I don't think that's what he meant. It's just a statement of reality, I think you are reading too much into it. Of course not everyone fills their iPod up with infringing copies of music, but there are plenty that do.
Apple got the music store business right, that's why they have 75% market share. Universal DOESN'T understand that, obviously.
Besides, for all of you who mentioned supply and demand, you are retarded. Economics is based on finite resources and infinite demand. We are talking digital copies os songs, therefore the resource IS infinite, THAT'S why cd sales are dropping and THAT'S why there's NO reason to charge more for one 6mb file than for another.
Economics is based on finite resources and infinite demand. We are talking digital copies os songs, therefore the resource IS infinite, THAT'S why cd sales are dropping and THAT'S why there's NO reason to charge more for one 6mb file than for another.
Apple does NOT make a generous margin on every sale made through the iTunes Store.
There have been reports that has significantly increased it's per song profit by reducing the cost of bandwidth and making iTunes giftcards ubiquitous in pretty much every store in the US. I think there were more things listed but I'm afraid I'm too tired to look it up right now.
Half of the so-called "reviews" on iTunes are complaints for the higher pricing of one song over another.
Sometimes Apple Japan tries to be cute and changes the price of an album once demand starts climbing. I've seen artists boycotted for that reason. Believe me, NOBODY wins with differential pricing.
I also read somewhere that Universal is considering signing to sell music thru a cellphone service (was it Nokia?) and we've got that type of system over here, but unless you're signed up for unlimited data packet download, a single song, which takes forever to download BTW, can wind up costing over a $100 dollars a shot. 99 cents/song vs $100/song? I mean please...
Besides, for all of you who mentioned supply and demand, you are retarded. Economics is based on finite resources and infinite demand.
I hope there is a typo on your part. There is no such thing as infinite demand in anything considered normal economics. I think someone that got that message out of an econ class would be retarded.
Quote:
We are talking digital copies os songs, therefore the resource IS infinite, THAT'S why cd sales are dropping and THAT'S why there's NO reason to charge more for one 6mb file than for another.
Would you like to buy 6MBs of zeros? or 6MB of white noise? If I priced that at $0.01, then does that mean all music should be priced that? Not all songs are of equal quality or equal interest.
There have been reports that has significantly increased it's per song profit by reducing the cost of bandwidth and making iTunes giftcards ubiquitous in pretty much every store in the US.
Based on per-song cost estimates, the ubiquitous iTunes service generates an operating profit of at least 10 percent, and possibly as much as 15 percent, according to PacificCrest's Andy Hargreaves. The analyst on Monday [April 23, 2007] released a detailed report on the subject. [?] Applying that estimate to the $1.2 billion in revenue that iTunes is expected to generation in fiscal 2007, he believes the service will generate $0.09 to $0.14 in earnings-per-share for Apple.
Besides, for all of you who mentioned supply and demand, you are retarded. Economics is based on finite resources and infinite demand. We are talking digital copies os songs, therefore the resource IS infinite, THAT'S why cd sales are dropping and THAT'S why there's NO reason to charge more for one 6mb file than for another.
Good - then Apple plans to price Leopard at what it charges today for System 6?
I am curious why Steve really cares if some tunes are 99 cents and some are say 125 cents or whatever.
Allowing labels to set prices willy-nilly gives them the ability to undermine iTunes marketshare by giving sweeter deals elsewhere. As it is, the set price gives labels little wiggle room to impose their will on the marketplace. Also, it works as an incentive to new customers who realize that they can purchase downloadable music at a substantial discount over physical CD media.
Is this the same Apple that denied the report that leopard would be delayed until October?
I also don't really see how it will really hurts Universal if they don't sell their music on iTS. Will you actually boycott an arists music cause it's not available on iTS? (I know a few apple fanboys will if these thing acually happens) People can get their music anywhere and almost all other ways of aquiring music will work with the iPod except music bought from another DRMed music store such as napster, zune marketplace, etc. People still can buy their music on CD you know. The fact that a song is not available on iTS has never prevented me from ever purchasing a song through other avenues. In fact I've never bought a song from iTS and don't really plan on it, until the DRMless higher quality AAC song come much more commonplace on iTS and even then I still like having a hard copy. I'll just keep purchasing CDs and ripping them at 224kbps MP3 so that they work with all my other media players plus I'll still have a hard copy to fall back on in case something happens to my hard drive or iPod.
I will say that iTS has probably killed the singles market as we once knew it, no more paying $5-8 for a CD with three songs, one song you want and a couple other songs you didn't want!!
Allowing labels to set prices willy-nilly gives them the ability to undermine iTunes marketshare by giving sweeter deals elsewhere. As it is, the set price gives labels little wiggle room to impose their will on the marketplace. Also, it works as an incentive to new customers who realize that they can purchase downloadable music at a substantial discount over physical CD media.
This had to happen at some point. A challenge to the potential Apple hegemony. The last throw of the dice for the record companies. Should be fun.
It's true, Universal is the most straight-line source for the leak. It's obvious what their motivation might be. However, in studying these things, you have to always think in three dimensions. If the talks were in an impasse, Apple might have leaked, with the idea that people would rally to them.
I hope they work it out. Apple and EMI are doing a good thing. Those other idiots held up the industry for years until Apple and Jobs finally got them to come around. They've been bitching ever since even though they've been making money hand over fist. Today RIAA is a four letter word. I hope they come around. Maybe it's too much to hope for but it is something to hope for.
Also, it works as an incentive to new customers who realize that they can purchase downloadable music at a substantial discount over physical CD media.
At least in the popular music arena, iTunes is no cheaper than a physical CD. Most new CD's arrive at the major retailers (Target, Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal-Mart, etc.) at the price of $9.99, the same, or in some instances, less than the same album on iTunes. I purchased Amy Winehouse's most recent CD for $7.41, cheaper than iTunes. Everything I've bought on CD this year has been cheaper or the same cost as iTunes. If you just want a few songs, iTunes would end up cheaper, but for full albums, it's all pretty much a wash.
Yep I was right, this is the same apple that said leopard wouldn't be delayed until october
Quote:
Hot on the heels of the almost-ran reconciliation between Apple and the Universal Music Group, the music label has issued a statement saying definitively that it will not renew its long-term agreement with the Cupertino juggernaut. All this news comes at the tail-end of an extended negotiation period fraught with leaked info and damage control (mostly from Apple's end of the table). The new arrangement will enable Universal to deal with iTunes sales "at will," thus allowing them to market music freely to other retailers, as well as offer exclusive arrangements with whomever the company chooses. It can be assumed that Apple honchos are not very stoked by this turn of events, considering Universal is responsible for one out of every three records released globally, and this will only increase their ability to control online distribution. Can't be fun to be the Jobs-man today.
Comments
I don't think that's what he meant. It's just a statement of reality, I think you are reading too much into it. Of course not everyone fills their iPod up with infringing copies of music, but there are plenty that do.
You are correct.
Um, no, but people here do put too much faith in what Apple says..... I think Apple PR is trying to be Orwellian.....
"Trying to be?"
On that great point, see the following by Joe Nocera (a pretty darn good reporter/journalist) from NYT:
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/30...f0d&ei=5087%0A
Besides, for all of you who mentioned supply and demand, you are retarded. Economics is based on finite resources and infinite demand. We are talking digital copies os songs, therefore the resource IS infinite, THAT'S why cd sales are dropping and THAT'S why there's NO reason to charge more for one 6mb file than for another.
Economics is based on finite resources and infinite demand. We are talking digital copies os songs, therefore the resource IS infinite, THAT'S why cd sales are dropping and THAT'S why there's NO reason to charge more for one 6mb file than for another.
Bullocks!
Apple does NOT make a generous margin on every sale made through the iTunes Store.
There have been reports that has significantly increased it's per song profit by reducing the cost of bandwidth and making iTunes giftcards ubiquitous in pretty much every store in the US. I think there were more things listed but I'm afraid I'm too tired to look it up right now.
Bullocks!
Sandra?
I thought it was "bollocks".
Sometimes Apple Japan tries to be cute and changes the price of an album once demand starts climbing. I've seen artists boycotted for that reason. Believe me, NOBODY wins with differential pricing.
I also read somewhere that Universal is considering signing to sell music thru a cellphone service (was it Nokia?) and we've got that type of system over here, but unless you're signed up for unlimited data packet download, a single song, which takes forever to download BTW, can wind up costing over a $100 dollars a shot. 99 cents/song vs $100/song? I mean please...
...but I'm afraid I'm too tired to look it up right now.
Yet you managed to find the energy to make a post.
Besides, for all of you who mentioned supply and demand, you are retarded. Economics is based on finite resources and infinite demand.
I hope there is a typo on your part. There is no such thing as infinite demand in anything considered normal economics. I think someone that got that message out of an econ class would be retarded.
We are talking digital copies os songs, therefore the resource IS infinite, THAT'S why cd sales are dropping and THAT'S why there's NO reason to charge more for one 6mb file than for another.
Would you like to buy 6MBs of zeros? or 6MB of white noise? If I priced that at $0.01, then does that mean all music should be priced that? Not all songs are of equal quality or equal interest.
There have been reports that has significantly increased it's per song profit by reducing the cost of bandwidth and making iTunes giftcards ubiquitous in pretty much every store in the US.
iTunes Store a greater cash crop than Apple implies?
Based on per-song cost estimates, the ubiquitous iTunes service generates an operating profit of at least 10 percent, and possibly as much as 15 percent, according to PacificCrest's Andy Hargreaves. The analyst on Monday [April 23, 2007] released a detailed report on the subject. [?] Applying that estimate to the $1.2 billion in revenue that iTunes is expected to generation in fiscal 2007, he believes the service will generate $0.09 to $0.14 in earnings-per-share for Apple.
Besides, for all of you who mentioned supply and demand, you are retarded. Economics is based on finite resources and infinite demand. We are talking digital copies os songs, therefore the resource IS infinite, THAT'S why cd sales are dropping and THAT'S why there's NO reason to charge more for one 6mb file than for another.
Good - then Apple plans to price Leopard at what it charges today for System 6?
Or will SJ be joining us on the short bus?
Proud Retard
Universal would have leaked the story, not Apple.
Who said either one of them leaked the story?
I am curious why Steve really cares if some tunes are 99 cents and some are say 125 cents or whatever.
Allowing labels to set prices willy-nilly gives them the ability to undermine iTunes marketshare by giving sweeter deals elsewhere. As it is, the set price gives labels little wiggle room to impose their will on the marketplace. Also, it works as an incentive to new customers who realize that they can purchase downloadable music at a substantial discount over physical CD media.
I also don't really see how it will really hurts Universal if they don't sell their music on iTS. Will you actually boycott an arists music cause it's not available on iTS? (I know a few apple fanboys will if these thing acually happens) People can get their music anywhere and almost all other ways of aquiring music will work with the iPod except music bought from another DRMed music store such as napster, zune marketplace, etc. People still can buy their music on CD you know. The fact that a song is not available on iTS has never prevented me from ever purchasing a song through other avenues. In fact I've never bought a song from iTS and don't really plan on it, until the DRMless higher quality AAC song come much more commonplace on iTS and even then I still like having a hard copy. I'll just keep purchasing CDs and ripping them at 224kbps MP3 so that they work with all my other media players plus I'll still have a hard copy to fall back on in case something happens to my hard drive or iPod.
I will say that iTS has probably killed the singles market as we once knew it, no more paying $5-8 for a CD with three songs, one song you want and a couple other songs you didn't want!!
Sandra?
I thought it was "bollocks".
Nah, she's bollocks.
Allowing labels to set prices willy-nilly gives them the ability to undermine iTunes marketshare by giving sweeter deals elsewhere. As it is, the set price gives labels little wiggle room to impose their will on the marketplace. Also, it works as an incentive to new customers who realize that they can purchase downloadable music at a substantial discount over physical CD media.
Good point
Universal would have leaked the story, not Apple.
This had to happen at some point. A challenge to the potential Apple hegemony. The last throw of the dice for the record companies. Should be fun.
It's true, Universal is the most straight-line source for the leak. It's obvious what their motivation might be. However, in studying these things, you have to always think in three dimensions. If the talks were in an impasse, Apple might have leaked, with the idea that people would rally to them.
On second thought, nah. I think it's Universal.
Also, it works as an incentive to new customers who realize that they can purchase downloadable music at a substantial discount over physical CD media.
At least in the popular music arena, iTunes is no cheaper than a physical CD. Most new CD's arrive at the major retailers (Target, Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal-Mart, etc.) at the price of $9.99, the same, or in some instances, less than the same album on iTunes. I purchased Amy Winehouse's most recent CD for $7.41, cheaper than iTunes. Everything I've bought on CD this year has been cheaper or the same cost as iTunes. If you just want a few songs, iTunes would end up cheaper, but for full albums, it's all pretty much a wash.
Hot on the heels of the almost-ran reconciliation between Apple and the Universal Music Group, the music label has issued a statement saying definitively that it will not renew its long-term agreement with the Cupertino juggernaut. All this news comes at the tail-end of an extended negotiation period fraught with leaked info and damage control (mostly from Apple's end of the table). The new arrangement will enable Universal to deal with iTunes sales "at will," thus allowing them to market music freely to other retailers, as well as offer exclusive arrangements with whomever the company chooses. It can be assumed that Apple honchos are not very stoked by this turn of events, considering Universal is responsible for one out of every three records released globally, and this will only increase their ability to control online distribution. Can't be fun to be the Jobs-man today.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/05/u...unes-contract/
I was also right again in my second assumption cause as predicted the mac fanboys have begun their boycott of Universal music.