Although I know that Apple's primary intentions are to be profitable, I do applaud their stances and clout with the music industry. It seems, for now, to be in the best interest of consumers. With DRM now a thing of the past, I'm more willing to consider price variables; but not before.
I still think, and figures show this to be true, that Apple has devised the best solution for selling, distributing and using digital entertainment. I completely disagree with the music moguls that subscriptions are the way of the future. Music sales will tank even further at this blatant money grab. I'm sure it irks the moguls as far back as VHS rentals that video established the more lucrative process of consumer media purchases. At this point, any & every attempt to change this mentality has failed....music subscriptions will not succeed and forced selection will further erode music sales overall...piracy will prevail.
Still, I, like many here, would welcome a subscription service on iTunes for videos, television and movies. Like the antithesis of the music model, people have come to accept subscriptions for these types of media. In this area currently, Netflix has the better model.
Well you said it yourself in this post, but it's worth highlighting that this is really just your opinion. Lots of people want to own video's and lots of people don't want to own music. Without figures on either side it's pretty useless to throw out statements of this type really.
Without having any figures to offer, I would point out that for years there have been video rental establishments (ie, Blockbuster) but few if any music rental businesses. Yes, there are people that want to own movies and rent music; but this suggests that video is more "rentable" than music is. In part because of prices ($20 DVDs vs $10 CDs) and in part because of replayability (and now I'm just makin' up words!).
Personally (yes, just another opinion), if I want to own a movie I'll buy the disc not download it. So purchasing movies on iTunes is of no use to me. Rentals is where they should focus their time. And I don't have the time to sit at my computer managing a music subscription account, but I can see the benefit to those who have the time to do so.
Do you really want to return your favorite three songs before you're allowed to listen to the next song? Isn't a subscription service more like Pandora or Last.fm, etc..? You'd have to stream it over the air in order to listen to it. Yuk.
Nope. Rhapsody already has the Rhapsody-to-go service. For $15/month you can drop all you can fit onto a portable device. As long as you keep paying the monthly fees you can keep listening. At least once a month you have to resync the licenses to the device, otherwise the tracks become unplayable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjs
I purchase my music via iTunes but have yet to buy a movie or TV show. I've rented a number of movies, but am waiting for TV episode rentals. I would be much more inclined to rent a missed TV show for 99 cents than to have to purchase it for $1.99 or $2.99 just to watch it once.
Which is exactly why I doubt TV shows will ever be available for rent. Nobody's gonna pay $2-3 to own a show they'll only watch once when they can pay $1 to watch it that one time. One could argue they'd get more revenue if they did allow rentals, but I'm not sure. I've bought a few $2.99/show season passes for shows I probably won't watch again. If I could've had Grey's Anatomy for $15 instead of $40 this year, I'd have definitely done that. That's $25 less revenue.
As I've said here many times though, even though I'll probably never watch these shows again, $40 is still far more economical than paying for cable!
I hope you are right. My music tastes are limited. Even from the artists I enjoy, I don't care for everything they create and produce.
I would hate to pay a larger subscription fee each month for the occasional .99¢ song I want to purchase every now and then.
I guess it all depends on how the rental/subscription service works.
I was envisioning that you'd be able to pick a particular number of songs per week/month to put into your rental "window" and pay a flat rate for those songs which is cheaper than buying the same number of songs over the same time period. Obviously, allowing for people to choose different options for the number of songs and the time period in which they can change the songs.
...While Apple has finally agreed to variable pricing to score its goal of DRM-free music, other battles could still loom ahead. In today's New York Times report, many executives say the future of music buying will be monthly subscription fees to vast catalogs that could be heard on customers' mobile phones...
The only group actively clamoring for a subscription service are the labels. For them, the subscription service is a gold mine, because then:
1) they get regular, periodically increasing, never-ending payments from customers
2) they have less work to do, to fudge the numbers over which band should be paid how much for any given month.
Their only issue will be how to split the monthly fee between the major labels, and how often the split gets reviewed.
The RIAA watched a generation grow up believing it was ok to steal their music. Thanks to Syeve Jobs, many people do actually buy their music. The RIAA just dont get it.
It works with video because no-one want s to own videos. OK OK, some do but I can not understand why and for the most part people don't (except for Kid's vids, of course). Video's and movies are usually watched once only so a subscription makes sense. Music is different. Much more personal and listened to over and over.
As for paid promotion on the iTunes front page - all power to Apple. I am not sure how long they can remain in control of that element but I hope the record companies never will gain control. Let them have a link to a clearly labelled 'Promotion's page' where they can battle it out.
I agree that lots of people don't want to own digital copies of videos on hard drives, and mail order videos is replacing those who never bought copies of DVDs while at Blockbuster or WalMart. NetFlix effectively supplanted the store rental market. That's it.
Per video vs. Per audio is no comparison in overall size. Movie collectors are especially aware of this obvious conundrum and buy DVDs/BluRay discs. More to the point, DVD/BluRay copies are far richer in materials than just a digital download.
However, most people don't want to watch the same movie, over and over again, or they'd buy it. The drive to "own" your music is the reason the subscription model fails and Apple realizes that even if the quality of audio isn't flawless people who are musicphiiles [different from audiophiles] want to own their music via a per song, per artist and per artist album set of choices, without DRM.
I'm glad they got a DRM free deal worked out, but it's like these music industry guys keep coming to Apple with the worst ideas in the book. I wonder if they're serious about them, or if they just know that Apple won't bite, and they do it to have leverage against Apple's wishes.
I'd say no one could be that far out there and still run an industry, but they've lost billions, so maybe they can.
The reason that they have so many bad/failing ideas is because they are blinded by greed and control issues. If the report is accurate, Jobs is completely correct:
"In July 2007 Sony head Sir Howard Stringer reportedly characterized Jobs as a "greedy" hypocrite who was accusing the labels of being overly interested in money while at the same time trying to funnel money only to his company."
And while I'm reluctant to be a obsequious Jobs apologist/defender, Jobs knows that the only way you deal with someone only interested in money, is through money- the "universal merit system" of capitalism. Since the labels have had no vision whatsoever about digital music, who could blame Steve for pointing out that they were clutching so tightly at their precious nickels, that they couldn't grab the dollars floating in the 3G spectrum all around them.
As if a young thing like Lily Allen, working on her first album has any real insight into the "music business" (or business in general.)
This is like taking the opinion of someone opening their first Tim Horton's franchise on the state of the Food and Agriculture department.
That's funny, but I would disagree to a certain extent. You learn a lot about how things really work in the music industry by actually participating in it. Granted, her comment was probably a taken-out-of-context regurgitation of something someone like her manager told her.
What would Lily Allen know about the record industry? It's not like her father is Keith Allen or anything…
Quote:
The RIAA watched a generation grow up believing it was ok to steal their music. Thanks to Syeve Jobs, many people do actually buy their music. The RIAA just dont get it.
My god, the Steve Jobs Christ complex is suffocating.
What exactly of significance was negotiated here that's in Apple's favor? We have Apple yielding to the music industry by providing variable pricing, while removing Fairplay DRM which Jobs said Apple didn't want to use but which actually would seem to have benefited the company by driving iPod sales. From this article, it seems Apple was the entity pushing for DRM, to be used as leverage against the music industry to maintain fixed pricing. Apple finally decided to drop its DRM and deploy variable pricing.
What exactly of significance was negotiated here that's in Apple's favor? We have Apple yielding to the music industry by providing variable pricing, while removing Fairplay DRM which Jobs said Apple didn't want to use but which actually would seem to have benefited the company by driving iPod sales. From this article, it seems Apple was the entity pushing for DRM, to be used as leverage against the music industry to maintain fixed pricing. Apple finally decided to drop its DRM and deploy variable pricing.
They used not licensing FairPlay DRM as leverage. They essentially said that they were not making FairPlay any better, so it would be in the labels best interest to agree to remove DRM if they want customers to have flexibility. If the customers can't get the must they want easily and with flexibility, they'll just download songs illegally instead of buying.
But, I don't think iPods are a big part of the equation here. They stand on their own as a good music player. Some people have other players though. Now they can buy music on iTunes without a big problem (even if it's not quite as streamlined as with the iPod). Also some people with iPods would not buy from iTunes because they wanted DRM-free music that they could put on their iPod, but also use for projects and the like without having to burn and reimport or strip DRM. Apple allowed variable pricing to get the DRM-free music which should lead to the iTunes store doing even better. They're counting on the majority no running off to buy a Zune to use with iTunes now.
Imagine a big drone on a video monitor talking to millions of users, saying things like "you are all thieves, you can't be trusted to own your music and use it the way you want. You have to be put on a tight leash that restricts what you are allowed to do with your music", and stuff like that -- while a blond runner in a white tank top runs up and breaks the monitor with a hammer - the screen dissolves into a caption -- "Your music is now yours, to use how you want. iTunes will be going completely DRM-free from today".
Of course, such an ad would have stated the unstatable - and really exposed the record labels for what they were. Even Apple with all its power might not have gotten away with that.
I think if somehow such an ad was possible, it would have been even more popular than the original 1984 ad. Back then, IBM was a big corporation, but people did not really hate IBM. The record labels and the RIAA on the other hand must be rivalling Dubya in the unpopularity charts.
Comments
I still think, and figures show this to be true, that Apple has devised the best solution for selling, distributing and using digital entertainment. I completely disagree with the music moguls that subscriptions are the way of the future. Music sales will tank even further at this blatant money grab. I'm sure it irks the moguls as far back as VHS rentals that video established the more lucrative process of consumer media purchases. At this point, any & every attempt to change this mentality has failed....music subscriptions will not succeed and forced selection will further erode music sales overall...piracy will prevail.
Still, I, like many here, would welcome a subscription service on iTunes for videos, television and movies. Like the antithesis of the music model, people have come to accept subscriptions for these types of media. In this area currently, Netflix has the better model.
/
I love this part:
As if a young thing like Lily Allen, working on her first album has any real insight into the "music business" (or business in general.)
This is like taking the opinion of someone opening their first Tim Horton's franchise on the state of the Food and Agriculture department.
That's a really bad analogy since someone could work in the business for years before starting any franchise.
Well you said it yourself in this post, but it's worth highlighting that this is really just your opinion. Lots of people want to own video's and lots of people don't want to own music. Without figures on either side it's pretty useless to throw out statements of this type really.
Without having any figures to offer, I would point out that for years there have been video rental establishments (ie, Blockbuster) but few if any music rental businesses. Yes, there are people that want to own movies and rent music; but this suggests that video is more "rentable" than music is. In part because of prices ($20 DVDs vs $10 CDs) and in part because of replayability (and now I'm just makin' up words!).
Personally (yes, just another opinion), if I want to own a movie I'll buy the disc not download it. So purchasing movies on iTunes is of no use to me. Rentals is where they should focus their time. And I don't have the time to sit at my computer managing a music subscription account, but I can see the benefit to those who have the time to do so.
Would the labels prefer iPayola?
What's preventing the Apple staff from taking payola on the sly for recommending select music. Since they are the ones who choose the music.
And another thing, what qualification's do they have. Aw gee Larry I sure like that country western dress on the chick.......
I love this part:
As if a young thing like Lily Allen, working on her first album has any real insight into the "music business" (or business in general.)
This is like taking the opinion of someone opening their first Tim Horton's franchise on the state of the Food and Agriculture department.
What's a "Tim Horton's" franchise?
Is that like a Ponzi scheme?
Do you really want to return your favorite three songs before you're allowed to listen to the next song? Isn't a subscription service more like Pandora or Last.fm, etc..? You'd have to stream it over the air in order to listen to it. Yuk.
Nope. Rhapsody already has the Rhapsody-to-go service. For $15/month you can drop all you can fit onto a portable device. As long as you keep paying the monthly fees you can keep listening. At least once a month you have to resync the licenses to the device, otherwise the tracks become unplayable.
I purchase my music via iTunes but have yet to buy a movie or TV show. I've rented a number of movies, but am waiting for TV episode rentals. I would be much more inclined to rent a missed TV show for 99 cents than to have to purchase it for $1.99 or $2.99 just to watch it once.
Which is exactly why I doubt TV shows will ever be available for rent. Nobody's gonna pay $2-3 to own a show they'll only watch once when they can pay $1 to watch it that one time. One could argue they'd get more revenue if they did allow rentals, but I'm not sure. I've bought a few $2.99/show season passes for shows I probably won't watch again. If I could've had Grey's Anatomy for $15 instead of $40 this year, I'd have definitely done that. That's $25 less revenue.
As I've said here many times though, even though I'll probably never watch these shows again, $40 is still far more economical than paying for cable!
What's a "Tim Horton's" franchise?
Is that like a Ponzi scheme?
It's a multi billion dollar coffee/donut chain here in Canada and part of Canadian culture.
This is like taking the opinion of someone opening their first Tim Horton's franchise on the state of the Food and Agriculture department.
I love Tim Horton's. Makes me want to become a Canadian.
--GTSC
I hope you are right. My music tastes are limited. Even from the artists I enjoy, I don't care for everything they create and produce.
I would hate to pay a larger subscription fee each month for the occasional .99¢ song I want to purchase every now and then.
I guess it all depends on how the rental/subscription service works.
I was envisioning that you'd be able to pick a particular number of songs per week/month to put into your rental "window" and pay a flat rate for those songs which is cheaper than buying the same number of songs over the same time period. Obviously, allowing for people to choose different options for the number of songs and the time period in which they can change the songs.
...While Apple has finally agreed to variable pricing to score its goal of DRM-free music, other battles could still loom ahead. In today's New York Times report, many executives say the future of music buying will be monthly subscription fees to vast catalogs that could be heard on customers' mobile phones...
The only group actively clamoring for a subscription service are the labels. For them, the subscription service is a gold mine, because then:
1) they get regular, periodically increasing, never-ending payments from customers
2) they have less work to do, to fudge the numbers over which band should be paid how much for any given month.
Their only issue will be how to split the monthly fee between the major labels, and how often the split gets reviewed.
It works with video because no-one want s to own videos. OK OK, some do but I can not understand why and for the most part people don't (except for Kid's vids, of course). Video's and movies are usually watched once only so a subscription makes sense. Music is different. Much more personal and listened to over and over.
As for paid promotion on the iTunes front page - all power to Apple. I am not sure how long they can remain in control of that element but I hope the record companies never will gain control. Let them have a link to a clearly labelled 'Promotion's page' where they can battle it out.
I agree that lots of people don't want to own digital copies of videos on hard drives, and mail order videos is replacing those who never bought copies of DVDs while at Blockbuster or WalMart. NetFlix effectively supplanted the store rental market. That's it.
Per video vs. Per audio is no comparison in overall size. Movie collectors are especially aware of this obvious conundrum and buy DVDs/BluRay discs. More to the point, DVD/BluRay copies are far richer in materials than just a digital download.
However, most people don't want to watch the same movie, over and over again, or they'd buy it. The drive to "own" your music is the reason the subscription model fails and Apple realizes that even if the quality of audio isn't flawless people who are musicphiiles [different from audiophiles] want to own their music via a per song, per artist and per artist album set of choices, without DRM.
I'm glad they got a DRM free deal worked out, but it's like these music industry guys keep coming to Apple with the worst ideas in the book. I wonder if they're serious about them, or if they just know that Apple won't bite, and they do it to have leverage against Apple's wishes.
I'd say no one could be that far out there and still run an industry, but they've lost billions, so maybe they can.
The reason that they have so many bad/failing ideas is because they are blinded by greed and control issues. If the report is accurate, Jobs is completely correct:
"In July 2007 Sony head Sir Howard Stringer reportedly characterized Jobs as a "greedy" hypocrite who was accusing the labels of being overly interested in money while at the same time trying to funnel money only to his company."
And while I'm reluctant to be a obsequious Jobs apologist/defender, Jobs knows that the only way you deal with someone only interested in money, is through money- the "universal merit system" of capitalism. Since the labels have had no vision whatsoever about digital music, who could blame Steve for pointing out that they were clutching so tightly at their precious nickels, that they couldn't grab the dollars floating in the 3G spectrum all around them.
I love this part:
As if a young thing like Lily Allen, working on her first album has any real insight into the "music business" (or business in general.)
This is like taking the opinion of someone opening their first Tim Horton's franchise on the state of the Food and Agriculture department.
That's funny, but I would disagree to a certain extent. You learn a lot about how things really work in the music industry by actually participating in it. Granted, her comment was probably a taken-out-of-context regurgitation of something someone like her manager told her.
I would have paid gold to sit in on a negotiating session between Jobs and the labels. Genius like that doesn't come around often.
Good idea. They should record it and make it a paid podcast on the iTunes store.
I wonder if the negotiators for the labels would want to endure the humiliation
to get their share of the revenue.
The RIAA watched a generation grow up believing it was ok to steal their music. Thanks to Syeve Jobs, many people do actually buy their music. The RIAA just dont get it.
My god, the Steve Jobs Christ complex is suffocating.
What exactly of significance was negotiated here that's in Apple's favor? We have Apple yielding to the music industry by providing variable pricing, while removing Fairplay DRM which Jobs said Apple didn't want to use but which actually would seem to have benefited the company by driving iPod sales. From this article, it seems Apple was the entity pushing for DRM, to be used as leverage against the music industry to maintain fixed pricing. Apple finally decided to drop its DRM and deploy variable pricing.
They used not licensing FairPlay DRM as leverage. They essentially said that they were not making FairPlay any better, so it would be in the labels best interest to agree to remove DRM if they want customers to have flexibility. If the customers can't get the must they want easily and with flexibility, they'll just download songs illegally instead of buying.
But, I don't think iPods are a big part of the equation here. They stand on their own as a good music player. Some people have other players though. Now they can buy music on iTunes without a big problem (even if it's not quite as streamlined as with the iPod). Also some people with iPods would not buy from iTunes because they wanted DRM-free music that they could put on their iPod, but also use for projects and the like without having to burn and reimport or strip DRM. Apple allowed variable pricing to get the DRM-free music which should lead to the iTunes store doing even better. They're counting on the majority no running off to buy a Zune to use with iTunes now.
Of course, such an ad would have stated the unstatable - and really exposed the record labels for what they were. Even Apple with all its power might not have gotten away with that.
I think if somehow such an ad was possible, it would have been even more popular than the original 1984 ad. Back then, IBM was a big corporation, but people did not really hate IBM. The record labels and the RIAA on the other hand must be rivalling Dubya in the unpopularity charts.