And yet, those same people stated emphatically that Sony and Universal would never be a part of Apple's rental movie service. It is guessing. Don't believe everything you read in the papers.
Just to note.. apple did not make a single cent on itunes content.. they are only focus on their products which is the ipods.
to be honest, there is some truth to what NBC is saying about how apple only wants to promote its ipod through itunes and minimize the studio's profit. NBC just went the wrong way by going public.
Actually apple reports $0.07 of revenue per song, or at least they did back in 2005 when I last looked. The other $.92 cents goes to the record company.
That's a hell of alot of money going to the record company for free distribution, free advertising, and not to mention exposure to a market of people who are willing to buy individual songs, where they wouldn't have bought the whole album.
They are only crying about it because they have a giant "consumer advocate" they have to get by every time they want to mess with price. Apple's interest is in keeping people very happy buying songs for the ipod, and they will fight tooth and nail for anything that might make the ipod look less desirable. That has the nice side effect of Apple being a big price and availability protector.
They also can't raise their CD prices very much because retailers are forced by extension to keep pricing near the sum of the itunes pricing.
The music companies secretly love digital distribution... this about it. No CD pressing, no literature, no packing, no shipping, no shelf space, no unsold lots ( this happens at the wholesale level when an artist's album is anticipated to be more successful than it turned out to be ) , no inventory, no backorders, no merchandise returns.
The only thing they hate, is that they have to go looking for artists with more talent. They can't have too many more artists with only one hit song, because they're no onger selling 10 songs on the success of 1. It's more like 1 or 2 sales per hit song now.
Wow! Starting your first post with a racist comment. Welcome to AI, Jew hater.
No need for childish labelling; zionism is racism and I am just reacting to it. Especially when calling someone else "muslim shiite" in a very demeaning manner seems to be acceptable to all here. So no double standards, please.
No need for childish labelling; zionism is racism and I am just reacting to it. Especially when calling someone else "muslim shiite" in a very demeaning manner seems to be acceptable to all here. So no double standards, please.
My big grinning emoticon and welcome were clues that I wasn't being serious.
No need for childish labelling; zionism is racism and I am just reacting to it. Especially when calling someone else "muslim shiite" in a very demeaning manner seems to be acceptable to all here. So no double standards, please.
Do you have proof that Eisner is a Zionist? I googled it and found nothing - I mean, he probably is based on him being a rich jew, but to assume it 100% is racism, IMHO.
100% chance that he is an asshole - less than 100% chance that he is a Zionist.
An excellent racist statement by a zionist jew, then...what else can we say? Simply ridiculous.
Longtime reader, first post (I couldn't resist).
You shouldn't have bothered. You call Eisner a racist for allegedly calling Jobs a "shiite muslim" and then you call Eisner a "zionist jew." Simply ridiculous.
Anyway, hopefully they'll get their act together. It's interesting that Jobs mentioned the writer's strike, as if they expect to have things patched up by the time it's over.
No need for childish labelling; zionism is racism and I am just reacting to it. Especially when calling someone else "muslim shiite" in a very demeaning manner seems to be acceptable to all here. So no double standards, please.
Keep the crap out of the forum please.
He quoted a statement. There is NO need for you to give us your opinion on it. This is the wrong place for that.
I've described the board member responsibilities before.
When Jobs sits on Disney's board, he is required, by law, to work for their interests. If that conflicts with any other company he may be an executive of, or any other company on whose board he may sit, he must vacate one (or more) of those positions.
That doesn't mean that it will happen, but that's the legal theory.
It's also when we see board members from other companies on Apple's board, we shouldn't take that to mean that suddenly, that other company will stop doing everything that won't benefit Apple, or hurt it.
Of course, no one would appoint someone to the board if they or their company is hostile, or too much in competition. If that happens as a normal matter of business discourse, that member will leave, so that a true conflict of interest doesn't occur. If it's one issue, they may simply recuse themselves when issues surrounding that issue are discussed and decided upon.
Sufficient?
Might it also be sufficient for Jobs to recuse himself from board votes that put him in a position of conflict of interest?
iTunes, iTunes, iTunes! I've been saying it for a couple of years now.
iTunes is the secret sauce in Apple's recipe for colonizing the world's living rooms.
NBC found out the hard way that you can't fight iTunes. Tens of millions of people are addicted to it. If you don't have your content there, nobody will go look for it. Sony Pictures came aboard iTunes as well despite mumbled threats that competitive considerations weigh against it.
iTunes will stop Netflix's growth dead on its tracks too. Netflix may have 7 million subscribers but they'll soon find out that those tens of millions who are already using iTunes will refuse to bother to learn how to use Netflix's download site. No matter how easy, simple and attractive they make it. ("All my music, podcasts, and videos are managed through iTunes, why would I want to manage my movie rentals on a separate platform? Why would I even bother to learn a new platform? Especially now that movie rentals are available on iTunes?")
It was reported both in Variety and in a piece here at AI summarizing the Variety article. They weren't specific as to who said Universal and Sony weren't going to go along with Apple, but it was there, and it seemed quite plausible to me when I read it.
It was reported both in Variety and in a piece here at AI summarizing the Variety article. They weren't specific as to who said Universal and Sony weren't going to go along with Apple, but it was there, and it seemed quite plausible to me when I read it.
If it were credible, it would have been a big enough story to be carried by both the NYTimes and the WSJ business sections. I read both every day they are published. There were quotes from executives from both companies, and none ever said that they would not ever do business with Apple, and iTunes.
This was never said:
Quote:
elroth:
And yet, those same people stated emphatically that Sony and Universal would never be a part of Apple's rental movie service
They did say that they would not renew contracts, at that time, but that's all. They didn't say "never".
Comments
And yet, those same people stated emphatically that Sony and Universal would never be a part of Apple's rental movie service. It is guessing. Don't believe everything you read in the papers.
That was never said.
Later Eisner said this of Jobs: "It's impossible to negotiate with Steve Jobs. Jobs is a Shiite Muslim"
An excellent racist statement by a zionist jew, then...what else can we say? Simply ridiculous.
Longtime reader, first post (I couldn't resist).
That was never said.
There was a report in Variety that did say that.
An excellent racist statement by a zionist jew, then...what else can we say? Simply ridiculous.
Longtime reader, first post (I couldn't resist).
Wow! Starting your first post with a racist comment. Welcome to AI, Jew hater.
Just to note.. apple did not make a single cent on itunes content.. they are only focus on their products which is the ipods.
to be honest, there is some truth to what NBC is saying about how apple only wants to promote its ipod through itunes and minimize the studio's profit. NBC just went the wrong way by going public.
Actually apple reports $0.07 of revenue per song, or at least they did back in 2005 when I last looked. The other $.92 cents goes to the record company.
That's a hell of alot of money going to the record company for free distribution, free advertising, and not to mention exposure to a market of people who are willing to buy individual songs, where they wouldn't have bought the whole album.
They are only crying about it because they have a giant "consumer advocate" they have to get by every time they want to mess with price. Apple's interest is in keeping people very happy buying songs for the ipod, and they will fight tooth and nail for anything that might make the ipod look less desirable. That has the nice side effect of Apple being a big price and availability protector.
They also can't raise their CD prices very much because retailers are forced by extension to keep pricing near the sum of the itunes pricing.
The music companies secretly love digital distribution... this about it. No CD pressing, no literature, no packing, no shipping, no shelf space, no unsold lots ( this happens at the wholesale level when an artist's album is anticipated to be more successful than it turned out to be ) , no inventory, no backorders, no merchandise returns.
The only thing they hate, is that they have to go looking for artists with more talent. They can't have too many more artists with only one hit song, because they're no onger selling 10 songs on the success of 1. It's more like 1 or 2 sales per hit song now.
Is that such a bad thing?
Wow! Starting your first post with a racist comment. Welcome to AI, Jew hater.
No need for childish labelling; zionism is racism and I am just reacting to it. Especially when calling someone else "muslim shiite" in a very demeaning manner seems to be acceptable to all here. So no double standards, please.
No need for childish labelling; zionism is racism and I am just reacting to it. Especially when calling someone else "muslim shiite" in a very demeaning manner seems to be acceptable to all here. So no double standards, please.
My big grinning emoticon and welcome were clues that I wasn't being serious.
No need for childish labelling; zionism is racism and I am just reacting to it. Especially when calling someone else "muslim shiite" in a very demeaning manner seems to be acceptable to all here. So no double standards, please.
Do you have proof that Eisner is a Zionist? I googled it and found nothing - I mean, he probably is based on him being a rich jew, but to assume it 100% is racism, IMHO.
100% chance that he is an asshole - less than 100% chance that he is a Zionist.
An excellent racist statement by a zionist jew, then...what else can we say? Simply ridiculous.
Longtime reader, first post (I couldn't resist).
You shouldn't have bothered. You call Eisner a racist for allegedly calling Jobs a "shiite muslim" and then you call Eisner a "zionist jew." Simply ridiculous.
Anyway, hopefully they'll get their act together. It's interesting that Jobs mentioned the writer's strike, as if they expect to have things patched up by the time it's over.
There was a report in Variety that did say that.
By whom?
No need for childish labelling; zionism is racism and I am just reacting to it. Especially when calling someone else "muslim shiite" in a very demeaning manner seems to be acceptable to all here. So no double standards, please.
Keep the crap out of the forum please.
He quoted a statement. There is NO need for you to give us your opinion on it. This is the wrong place for that.
That's exactly what I said, in effect.
I've described the board member responsibilities before.
When Jobs sits on Disney's board, he is required, by law, to work for their interests. If that conflicts with any other company he may be an executive of, or any other company on whose board he may sit, he must vacate one (or more) of those positions.
That doesn't mean that it will happen, but that's the legal theory.
It's also when we see board members from other companies on Apple's board, we shouldn't take that to mean that suddenly, that other company will stop doing everything that won't benefit Apple, or hurt it.
Of course, no one would appoint someone to the board if they or their company is hostile, or too much in competition. If that happens as a normal matter of business discourse, that member will leave, so that a true conflict of interest doesn't occur. If it's one issue, they may simply recuse themselves when issues surrounding that issue are discussed and decided upon.
Sufficient?
Might it also be sufficient for Jobs to recuse himself from board votes that put him in a position of conflict of interest?
Might it also be sufficient for Jobs to recuse himself from board votes that put him in a position of conflict of interest?
Yes. I said that in the last paragraph.
But, it would be unlikely to see something such as a MS executive on Apple's board, and vica versa
Yes. I said that in the last paragraph.
Sorry, mel. I'm in the middle of adjusting my portfolio to take advantage of any sharp drops in the market tomorrow...
What are you doing, btw?
Sorry, mel. I'm in the middle of adjusting my portfolio to take advantage of any sharp drops in the market tomorrow...
What are you doing, btw?
Not much. I wait things out. I learned long ago that it's not worth the hassle. In the end it all goes up.
iTunes is the secret sauce in Apple's recipe for colonizing the world's living rooms.
NBC found out the hard way that you can't fight iTunes. Tens of millions of people are addicted to it. If you don't have your content there, nobody will go look for it. Sony Pictures came aboard iTunes as well despite mumbled threats that competitive considerations weigh against it.
iTunes will stop Netflix's growth dead on its tracks too. Netflix may have 7 million subscribers but they'll soon find out that those tens of millions who are already using iTunes will refuse to bother to learn how to use Netflix's download site. No matter how easy, simple and attractive they make it. ("All my music, podcasts, and videos are managed through iTunes, why would I want to manage my movie rentals on a separate platform? Why would I even bother to learn a new platform? Especially now that movie rentals are available on iTunes?")
By whom?
It was reported both in Variety and in a piece here at AI summarizing the Variety article. They weren't specific as to who said Universal and Sony weren't going to go along with Apple, but it was there, and it seemed quite plausible to me when I read it.
Not much. I wait things out. I learned long ago that it's not worth the hassle. In the end it all goes up.
I'm waiting it out too. I don't plan to sell any stock in 2008. I'm already going to be taxed more than money than I want to mention for 2007.
It was reported both in Variety and in a piece here at AI summarizing the Variety article. They weren't specific as to who said Universal and Sony weren't going to go along with Apple, but it was there, and it seemed quite plausible to me when I read it.
If it were credible, it would have been a big enough story to be carried by both the NYTimes and the WSJ business sections. I read both every day they are published. There were quotes from executives from both companies, and none ever said that they would not ever do business with Apple, and iTunes.
This was never said:
elroth:
And yet, those same people stated emphatically that Sony and Universal would never be a part of Apple's rental movie service
They did say that they would not renew contracts, at that time, but that's all. They didn't say "never".