is it just me or is apple on the downswing with itunes? amazon is going to come out on top i think, whats going on, soon no one will go with itunes, poor apple
The label's chief Edgar Bronfman began the year by lashing out at Steve Jobs for even suggesting that labels should drop copy protection, accusing the Apple executive of abandoning logic. Since then, three of the four major labels -- EMI, Universal, and Bronfman's own imprint -- have all offered unprotected songs to varying degrees. Only Sony BMG has so far maintained a requirement for copy protection on all its direct downloads.
18 months ago the stock was $60 and today it is $198-- or 3.3 times the price.
...so, $198 x 3.3 = $653 (over 18 months)
Maybe not so far-fetched, after all.
The question for long term investors is where is AAPL on the growth curve? Beginning? Middle? End?
I am betting my investment $ that they are at the beginning!
The capabilities unleashed by the iPhone, alone, open many amazing hardware/service/software product opportunities.
The iPhone and Touch aren't just another cell phone and iPod-- they are the forerunners of a whole new category of products-- Must Have! Must Have With You At All Times!
With Apple's creativity, engineering, profit-making and marketing ability, we should see products that create a revolution bigger than the one that the microcomputer started in the 1970s.
The target audience for these products is billions of individual persons!
Why are the labels excluding iTunes Plus from this new DRM-free idea? iTunes has a lot more customers than Amazon MP3, and it's easy to sell on both (EMI is, afterall).
It seems the labels have some sort of problem with Apple. Why should they, though, when iTunes could get them a lot more sales since most people don't even know about Amazon MP3.
Why are the labels excluding iTunes Plus from this new DRM-free idea? iTunes has a lot more customers than Amazon MP3, and it's easy to sell on both (EMI is, afterall).
It seems the labels have some sort of problem with Apple. Why should they, though, when iTunes could get them a lot more sales since most people don't even know about Amazon MP3.
It just seems odd...
They want to break Apple's power, and monopoly, over downloads. If I were in their position, I would do the same thing.
Apple is acting like a monopolist by not allowing them to have control over their own product. No company likes that.
Traditionally, the manufacturer set prices for their products.
I'm not agreeing with anything here, just stating the reasons.
They want to break Apple's power, and monopoly, over downloads. If I were in their position, I would do the same thing.
Apple is acting like a monopolist by not allowing them to have control over their own product. No company likes that.
Traditionally, the manufacturer set prices for their products.
I'm not agreeing with anything here, just stating the reasons.
I suppose that makes sense. I have no problem buying from Amazon MP3 and supporting DRM-free music. My worry is that the labels are doing this so that it doesn't succeed and they can go "Well look, we offered music DRM-free but not that many people went for it. They kept buying from iTunes, though, with DRM, so DRM is okay. Told you so!" when in fact they knew Amazon MP3 wasn't going to do that well.
iTunes isn't a monopoly as long as there's another option available to all. Don't get me wrong, I *LOVE* the mp3 music store on Amazon, and find myself checking there BEFORE iTunes lately, because I'm more likely to find the track I want without DRM and it integrates perfectly with iTunes. I just wish iTunes had the tracks too so more people would be aware of this new direction the industry is going.
I suppose that makes sense. I have no problem buying from Amazon MP3 and supporting DRM-free music. My worry is that the labels are doing this so that it doesn't succeed and they can go "Well look, we offered music DRM-free but not that many people went for it. They kept buying from iTunes, though, with DRM, so DRM is okay. Told you so!" when in fact they knew Amazon MP3 wasn't going to do that well.
iTunes isn't a monopoly as long as there's another option available to all. Don't get me wrong, I *LOVE* the mp3 music store on Amazon, and find myself checking there BEFORE iTunes lately, because I'm more likely to find the track I want without DRM and it integrates perfectly with iTunes. I just wish iTunes had the tracks too so more people would be aware of this new direction the industry is going.
A monopoly is not defined by having NO competition. Remember that MS was defined as a monopoly in OS sales.
As Apple has (had) about 85%, or more, sales of all digital music downloads here in the US, that would pretty much define them as a monopoly, even if it didn't come to court to have them legally defined as such.
The music companies know very well that digital downloads are the way of the future, that's why they are so concerned.
When Apple first approached them, they didn't think it would succeed, and that's why they allowed Jobs talk them into the 99¢ deal. Now, they are nervous about having given away their control over a sales channel that's becoming more important every day.
The movie and Tv studios have watched this, and have determined that they won't allow it to happen to them. They are playing it smart. BEFORE online sales reach real numbers and percentages, they can experiment, without giving Apple control.
Don't forget that Apple wants to sell at the lowest price, not because they care about their content paying customers, but because they see it as selling iPods, iPhones, which then, through the acknowledged "halo effect" is selling computers and software.
Believe this: If Apple needed to make a good profit on content, as the content producers do, they wouldn't be pushing for such low prices either.
Yes, I know that Apple has done great multiples in this century. However, as a company grows and its stock is worth more, it is much harder to do multiples of current stock price. 3 x 16 (or 80) is much easier than 3 x $200.
Apple has great potential. But there are pitfalls in future. Quality of product (hardware and software) needs to improved while the company is selling more units. I certainly have the feeling that Apple is stretching itself too thin. Leopard (with a clean install) works ok for me, but not perfectly (printing problems, sluggishness).
Moisture problems in iMacs. More and more lawsuits And what will happen to stock when Steve Jobs leaves.
I love apple products. I own stock. I just think an analyst saying $600 in 18 months is irresponsible.
Apple is acting like a monopolist by not allowing them to have control over their own product. No company likes that.
Traditionally, the manufacturer set prices for their products.
Not allowing them to control their own products? Perhaps you mean, the record labels gave up control by negotiating and signing a bad (for them) agreement?
For the better part of the last 100 years, manufacturers have been barred from setting minimum prices (Dr. Miles). Also, large retailers are often in a powerful position to negotiate better wholesale pricing (Wal-mart comes to mind). So, I can't say that I agree with your statement.
About the only thing that can be said is, traditionally, a manufacturer negotiates a wholesale price with a retailer. This negotiation is dependent on the relative power of each party. That is, if the product is in high demand and low supply the manufacturer is usually in a strong negotiating position. Also, if a retailer is a dominant retailer for a certain type of good (e.g. Wal-mart), they tend to have a strong position at the table. In any case, the Sherman Act has forbid setting of retail prices by the manufacturer. Recently, this rule has changed.
I understand what you are intending to say. Apple has worn out its welcome in the music industry and the record labels are now regaining control over their product. In essence, the balance of power is shifting back to the record labels and they are able to negotiate more favorable wholesale prices.
Whether or not this is good for the consumer is another matter...
Walt Mossberg is a horrible source and doesn't know what he's doing. He compared the $1200 iMac to the $1500 Dell and said after upgrading the iMac to match the dell it was a $100 difference.
That is WRONG. He is not comparing two equally spec'd machines at all. He was quick to add thing to the iMac to match the dell's specs, but failed to match the dell to the iMac's specs!
Why is this a big deal. When Apple-folks like to point out that Dells aren't cheaper, then hack a ton of stuff into the Dell to get the price to be 'the same', they never change the mac.
Then again, it's hard to 'upgrade' the Mac to 8 USB ports, extra drive bays, PCI Express slots, etc, that your general PC has, so they kind of gloss over that ("Yeah, but I've got a built-in web cam! Sure, I never use it, nor did I want it, but it's there!")
Not allowing them to control their own products? Perhaps you mean, the record labels gave up control by negotiating and signing a bad (for them) agreement?
I already explained what, and why, that happened.
Quote:
For the better part of the last 100 years, manufacturers have been barred from setting minimum prices (Dr. Miles). Also, large retailers are often in a powerful position to negotiate better wholesale pricing (Wal-mart comes to mind). So, I can't say that I agree with your statement.
You don't have to agree.
But, it's still true. Minimum pricing laws were set so that a monopoly couldn't set pricing so low so as to force its competitors out of business.
Large companies can always negotiate lower prices on many items—if there is enough profit to go around.
Apple is apparently cutting that profit to the bone, both for them, where they don't care, because it's something like a loss leader that stores use to get customers into the store, to the content makers, who do care, since content is their main income source.
Quote:
About the only thing that can be said is, traditionally, a manufacturer negotiates a wholesale price with a retailer. This negotiation is dependent on the relative power of each party. That is, if the product is in high demand and low supply the manufacturer is usually in a strong negotiating position. Also, if a retailer is a dominant retailer for a certain type of good (e.g. Wal-mart), they tend to have a strong position at the table. In any case, the Sherman Act has forbid setting of retail prices by the manufacturer. Recently, this rule has changed.
It's also relative to how much profit the manufacturer needs to make. They always have a bottom number which they don't go below. I know how this works because I was a manufacturer. You don't negotiate a price below what you decide you need. Also, many manufacturers tell the distributors what price they want, and that's it. They decide the discount.
If your product is desirable, you also have power. Even WalMart can't dictate everything.
Quote:
I understand what you are intending to say. Apple has worn out its welcome in the music industry and the record labels are now regaining control over their product. In essence, the balance of power is shifting back to the record labels and they are able to negotiate more favorable wholesale prices.
Whether or not this is good for the consumer is another matter...
What's good for the consumer is that they have choices.
It's also true that just because the consumer wants to pay the lowest price possible, that price isn't necessarily fair.
We can look at what that attitude has been doing to our economy. By paying the lowest possible price, we ensured that companies here couldn't make a profit, so they took their factories first to Mexico, then through other countries, to China.
Now, high paying blue collar jobs are scarce, and more people can't afford to pay higher prices. It's a downward spiral.
Before you know it, all movies and music will be produced in China with Chinese crews. Maybe then, people will pay what they want.
They want to break Apple's power, and monopoly, over downloads. If I were in their position, I would do the same thing.
Apple is acting like a monopolist by not allowing them to have control over their own product. No company likes that.
Traditionally, the manufacturer set prices for their products.
I'm not agreeing with anything here, just stating the reasons.
Let's see what the Board of Directors and the major shareholders of Warner (and Universal) have to say about ignoring a significant revenue stream. Bronfman, your CEO days may be numbered (I hope).
Let's see what the Board of Directors and the major shareholders of Warner (and Universal) have to say about ignoring a significant revenue stream. Bronfman, your CEO days may be numbered (I hope).
They didn't pull music from iTunes. They just didn't allow any of it to go DRM-free.
It remains to be seen whether sales of DRM-free tracks from Amazon—which play on the iPod/iPhone universe of players, as well as Apple's computers, take sales away from Apple's DRM'd versions of the same tracks.
It will be very interesting.
It's also possible that there will be announcements made at Macworld.
Silly question. We'll just have to wait and see. Much movie and Tv production has gone from the US to Canada the past few years because of costs. Movies have also gone to Eastern Europe for almost three decades for the same reason.
As China builds up its infrastructure, it will begin to move there as well. The animation studios have already been discussing this. Chinese animators cost much less than those here, and are just as good.
Give it, what, between five and ten years?
As long as selling prices keep being pushed down, the costs have to go that way as well.
is it just me or is apple on the downswing with itunes? amazon is going to come out on top i think, whats going on, soon no one will go with itunes, poor apple
All Amazon can hope for is incremental income, if even that. My guess is that Amazon is losing money on every sale right now. Apple doesn't make much money from selling songs, they make money from selling iPods (hardware). Amazon does not have the complete chain, like Apple has.
Yes, I know that Apple has done great multiples in this century. However, as a company grows and its stock is worth more, it is much harder to do multiples of current stock price. 3 x 16 (or 80) is much easier than 3 x $200.
Apple has great potential. But there are pitfalls in future. Quality of product (hardware and software) needs to improved while the company is selling more units. I certainly have the feeling that Apple is stretching itself too thin. Leopard (with a clean install) works ok for me, but not perfectly (printing problems, sluggishness).
Moisture problems in iMacs. More and more lawsuits And what will happen to stock when Steve Jobs leaves.
I love apple products. I own stock. I just think an analyst saying $600 in 18 months is irresponsible.
For Apple to grow into the $600's range, I think they would have to adopt an advertising model that would enable them to compete with companies like Google. This could be possible by broadening their iPhone and iPod touch offerings (lower end models), and branching out into other wireless products. By enabling electronic payment options, advertising partnerships, etc. they could reach Googlish levels.
Before you know it, all movies and music will be produced in China with Chinese crews.
China certainly could build studio facilities to attract big budget Hollywood films. There are already many countries doing this, Canada, Australia, Eastern Europe. Production will still take American crews, because of skill levels and language barriers can be too much of a problem. But their are practicalities in producing music, television, and movies that will keep the majority of it in the US. At least in our life time.
Quote:
As long as selling prices keep being pushed down, the costs have to go that way as well.
Much of the cost of the movie is pay for the actors. Their salaries and residuals can be multiple of what it costs to pay for everything else that makes the movie.
Comments
The label's chief Edgar Bronfman began the year by lashing out at Steve Jobs for even suggesting that labels should drop copy protection, accusing the Apple executive of abandoning logic. Since then, three of the four major labels -- EMI, Universal, and Bronfman's own imprint -- have all offered unprotected songs to varying degrees. Only Sony BMG has so far maintained a requirement for copy protection on all its direct downloads.
Bronfman is such a hypocrite.
...so, $198 x 3.3 = $653 (over 18 months)
Maybe not so far-fetched, after all.
The question for long term investors is where is AAPL on the growth curve? Beginning? Middle? End?
I am betting my investment $ that they are at the beginning!
The capabilities unleashed by the iPhone, alone, open many amazing hardware/service/software product opportunities.
The iPhone and Touch aren't just another cell phone and iPod-- they are the forerunners of a whole new category of products-- Must Have! Must Have With You At All Times!
With Apple's creativity, engineering, profit-making and marketing ability, we should see products that create a revolution bigger than the one that the microcomputer started in the 1970s.
The target audience for these products is billions of individual persons!
Now, That's what I call potential!
It seems the labels have some sort of problem with Apple. Why should they, though, when iTunes could get them a lot more sales since most people don't even know about Amazon MP3.
It just seems odd...
I just presented all that to two Dell sales reps and their only retort was "I assure you when you buy a Dell you are getting a quality system" :P
Shame it can't run a decent OS though
Even Mossberg added as a negative; that the Dell didn't run OS X ... Nice to see that now showing up as a negative against a PC
Why are the labels excluding iTunes Plus from this new DRM-free idea? iTunes has a lot more customers than Amazon MP3, and it's easy to sell on both (EMI is, afterall).
It seems the labels have some sort of problem with Apple. Why should they, though, when iTunes could get them a lot more sales since most people don't even know about Amazon MP3.
It just seems odd...
They want to break Apple's power, and monopoly, over downloads. If I were in their position, I would do the same thing.
Apple is acting like a monopolist by not allowing them to have control over their own product. No company likes that.
Traditionally, the manufacturer set prices for their products.
I'm not agreeing with anything here, just stating the reasons.
They want to break Apple's power, and monopoly, over downloads. If I were in their position, I would do the same thing.
Apple is acting like a monopolist by not allowing them to have control over their own product. No company likes that.
Traditionally, the manufacturer set prices for their products.
I'm not agreeing with anything here, just stating the reasons.
I suppose that makes sense. I have no problem buying from Amazon MP3 and supporting DRM-free music. My worry is that the labels are doing this so that it doesn't succeed and they can go "Well look, we offered music DRM-free but not that many people went for it. They kept buying from iTunes, though, with DRM, so DRM is okay. Told you so!" when in fact they knew Amazon MP3 wasn't going to do that well.
iTunes isn't a monopoly as long as there's another option available to all. Don't get me wrong, I *LOVE* the mp3 music store on Amazon, and find myself checking there BEFORE iTunes lately, because I'm more likely to find the track I want without DRM and it integrates perfectly with iTunes. I just wish iTunes had the tracks too so more people would be aware of this new direction the industry is going.
I suppose that makes sense. I have no problem buying from Amazon MP3 and supporting DRM-free music. My worry is that the labels are doing this so that it doesn't succeed and they can go "Well look, we offered music DRM-free but not that many people went for it. They kept buying from iTunes, though, with DRM, so DRM is okay. Told you so!" when in fact they knew Amazon MP3 wasn't going to do that well.
iTunes isn't a monopoly as long as there's another option available to all. Don't get me wrong, I *LOVE* the mp3 music store on Amazon, and find myself checking there BEFORE iTunes lately, because I'm more likely to find the track I want without DRM and it integrates perfectly with iTunes. I just wish iTunes had the tracks too so more people would be aware of this new direction the industry is going.
A monopoly is not defined by having NO competition. Remember that MS was defined as a monopoly in OS sales.
As Apple has (had) about 85%, or more, sales of all digital music downloads here in the US, that would pretty much define them as a monopoly, even if it didn't come to court to have them legally defined as such.
The music companies know very well that digital downloads are the way of the future, that's why they are so concerned.
When Apple first approached them, they didn't think it would succeed, and that's why they allowed Jobs talk them into the 99¢ deal. Now, they are nervous about having given away their control over a sales channel that's becoming more important every day.
The movie and Tv studios have watched this, and have determined that they won't allow it to happen to them. They are playing it smart. BEFORE online sales reach real numbers and percentages, they can experiment, without giving Apple control.
Don't forget that Apple wants to sell at the lowest price, not because they care about their content paying customers, but because they see it as selling iPods, iPhones, which then, through the acknowledged "halo effect" is selling computers and software.
Believe this: If Apple needed to make a good profit on content, as the content producers do, they wouldn't be pushing for such low prices either.
They want to break Apple's power, and monopoly, over downloads. If I were in their position, I would do the same thing.
Apple is acting like a monopolist by not allowing them to have control over their own product. No company likes that.
Traditionally, the manufacturer set prices for their products.
I'm not agreeing with anything here, just stating the reasons.
Yup, a digital music storm's a brewin'...
Yes, I know that Apple has done great multiples in this century. However, as a company grows and its stock is worth more, it is much harder to do multiples of current stock price. 3 x 16 (or 80) is much easier than 3 x $200.
Apple has great potential. But there are pitfalls in future. Quality of product (hardware and software) needs to improved while the company is selling more units. I certainly have the feeling that Apple is stretching itself too thin. Leopard (with a clean install) works ok for me, but not perfectly (printing problems, sluggishness).
Moisture problems in iMacs. More and more lawsuits And what will happen to stock when Steve Jobs leaves.
I love apple products. I own stock. I just think an analyst saying $600 in 18 months is irresponsible.
Apple is acting like a monopolist by not allowing them to have control over their own product. No company likes that.
Traditionally, the manufacturer set prices for their products.
Not allowing them to control their own products? Perhaps you mean, the record labels gave up control by negotiating and signing a bad (for them) agreement?
For the better part of the last 100 years, manufacturers have been barred from setting minimum prices (Dr. Miles). Also, large retailers are often in a powerful position to negotiate better wholesale pricing (Wal-mart comes to mind). So, I can't say that I agree with your statement.
About the only thing that can be said is, traditionally, a manufacturer negotiates a wholesale price with a retailer. This negotiation is dependent on the relative power of each party. That is, if the product is in high demand and low supply the manufacturer is usually in a strong negotiating position. Also, if a retailer is a dominant retailer for a certain type of good (e.g. Wal-mart), they tend to have a strong position at the table. In any case, the Sherman Act has forbid setting of retail prices by the manufacturer. Recently, this rule has changed.
I understand what you are intending to say. Apple has worn out its welcome in the music industry and the record labels are now regaining control over their product. In essence, the balance of power is shifting back to the record labels and they are able to negotiate more favorable wholesale prices.
Whether or not this is good for the consumer is another matter...
Walt Mossberg is a horrible source and doesn't know what he's doing. He compared the $1200 iMac to the $1500 Dell and said after upgrading the iMac to match the dell it was a $100 difference.
That is WRONG. He is not comparing two equally spec'd machines at all. He was quick to add thing to the iMac to match the dell's specs, but failed to match the dell to the iMac's specs!
Why is this a big deal. When Apple-folks like to point out that Dells aren't cheaper, then hack a ton of stuff into the Dell to get the price to be 'the same', they never change the mac.
Then again, it's hard to 'upgrade' the Mac to 8 USB ports, extra drive bays, PCI Express slots, etc, that your general PC has, so they kind of gloss over that ("Yeah, but I've got a built-in web cam! Sure, I never use it, nor did I want it, but it's there!")
Not allowing them to control their own products? Perhaps you mean, the record labels gave up control by negotiating and signing a bad (for them) agreement?
I already explained what, and why, that happened.
For the better part of the last 100 years, manufacturers have been barred from setting minimum prices (Dr. Miles). Also, large retailers are often in a powerful position to negotiate better wholesale pricing (Wal-mart comes to mind). So, I can't say that I agree with your statement.
You don't have to agree.
But, it's still true. Minimum pricing laws were set so that a monopoly couldn't set pricing so low so as to force its competitors out of business.
Large companies can always negotiate lower prices on many items—if there is enough profit to go around.
Apple is apparently cutting that profit to the bone, both for them, where they don't care, because it's something like a loss leader that stores use to get customers into the store, to the content makers, who do care, since content is their main income source.
About the only thing that can be said is, traditionally, a manufacturer negotiates a wholesale price with a retailer. This negotiation is dependent on the relative power of each party. That is, if the product is in high demand and low supply the manufacturer is usually in a strong negotiating position. Also, if a retailer is a dominant retailer for a certain type of good (e.g. Wal-mart), they tend to have a strong position at the table. In any case, the Sherman Act has forbid setting of retail prices by the manufacturer. Recently, this rule has changed.
It's also relative to how much profit the manufacturer needs to make. They always have a bottom number which they don't go below. I know how this works because I was a manufacturer. You don't negotiate a price below what you decide you need. Also, many manufacturers tell the distributors what price they want, and that's it. They decide the discount.
If your product is desirable, you also have power. Even WalMart can't dictate everything.
I understand what you are intending to say. Apple has worn out its welcome in the music industry and the record labels are now regaining control over their product. In essence, the balance of power is shifting back to the record labels and they are able to negotiate more favorable wholesale prices.
Whether or not this is good for the consumer is another matter...
What's good for the consumer is that they have choices.
It's also true that just because the consumer wants to pay the lowest price possible, that price isn't necessarily fair.
We can look at what that attitude has been doing to our economy. By paying the lowest possible price, we ensured that companies here couldn't make a profit, so they took their factories first to Mexico, then through other countries, to China.
Now, high paying blue collar jobs are scarce, and more people can't afford to pay higher prices. It's a downward spiral.
Before you know it, all movies and music will be produced in China with Chinese crews. Maybe then, people will pay what they want.
They want to break Apple's power, and monopoly, over downloads. If I were in their position, I would do the same thing.
Apple is acting like a monopolist by not allowing them to have control over their own product. No company likes that.
Traditionally, the manufacturer set prices for their products.
I'm not agreeing with anything here, just stating the reasons.
Let's see what the Board of Directors and the major shareholders of Warner (and Universal) have to say about ignoring a significant revenue stream. Bronfman, your CEO days may be numbered (I hope).
Before you know it, all movies and music will be produced in China with Chinese crews.
When exactly?
Let's see what the Board of Directors and the major shareholders of Warner (and Universal) have to say about ignoring a significant revenue stream. Bronfman, your CEO days may be numbered (I hope).
They didn't pull music from iTunes. They just didn't allow any of it to go DRM-free.
It remains to be seen whether sales of DRM-free tracks from Amazon—which play on the iPod/iPhone universe of players, as well as Apple's computers, take sales away from Apple's DRM'd versions of the same tracks.
It will be very interesting.
It's also possible that there will be announcements made at Macworld.
When exactly?
Silly question. We'll just have to wait and see. Much movie and Tv production has gone from the US to Canada the past few years because of costs. Movies have also gone to Eastern Europe for almost three decades for the same reason.
As China builds up its infrastructure, it will begin to move there as well. The animation studios have already been discussing this. Chinese animators cost much less than those here, and are just as good.
Give it, what, between five and ten years?
As long as selling prices keep being pushed down, the costs have to go that way as well.
is it just me or is apple on the downswing with itunes? amazon is going to come out on top i think, whats going on, soon no one will go with itunes, poor apple
All Amazon can hope for is incremental income, if even that. My guess is that Amazon is losing money on every sale right now. Apple doesn't make much money from selling songs, they make money from selling iPods (hardware). Amazon does not have the complete chain, like Apple has.
Re: $600 in 18 months.
Yes, I know that Apple has done great multiples in this century. However, as a company grows and its stock is worth more, it is much harder to do multiples of current stock price. 3 x 16 (or 80) is much easier than 3 x $200.
Apple has great potential. But there are pitfalls in future. Quality of product (hardware and software) needs to improved while the company is selling more units. I certainly have the feeling that Apple is stretching itself too thin. Leopard (with a clean install) works ok for me, but not perfectly (printing problems, sluggishness).
Moisture problems in iMacs. More and more lawsuits And what will happen to stock when Steve Jobs leaves.
I love apple products. I own stock. I just think an analyst saying $600 in 18 months is irresponsible.
For Apple to grow into the $600's range, I think they would have to adopt an advertising model that would enable them to compete with companies like Google. This could be possible by broadening their iPhone and iPod touch offerings (lower end models), and branching out into other wireless products. By enabling electronic payment options, advertising partnerships, etc. they could reach Googlish levels.
Before you know it, all movies and music will be produced in China with Chinese crews.
China certainly could build studio facilities to attract big budget Hollywood films. There are already many countries doing this, Canada, Australia, Eastern Europe. Production will still take American crews, because of skill levels and language barriers can be too much of a problem. But their are practicalities in producing music, television, and movies that will keep the majority of it in the US. At least in our life time.
As long as selling prices keep being pushed down, the costs have to go that way as well.
Much of the cost of the movie is pay for the actors. Their salaries and residuals can be multiple of what it costs to pay for everything else that makes the movie.