Why do you keep bringing up the obvious? It doesn't matter whether Apple cares or not.
But, if the labels get what they want, YOU won't get what you want.
This sounds like Chicken Little. They sky is falling. I have a bit of faith that the smart and conscience consumers will vote with their wallets to bring the record companies in line.
Fine print aside, the contract you have with your carrier only gives YOU access to unlimited/unlimited data. If Apple has signed a contract that states that they can't compete with the mobile operator in a certain way or use their service in a particular manor then Apple must abide by that, regardless of what you desire.
I never implied that my contract stipulated anything outside of dealing with me. I have no idea what Apple signed or agreed to, but if you do then by all means speak up. If my operator says unlimited data, I can assume that he is not going to "packet tag" and trace my traffic and then say: "nope, these are coming from Apple, better limit that". I just don't see that happening. I am speaking of my operator here in Finland. Where I go next, maybe but that would not be unlimited data. It would be unlimited data with conditions. That would have to be stated in the contract I would say.
Quote:
Yes it is, but before that data is YOUR data, it's someone else's data. We may not mind waiting 10 minutes for a song but the carrier might. You say you are "not sure about the contract thing," but do you really have to have in-depth knowledge of the contract to know that Apple had to concede to certain limitations to get onboard with the current carriers? If you were selling ringtones for $3.99 and offering a unlimited/unlimited data plan for half the price of your other phones would you really allow the excessive purchases of music and ringtones for $.99? If data is data and unlimited is unlimited and you can do what you should be given the choice then you should be allowed to purchase TV shows and movies over that same data network, too.? Can't you see how this there is more than the end-user's contract is involved here?
True the data belongs to someone else but my agreeing to pay for access to any and all data that I want for an unlimited amount of time with no limitations pretty much says I can stay connected all the time as long as I pay my bill. I see this happening daily with personal friends, and co-workers at the embassy who purchase 3G modems and plug them into their computers and run them constantly. So, it is pretty obvious the operators do not mind as they are selling these products for this permitted usage.
Quote:
Again, your agreement is for you, not for other's trying to piggyback on that network. There is a reason that the iPhone can't be tethered with a Mac when OS X has had the convenient Internet Sharing for so many years now. While there are countries with plans like Finland there are also plenty of countries that seem to have worse plans than the US. Finland's population density and progressive network does not appear to represent the whole of Europe.
I never said FInland represented all of Europe. My statements surrounded my experience living here and how I utilize my unlimited data connection from my GSM operator. Maybe you inferred a bit more than I was saying. Regardless, I was not in the meetings with Apple when the decision to tether the iPhone was left out. Maybe it was an oversight that will be corrected in the new iPhone. Once again, it does not matter to me. I have an N82 that tethers just fine, and doubles as my Internet connection device while away from home.
Quote:
If iTunes Store is allowed to be used over the cell networks then you can bet they will be. I don't see why anyone would think Apple could benefit from not allowing its use.
I see this happening for sure, if it is allowed from Apple. I am sure my operator here in Finland will not mind, but then again, I am not privy to those decision.
Why I should pay for the same song again and again and again... if I purchase album from favorite artist, then having the same song in ringtone or over the air or whatever way should be free...
I pay the fee to operator for data plan... that's they'r business... I pay for phone, that's Apple's business... so 1 pay only once for song.. and that's how I thank Singer for the song.
I thing the future will go more Nokia proposed way - pay some $$ by buying the phone and get all the music free... Future in Music industry is FlatRate... If the studios will not understand that - pirating will never end.
So actually I think in 5 year we will see Mobile phones for 1$ buy + 25..50$/month and you get unlimited internet, video, movies, music, news, eBooks, audiobooks, learning stuff and of course SMS and voice... all unlimited... all included in monthly price... and the one operator who will offer the most full package with content will get the consumer.
1. create ZiTunes for iPhone... nice big catalog of pirated songs, videos, music videos etc... etc...
2. create applications like iTorrent...
3. sell all this to Labels for hundrets of millions after a year... or be sued and in jail. Depends on management!
and you will see how much it will hurt Labels... like it was with Napster and like it is today with Torrents.
Here in my country (European union, Latvia) there is not possible to buy legal video or song from iTunes... the only way to get it - buy on CD or DVD and then copy over to PC and then to iPhone.
So many just skip the first part and download from torrents... done!
Why - becouse it is more convenient... even if you are ready to purchase the song, you don't have a chance!
I think the future will go more Nokia proposed way - pay some $$ by buying the phone and get all the music free... Future in Music industry is FlatRate... If the studios will not understand that - pirating will never end.
The world does seem to be moving that way as a whole, but so far people have shown they prefer to own their music outright.
One thing that those old B&W short videos from Popular Mechanics about the way life will be in future never consider is how culture will evolve. They always talked about new technological advancements but never how society changes, so they always had all these home and kitchen advancements for the house wife but never considered woman's suffrage and the like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vigants
1. create ZiTunes for iPhone... nice big catalog of pirated songs, videos, music videos etc... etc...
2. create applications like iTorrent...
Unless they are loaded via the SDK on a jailbroken iPhone (which is highly likely) you won't see these apps on the iPhone. Apple's rules strictly forbid it, which is probably part of the agreement with the carriers and perhaps even the studios/labels.
Companies aren't supposed to look out for the little guy. They are supposed to look out for themselves, their employees, and their investors.
Smart management knows that often the best thing for those three groups is to give the little guy what is the best product, at the best price for what it is.
So why does it seem like you think it's wrong for sapporobaby to feel that Amazon's mp3 service does just that? The same or lower price, no DRM to worry about ever, in a format that is guaranteed to work on any portable media player.
Quote:
Apple has done that with iTunes. you can be shortsighted about it, or you can see through the ruse the labels are playing with Amazon.
Please, iTunes is just as much a ruse for Apple as Amazon is for the record labels. Heck, I'd say iTunes is more of a ruse since Apple doesn't really need to make much money off of it so long as it encourages people to buy iPods, iPhones and AppleTVs (and even Macs at some point). At least Amazon probably wants and more than likely needs their mp3 download service to be profitable.
Again your comments point back to the paranoia that if Amazon "wins" and manages to shut down iTunes that prices will suddenly skyrocket. Which is STILL nonsense. iTunes has set the maximum price at 99 cents and it will be hard for the labels to get away with increasing it. Even iTunes couldn't get away with it for long once Amazon launched with DRM free tracks at the 99-cent price point versus iTunes' then $1.29 per DRM-free track price.
So why does it seem like you think it's wrong for sapporobaby to feel that Amazon's mp3 service does just that? The same or lower price, no DRM to worry about ever, in a format that is guaranteed to work on any portable media player.
Please, iTunes is just as much a ruse for Apple as Amazon is for the record labels. Heck, I'd say iTunes is more of a ruse since Apple doesn't really need to make much money off of it so long as it encourages people to buy iPods, iPhones and AppleTVs (and even Macs at some point). At least Amazon probably wants and more than likely needs their mp3 download service to be profitable.
Again your comments point back to the paranoia that if Amazon "wins" and manages to shut down iTunes that prices will suddenly skyrocket. Which is STILL nonsense. iTunes has set the maximum price at 99 cents and it will be hard for the labels to get away with increasing it. Even iTunes couldn't get away with it for long once Amazon launched with DRM free tracks at the 99-cent price point versus iTunes' then $1.29 per DRM-free track price.
Heck, I'd say iTunes is more of a ruse since Apple doesn't really need to make much money off of it so long as it encourages people to buy iPods, iPhones and AppleTVs (and even Macs at some point). At least Amazon probably wants and more than likely needs their mp3 download service to be profitable.
Are you comparing the "ruse" offered to customers in the form of iTunes media to encourage the purchase of Apple HW the same as the "ruse" that the studios want to sell their songs cheaper than $.99 and without DRM? Do you honestly think the studios want to sell higher bitrate audio with no DRM at a lower pricepoint through Amazon without trying to topple the online-distribution giant? Amazon is just the first step in a power play against iTS.
as far as amazon, people don't want the amazon interface, us geeks can dig it, but joe and joan itunes, ipod consumer wants simple interface with simple simple simple downloads. amazon won't work as a "competitor": to itunes, with predictions of itunes/ apple getting 25% of worldwide digital music in the next few years (i think i saw that on macnn)
Your comments remind me of a guy who referred to the iPod as the "media player for dummies".
Sorry, but your comments about the Amazon interface being too hard are pure nonsense. It's no harder to buy an mp3 from Amazon than it is to buy any other product from Amazon, yet millions of customers somehow manage to do that every day. And with the small downloader program that is required, Amazon couldn't really have made it much easier to get that track in your iTunes or Windows Media Player library unless they pushed the "Buy mp3" button for you.
Your comments remind me of a guy who referred to the iPod as the "media player for dummies".
Sorry, but your comments about the Amazon interface being too hard are pure nonsense. It's no harder to buy an mp3 from Amazon than it is to buy any other product from Amazon, yet millions of customers somehow manage to do that every day. And with the small downloader program that is required, Amazon couldn't really have made it much easier to get that track in your iTunes or Windows Media Player library unless they pushed the "Buy mp3" button for you.
The interface is simple. They did a good job with not bogging it down. I can see how some would even prefer it compared to the bloated iTunes software.
Are you comparing the "ruse" offered to customers in the form of iTunes media to encourage the purchase of Apple HW the same as the "ruse" that the studios want to sell their songs cheaper than $.99 and without DRM? Do you honestly think the studios want to sell higher bitrate audio with no DRM at a lower pricepoint through Amazon without trying to topple the online-distribution giant? Amazon is just the first step in a power play against iTS.
Solipsism,
You could be 10000000000% correct but still that is Apple's biz to defend itself. Not mine. That's like Melgross's inference that I should support Apple by paying more, getting lower quality, and DRM'd music. This way Steve can take on the big guys for me. That is a ....... well......never mind.
You could be 10000000000% correct but still that is Apple's biz to defend itself. Not mine. That's like Melgross's inference that I should support Apple by paying more, getting lower quality, and DRM'd music. This way Steve can take on the big guys for me. That is a ....... well......never mind.
There is always the "battle vs. war" argument but I don't recall Melgross stating that we should support Apple.
Outside of the labels not offering Apple the same deals as Amazon in way of bitrate and DRM, I don't see why Apple would care. Most of these Amazon bought tracks are still ending up on iPods.
PS: I'm too modest to say I'm 10000000000% correct... I'm only 100% correct.
This sounds like Chicken Little. They sky is falling. I have a bit of faith that the smart and conscience consumers will vote with their wallets to bring the record companies in line.
So why does it seem like you think it's wrong for sapporobaby to feel that Amazon's mp3 service does just that? The same or lower price, no DRM to worry about ever, in a format that is guaranteed to work on any portable media player.
Because all is not what is may seem. Don't fall into the same trap he has.
Quote:
Please, iTunes is just as much a ruse for Apple as Amazon is for the record labels. Heck, I'd say iTunes is more of a ruse since Apple doesn't really need to make much money off of it so long as it encourages people to buy iPods, iPhones and AppleTVs (and even Macs at some point). At least Amazon probably wants and more than likely needs their mp3 download service to be profitable.
The difference is that Apple has no interest in raising prices.
Quote:
Again your comments point back to the paranoia that if Amazon "wins" and manages to shut down iTunes that prices will suddenly skyrocket. Which is STILL nonsense. iTunes has set the maximum price at 99 cents and it will be hard for the labels to get away with increasing it. Even iTunes couldn't get away with it for long once Amazon launched with DRM free tracks at the 99-cent price point versus iTunes' then $1.29 per DRM-free track price.
Don't be so sure. The only reason why Amazon could do it was because they're being subsidized. Apple had to ower prices to meet theirs, but not with eveything. They're still higher across the board.
But if the labels present everyone with the same slightly higher price once Apple's grip is gone, they will have to cave in. Slightly higher prices don't seem to bother most people, hence, Apple's sales aren't falling. But, if people do switch in great enough numbers, it will happen that the labels will regain control.
Since they had publically admitted that they want higher prices, they will demand them.
You could be 10000000000% correct but still that is Apple's biz to defend itself. Not mine. That's like Melgross's inference that I should support Apple by paying more, getting lower quality, and DRM'd music. This way Steve can take on the big guys for me. That is a ....... well......never mind.
I'm not saying you should. I'm saying that there is a plan that should be obvious, and that by following their plan, prices will, in the end, rise substantially, should it work of course.
It might not work, and the vast majority might continue buying from iTunes, helping it to maintain its 35% or so growth a year.
I certainly want all of Apple's songs to be 256K without DRM, at at the lowest sustainable cost, as well.
Most of the public doesn't seem to care, but following this through to its logical conclusion leads to higher prices eventually, which is what you don't want.
It's an interesting question about monopoly pricing here. Apple keeps the prices low because it wants the prices low so it will help to sell other products which are priced about the same as other's.
The labels want prices to be low so that they can break the competition, which is what monopoly pricing attempts to do to competition, and then, after the competition is broken, to have a free hand in raising those prices higher than before.
You could be 10000000000% correct but still that is Apple's biz to defend itself. Not mine. That's like Melgross's inference that I should support Apple by paying more, getting lower quality, and DRM'd music. This way Steve can take on the big guys for me. That is a ....... well......never mind.
The problem is once the music labels succeed in forcing Apple to play by their rules then you will not be able to find a $0.89 songs on Amazon. You will start paying different amount for different songs just the way the labels want.
You know some people also argue that it is stupid to pay $0.99 or $0.89 for music while you can get it for free many different ways. I believe that we are in a critical time and that we should send a message to the music labels. For example, some people think that downloading music through torrent is one way (not me).
What the hell difference does it make to the music companies whether someone is downloading something over a fixed line or 3G connection? It makes no difference to them at all. It will make a difference to Telco's, but that is about it.
Yeah it seems crazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPICH
I much prefer the quick and decisive blow type of kill for the big record labels. Not that I just want to pirate music either. Just want more money to the artist and less cost for a song. Seriously.
Someone said that less than 5% of bands get "discovered", so there is a LOT of good music out there if we can find it.
It would be VERY interesting if Apple could help us find independent bands we might like, based on the label bands we already have. I'm not sure the technology to make that prediction is there yet - though there are some subscription services that try to predict music taste like that. Anyway - it'd be good to pay 1/3 as much for the songs AND have the artists see more money.
And melgross is saying this play is a long-term loose proposition, because the labels are intentionally undercutting Apple, via Amazon, so they can regain bargaining control and ultimately raise your prices.
If that's the labels' plan, they will lose, again.
What little Apple and Amazon are doing right is just barely slowing the tide of P2P use. Eliminate a well-priced and well-positioned source for the express purpose of raising prices, and piracy will just take up the slack, not the higher priced product. Sales will drop again until the prices get lower still. Long term, again, consumer wins.
Comments
Why do you keep bringing up the obvious? It doesn't matter whether Apple cares or not.
But, if the labels get what they want, YOU won't get what you want.
This sounds like Chicken Little. They sky is falling. I have a bit of faith that the smart and conscience consumers will vote with their wallets to bring the record companies in line.
Fine print aside, the contract you have with your carrier only gives YOU access to unlimited/unlimited data. If Apple has signed a contract that states that they can't compete with the mobile operator in a certain way or use their service in a particular manor then Apple must abide by that, regardless of what you desire.
I never implied that my contract stipulated anything outside of dealing with me. I have no idea what Apple signed or agreed to, but if you do then by all means speak up. If my operator says unlimited data, I can assume that he is not going to "packet tag" and trace my traffic and then say: "nope, these are coming from Apple, better limit that". I just don't see that happening. I am speaking of my operator here in Finland. Where I go next, maybe but that would not be unlimited data. It would be unlimited data with conditions. That would have to be stated in the contract I would say.
Yes it is, but before that data is YOUR data, it's someone else's data. We may not mind waiting 10 minutes for a song but the carrier might. You say you are "not sure about the contract thing," but do you really have to have in-depth knowledge of the contract to know that Apple had to concede to certain limitations to get onboard with the current carriers? If you were selling ringtones for $3.99 and offering a unlimited/unlimited data plan for half the price of your other phones would you really allow the excessive purchases of music and ringtones for $.99? If data is data and unlimited is unlimited and you can do what you should be given the choice then you should be allowed to purchase TV shows and movies over that same data network, too.? Can't you see how this there is more than the end-user's contract is involved here?
True the data belongs to someone else but my agreeing to pay for access to any and all data that I want for an unlimited amount of time with no limitations pretty much says I can stay connected all the time as long as I pay my bill. I see this happening daily with personal friends, and co-workers at the embassy who purchase 3G modems and plug them into their computers and run them constantly. So, it is pretty obvious the operators do not mind as they are selling these products for this permitted usage.
Again, your agreement is for you, not for other's trying to piggyback on that network. There is a reason that the iPhone can't be tethered with a Mac when OS X has had the convenient Internet Sharing for so many years now. While there are countries with plans like Finland there are also plenty of countries that seem to have worse plans than the US. Finland's population density and progressive network does not appear to represent the whole of Europe.
I never said FInland represented all of Europe. My statements surrounded my experience living here and how I utilize my unlimited data connection from my GSM operator. Maybe you inferred a bit more than I was saying. Regardless, I was not in the meetings with Apple when the decision to tether the iPhone was left out. Maybe it was an oversight that will be corrected in the new iPhone. Once again, it does not matter to me. I have an N82 that tethers just fine, and doubles as my Internet connection device while away from home.
If iTunes Store is allowed to be used over the cell networks then you can bet they will be. I don't see why anyone would think Apple could benefit from not allowing its use.
I see this happening for sure, if it is allowed from Apple. I am sure my operator here in Finland will not mind, but then again, I am not privy to those decision.
I pay the fee to operator for data plan... that's they'r business... I pay for phone, that's Apple's business... so 1 pay only once for song.. and that's how I thank Singer for the song.
I thing the future will go more Nokia proposed way - pay some $$ by buying the phone and get all the music free... Future in Music industry is FlatRate...
So actually I think in 5 year we will see Mobile phones for 1$ buy + 25..50$/month and you get unlimited internet, video, movies, music, news, eBooks, audiobooks, learning stuff and of course SMS and voice... all unlimited... all included in monthly price... and the one operator who will offer the most full package with content will get the consumer.
2. create applications like iTorrent...
3. sell all this to Labels for hundrets of millions after a year... or be sued and in jail. Depends on management!
and you will see how much it will hurt Labels... like it was with Napster and like it is today with Torrents.
Here in my country (European union, Latvia) there is not possible to buy legal video or song from iTunes... the only way to get it - buy on CD or DVD and then copy over to PC and then to iPhone.
So many just skip the first part and download from torrents... done!
Why - becouse it is more convenient... even if you are ready to purchase the song, you don't have a chance!
I think the future will go more Nokia proposed way - pay some $$ by buying the phone and get all the music free... Future in Music industry is FlatRate...
The world does seem to be moving that way as a whole, but so far people have shown they prefer to own their music outright.
One thing that those old B&W short videos from Popular Mechanics about the way life will be in future never consider is how culture will evolve. They always talked about new technological advancements but never how society changes, so they always had all these home and kitchen advancements for the house wife but never considered woman's suffrage and the like.
1. create ZiTunes for iPhone... nice big catalog of pirated songs, videos, music videos etc... etc...
2. create applications like iTorrent...
Unless they are loaded via the SDK on a jailbroken iPhone (which is highly likely) you won't see these apps on the iPhone. Apple's rules strictly forbid it, which is probably part of the agreement with the carriers and perhaps even the studios/labels.
Companies aren't supposed to look out for the little guy. They are supposed to look out for themselves, their employees, and their investors.
Smart management knows that often the best thing for those three groups is to give the little guy what is the best product, at the best price for what it is.
So why does it seem like you think it's wrong for sapporobaby to feel that Amazon's mp3 service does just that? The same or lower price, no DRM to worry about ever, in a format that is guaranteed to work on any portable media player.
Apple has done that with iTunes. you can be shortsighted about it, or you can see through the ruse the labels are playing with Amazon.
Please, iTunes is just as much a ruse for Apple as Amazon is for the record labels. Heck, I'd say iTunes is more of a ruse since Apple doesn't really need to make much money off of it so long as it encourages people to buy iPods, iPhones and AppleTVs (and even Macs at some point). At least Amazon probably wants and more than likely needs their mp3 download service to be profitable.
Again your comments point back to the paranoia that if Amazon "wins" and manages to shut down iTunes that prices will suddenly skyrocket. Which is STILL nonsense. iTunes has set the maximum price at 99 cents and it will be hard for the labels to get away with increasing it. Even iTunes couldn't get away with it for long once Amazon launched with DRM free tracks at the 99-cent price point versus iTunes' then $1.29 per DRM-free track price.
So why does it seem like you think it's wrong for sapporobaby to feel that Amazon's mp3 service does just that? The same or lower price, no DRM to worry about ever, in a format that is guaranteed to work on any portable media player.
Please, iTunes is just as much a ruse for Apple as Amazon is for the record labels. Heck, I'd say iTunes is more of a ruse since Apple doesn't really need to make much money off of it so long as it encourages people to buy iPods, iPhones and AppleTVs (and even Macs at some point). At least Amazon probably wants and more than likely needs their mp3 download service to be profitable.
Again your comments point back to the paranoia that if Amazon "wins" and manages to shut down iTunes that prices will suddenly skyrocket. Which is STILL nonsense. iTunes has set the maximum price at 99 cents and it will be hard for the labels to get away with increasing it. Even iTunes couldn't get away with it for long once Amazon launched with DRM free tracks at the 99-cent price point versus iTunes' then $1.29 per DRM-free track price.
Did, did you... just make, make sense?
Heck, I'd say iTunes is more of a ruse since Apple doesn't really need to make much money off of it so long as it encourages people to buy iPods, iPhones and AppleTVs (and even Macs at some point). At least Amazon probably wants and more than likely needs their mp3 download service to be profitable.
Are you comparing the "ruse" offered to customers in the form of iTunes media to encourage the purchase of Apple HW the same as the "ruse" that the studios want to sell their songs cheaper than $.99 and without DRM? Do you honestly think the studios want to sell higher bitrate audio with no DRM at a lower pricepoint through Amazon without trying to topple the online-distribution giant? Amazon is just the first step in a power play against iTS.
as far as amazon, people don't want the amazon interface, us geeks can dig it, but joe and joan itunes, ipod consumer wants simple interface with simple simple simple downloads. amazon won't work as a "competitor": to itunes, with predictions of itunes/ apple getting 25% of worldwide digital music in the next few years (i think i saw that on macnn)
Your comments remind me of a guy who referred to the iPod as the "media player for dummies".
Sorry, but your comments about the Amazon interface being too hard are pure nonsense. It's no harder to buy an mp3 from Amazon than it is to buy any other product from Amazon, yet millions of customers somehow manage to do that every day. And with the small downloader program that is required, Amazon couldn't really have made it much easier to get that track in your iTunes or Windows Media Player library unless they pushed the "Buy mp3" button for you.
Your comments remind me of a guy who referred to the iPod as the "media player for dummies".
Sorry, but your comments about the Amazon interface being too hard are pure nonsense. It's no harder to buy an mp3 from Amazon than it is to buy any other product from Amazon, yet millions of customers somehow manage to do that every day. And with the small downloader program that is required, Amazon couldn't really have made it much easier to get that track in your iTunes or Windows Media Player library unless they pushed the "Buy mp3" button for you.
The interface is simple. They did a good job with not bogging it down. I can see how some would even prefer it compared to the bloated iTunes software.
Are you comparing the "ruse" offered to customers in the form of iTunes media to encourage the purchase of Apple HW the same as the "ruse" that the studios want to sell their songs cheaper than $.99 and without DRM? Do you honestly think the studios want to sell higher bitrate audio with no DRM at a lower pricepoint through Amazon without trying to topple the online-distribution giant? Amazon is just the first step in a power play against iTS.
Solipsism,
You could be 10000000000% correct but still that is Apple's biz to defend itself. Not mine. That's like Melgross's inference that I should support Apple by paying more, getting lower quality, and DRM'd music. This way Steve can take on the big guys for me. That is a ....... well......never mind.
Solipsism,
You could be 10000000000% correct but still that is Apple's biz to defend itself. Not mine. That's like Melgross's inference that I should support Apple by paying more, getting lower quality, and DRM'd music. This way Steve can take on the big guys for me. That is a ....... well......never mind.
There is always the "battle vs. war" argument but I don't recall Melgross stating that we should support Apple.
Outside of the labels not offering Apple the same deals as Amazon in way of bitrate and DRM, I don't see why Apple would care. Most of these Amazon bought tracks are still ending up on iPods.
PS: I'm too modest to say I'm 10000000000% correct... I'm only 100% correct.
This sounds like Chicken Little. They sky is falling. I have a bit of faith that the smart and conscience consumers will vote with their wallets to bring the record companies in line.
If they vote like you, then the sky WILL fall.
So why does it seem like you think it's wrong for sapporobaby to feel that Amazon's mp3 service does just that? The same or lower price, no DRM to worry about ever, in a format that is guaranteed to work on any portable media player.
Because all is not what is may seem. Don't fall into the same trap he has.
Please, iTunes is just as much a ruse for Apple as Amazon is for the record labels. Heck, I'd say iTunes is more of a ruse since Apple doesn't really need to make much money off of it so long as it encourages people to buy iPods, iPhones and AppleTVs (and even Macs at some point). At least Amazon probably wants and more than likely needs their mp3 download service to be profitable.
The difference is that Apple has no interest in raising prices.
Again your comments point back to the paranoia that if Amazon "wins" and manages to shut down iTunes that prices will suddenly skyrocket. Which is STILL nonsense. iTunes has set the maximum price at 99 cents and it will be hard for the labels to get away with increasing it. Even iTunes couldn't get away with it for long once Amazon launched with DRM free tracks at the 99-cent price point versus iTunes' then $1.29 per DRM-free track price.
Don't be so sure. The only reason why Amazon could do it was because they're being subsidized. Apple had to ower prices to meet theirs, but not with eveything. They're still higher across the board.
But if the labels present everyone with the same slightly higher price once Apple's grip is gone, they will have to cave in. Slightly higher prices don't seem to bother most people, hence, Apple's sales aren't falling. But, if people do switch in great enough numbers, it will happen that the labels will regain control.
Since they had publically admitted that they want higher prices, they will demand them.
Few are fooled by the pricing at Amazon.
Solipsism,
You could be 10000000000% correct but still that is Apple's biz to defend itself. Not mine. That's like Melgross's inference that I should support Apple by paying more, getting lower quality, and DRM'd music. This way Steve can take on the big guys for me. That is a ....... well......never mind.
I'm not saying you should. I'm saying that there is a plan that should be obvious, and that by following their plan, prices will, in the end, rise substantially, should it work of course.
It might not work, and the vast majority might continue buying from iTunes, helping it to maintain its 35% or so growth a year.
I certainly want all of Apple's songs to be 256K without DRM, at at the lowest sustainable cost, as well.
Most of the public doesn't seem to care, but following this through to its logical conclusion leads to higher prices eventually, which is what you don't want.
It's an interesting question about monopoly pricing here. Apple keeps the prices low because it wants the prices low so it will help to sell other products which are priced about the same as other's.
The labels want prices to be low so that they can break the competition, which is what monopoly pricing attempts to do to competition, and then, after the competition is broken, to have a free hand in raising those prices higher than before.
Solipsism,
You could be 10000000000% correct but still that is Apple's biz to defend itself. Not mine. That's like Melgross's inference that I should support Apple by paying more, getting lower quality, and DRM'd music. This way Steve can take on the big guys for me. That is a ....... well......never mind.
The problem is once the music labels succeed in forcing Apple to play by their rules then you will not be able to find a $0.89 songs on Amazon. You will start paying different amount for different songs just the way the labels want.
You know some people also argue that it is stupid to pay $0.99 or $0.89 for music while you can get it for free many different ways. I believe that we are in a critical time and that we should send a message to the music labels. For example, some people think that downloading music through torrent is one way (not me).
What the hell difference does it make to the music companies whether someone is downloading something over a fixed line or 3G connection? It makes no difference to them at all. It will make a difference to Telco's, but that is about it.
Yeah it seems crazy.
I much prefer the quick and decisive blow type of kill for the big record labels. Not that I just want to pirate music either. Just want more money to the artist and less cost for a song. Seriously.
Someone said that less than 5% of bands get "discovered", so there is a LOT of good music out there if we can find it.
It would be VERY interesting if Apple could help us find independent bands we might like, based on the label bands we already have. I'm not sure the technology to make that prediction is there yet - though there are some subscription services that try to predict music taste like that. Anyway - it'd be good to pay 1/3 as much for the songs AND have the artists see more money.
Amazon is just the first step in a power play against iTS.
Well, strictly speaking I think pulling songs from some labels out of iTunes and the deal of
extorting money for each Zune from Microsoft were also steps. I think it is fair to say that
the Amazon deal is the first step that wasn't an utter pratfall.
Well, strictly speaking I think pulling songs from some labels out of iTunes and the deal of
extorting money for each Zune from Microsoft were also steps. I think it is fair to say that
the Amazon deal is the first step that wasn't an utter pratfall.
I will concede to that.
If we are including bad moves then we can't leave out Walmart's online store.
And melgross is saying this play is a long-term loose proposition, because the labels are intentionally undercutting Apple, via Amazon, so they can regain bargaining control and ultimately raise your prices.
If that's the labels' plan, they will lose, again.
What little Apple and Amazon are doing right is just barely slowing the tide of P2P use. Eliminate a well-priced and well-positioned source for the express purpose of raising prices, and piracy will just take up the slack, not the higher priced product. Sales will drop again until the prices get lower still. Long term, again, consumer wins.