leave things out of the article.
He didn't speak to any Dell reps. He just wrote that for this thread.
There's no need to be mean. I spoke to two dell reps because I was trying to help my friend make a good choice with his money. There's no shame in that.
Wow, you guys are rough on newbies...... trial by fire, Quine...
Oh, btw, welcome!
Thanks. I've been reading AI for a while I just avoid commenting on most sites because of...well, it's pretty self-evident
Why is this a big deal. When Apple-folks like to point out that Dells aren't cheaper, then hack a ton of stuff into the Dell to get the price to be 'the same', they never change the mac.
Then again, it's hard to 'upgrade' the Mac to 8 USB ports, extra drive bays, PCI Express slots, etc, that your general PC has, so they kind of gloss over that ("Yeah, but I've got a built-in web cam! Sure, I never use it, nor did I want it, but it's there!")
Except the Dell One doesn't have most of those things, so it really is close to the iMac.
Oh, I just don't like mossberg because I think he leaves out important information and misleads people. That's all.