Any any sane person would view the fact that Fox is the 'only news channel that leans to the right' to mean that Fox is extreme and out of the mainstream since all other news channels would be by definition more mainstream.
This became a political topic when it involved Murdock since he a highly prominent and political figure. The fact that Apple would do business with this man is reprehensible.
If being liberal is "mainstream," please explain the sweeping losses the democrats are going to suffer this November.
So Apple is trying to become a content distributor, and doing business with one of the world's largest content owners/creators is "reprehensible"? You're an idiot. As a stockholder, I'd be furious if Apple wasn't trying to secure every deal possible. Please leave your distorted reality and join "mainstream" reality.
since when did this site become a political blog? Get a life.
For the record, Fox News is the ONLY network that leans to the right. Every other network is clearly left-leaning (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC etc). Can't republicans have ONE channel to turn to and see opinions they agree with? Chill out.
None of those networks "lean to the left". All are owned by ardent capitalists. All are defenders of the status quo. All are invested in keeping the power structure pretty much the same.
Any any sane person would view the fact that Fox is the 'only news channel that leans to the right' to mean that Fox is extreme and out of the mainstream since all other news channels would be by definition more mainstream.
This became a political topic when it involved Murdock since he a highly prominent and political figure. The fact that Apple would do business with this man is reprehensible.
Any news channel who has to use terms like "fair and balanced" in their tag line is anything but...
If being liberal is "mainstream," please explain the sweeping losses the democrats are going to suffer this November.
So Apple is trying to become a content distributor, and doing business with one of the world's largest content owners/creators is "reprehensible"? You're an idiot. As a stockholder, I'd be furious if Apple wasn't trying to secure every deal possible. Please leave your distorted reality and join "mainstream" reality.
Nice misdirection there. I could care less about the 'dems' and their projected losses. I care about Murdock.
As a stockholder, I DO care about the folks Apple gets in bed with, as should you.
None of those networks "lean to the left". All are owned by ardent capitalists. All are defenders of the status quo. All are invested in keeping the power structure pretty much the same.
Get real.
You must not watch these networks much if you think none of them "lean" to the left. Do yourself a favor and watch Roland Martin, Keith Olberman, Wolf Blitzer, or any of those characters. Then see which direction they lean towards. Obviously Fox News is right-leaning. But MSNBC is the hardest-leaning liberal channel on earth, and they aren't vilified for some reason.
You must not watch these networks much if you think none of them "lean" to the left. Do yourself a favor and watch Roland Martin, Keith Olberman, Wolf Blitzer, or any of those characters. Then see which direction they lean towards. Obviously Fox News is right-leaning. But MSNBC is the hardest-leaning liberal channel on earth, and they aren't vilified for some reason.
MSNBC is owned by rich white men who would do anything and everything to preserve the current capitalistic economic system. They are far, far from "leftists". The last thing in the world that they would support is worker ownership of the means of production.
Borrowing a television show for .99 cents is way too expensive. It should be a quarter (if that).
Most people watch a particular television episode once and only once. .99 cents is way too expensive for that... .99 for a song I listen to dozens and dozens of time is worth it.
Unlike music, I can imagine most people would have very little problem with downloading a missed episode of their favorite show from a torrent, watching it, then discarding it...
Any any sane person would view the fact that Fox is the 'only news channel that leans to the right' to mean that Fox is extreme and out of the mainstream since all other news channels would be by definition more mainstream.
This became a political topic when it involved Murdock since he a highly prominent and political figure. The fact that Apple would do business with this man is reprehensible.
Isn't "mainstream" meant to convey what the entire population thinks -- rather than a few so-called "journalists" who try to tell the population what to think?
I get my news from several sources -- and consider that each purveyor of news has a bias or an agenda.
Neither, Fox, NBC, nor you can decide what I believe -- that is my decision alone.
You have to seek the truth -- it cannot be freely given or received!
Imagine that, a media baron using the press to influence the outcome of an election in order to make things more conducive to said media baron's business interests, in the USA, who ever would have thought such a thing was possible.
since when did this site become a political blog? Get a life.
For the record, Fox News is the ONLY network that leans to the right. Every other network is clearly left-leaning (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC etc). Can't republicans have ONE channel to turn to and see opinions they agree with? Chill out.
If fox would admit that they are presenting opinions for republicans to agree with, then I would say yes, but they don't. Fox claims to report news. Fox creates news by letting people like Beck make batsh!t crazy statements and pretending that the protests they create and promote are grassroots.
I find the viewpoint that the online sale of music inadvertently torpedoed CD sales to laughable.
What torpedoed CD sales was that physical copies of music offer no benefit to downloaded versions. They're more expensive, stores have incomplete selection and I have to drive to get them. This is the same issue that newspapers and books are running into (I know, reading a real book just feels better, but 2x the price better?).
I'll have to assume that you don't really listen critically to your music, or at least not on anything more than earbuds. A downloaded track has nowhere near the detail nor dynamic range of a CD, as it's both compressed, in a bitstream sense, and compressed, in a musical sense. That's a real benefit of CDs (and vinyl...) to some, who still *listen* to their music as a foreground activity.
Also, as others have mentioned, CDs are albums, with planned multitrack content (often, amazingly, longer than 2-3 minutes per track . That's a benefit to some, who who still *listen* to their music as a foreground activity, and aren't afflicted with ADD.
I won't defend CD pricing, though... greed is everywhere.
As a related issue, people are loving downloading/streaming "HD" content to their new flatscreen TVs, without realizing that the actual amount of data used to render a pixel has been severely limited from that in a Blu-Ray or DVD. A 25:1 compression makes a downloaded HD movie more or less equivalent to a regular old NTSC or PAL signal, OK for an iPad or iPhone, but not much else without losing all the visual detail they likely bought the TV for in the first place. Not an issue for a casual watcher, but critical for a critical one.
Most audio/visual content these days is targeted at non-critical, non-savvy, casual and impatient consumers. While marketed as quality, the product is actually crap.
Back to media barons, we'd buy more papers if they'd employ more editors...
Any news channel who has to use terms like "fair and balanced" in their tag line is anything but...
Why? Because you say so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
Nice misdirection there. I could care less about the 'dems' and their projected losses. I care about Murdock.
As a stockholder, I DO care about the folks Apple gets in bed with, as should you.
Good. I'm glad you agree with me that Al Gore should step down from the board of directors at Apple for all the FUD he spread about global warming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron
MSNBC is owned by rich white men who would do anything and everything to preserve the current capitalistic economic system. They are far, far from "leftists". The last thing in the world that they would support is worker ownership of the means of production.
Get real.
Of course they are going to be rich, how many broadcasting companies are owned by poor people? Just because someone is rich doesn't make them a capitalist, or have any regards for the capitalistic system. Is Obama a capitalist because he's a millionaire? His spread the wealth mentality tells me no. Not sure why you have to point out that they are white, never noticed, never cared.
Murdock is a business man, Steve Jobs is a business man. Both have products that are highly desirable in the center-right country we live in. Don't like it? Switch to Google. As a company they are much more left-leaning.
Imagine that, a media baron using the press to influence the outcome of an election in order to make things more conducive to said media baron's business interests, in the USA, who ever would have thought such a thing was possible.
/sarcasm
Do da name William Randolph Hearst strike a familiar note?
How did it twist to where iTunes destroyed the industry.
Digital music destroyed music more than the industry; and if they think they are now getting so much less from single track sales...
So we've gone from 70min to 700min on a CD, a tenth the data, lost the subsonics and anti-aliased the nuance out. There is no product per se, so no production - retailer costs. You can no longer bequeath it (alive or dead) to anyone, it's not even sellable, it has no value. People don't have $2000 iTunes collections, they have $0 iTunes collections that they spent $2000 for the marginal right to listen to.
Even the ol' 99c story is false, iTunes upped it's price in three gentle phases, now there's not even a DRM cost. No one even blinked. (AU $1.29 -> $1.69).
As for albums fetching more return, is it true? Do people buy less quantity of music, or since it is chump change and instant are they spending the same or more.
They are raking it in on a cost/income basis.
As for the producers of tv shows, the retail price isn't their sale. They sell a batch to KMart, you might buy it a couple of months later for 1/2 price. The producer though has already cut and run.
I'd say their main opposition isn't a 99c retail price point. It's that they don't want to switch from lump sum to accumulation, it also changes who bares the risk; not like Apple cares if you don't sell many units of a crap show. KMart already paid, Apple only pays per sale, the file space is irrelevant.
Apple could change tactics. Offer the studios a flat lump sum, like a physical retailer, deal is Apple keeps the money. Offer two flat fees. Right to sell for 5 years or right to sell in perpetuity. Either that or 99c. Want neither, fine, we're moving to this model and only that content will be available on iTunes.
Alternatively offer the video houses a free financial consultant to help show them how they can transition from a lump sum to an accumulation model.
Either way they should see the value in selling nothing for money instead of having to go through all the trouble of making something for money.
I find the viewpoint that the online sale of music inadvertently torpedoed CD sales to laughable.
What torpedoed CD sales was that physical copies of music offer no benefit to downloaded versions. They're more expensive, stores have incomplete selection and I have to drive to get them. This is the same issue that newspapers and books are running into (I know, reading a real book just feels better, but 2x the price better?).
+1.
Not to mention all of the other things that go into distributing a CD. From production to the B+M stores that need to shelve them. It's a huge, wasteful beast that need not exist anymore.
Comments
Any any sane person would view the fact that Fox is the 'only news channel that leans to the right' to mean that Fox is extreme and out of the mainstream since all other news channels would be by definition more mainstream.
This became a political topic when it involved Murdock since he a highly prominent and political figure. The fact that Apple would do business with this man is reprehensible.
If being liberal is "mainstream," please explain the sweeping losses the democrats are going to suffer this November.
So Apple is trying to become a content distributor, and doing business with one of the world's largest content owners/creators is "reprehensible"? You're an idiot. As a stockholder, I'd be furious if Apple wasn't trying to secure every deal possible. Please leave your distorted reality and join "mainstream" reality.
since when did this site become a political blog? Get a life.
For the record, Fox News is the ONLY network that leans to the right. Every other network is clearly left-leaning (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC etc). Can't republicans have ONE channel to turn to and see opinions they agree with? Chill out.
None of those networks "lean to the left". All are owned by ardent capitalists. All are defenders of the status quo. All are invested in keeping the power structure pretty much the same.
Get real.
. The fact that Apple would do business with this man is reprehensible.
They suck up the the ChiComs, so why not suck up to the other end of the spectrum too?
There's money to be made. Chill.
Any any sane person would view the fact that Fox is the 'only news channel that leans to the right' to mean that Fox is extreme and out of the mainstream since all other news channels would be by definition more mainstream.
This became a political topic when it involved Murdock since he a highly prominent and political figure. The fact that Apple would do business with this man is reprehensible.
Any news channel who has to use terms like "fair and balanced" in their tag line is anything but...
If being liberal is "mainstream," please explain the sweeping losses the democrats are going to suffer this November.
So Apple is trying to become a content distributor, and doing business with one of the world's largest content owners/creators is "reprehensible"? You're an idiot. As a stockholder, I'd be furious if Apple wasn't trying to secure every deal possible. Please leave your distorted reality and join "mainstream" reality.
Nice misdirection there. I could care less about the 'dems' and their projected losses. I care about Murdock.
As a stockholder, I DO care about the folks Apple gets in bed with, as should you.
None of those networks "lean to the left". All are owned by ardent capitalists. All are defenders of the status quo. All are invested in keeping the power structure pretty much the same.
Get real.
You must not watch these networks much if you think none of them "lean" to the left. Do yourself a favor and watch Roland Martin, Keith Olberman, Wolf Blitzer, or any of those characters. Then see which direction they lean towards. Obviously Fox News is right-leaning. But MSNBC is the hardest-leaning liberal channel on earth, and they aren't vilified for some reason.
Nice misdirection there. I could care less about the 'dems' and their projected losses. I care about Murdock.
As a stockholder, I DO care about the folks Apple gets in bed with, as should you.
I guess you don't want the Simpsons, Family Guy, or 24 on your iPad?
If being liberal is "mainstream," please explain the sweeping losses the democrats are going to suffer this November.
Explaining your cloudy crystal ball is a job for Glenn Beck, and not the OP.
But if you look at history, pretty much every time there's a midterm election during a recession, the incumbent party loses seats in Congress.
So your WAG is likely to come true. And you will attribute each victory to...what? What does Rush say?
You must not watch these networks much if you think none of them "lean" to the left. Do yourself a favor and watch Roland Martin, Keith Olberman, Wolf Blitzer, or any of those characters. Then see which direction they lean towards. Obviously Fox News is right-leaning. But MSNBC is the hardest-leaning liberal channel on earth, and they aren't vilified for some reason.
MSNBC is owned by rich white men who would do anything and everything to preserve the current capitalistic economic system. They are far, far from "leftists". The last thing in the world that they would support is worker ownership of the means of production.
Get real.
Any self-proclaimed 'news' organization that manipulates the masses in such an overt way is despicable in my book. ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11014504
Yet you quote the BBC?!
A vulgar, propaganda spewing, socialist ideals emitting, nation suppressing, asshole of an institution.
Never trust the BBC.
Most people watch a particular television episode once and only once. .99 cents is way too expensive for that... .99 for a song I listen to dozens and dozens of time is worth it.
Unlike music, I can imagine most people would have very little problem with downloading a missed episode of their favorite show from a torrent, watching it, then discarding it...
Any any sane person would view the fact that Fox is the 'only news channel that leans to the right' to mean that Fox is extreme and out of the mainstream since all other news channels would be by definition more mainstream.
This became a political topic when it involved Murdock since he a highly prominent and political figure. The fact that Apple would do business with this man is reprehensible.
Isn't "mainstream" meant to convey what the entire population thinks -- rather than a few so-called "journalists" who try to tell the population what to think?
I get my news from several sources -- and consider that each purveyor of news has a bias or an agenda.
Neither, Fox, NBC, nor you can decide what I believe -- that is my decision alone.
You have to seek the truth -- it cannot be freely given or received!
.
/sarcasm
since when did this site become a political blog? Get a life.
For the record, Fox News is the ONLY network that leans to the right. Every other network is clearly left-leaning (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC etc). Can't republicans have ONE channel to turn to and see opinions they agree with? Chill out.
If fox would admit that they are presenting opinions for republicans to agree with, then I would say yes, but they don't. Fox claims to report news. Fox creates news by letting people like Beck make batsh!t crazy statements and pretending that the protests they create and promote are grassroots.
I find the viewpoint that the online sale of music inadvertently torpedoed CD sales to laughable.
What torpedoed CD sales was that physical copies of music offer no benefit to downloaded versions. They're more expensive, stores have incomplete selection and I have to drive to get them. This is the same issue that newspapers and books are running into (I know, reading a real book just feels better, but 2x the price better?).
I'll have to assume that you don't really listen critically to your music, or at least not on anything more than earbuds. A downloaded track has nowhere near the detail nor dynamic range of a CD, as it's both compressed, in a bitstream sense, and compressed, in a musical sense. That's a real benefit of CDs (and vinyl...) to some, who still *listen* to their music as a foreground activity.
Also, as others have mentioned, CDs are albums, with planned multitrack content (often, amazingly, longer than 2-3 minutes per track
I won't defend CD pricing, though... greed is everywhere.
As a related issue, people are loving downloading/streaming "HD" content to their new flatscreen TVs, without realizing that the actual amount of data used to render a pixel has been severely limited from that in a Blu-Ray or DVD. A 25:1 compression makes a downloaded HD movie more or less equivalent to a regular old NTSC or PAL signal, OK for an iPad or iPhone, but not much else without losing all the visual detail they likely bought the TV for in the first place. Not an issue for a casual watcher, but critical for a critical one.
Most audio/visual content these days is targeted at non-critical, non-savvy, casual and impatient consumers. While marketed as quality, the product is actually crap.
Back to media barons, we'd buy more papers if they'd employ more editors...
Any news channel who has to use terms like "fair and balanced" in their tag line is anything but...
Why? Because you say so?
Nice misdirection there. I could care less about the 'dems' and their projected losses. I care about Murdock.
As a stockholder, I DO care about the folks Apple gets in bed with, as should you.
Good. I'm glad you agree with me that Al Gore should step down from the board of directors at Apple for all the FUD he spread about global warming.
MSNBC is owned by rich white men who would do anything and everything to preserve the current capitalistic economic system. They are far, far from "leftists". The last thing in the world that they would support is worker ownership of the means of production.
Get real.
Of course they are going to be rich, how many broadcasting companies are owned by poor people? Just because someone is rich doesn't make them a capitalist, or have any regards for the capitalistic system. Is Obama a capitalist because he's a millionaire? His spread the wealth mentality tells me no. Not sure why you have to point out that they are white, never noticed, never cared.
Murdock is a business man, Steve Jobs is a business man. Both have products that are highly desirable in the center-right country we live in. Don't like it? Switch to Google. As a company they are much more left-leaning.
Imagine that, a media baron using the press to influence the outcome of an election in order to make things more conducive to said media baron's business interests, in the USA, who ever would have thought such a thing was possible.
/sarcasm
Do da name William Randolph Hearst strike a familiar note?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst
.
Digital music destroyed music more than the industry; and if they think they are now getting so much less from single track sales...
So we've gone from 70min to 700min on a CD, a tenth the data, lost the subsonics and anti-aliased the nuance out. There is no product per se, so no production - retailer costs. You can no longer bequeath it (alive or dead) to anyone, it's not even sellable, it has no value. People don't have $2000 iTunes collections, they have $0 iTunes collections that they spent $2000 for the marginal right to listen to.
Even the ol' 99c story is false, iTunes upped it's price in three gentle phases, now there's not even a DRM cost. No one even blinked. (AU $1.29 -> $1.69).
As for albums fetching more return, is it true? Do people buy less quantity of music, or since it is chump change and instant are they spending the same or more.
They are raking it in on a cost/income basis.
As for the producers of tv shows, the retail price isn't their sale. They sell a batch to KMart, you might buy it a couple of months later for 1/2 price. The producer though has already cut and run.
I'd say their main opposition isn't a 99c retail price point. It's that they don't want to switch from lump sum to accumulation, it also changes who bares the risk; not like Apple cares if you don't sell many units of a crap show. KMart already paid, Apple only pays per sale, the file space is irrelevant.
Apple could change tactics. Offer the studios a flat lump sum, like a physical retailer, deal is Apple keeps the money. Offer two flat fees. Right to sell for 5 years or right to sell in perpetuity. Either that or 99c. Want neither, fine, we're moving to this model and only that content will be available on iTunes.
Alternatively offer the video houses a free financial consultant to help show them how they can transition from a lump sum to an accumulation model.
Either way they should see the value in selling nothing for money instead of having to go through all the trouble of making something for money.
I find the viewpoint that the online sale of music inadvertently torpedoed CD sales to laughable.
What torpedoed CD sales was that physical copies of music offer no benefit to downloaded versions. They're more expensive, stores have incomplete selection and I have to drive to get them. This is the same issue that newspapers and books are running into (I know, reading a real book just feels better, but 2x the price better?).
+1.
Not to mention all of the other things that go into distributing a CD. From production to the B+M stores that need to shelve them. It's a huge, wasteful beast that need not exist anymore.