Side with a company that has produced (IMO) quality, innovative, and user-responsive products consistently, or a pack of thieving pirates who have consistently (for my entire life) done their best to produce crap product while raping their customers.
That assumes I have to pick a side. In this case, I think both sides are lying, at the very least, it looks like they are both leaving very important information, taking information out of context and letting people fill in the blanks based on biased assumptions and leading statements. If neither side is going to put all the cards on the table, facing up, then there's not much to go on. Puting out good products doesn't mean the company is good, it only means the product is good.
I just don't see the point here in griping about NBCU. If you hate NBCU, then is it really a problem that NBCU isn't in iTunes store? Why aren't you seeing that as at least a partially good thing? They've basically shot themselves in the foot and you're complaining about it? I think that's quite a puzzling reaction. If you think it's crap at too high if a price, then you shouldn't be buying it.
That assumes I have to pick a side. In this case, I think both sides are lying, at the very least, it looks like they are both leaving very important information, taking information out of context and letting people fill in the blanks based on biased assumptions and leading statements. If neither side is going to put all the cards on the table, facing up, then there's not much to go on.
Actually, neither side is lying since if you've carefully read the words (i.e. from a legal perspective), they have not directly contradicted the other.
The issues are clear: NBCU wants bundling (hits with non-hits), and more DRM protection (on the content and/or on the playing device). Apple wants each show episode sold on its own for $1.99, and not as much protection as NBCU is asking for. NBCU believes its goals will lead to successful digital distribution for the content owners as well as consumers (for if the content owners can no longer create content, then the consumers lose too). Apple believes its goals will lead to successful digital distribution in its Store, since there is enough profit for all involved at a price the consumer is willing to pay. No need to make either a villain; they both are pursuing the same ends but wanting to use different means.
Actually, neither side is lying since if you've carefully read the words (i.e. from a legal perspective), they have not directly contradicted the other.
Or maybe heavly laden with weasel words, and still, IMO, leaving out information that would put the information in context. The $4.99 price Apple gave might be for HD, but they don't say that, we don't know. For me, that's just as good as lying, even more insidious than lying because they both want to leave an impression without actually being culpable for saying anything directly. So saying they aren't lying doesn't really tell me anything. You could say that politicians don't lie, but for the same reason, a lot of people don't trust them at their word, they'll find a weasely way to say what they want, or a weasely way to explain what they meant when the complaints start rolling in.
Quote:
The issues are clear: NBCU wants bundling (hits with non-hits),
This is assumed, not confirmed. Apple said bundling, but last I read the PR announcement, they didn't give any specifics on how it would be done.
There's just too little information to go on.
I think the DRM issue was just a rumor. It's not in Apple's PR bit:
NBC was complaining about piracy, but I doubt people are pirating videos that came from Apple's store, but rather, trading videos recorded from cable, over the air or DVD-sourced rips.
I stopped buying DRM protected songs a year ago. If I can't get it DRM free, I won't buy it. In some cases, I've actually gone back to buying CD's from Ebay or Amazon and ripping the CD to 320 kb AAC files. I can usually find any cd for 10 bucks or less and they sound better than what you get from downloads!
Well, iTunes did save the music industry, but that doesn't mean that the labels will hesitate to destroy Apple in order to regain control.
How did iTunes save the music industry?
I've heard this repeated way too many times and I can't understand what people must be smoking or shooting into their veins to believe that nonsense. Only 10% of music is purchased as digital downloads. iTunes accounts for only 8% of all music sales.
How does less than 10% of total music sales somehow equate to iTunes "saving" the music industry. Utter nonsense!!!
Actually, neither side is lying since if you've carefully read the words (i.e. from a legal perspective), they have not directly contradicted the other.
The issues are clear: NBCU wants bundling (hits with non-hits), and more DRM protection (on the content and/or on the playing device). Apple wants each show episode sold on its own for $1.99, and not as much protection as NBCU is asking for. NBCU believes its goals will lead to successful digital distribution for the content owners as well as consumers (for if the content owners can no longer create content, then the consumers lose too). Apple believes its goals will lead to successful digital distribution in its Store, since there is enough profit for all involved at a price the consumer is willing to pay. No need to make either a villain; they both are pursuing the same ends but wanting to use different means.
The record labels already sell non-DRM music. It is called a CD. The online alternative is not the only place to buy music. Just shows how stupid the RIAA really is.
What does it say about the labels that they are willing to sell non-DRM to everyone BUT Apple? What message does that send to the customers? You can have music the way you want it, but you can't get it where you want to get it.
What would people think if Coke and Pepsi suddenly stopped selling their products in only one chain of supermarkets?
So instead of working to improve the customer experience and finally catch on to the music revolution, the Big labels just set their sights on a new enemy (Apple) and continue their old tricks, to the detriment, once again, of the paying customer.
The people have spoken. They want to use iPods, and they want to buy songs from iTunes, because it's the most convenient way to go about buying music for an iPod. Despite having several other options for years. They also want to pay a set rate for songs and albums, not the "variable" pricing schemes that promise cheap music but open the gate for higher and higher prices instead.
I'm all for Amazon succeeding, but I want that to happen on an equal playing field. Keep both Apple and Amazon honest.
It's clear that the end game for the labels is "crush Apple at all costs so we can get control over prices again and then start gouging like we always have." Whether or not they succeed depends on the gullibility of the average music purchaser.
I hope Apple does start its own label. And I hope independent labels start growing in number and popularity. The Big Four need to die as soon as possible.
You can't have it both ways. First it was the big labels want to DRM us all to hell and back, now it's that they don't like Apple. Perhaps you're right in that the labels made an enemy out of Apple.
Good for them, in the short term, really.
Wasn't it Steve-o who said it was the labels that cause the Apple monopoly by not selling music sans DRM?
The labels are just trying to make Steve eat his words and, gasp gasp, maybe even keep things fair, however indirectly or without intent.
The labels will take the success of the iTunes store by essentially enabling Amazon to be a proper competitor... but like you said, everyone still wants an iPod.
It may be the spend a dollar to save a penny logic in the eyes of the labels, but would you expect less from them? At least we have DRM-free music available for purchase via a merchant that isn't either proprietary to one label or otherwise completely ridiculous.
For the labels to go DRM-free, and then refuse to do that with Apple, is not smart or, in the end, legal. If they stick to it beyond this negotiating stance, I'd say lawsuits will come. The labels complained about Apple wanting them to stop DRM -- remember the indignant statements from Bronfman and others? What idiots -- but really, they wanted complete control of the pricing. Well, they went to Amazon, and made their tracks available cheaper than to Apple. Variable, it's true, but nowhere do I see the $1.29 that Apple gave EMI. Most tracks in Amazon are .89. So, aren't they cutting off their noses to spite their faces? (Strange expression, that.)
The consumer has interests here. If all music is DRM-free, and reasonably-priced, I'd say that music piracy will not disappear, but they will reclaim a much higher percentage of the market. If it's legal, and affordable, I think most people will "go straight," if you can buy a track on Amazon or iTunes or the Zune marketplace that you can pay on any player.
The music labels are the equivalent of the Mob: they've controlled their market for so long, they thought it would go on forever. It didn't. All music should be available for sale in many places, and if one site can figure out how to sell it cheaper, that's up to them. They get 70¢ a track now, the credit card companies get 25¢. (That's who could lower prices, huh?), and then Apple has to pay for bandwidth for the download, the server farms, etc. If they get 2¢ a track, they're lucky. That's okay for Apple. They're a hardware company.
My prediction? Apple goes for downloads in CD-quality Apple Lossless. 300 MB for a CD for what? Five bucks?
the big music labels are watching their role in the music business fade from importance since internet distribution will allow small labels to form that do nothing but internet distribution and don't bother with physical media.
If you take a major known artist, what will be their motivation to resign with their record label when they can sign deals directly with internet distribution providers?
No different in the movie business as internet downloads will one day be the end of physical media.
2 years ago I met with a company in Houston that was beginning to offer fiber connections directly into homes in new developments and their entire methodology is that everything will be on-demand including broadcast shows. They likened it to as soon as a network broadcast a show, the show would be available on demand, just watch it as your schedule dictates. Beyond the internet connection, what they are really offering you is a DVR that records everything and catalogs it for you to watch when you like.
it wont be long that all you need is a stout internet connection and you can buy content from whatever source you want. In reality, there is very little broadcast on tv that needs to be real time.
Comments
Let's see...
Side with a company that has produced (IMO) quality, innovative, and user-responsive products consistently, or a pack of thieving pirates who have consistently (for my entire life) done their best to produce crap product while raping their customers.
hmmm... quality... pirates... innovators... theives...
Tough one... what do you think?
That assumes I have to pick a side. In this case, I think both sides are lying, at the very least, it looks like they are both leaving very important information, taking information out of context and letting people fill in the blanks based on biased assumptions and leading statements. If neither side is going to put all the cards on the table, facing up, then there's not much to go on. Puting out good products doesn't mean the company is good, it only means the product is good.
I just don't see the point here in griping about NBCU. If you hate NBCU, then is it really a problem that NBCU isn't in iTunes store? Why aren't you seeing that as at least a partially good thing? They've basically shot themselves in the foot and you're complaining about it? I think that's quite a puzzling reaction. If you think it's crap at too high if a price, then you shouldn't be buying it.
That assumes I have to pick a side. In this case, I think both sides are lying, at the very least, it looks like they are both leaving very important information, taking information out of context and letting people fill in the blanks based on biased assumptions and leading statements. If neither side is going to put all the cards on the table, facing up, then there's not much to go on.
Actually, neither side is lying since if you've carefully read the words (i.e. from a legal perspective), they have not directly contradicted the other.
The issues are clear: NBCU wants bundling (hits with non-hits), and more DRM protection (on the content and/or on the playing device). Apple wants each show episode sold on its own for $1.99, and not as much protection as NBCU is asking for. NBCU believes its goals will lead to successful digital distribution for the content owners as well as consumers (for if the content owners can no longer create content, then the consumers lose too). Apple believes its goals will lead to successful digital distribution in its Store, since there is enough profit for all involved at a price the consumer is willing to pay. No need to make either a villain; they both are pursuing the same ends but wanting to use different means.
Actually, neither side is lying since if you've carefully read the words (i.e. from a legal perspective), they have not directly contradicted the other.
Or maybe heavly laden with weasel words, and still, IMO, leaving out information that would put the information in context. The $4.99 price Apple gave might be for HD, but they don't say that, we don't know. For me, that's just as good as lying, even more insidious than lying because they both want to leave an impression without actually being culpable for saying anything directly. So saying they aren't lying doesn't really tell me anything. You could say that politicians don't lie, but for the same reason, a lot of people don't trust them at their word, they'll find a weasely way to say what they want, or a weasely way to explain what they meant when the complaints start rolling in.
The issues are clear: NBCU wants bundling (hits with non-hits),
This is assumed, not confirmed. Apple said bundling, but last I read the PR announcement, they didn't give any specifics on how it would be done.
There's just too little information to go on.
I think the DRM issue was just a rumor. It's not in Apple's PR bit:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/08/31itunes.html
Reading the soundbites by NBC, it looked like maybe they wanted some royalties for the hardware:
http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419...n-itunes-thro/
NBC was complaining about piracy, but I doubt people are pirating videos that came from Apple's store, but rather, trading videos recorded from cable, over the air or DVD-sourced rips.
Well, iTunes did save the music industry, but that doesn't mean that the labels will hesitate to destroy Apple in order to regain control.
How did iTunes save the music industry?
I've heard this repeated way too many times and I can't understand what people must be smoking or shooting into their veins to believe that nonsense. Only 10% of music is purchased as digital downloads. iTunes accounts for only 8% of all music sales.
How does less than 10% of total music sales somehow equate to iTunes "saving" the music industry. Utter nonsense!!!
Actually, neither side is lying since if you've carefully read the words (i.e. from a legal perspective), they have not directly contradicted the other.
The issues are clear: NBCU wants bundling (hits with non-hits), and more DRM protection (on the content and/or on the playing device). Apple wants each show episode sold on its own for $1.99, and not as much protection as NBCU is asking for. NBCU believes its goals will lead to successful digital distribution for the content owners as well as consumers (for if the content owners can no longer create content, then the consumers lose too). Apple believes its goals will lead to successful digital distribution in its Store, since there is enough profit for all involved at a price the consumer is willing to pay. No need to make either a villain; they both are pursuing the same ends but wanting to use different means.
Well put, and non paranoid. Thank you
Originally Posted by mrjoec123
What does it say about the labels that they are willing to sell non-DRM to everyone BUT Apple? What message does that send to the customers? You can have music the way you want it, but you can't get it where you want to get it.
What would people think if Coke and Pepsi suddenly stopped selling their products in only one chain of supermarkets?
So instead of working to improve the customer experience and finally catch on to the music revolution, the Big labels just set their sights on a new enemy (Apple) and continue their old tricks, to the detriment, once again, of the paying customer.
The people have spoken. They want to use iPods, and they want to buy songs from iTunes, because it's the most convenient way to go about buying music for an iPod. Despite having several other options for years. They also want to pay a set rate for songs and albums, not the "variable" pricing schemes that promise cheap music but open the gate for higher and higher prices instead.
I'm all for Amazon succeeding, but I want that to happen on an equal playing field. Keep both Apple and Amazon honest.
It's clear that the end game for the labels is "crush Apple at all costs so we can get control over prices again and then start gouging like we always have." Whether or not they succeed depends on the gullibility of the average music purchaser.
I hope Apple does start its own label. And I hope independent labels start growing in number and popularity. The Big Four need to die as soon as possible.
You can't have it both ways. First it was the big labels want to DRM us all to hell and back, now it's that they don't like Apple. Perhaps you're right in that the labels made an enemy out of Apple.
Good for them, in the short term, really.
Wasn't it Steve-o who said it was the labels that cause the Apple monopoly by not selling music sans DRM?
The labels are just trying to make Steve eat his words and, gasp gasp, maybe even keep things fair, however indirectly or without intent.
The labels will take the success of the iTunes store by essentially enabling Amazon to be a proper competitor... but like you said, everyone still wants an iPod.
It may be the spend a dollar to save a penny logic in the eyes of the labels, but would you expect less from them? At least we have DRM-free music available for purchase via a merchant that isn't either proprietary to one label or otherwise completely ridiculous.
The consumer has interests here. If all music is DRM-free, and reasonably-priced, I'd say that music piracy will not disappear, but they will reclaim a much higher percentage of the market. If it's legal, and affordable, I think most people will "go straight," if you can buy a track on Amazon or iTunes or the Zune marketplace that you can pay on any player.
The music labels are the equivalent of the Mob: they've controlled their market for so long, they thought it would go on forever. It didn't. All music should be available for sale in many places, and if one site can figure out how to sell it cheaper, that's up to them. They get 70¢ a track now, the credit card companies get 25¢. (That's who could lower prices, huh?), and then Apple has to pay for bandwidth for the download, the server farms, etc. If they get 2¢ a track, they're lucky. That's okay for Apple. They're a hardware company.
My prediction? Apple goes for downloads in CD-quality Apple Lossless. 300 MB for a CD for what? Five bucks?
If you take a major known artist, what will be their motivation to resign with their record label when they can sign deals directly with internet distribution providers?
No different in the movie business as internet downloads will one day be the end of physical media.
2 years ago I met with a company in Houston that was beginning to offer fiber connections directly into homes in new developments and their entire methodology is that everything will be on-demand including broadcast shows. They likened it to as soon as a network broadcast a show, the show would be available on demand, just watch it as your schedule dictates. Beyond the internet connection, what they are really offering you is a DVR that records everything and catalogs it for you to watch when you like.
it wont be long that all you need is a stout internet connection and you can buy content from whatever source you want. In reality, there is very little broadcast on tv that needs to be real time.