This is such a tired argument. How many Limewire/Kazaa/whatever P2P network users do you think actually switched from free downloads to paying iTunes customers? 10% maybe...being really generous perhaps 20%. Again, downloads only constitute 10% of music sales. What percentage of that 10% do you think the converted pirates represent? Maybe 1%. Why do you think someone would stop using a P2P network and suddenly go legit?
Will to compensate creators for something of value.
Investment in the chance that the creators go on to make more good stuff if compensated for their previous creations.
Convenience of finding the things you search for easily.
The utility of finding good stuff you weren't aware of, with functions like Amazon's "what did people buy after viewing this", recommendation lists, et cetera.
Trust that you are really getting what you think you are getting - not a virus infested, spanish subtitled version recorded with a cell phone camera in a theater.
I used to pirate *everything*. Now all the software on my computer is legit.
Quote:
Regardless, if iTunes went away, why do people think piracy would just go through the roof? Most likely digital piracy involves many of the same people who would have previously borrowed the CD from a friend or coworker and made a copy for themselves. Different mechanism with the same end result. Now people just look for an anonymous stranger on the internet to get it from. In the end though, music sales aren't going to plummet if digital downloads ceased to exist.
And if CD sales were stopped, music sales wouldn't plummet because people would just go back to C cassettes? No. There are lots of people today who have never grown to deal with optical disks. Better alternatives exist and there is no going back.
The best companies think about what's best for them and their stockholders. If their guesses happen to coincide with what their customers think is also best for them, then Hallalujua! Everyone's happy.
It's not that I think Apple is good and the music labels are evil. Apple just seems to have a better idea what their customers want. The music labels don't have a clue. Of course Apple has to think about their bottom line, I hope they do since I own some stock, but Apple knows that the best way to help their business is to please their customers. The music labels treat us like the enemy. How long would Apple last if they treated us like the music labels do?
Part of the problem is greed, but the bigger problem as I see it is that the CEOs of the music industry are no longer lovers of music, they are MBAs running a business. Once upon a time there were people running at least some of the major music labels who loved and understood music. Now it's just business people who think music is a commodity. They might as well be selling razors or screws. It's like when Apple was run by Gil Amelio. Gil was not a bad guy, he just didn't get Apple. He was a good administrator but he didn't have vision. The music labels only think about making money and they are trying to do so with an outdated paradigm. Instead of adapting to the new world, they are sticking their fingers in the dike, hoping to hold the flood from drowning them once and for all. They don't get music and they consider their customers thieves. That doesn't seem like a winning business model.
My point is that by using the iTunes store we help break the dike. Using stores like Amazon MP3 puts more fingers in the dike because that is the venue that the music labels have chosen to stand against iTunes. The dike is coming down, there is no helping that now. The question is how soon. I want to hasten its eventual break.
While some industry watchers are calling moves by NBC and others "a mistake," NBC Universal spokesman Cory Shields is quoted in the piece by the Post as saying that his company's programs are one of the primary factors that help drive sales of Apple hardware.
"The iPod is only as good as the content on it," he said.
What Mr. Shields isn't recognizing is that by taking away the content from iTunes Music Store (IMS) will not stop people from buying iPods. Therefore it can't be used as leverage as easily as he might think.
People will get their music and video from other sources and still put it on their iPods, as many do now. It is wrong to go on the assumption that IMS is what drives people to buy the iPod. It certainly makes it easier and generates income for everyone involved. They are not considering the other factors like design, user experience, etc... The very things that separates Apple products from the rest.
It's not that I think Apple is good and the music labels are evil. Apple just seems to have a better idea what their customers want. The music labels don't have a clue. Of course Apple has to think about their bottom line, I hope they do since I own some stock, but Apple knows that the best way to help their business is to please their customers. The music labels treat us like the enemy. How long would Apple last if they treated us like the music labels do?
Part of the problem is greed, but the bigger problem as I see it is that the CEOs of the music industry are no longer lovers of music, they are MBAs running a business. Once upon a time there were people running at least some of the major music labels who loved and understood music. Now it's just business people who think music is a commodity. They might as well be selling razors or screws. It's like when Apple was run by Gil Amelio. Gil was not a bad guy, he just didn't get Apple. He was a good administrator but he didn't have vision. The music labels only think about making money and they are trying to do so with an outdated paradigm. Instead of adapting to the new world, they are sticking their fingers in the dike, hoping to hold the flood from drowning them once and for all. They don't get music and they consider their customers thieves. That doesn't seem like a winning business model.
My point is that by using the iTunes store we help break the dike. Using stores like Amazon MP3 puts more fingers in the dike because that is the venue that the music labels have chosen to stand against iTunes. The dike is coming down, there is no helping that now. The question is how soon. I want to hasten its eventual break.
Once it's understood just how different Apple and content producing companies are, the reasons for what they do is apparent.
Apple is a hardware company. Last year, including sales from iTunes, Apple's total sales of software, including OS sales, was less than $4 billion. The other $20 billion is hardware.
Considering that most of Apple's software can only be used on Macs, which, of course, only Apple makes and sells, Apple's concern about piracy is minor. The software lives to sell the hardware.
On the other hand, content and software companies have products that are very subject to piracy. They must treat that differently.
Even so, look at how Apple, while within their rights, treated iPhone users who DID use software that wasn't even Apple's.
Do you think Apple did right by its customers there? Do you think Apple does right when there are widespread problems with its hardware, and they do nothing about it? How about when they remove posters to their forums who want to discuss those problems?
Do you really think Apple is so different? No, they really aren't. Not when they don't want to be.
Let's be honest here. There's a world of difference between software, content, and hardware.
As far as Amelio goes, he never had a chance. Look how long it took after Jobs took over before Apple lucked out with the iPod. When that first came out, Apple had no idea what they had on their hands. When Jobs was asked about it, shortly after it came out, he said that it was a "nice little product" for Apple. He indicated that Apple expected it to have a decent showing, but nothing big. When it began to grow so quickly, though, I do give credit to him and his people for realizing what they had, and handling it well.
But, when Jobs took over, Apple still had about an 8% marketshare. That plummeted to about 2.8% before it began to rise again. It took over 6 years. Amelio didn't have nearly that long to prove his worth, though he was credited with substantially staunching Apple's red ink, and settling the ground that Jobs later walked onto.
What Mr. Shields isn't recognizing is that by taking away the content from iTunes Music Store (IMS) will not stop people from buying iPods. Therefore it can't be used as leverage as easily as he might think.
People will get their music and video from other sources and still put it on their iPods, as many do now. It is wrong to go on the assumption that IMS is what drives people to buy the iPod. It certainly makes it easier and generates income for everyone involved. They are not considering the other factors like design, user experience, etc... The very things that separates Apple products from the rest.
You should go read my earlier posts. You are missing the bigger picture for Apple here.
Even so, look at how Apple, while within their rights, treated iPhone users who DID use software that wasn't even Apple's.
Apple told developers to make web apps only. Any developer that relied on a hack to write native apps for the iPhone took a risk. The 1.1.1 update shut down the unlocking hacks. The third party apps were not the target of the update, they were unfortunate casualties. If Apple was trying to screw people, they wouldn't have warned anyone about the possibility of bricking. Anyone who unlocked their iPhone and then applied the 1.1.1 update is a moron and deserved an iBrick. The 1.1.1 update addressed hacks that were possible because of security vulnerabilities of the iPhone OS. It would have been stupid and irresponsible for Apple not to shut down the vulnerability that made the unlocking hack possible.
Apple has now announced an iPhone SDK. If Apple goes after developers who use that SDK and follow the rules, you may have an argument then, but not now. Apple is not under any obligation of opening up the iPhone to anyone. They would be stupid not to allow third party apps, but they don't owe it to the developers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
As far as Amelio goes, he never had a chance.
And we are very lucky Amelio didn't get that chance. Gil was so clueless about Apple that he seriously considered licensing NT from Microsoft as the basis for the new Mac OS. About the only thing that Amelio did that may have saved Apple indirectly was acquiring Next. That brought Steve Jobs back, without whom Apple would have been doomed, and made it possible for Mac OS X to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Look how long it took after Jobs took over before Apple lucked out with the iPod. When that first came out, Apple had no idea what they had on their hands. When Jobs was asked about it, shortly after it came out, he said that it was a "nice little product" for Apple. He indicated that Apple expected it to have a decent showing, but nothing big. When it began to grow so quickly, though, I do give credit to him and his people for realizing what they had, and handling it well.
You seem to forget the horrible shape was in when Jobs came back. Apple was on the ropes and almost everyone had given up on it. Had Steve Jobs not taken the reigns, Apple would have gone bankrupt and been sold off. While no one could have predicted how successful the iPod would become, I assure you that Gil Amelio would have never come up with anything remotely like it. Do you think that turning Apple around happened overnight? Gil's great idea was licensing the Mac OS. That worked so well that the licensees were cannibalizing Mac sales. Instead of opening new markets, the clones were taking away Mac sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
But, when Jobs took over, Apple still had about an 8% marketshare. That plummeted to about 2.8% before it began to rise again. It took over 6 years. Amelio didn't have nearly that long to prove his worth, though he was credited with substantially staunching Apple's red ink, and settling the ground that Jobs later walked onto.
I don't know where you got your numbers, but even if the 8% figure is correct, there is a big difference between 8% and shrinking and 8% and growing. Just look at the stock price in 1997 and the stock price now. Apple is now not just bigger than Dell (suck on that Mike Dell), but it is now larger than IBM. I cannot imagine that Apple would still be around had Gil Amelio continued running Apple.
Apple told developers to make web apps only. Any developer that relied on a hack to write native apps for the iPhone took a risk. The 1.1.1 update shut down the unlocking hacks. The third party apps were not the target of the update, they were unfortunate casualties. If Apple was trying to screw people, they wouldn't have warned anyone about the possibility of bricking. Anyone who unlocked their iPhone and then applied the 1.1.1 update is a moron and deserved an iBrick. The 1.1.1 update addressed hacks that were possible because of security vulnerabilities of the iPhone OS. It would have been stupid and irresponsible for Apple not to shut down the vulnerability that made the unlocking hack possible.
Apple has now announced an iPhone SDK. If Apple goes after developers who use that SDK and follow the rules, you may have an argument then, but not now. Apple is not under any obligation of opening up the iPhone to anyone. They would be stupid not to allow third party apps, but they don't owe it to the developers.
I know all about this. It's now old news. I just did say that Apple was within its rights. But they could have been more conciliatory, and they weren't.
Quote:
And we are very lucky Amelio didn't get that chance. Gil was so clueless about Apple that he seriously considered licensing NT from Microsoft as the basis for the new Mac OS. About the only thing that Amelio did that may have saved Apple indirectly was acquiring Next. That brought Steve Jobs back, without whom Apple would have been doomed, and made it possible for Mac OS X to happen.
You're pretty much wrong about all of that.
You do seem to have forgotten that it was Amelio that bought Next. It was his decision. Donb't misunderstand the implicati0ons .
Quote:
You seem to forget the horrible shape was in when Jobs came back. Apple was on the ropes and almost everyone had given up on it. Had Steve Jobs not taken the reigns, Apple would have gone bankrupt and been sold off. While no one could have predicted how successful the iPod would become, I assure you that Gil Amelio would have never come up with anything remotely like it. Do you think that turning Apple around happened overnight? Gil's great idea was licensing the Mac OS. That worked so well that the licensees were cannibalizing Mac sales. Instead of opening new markets, the clones were taking away Mac sales.
It was in much worse shape when Amelio took over. he fixed the immediate problems, bought the new OS, hired Jobs, and set the stage. He was maneuvered out before he could do anything else.
Quote:
I don't know where you got your numbers, but even if the 8% figure is correct, there is a big difference between 8% and shrinking and 8% and growing. Just look at the stock price in 1997 and the stock price now. Apple is now not just bigger than Dell (suck on that Mike Dell), but it is now larger than IBM. I cannot imagine that Apple would still be around had Gil Amelio continued running Apple.
Look it up if you want.
Learn about why Apple got into its position before you discuss it. a lot of people mischaracterize it because they weren't around when it happened, and a lot of rewriting of history has taken place.
Don't look at anything that's taken place i the last three years. They aren't relevant to this discussion, and I did explain some of it myself.
You do seem to have forgotten that it was Amelio that bought Next. It was his decision. Donb't misunderstand the implicati0ons .
Gil might have bought NeXT, and I do give him credit for that. You don't seem to have read my previous post. Buying NeXT was the one thing that Amelio did that was any good. I was around then and I recall clearly that Gil was seriously thinking about using NT as the kernel for the next Mac OS before they bought NeXT, look it up. They even considered buying BeOS. Gil didn't acquire NeXT because he knew Steve would come back and save Apple. He got incredibly lucky. He was a capable administrator but he didn't understand Apple or have the vision to save it. We are lucky Steve ousted him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Don't look at anything that's taken place i the last three years. They aren't relevant to this discussion, and I did explain some of it myself.
I fail to see how Apple's success in the past three years is irrelevant. Maybe because it undermines your arguments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Look it up if you want.
You are the one coming up with 1997 figures of 8% market share. Why not provide us with your source?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Learn about why Apple got into its position before you discuss it. a lot of people mischaracterize it because they weren't around when it happened, and a lot of rewriting of history has taken place.
I was around, and I remember it clearly. I remember the awful Macs that were made during Amelio's era. I remember the sense that Apple was lost and adrift. You somehow seem to gloss over that.
People like you are a very small minority. The general public simply isn't interested in these battles. All they want is to get their content. If it isn't on iTunes any longer, they will get from where i'ts gone. Don't think otherwise.
People want their content but they also like easy and affordable. These content providers better make it that way. If it is not on iTunes / Amazon or it is a pain to get from whatever online stores they set up, then P2P is the answer, not their new stores.
Gil might have bought NeXT, and I do give him credit for that. You don't seem to have read my previous post. Buying NeXT was the one thing that Amelio did that was any good. I was around then and I recall clearly that Gil was seriously thinking about using NT as the kernel for the next Mac OS before they bought NeXT, look it up. They even considered buying BeOS. Gil didn't acquire NeXT because he knew Steve would come back and save Apple. He got incredibly lucky. He was a capable administrator but he didn't understand Apple or have the vision to save it. We are lucky Steve ousted him.
We really don't know if it WAS Steve who "saved" Apple, or a bit of luck. For most of the time he was here, Apple continued to disintegrate.
Sure, they considered buying a number of things. That's the responsible thing to do. I remember that most Mac users at the time were really pissed that he DID buy Next. Most everyone wanted Apple to buy Be. I didn't though. NT isn't a kernal.
Quote:
I fail to see how Apple's success in the past three years is irrelevant. Maybe because it undermines your arguments?
It doesn't undermine anything. It simply isn't relevant to what happened back then. We have no idea as to what would have happened if things were done differently, and we can't pretend otherwise. If Amelio hadn't gotten Apple financing in 1996, it would have gone out of business. He also had balls to discontinue Copeland.
Quote:
You are the one coming up with 1997 figures of 8% market share. Why not provide us with your source?
I've got this article. I was off, When amelio left, and Jobs came in, in the third quarter of 1997 the US marketshare was about 5%. It went down to 2.8% under Jobs.
I was around, and I remember it clearly. I remember the awful Macs that were made during Amelio's era. I remember the sense that Apple was lost and adrift. You somehow seem to gloss over that.
Amelio inherited a lot of problems from Michael Spindler, the man he replaced. It was a combination of Windows 95 and Spindler's bad decisions that led to the mess in the first place, and Amelio wasn't there long enough to have had too much of an impact on the models being offered. It was enough, for that time, to have prevented the company from going under.
Quote:
Back it up.
I might as well say the same wise ass thing to you. You haven't said anything so far.
People want their content but they also like easy and affordable. These content providers better make it that way. If it is not on iTunes / Amazon or it is a pain to get from whatever online stores they set up, then P2P is the answer, not their new stores.
P2P is never a legit answer, for any reason. This stuff is available, for the most part.
Before illegal file sharing, if something wasn't available yet, people waited until it was.
I've got this article. I was off, When amelio left, and Jobs came in, in the third quarter of 1997 the US marketshare was about 5%. It went down to 2.8% under Jobs.
Its funny how you quote the lowest market share under Steve Jobs and dismiss the past three years when the Mac's market share has been climbing steadily. The worst market share is important while the best is just mere luck, funny that. By the way, that low 2.8% market share happened in July 1997, just after Steve kicked Amelio out and became CEO. Yes it happened under Jobs but only barely. You'd be hard pressed to blame Steve for that. Give Steve a tenth of the slack you give Gil and you'll have to agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
We really don't know if it WAS Steve who "saved" Apple, or a bit of luck. For most of the time he was here, Apple continued to disintegrate.
Really, I'd say that since the introduction of the iPod Apple's fortunes have been improving steadily. Some would point even further back to 1998 and the introduction of the iMac. That would make it six to nine years out of ten (since 1997 when Steve took over Apple). Check my math but even six is more than half of ten, so that would make it most of Steve's time as CEO not less. You'll probably want to argue that the iMac was conceived by Amelio and that thus Steve doesn't deserve the credit for its success. Steve gets the blame for the 2.8% market share but not the credit for the iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Amelio inherited a lot of problems from Michael Spindler, the man he replaced. It was a combination of Windows 95 and Spindler's bad decisions that led to the mess in the first place, and Amelio wasn't there long enough to have had too much of an impact on the models being offered. It was enough, for that time, to have prevented the company from going under.
I see, Amelio's missteps are not his fault, they are Spindler's. But you are not so generous with Jobs. Even though Steve Jobs inherited a demoralized, devastated Apple which was on the verge of bankruptcy he is responsible for the low market share that happened just as he took Apple back. According to you, poor Amelio was hampered by Spindler's screwups, but Amelio's screwups only helped Steve. Please!
You have a problem with Steve. According to you he hasn't done anything for Apple. Steve Jobs has been riding on Gil Amelio's coattails for the past 10 years. You don't give Steve credit for the iPod, for iTunes or for Mac OS X. I would hazard a guess that you think that the success of Pixar has nothing to do with Steve either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
He also had balls to discontinue Copeland.
Copeland was already dead. Amelio just had the decency to put it out of its misery. That required no balls, just facing facts. You should try looking at the facts every so often too. If you did, you'd realize Amelio was a putz and Steve saved Apple and deserves the credit.
So when exactly do you think we'll see the iTunes Music Label? They have the server farms already, they have the software to make the music already. They have the software to distribute the music already, and they already have the hardware most people use to listen to music.
The missing piece is the iTunes Music Label.
Personally, I'd love to see music stay at .99 a song and see musicians get more of a cut per song because there's no longer a middle man between artist and distributor (record companies).
When exactly would be never, which I think is good. Generally I don't think the consumer benefits from vertical integration, the company does. Adding that the music business is in flux with artists going independent and electronic distribution, adding an iTunes label would be either a bad investment or just superfluous. iTunes can "sign" artists simply by carrying their tracks or "drop" them by not.
I was around then and I recall clearly that Gil was seriously thinking about using NT as the kernel for the next Mac OS before they bought NeXT, look it up.
I think the NT kernel was actually very good in some ways. My most reliable computer ever was an Alpha RISC system running Windows NT. NT was available on PPC too.
P2P is never a legit answer, for any reason. This stuff is available, for the most part.
Before illegal file sharing, if something wasn't available yet, people waited until it was.
"People"? who is this "people" you talk about?
There is no "before" and "after" illegal filesharing. music listeners have always traded music, in tapes before, ripped cds... then when P2P came along, it continued.. and even now "Illegal" filesharing is still very popular, it is still underway. So it has always been around. And this has never been about getting things for free, it has always been about getting your music easily. they are different things.
and don't forget there are countries (for example, mine) where there are no mac-compatible music stores. There are times when if you want a song, the only way to get it is P2P, and not because music listeners are cheap and they don't like to pay, but because it is the most efficient, easy to use delivery method.
just recently i was so sick of not having an easy way to buy digital music, that i ended up signing up for mp3sparks.com. at least russians get it. an online store, with a HUGE catalog where you can select the encoding and bitrate for any song you like, in un-drm'ed formats for low prices. (like 9 cents a song). could be illegal by US standards or by whatever american associations may want you to believe, but for me, who lives in a country where there are no other alternatives, it is the only way to go. and "it's not for sale" is not an answer in this digital day and age.
i guess my basic point is, today, there should be no excuse for not being able to get digital music/movies/videos, because the content is out there, and users can get it regardless, either free or by paying for it. so, the content providers better make it easier to pay for it than getting it for free... if they want to stay in business in the long run
"just recently i was so sick of not having an easy way to buy digital music, that i ended up signing up for mp3sparks.com. at least russians get it. an online store, with a HUGE catalog where you can select the encoding and bitrate for any song you like, in un-drm'ed formats for low prices. (like 9 cents a song). could be illegal by US standards or by whatever american associations may want you to believe, but for me, who lives in a country where there are no other alternatives, it is the only way to go. and "it's not for sale" is not an answer in this digital day and age.
I think it's almost definitely an unlicensed situation or license violation on the part of the Russian store.
As far as I can tell, they are getting away with using a licensing system intended for FM radio transmitted over local analog cable systems (CATV), not for selling discrete songs or overseas transmission. For reasons that should be obvious, those two situations are priced differently. The Russian courts did go along with it though, but I suspect not because it's completely legal, but because it's another case of protecting one's own.
I think the NT kernel was actually very good in some ways. My most reliable computer ever was an Alpha RISC system running Windows NT. NT was available on PPC too.
The NT Kernel may have been excellent, that's not the point. If Apple had licensed the NT kernel, it would have given up control of the core of it's OS to Microsoft. How soon after that would have Macs become PC clones running a version of Windows? The point I was trying to make is that Gil Amelio didn't understand what made Apple tick and why licensing the NT Kernel would have been a mistake. I don't think Gil was a bad guy or even incompetent. I think he didn't understand or have the vision to lead Apple.
I think it's almost definitely an unlicensed situation or license violation on the part of the Russian store.
As far as I can tell, they are getting away with using a licensing system intended for FM radio transmitted over local analog cable systems (CATV), not for selling discrete songs or overseas transmission. For reasons that should be obvious, those two situations are priced differently. The Russian courts did go along with it though, but I suspect not because it's completely legal, but because it's another case of protecting one's own.
AllOfMP3.com did operate under ROMS, which is for radio stations mostly. MP3Sparks operates under NP-FAIR in Russia. Might not be legal to use it from the USA, but well, frankly that doesn't apply to me. Here, we have bigger problems to care about than the legality of paying to download songs off a server in Moscow, which in other words means it is not legislated.
But that is besides the point. Regardless of the legal status of such online stores, what impressed me about MP3Sparks is that the store is very well done. It is easy to set up an account, they accept major credit cards, you select the format and bitrate for your unDRM'ed songs, they have album covers, MP3 ID3 tags have complete information, it is easily searchable, well organized, affordable, etc. It is just too convenient.
And back to the original line of thought: I wish record companies and TV networks would create something that is as easy to use, and as FLEXIBLE. Digital content users deserve it!
I hope that never happens. That's the last thing Apople should do. Do people who advocate this actually understand the music business? Does anyone understand how different the business is today from what it was? How little profit they make? How variable it is? How much money those companies have to pour into an act to try to make a success, and just how few of them actually make any return on those investments?
I don't think so.
Except that iTunes itself can be an effective avenue to promote new talent.
They already have top sellers by category and streaming audio. I know that I buy books on Amazon based on user and pro reviews and digital cameras the same way (on DPReviews).
Between myspace like social software and links to iTunes I'd say that artists have a very effective way of generating sales that may not be superstar level would still allow a very comfortable living doing what they love.
I think you overstate the problems for Apple. They are currently just POTENTIAL problems that can be mitigated in a variety of ways...including making it easier to go from GarageBand and Final Cut to sales on iTunes.
You may not get Sopranos from indie producers but...well, lets face it...you don't get Sopranos from NBC either.
Might not be legal to use it from the USA, but well, frankly that doesn't apply to me. Here, we have bigger problems to care about than the legality of paying to download songs off a server in Moscow, which in other words means it is not legislated.
It's not just the US. If you're in a country governed by the Berne convention, then off-license use is very questionable legality at best. Most countries are Berne signatories. The ones that aren't signatories are usually very tiny countries, like single islands, tiny archipelagos and such.
Comments
This is such a tired argument. How many Limewire/Kazaa/whatever P2P network users do you think actually switched from free downloads to paying iTunes customers? 10% maybe...being really generous perhaps 20%. Again, downloads only constitute 10% of music sales. What percentage of that 10% do you think the converted pirates represent? Maybe 1%. Why do you think someone would stop using a P2P network and suddenly go legit?
Will to compensate creators for something of value.
Investment in the chance that the creators go on to make more good stuff if compensated for their previous creations.
Convenience of finding the things you search for easily.
The utility of finding good stuff you weren't aware of, with functions like Amazon's "what did people buy after viewing this", recommendation lists, et cetera.
Trust that you are really getting what you think you are getting - not a virus infested, spanish subtitled version recorded with a cell phone camera in a theater.
I used to pirate *everything*. Now all the software on my computer is legit.
Regardless, if iTunes went away, why do people think piracy would just go through the roof? Most likely digital piracy involves many of the same people who would have previously borrowed the CD from a friend or coworker and made a copy for themselves. Different mechanism with the same end result. Now people just look for an anonymous stranger on the internet to get it from. In the end though, music sales aren't going to plummet if digital downloads ceased to exist.
And if CD sales were stopped, music sales wouldn't plummet because people would just go back to C cassettes? No. There are lots of people today who have never grown to deal with optical disks. Better alternatives exist and there is no going back.
The best companies think about what's best for them and their stockholders. If their guesses happen to coincide with what their customers think is also best for them, then Hallalujua! Everyone's happy.
It's not that I think Apple is good and the music labels are evil. Apple just seems to have a better idea what their customers want. The music labels don't have a clue. Of course Apple has to think about their bottom line, I hope they do since I own some stock, but Apple knows that the best way to help their business is to please their customers. The music labels treat us like the enemy. How long would Apple last if they treated us like the music labels do?
Part of the problem is greed, but the bigger problem as I see it is that the CEOs of the music industry are no longer lovers of music, they are MBAs running a business. Once upon a time there were people running at least some of the major music labels who loved and understood music. Now it's just business people who think music is a commodity. They might as well be selling razors or screws. It's like when Apple was run by Gil Amelio. Gil was not a bad guy, he just didn't get Apple. He was a good administrator but he didn't have vision. The music labels only think about making money and they are trying to do so with an outdated paradigm. Instead of adapting to the new world, they are sticking their fingers in the dike, hoping to hold the flood from drowning them once and for all. They don't get music and they consider their customers thieves. That doesn't seem like a winning business model.
My point is that by using the iTunes store we help break the dike. Using stores like Amazon MP3 puts more fingers in the dike because that is the venue that the music labels have chosen to stand against iTunes. The dike is coming down, there is no helping that now. The question is how soon. I want to hasten its eventual break.
While some industry watchers are calling moves by NBC and others "a mistake," NBC Universal spokesman Cory Shields is quoted in the piece by the Post as saying that his company's programs are one of the primary factors that help drive sales of Apple hardware.
"The iPod is only as good as the content on it," he said.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
What Mr. Shields isn't recognizing is that by taking away the content from iTunes Music Store (IMS) will not stop people from buying iPods. Therefore it can't be used as leverage as easily as he might think.
People will get their music and video from other sources and still put it on their iPods, as many do now. It is wrong to go on the assumption that IMS is what drives people to buy the iPod. It certainly makes it easier and generates income for everyone involved. They are not considering the other factors like design, user experience, etc... The very things that separates Apple products from the rest.
It's not that I think Apple is good and the music labels are evil. Apple just seems to have a better idea what their customers want. The music labels don't have a clue. Of course Apple has to think about their bottom line, I hope they do since I own some stock, but Apple knows that the best way to help their business is to please their customers. The music labels treat us like the enemy. How long would Apple last if they treated us like the music labels do?
Part of the problem is greed, but the bigger problem as I see it is that the CEOs of the music industry are no longer lovers of music, they are MBAs running a business. Once upon a time there were people running at least some of the major music labels who loved and understood music. Now it's just business people who think music is a commodity. They might as well be selling razors or screws. It's like when Apple was run by Gil Amelio. Gil was not a bad guy, he just didn't get Apple. He was a good administrator but he didn't have vision. The music labels only think about making money and they are trying to do so with an outdated paradigm. Instead of adapting to the new world, they are sticking their fingers in the dike, hoping to hold the flood from drowning them once and for all. They don't get music and they consider their customers thieves. That doesn't seem like a winning business model.
My point is that by using the iTunes store we help break the dike. Using stores like Amazon MP3 puts more fingers in the dike because that is the venue that the music labels have chosen to stand against iTunes. The dike is coming down, there is no helping that now. The question is how soon. I want to hasten its eventual break.
Once it's understood just how different Apple and content producing companies are, the reasons for what they do is apparent.
Apple is a hardware company. Last year, including sales from iTunes, Apple's total sales of software, including OS sales, was less than $4 billion. The other $20 billion is hardware.
Considering that most of Apple's software can only be used on Macs, which, of course, only Apple makes and sells, Apple's concern about piracy is minor. The software lives to sell the hardware.
On the other hand, content and software companies have products that are very subject to piracy. They must treat that differently.
Even so, look at how Apple, while within their rights, treated iPhone users who DID use software that wasn't even Apple's.
Do you think Apple did right by its customers there? Do you think Apple does right when there are widespread problems with its hardware, and they do nothing about it? How about when they remove posters to their forums who want to discuss those problems?
Do you really think Apple is so different? No, they really aren't. Not when they don't want to be.
Let's be honest here. There's a world of difference between software, content, and hardware.
As far as Amelio goes, he never had a chance. Look how long it took after Jobs took over before Apple lucked out with the iPod. When that first came out, Apple had no idea what they had on their hands. When Jobs was asked about it, shortly after it came out, he said that it was a "nice little product" for Apple. He indicated that Apple expected it to have a decent showing, but nothing big. When it began to grow so quickly, though, I do give credit to him and his people for realizing what they had, and handling it well.
But, when Jobs took over, Apple still had about an 8% marketshare. That plummeted to about 2.8% before it began to rise again. It took over 6 years. Amelio didn't have nearly that long to prove his worth, though he was credited with substantially staunching Apple's red ink, and settling the ground that Jobs later walked onto.
What Mr. Shields isn't recognizing is that by taking away the content from iTunes Music Store (IMS) will not stop people from buying iPods. Therefore it can't be used as leverage as easily as he might think.
People will get their music and video from other sources and still put it on their iPods, as many do now. It is wrong to go on the assumption that IMS is what drives people to buy the iPod. It certainly makes it easier and generates income for everyone involved. They are not considering the other factors like design, user experience, etc... The very things that separates Apple products from the rest.
You should go read my earlier posts. You are missing the bigger picture for Apple here.
Even so, look at how Apple, while within their rights, treated iPhone users who DID use software that wasn't even Apple's.
Apple told developers to make web apps only. Any developer that relied on a hack to write native apps for the iPhone took a risk. The 1.1.1 update shut down the unlocking hacks. The third party apps were not the target of the update, they were unfortunate casualties. If Apple was trying to screw people, they wouldn't have warned anyone about the possibility of bricking. Anyone who unlocked their iPhone and then applied the 1.1.1 update is a moron and deserved an iBrick. The 1.1.1 update addressed hacks that were possible because of security vulnerabilities of the iPhone OS. It would have been stupid and irresponsible for Apple not to shut down the vulnerability that made the unlocking hack possible.
Apple has now announced an iPhone SDK. If Apple goes after developers who use that SDK and follow the rules, you may have an argument then, but not now. Apple is not under any obligation of opening up the iPhone to anyone. They would be stupid not to allow third party apps, but they don't owe it to the developers.
As far as Amelio goes, he never had a chance.
And we are very lucky Amelio didn't get that chance. Gil was so clueless about Apple that he seriously considered licensing NT from Microsoft as the basis for the new Mac OS. About the only thing that Amelio did that may have saved Apple indirectly was acquiring Next. That brought Steve Jobs back, without whom Apple would have been doomed, and made it possible for Mac OS X to happen.
Look how long it took after Jobs took over before Apple lucked out with the iPod. When that first came out, Apple had no idea what they had on their hands. When Jobs was asked about it, shortly after it came out, he said that it was a "nice little product" for Apple. He indicated that Apple expected it to have a decent showing, but nothing big. When it began to grow so quickly, though, I do give credit to him and his people for realizing what they had, and handling it well.
You seem to forget the horrible shape was in when Jobs came back. Apple was on the ropes and almost everyone had given up on it. Had Steve Jobs not taken the reigns, Apple would have gone bankrupt and been sold off. While no one could have predicted how successful the iPod would become, I assure you that Gil Amelio would have never come up with anything remotely like it. Do you think that turning Apple around happened overnight? Gil's great idea was licensing the Mac OS. That worked so well that the licensees were cannibalizing Mac sales. Instead of opening new markets, the clones were taking away Mac sales.
But, when Jobs took over, Apple still had about an 8% marketshare. That plummeted to about 2.8% before it began to rise again. It took over 6 years. Amelio didn't have nearly that long to prove his worth, though he was credited with substantially staunching Apple's red ink, and settling the ground that Jobs later walked onto.
I don't know where you got your numbers, but even if the 8% figure is correct, there is a big difference between 8% and shrinking and 8% and growing. Just look at the stock price in 1997 and the stock price now. Apple is now not just bigger than Dell (suck on that Mike Dell), but it is now larger than IBM. I cannot imagine that Apple would still be around had Gil Amelio continued running Apple.
Apple told developers to make web apps only. Any developer that relied on a hack to write native apps for the iPhone took a risk. The 1.1.1 update shut down the unlocking hacks. The third party apps were not the target of the update, they were unfortunate casualties. If Apple was trying to screw people, they wouldn't have warned anyone about the possibility of bricking. Anyone who unlocked their iPhone and then applied the 1.1.1 update is a moron and deserved an iBrick. The 1.1.1 update addressed hacks that were possible because of security vulnerabilities of the iPhone OS. It would have been stupid and irresponsible for Apple not to shut down the vulnerability that made the unlocking hack possible.
Apple has now announced an iPhone SDK. If Apple goes after developers who use that SDK and follow the rules, you may have an argument then, but not now. Apple is not under any obligation of opening up the iPhone to anyone. They would be stupid not to allow third party apps, but they don't owe it to the developers.
I know all about this. It's now old news. I just did say that Apple was within its rights. But they could have been more conciliatory, and they weren't.
And we are very lucky Amelio didn't get that chance. Gil was so clueless about Apple that he seriously considered licensing NT from Microsoft as the basis for the new Mac OS. About the only thing that Amelio did that may have saved Apple indirectly was acquiring Next. That brought Steve Jobs back, without whom Apple would have been doomed, and made it possible for Mac OS X to happen.
You're pretty much wrong about all of that.
You do seem to have forgotten that it was Amelio that bought Next. It was his decision. Donb't misunderstand the implicati0ons .
You seem to forget the horrible shape was in when Jobs came back. Apple was on the ropes and almost everyone had given up on it. Had Steve Jobs not taken the reigns, Apple would have gone bankrupt and been sold off. While no one could have predicted how successful the iPod would become, I assure you that Gil Amelio would have never come up with anything remotely like it. Do you think that turning Apple around happened overnight? Gil's great idea was licensing the Mac OS. That worked so well that the licensees were cannibalizing Mac sales. Instead of opening new markets, the clones were taking away Mac sales.
It was in much worse shape when Amelio took over. he fixed the immediate problems, bought the new OS, hired Jobs, and set the stage. He was maneuvered out before he could do anything else.
I don't know where you got your numbers, but even if the 8% figure is correct, there is a big difference between 8% and shrinking and 8% and growing. Just look at the stock price in 1997 and the stock price now. Apple is now not just bigger than Dell (suck on that Mike Dell), but it is now larger than IBM. I cannot imagine that Apple would still be around had Gil Amelio continued running Apple.
Look it up if you want.
Learn about why Apple got into its position before you discuss it. a lot of people mischaracterize it because they weren't around when it happened, and a lot of rewriting of history has taken place.
Don't look at anything that's taken place i the last three years. They aren't relevant to this discussion, and I did explain some of it myself.
You do seem to have forgotten that it was Amelio that bought Next. It was his decision. Donb't misunderstand the implicati0ons .
Gil might have bought NeXT, and I do give him credit for that. You don't seem to have read my previous post. Buying NeXT was the one thing that Amelio did that was any good. I was around then and I recall clearly that Gil was seriously thinking about using NT as the kernel for the next Mac OS before they bought NeXT, look it up. They even considered buying BeOS. Gil didn't acquire NeXT because he knew Steve would come back and save Apple. He got incredibly lucky. He was a capable administrator but he didn't understand Apple or have the vision to save it. We are lucky Steve ousted him.
Don't look at anything that's taken place i the last three years. They aren't relevant to this discussion, and I did explain some of it myself.
I fail to see how Apple's success in the past three years is irrelevant. Maybe because it undermines your arguments?
Look it up if you want.
You are the one coming up with 1997 figures of 8% market share. Why not provide us with your source?
Learn about why Apple got into its position before you discuss it. a lot of people mischaracterize it because they weren't around when it happened, and a lot of rewriting of history has taken place.
I was around, and I remember it clearly. I remember the awful Macs that were made during Amelio's era. I remember the sense that Apple was lost and adrift. You somehow seem to gloss over that.
You're pretty much wrong about all of that.
Back it up.
People like you are a very small minority. The general public simply isn't interested in these battles. All they want is to get their content. If it isn't on iTunes any longer, they will get from where i'ts gone. Don't think otherwise.
People want their content but they also like easy and affordable. These content providers better make it that way. If it is not on iTunes / Amazon or it is a pain to get from whatever online stores they set up, then P2P is the answer, not their new stores.
Gil might have bought NeXT, and I do give him credit for that. You don't seem to have read my previous post. Buying NeXT was the one thing that Amelio did that was any good. I was around then and I recall clearly that Gil was seriously thinking about using NT as the kernel for the next Mac OS before they bought NeXT, look it up. They even considered buying BeOS. Gil didn't acquire NeXT because he knew Steve would come back and save Apple. He got incredibly lucky. He was a capable administrator but he didn't understand Apple or have the vision to save it. We are lucky Steve ousted him.
We really don't know if it WAS Steve who "saved" Apple, or a bit of luck. For most of the time he was here, Apple continued to disintegrate.
Sure, they considered buying a number of things. That's the responsible thing to do. I remember that most Mac users at the time were really pissed that he DID buy Next. Most everyone wanted Apple to buy Be. I didn't though. NT isn't a kernal.
I fail to see how Apple's success in the past three years is irrelevant. Maybe because it undermines your arguments?
It doesn't undermine anything. It simply isn't relevant to what happened back then. We have no idea as to what would have happened if things were done differently, and we can't pretend otherwise. If Amelio hadn't gotten Apple financing in 1996, it would have gone out of business. He also had balls to discontinue Copeland.
You are the one coming up with 1997 figures of 8% market share. Why not provide us with your source?
I've got this article. I was off, When amelio left, and Jobs came in, in the third quarter of 1997 the US marketshare was about 5%. It went down to 2.8% under Jobs.
http://www.news.com/Apple-market-sha..._3-206284.html
I was around, and I remember it clearly. I remember the awful Macs that were made during Amelio's era. I remember the sense that Apple was lost and adrift. You somehow seem to gloss over that.
Amelio inherited a lot of problems from Michael Spindler, the man he replaced. It was a combination of Windows 95 and Spindler's bad decisions that led to the mess in the first place, and Amelio wasn't there long enough to have had too much of an impact on the models being offered. It was enough, for that time, to have prevented the company from going under.
Back it up.
I might as well say the same wise ass thing to you. You haven't said anything so far.
People want their content but they also like easy and affordable. These content providers better make it that way. If it is not on iTunes / Amazon or it is a pain to get from whatever online stores they set up, then P2P is the answer, not their new stores.
P2P is never a legit answer, for any reason. This stuff is available, for the most part.
Before illegal file sharing, if something wasn't available yet, people waited until it was.
I've got this article. I was off, When amelio left, and Jobs came in, in the third quarter of 1997 the US marketshare was about 5%. It went down to 2.8% under Jobs.
Its funny how you quote the lowest market share under Steve Jobs and dismiss the past three years when the Mac's market share has been climbing steadily. The worst market share is important while the best is just mere luck, funny that. By the way, that low 2.8% market share happened in July 1997, just after Steve kicked Amelio out and became CEO. Yes it happened under Jobs but only barely. You'd be hard pressed to blame Steve for that. Give Steve a tenth of the slack you give Gil and you'll have to agree.
We really don't know if it WAS Steve who "saved" Apple, or a bit of luck. For most of the time he was here, Apple continued to disintegrate.
Really, I'd say that since the introduction of the iPod Apple's fortunes have been improving steadily. Some would point even further back to 1998 and the introduction of the iMac. That would make it six to nine years out of ten (since 1997 when Steve took over Apple). Check my math but even six is more than half of ten, so that would make it most of Steve's time as CEO not less. You'll probably want to argue that the iMac was conceived by Amelio and that thus Steve doesn't deserve the credit for its success. Steve gets the blame for the 2.8% market share but not the credit for the iMac.
Amelio inherited a lot of problems from Michael Spindler, the man he replaced. It was a combination of Windows 95 and Spindler's bad decisions that led to the mess in the first place, and Amelio wasn't there long enough to have had too much of an impact on the models being offered. It was enough, for that time, to have prevented the company from going under.
I see, Amelio's missteps are not his fault, they are Spindler's. But you are not so generous with Jobs. Even though Steve Jobs inherited a demoralized, devastated Apple which was on the verge of bankruptcy he is responsible for the low market share that happened just as he took Apple back. According to you, poor Amelio was hampered by Spindler's screwups, but Amelio's screwups only helped Steve. Please!
You have a problem with Steve. According to you he hasn't done anything for Apple. Steve Jobs has been riding on Gil Amelio's coattails for the past 10 years. You don't give Steve credit for the iPod, for iTunes or for Mac OS X. I would hazard a guess that you think that the success of Pixar has nothing to do with Steve either.
He also had balls to discontinue Copeland.
Copeland was already dead. Amelio just had the decency to put it out of its misery. That required no balls, just facing facts. You should try looking at the facts every so often too. If you did, you'd realize Amelio was a putz and Steve saved Apple and deserves the credit.
So when exactly do you think we'll see the iTunes Music Label? They have the server farms already, they have the software to make the music already. They have the software to distribute the music already, and they already have the hardware most people use to listen to music.
The missing piece is the iTunes Music Label.
Personally, I'd love to see music stay at .99 a song and see musicians get more of a cut per song because there's no longer a middle man between artist and distributor (record companies).
When exactly would be never, which I think is good. Generally I don't think the consumer benefits from vertical integration, the company does. Adding that the music business is in flux with artists going independent and electronic distribution, adding an iTunes label would be either a bad investment or just superfluous. iTunes can "sign" artists simply by carrying their tracks or "drop" them by not.
I was around then and I recall clearly that Gil was seriously thinking about using NT as the kernel for the next Mac OS before they bought NeXT, look it up.
I think the NT kernel was actually very good in some ways. My most reliable computer ever was an Alpha RISC system running Windows NT. NT was available on PPC too.
P2P is never a legit answer, for any reason. This stuff is available, for the most part.
Before illegal file sharing, if something wasn't available yet, people waited until it was.
"People"? who is this "people" you talk about?
There is no "before" and "after" illegal filesharing. music listeners have always traded music, in tapes before, ripped cds... then when P2P came along, it continued.. and even now "Illegal" filesharing is still very popular, it is still underway. So it has always been around. And this has never been about getting things for free, it has always been about getting your music easily. they are different things.
and don't forget there are countries (for example, mine) where there are no mac-compatible music stores. There are times when if you want a song, the only way to get it is P2P, and not because music listeners are cheap and they don't like to pay, but because it is the most efficient, easy to use delivery method.
just recently i was so sick of not having an easy way to buy digital music, that i ended up signing up for mp3sparks.com. at least russians get it. an online store, with a HUGE catalog where you can select the encoding and bitrate for any song you like, in un-drm'ed formats for low prices. (like 9 cents a song). could be illegal by US standards or by whatever american associations may want you to believe, but for me, who lives in a country where there are no other alternatives, it is the only way to go. and "it's not for sale" is not an answer in this digital day and age.
i guess my basic point is, today, there should be no excuse for not being able to get digital music/movies/videos, because the content is out there, and users can get it regardless, either free or by paying for it. so, the content providers better make it easier to pay for it than getting it for free... if they want to stay in business in the long run
"just recently i was so sick of not having an easy way to buy digital music, that i ended up signing up for mp3sparks.com. at least russians get it. an online store, with a HUGE catalog where you can select the encoding and bitrate for any song you like, in un-drm'ed formats for low prices. (like 9 cents a song). could be illegal by US standards or by whatever american associations may want you to believe, but for me, who lives in a country where there are no other alternatives, it is the only way to go. and "it's not for sale" is not an answer in this digital day and age.
I think it's almost definitely an unlicensed situation or license violation on the part of the Russian store.
As far as I can tell, they are getting away with using a licensing system intended for FM radio transmitted over local analog cable systems (CATV), not for selling discrete songs or overseas transmission. For reasons that should be obvious, those two situations are priced differently. The Russian courts did go along with it though, but I suspect not because it's completely legal, but because it's another case of protecting one's own.
I think the NT kernel was actually very good in some ways. My most reliable computer ever was an Alpha RISC system running Windows NT. NT was available on PPC too.
The NT Kernel may have been excellent, that's not the point. If Apple had licensed the NT kernel, it would have given up control of the core of it's OS to Microsoft. How soon after that would have Macs become PC clones running a version of Windows? The point I was trying to make is that Gil Amelio didn't understand what made Apple tick and why licensing the NT Kernel would have been a mistake. I don't think Gil was a bad guy or even incompetent. I think he didn't understand or have the vision to lead Apple.
I think it's almost definitely an unlicensed situation or license violation on the part of the Russian store.
As far as I can tell, they are getting away with using a licensing system intended for FM radio transmitted over local analog cable systems (CATV), not for selling discrete songs or overseas transmission. For reasons that should be obvious, those two situations are priced differently. The Russian courts did go along with it though, but I suspect not because it's completely legal, but because it's another case of protecting one's own.
AllOfMP3.com did operate under ROMS, which is for radio stations mostly. MP3Sparks operates under NP-FAIR in Russia. Might not be legal to use it from the USA, but well, frankly that doesn't apply to me. Here, we have bigger problems to care about than the legality of paying to download songs off a server in Moscow, which in other words means it is not legislated.
But that is besides the point. Regardless of the legal status of such online stores, what impressed me about MP3Sparks is that the store is very well done. It is easy to set up an account, they accept major credit cards, you select the format and bitrate for your unDRM'ed songs, they have album covers, MP3 ID3 tags have complete information, it is easily searchable, well organized, affordable, etc. It is just too convenient.
And back to the original line of thought: I wish record companies and TV networks would create something that is as easy to use, and as FLEXIBLE. Digital content users deserve it!
I hope that never happens. That's the last thing Apople should do. Do people who advocate this actually understand the music business? Does anyone understand how different the business is today from what it was? How little profit they make? How variable it is? How much money those companies have to pour into an act to try to make a success, and just how few of them actually make any return on those investments?
I don't think so.
Except that iTunes itself can be an effective avenue to promote new talent.
They already have top sellers by category and streaming audio. I know that I buy books on Amazon based on user and pro reviews and digital cameras the same way (on DPReviews).
Between myspace like social software and links to iTunes I'd say that artists have a very effective way of generating sales that may not be superstar level would still allow a very comfortable living doing what they love.
I think you overstate the problems for Apple. They are currently just POTENTIAL problems that can be mitigated in a variety of ways...including making it easier to go from GarageBand and Final Cut to sales on iTunes.
You may not get Sopranos from indie producers but...well, lets face it...you don't get Sopranos from NBC either.
Might not be legal to use it from the USA, but well, frankly that doesn't apply to me. Here, we have bigger problems to care about than the legality of paying to download songs off a server in Moscow, which in other words means it is not legislated.
It's not just the US. If you're in a country governed by the Berne convention, then off-license use is very questionable legality at best. Most countries are Berne signatories. The ones that aren't signatories are usually very tiny countries, like single islands, tiny archipelagos and such.