It's not downloading that's killed the industry as much as the return to an industry based upon sales of singles. There's a lot of blame to be passed around for that, but it doesn't matter - it's killing the music business.
[...]
You mean we were better off buying whole albums with lots of crap "filler songs" instead?
...except, apparently, when they sell through the Ubuntu Store or Amazon.
Yeah, true enough.
Jobs has an Open Letter on this where he makes his opposition to DRM clear, though. Its well worded.
Its related to the fact that they also said ( maybe in that letter) that only 3% of content on an iPod was DRM anyway. Apple have that bit right. iTunes is clearly not the only way to get music for the iPod ( as opposed to get it onto the iPod) and Apple dont, and shouldn't care.
Same with e-Books. iBooks is a nice to have, maybe a small earner. Kindle and Sony E-Reader cost you nothing and may sell hardware.
My "crappy" MP3 player has an FM radio built in, and cost less than half the price of an iPod.
And because it doesn't support Apple's proprietary DRM, I buy my music through the Ubuntu Store or Amazon, where I get DRM-free MP3s that I can use with any player, often for a little less than the iTunes store price.
I like my MP3 player, and feel it offers a good value.
Use what you enjoy. But don't fall into the trap of believing that anything that doesn't sport an Apple logo is necessarily crap. If you've bought as many Macs as I have you'd know that Apple doesn't make perfect products any more than anyone else in this imperfect world.
iTunes hasn't used DRM for quite some time. Obviously, you haven't used it in a long time (if ever.) On my iPhone I have material that I purchased through iTunes, stuff from Rhapsody and stuff that I ripped myself. I can play my iTunes purchased music on any player I want. I also bought my mom an iPod nano which also has an FM radio in it, so I don't know what it is that is making you feel so self-righteous. As you said, use what you enjoy. Plastic electronics feel crappy to me and I am willing to pay more for something with a high build quality and a solid feel.
That is Sony's exact point, there are other methods. You buying it somewhere else takes that $ out of Apples hands. Sony still gets paid. So I think they do get it.
If they 'got' it, they'd make it easier to buy the books/music through their own online service in a way that's integrated into their e-reader app - easier than clicking for an in-app purchase. If they make it harder, then it's not really surprising that they're afraid that people will click for the in-app purchase and they lose 30%. Hell, they could probably put the in-app purchase further down on a screen / on another sub-screen and not violate the policy since it's still available, while making their own purchase more visible. But then there's a good chance they're pushing their own web site into the interface in a way that makes it harder to do that GUI - so fix it. Do some markup on your site so that the e-reader app can insert a link back to the app. Whatever.
But you're right that they do get the $ part - they always have, whether trying to make a closed environment where they get royalties for betamax, Blue-ray, their strange proprietary flash-RAM formats, etc. Funny they don't like other companies building the same types of walls.
IF you think about it, Apple's behavior here isn't that much different than MS telling PC manufacturer's that they must pay for a license to install Windows on every PC they sell, even if the customer only wanted Linux and not Windows on their computer.
Apple still allows purchases outside of iTunes, as long as the iTunes option is also available. That's the only thing keeping them out of hot water...but they are dangerously close to getting the attention of regulators and losing the trust of developers and customers. (In my opinion.)
My "crappy" MP3 player has an FM radio built in, and cost less than half the price of an iPod.
My "iPod" has a phone, a portable game console and many more things built in! And it costed just right IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
And because it doesn't support Apple's proprietary DRM, I buy my music through the Ubuntu Store or Amazon, where I get DRM-free MP3s that I can use with any player, often for a little less than the iTunes store price.
I like my MP3 player, and feel it offers a good value.
Use what you enjoy. But don't fall into the trap of believing that anything that doesn't sport an Apple logo is necessarily crap. If you've bought as many Macs as I have you'd know that Apple doesn't make perfect products any more than anyone else in this imperfect world.
Cool down, I only said that the iPod is the de-facto mp3 player. That is, most people evidently think Apple's mp3 player is the best game in town (incidentally, me included)... Sorry if the "crappy" part offended you. I'm sure that, despite not being "sexy", Sony's players are of excellent quality.
I'm also sure as a manufacturer, Apple has lots of examples of failure/poor build just as anyone else. But these 10 years or so nobody really seems to design attractive products. Most everything seems to be inside the "Windows/DOS" mindset. Made by engineers, for engineers. It's not that I'm a grandma who can't install a printer's driver; I can. But it annoys me that I have to go over that time and again when things should "just work" out of the box so I can dedicate my energy to my main task.
If they 'got' it, they'd make it easier to buy the books/music through their own online service in a way that's integrated into their e-reader app - easier than clicking for an in-app purchase. If they make it harder, then it's not really surprising that they're afraid that people will click for the in-app purchase and they lose 30%. Hell, they could probably put the in-app purchase further down on a screen / on another sub-screen and not violate the policy since it's still available, while making their own purchase more visible. But then there's a good chance they're pushing their own web site into the interface in a way that makes it harder to do that GUI - so fix it. Do some markup on your site so that the e-reader app can insert a link back to the app. Whatever.
But you're right that they do get the $ part - they always have, whether trying to make a closed environment where they get royalties for betamax, Blue-ray, their strange proprietary flash-RAM formats, etc. Funny they don't like other companies building the same types of walls.
Nobody has even seen the Sony e-reader. It probably links back to the app - kindle does.
The problem is that 11.2 used to ban people like Sony and Kindle from doing their own in-app purchases in the app UI ( not a huge technical challenge) so companies got around it by linking out to a website, and linking back it when bought.
Now Apple have demanded that Sony ( and others) have a UI which uses Apples In App Purchasing, but have made nothing else clear about how many buttons the UI can have, can the app even link outside to the website via a button, can there be differential pricing.
IF you think about it, Apple's behavior here isn't that much different than MS telling PC manufacturer's that they must pay for a license to install Windows on every PC they sell, even if the customer only wanted Linux and not Windows on their computer.
Actually, it is way better because Apple still allows you to sell through other channels as well.
Apple should stay out of the content business altogether.
That is one reason that I think iAds will fail. It doesn't support hardware sales. No one buys a device so they can watch ads.
I'm not sure about that, but I do think this points to part of Sony's problem. They should divest their content business and focus on the electronics. Competing labels and studios are unlikely to form partnership deals with Sony, and thus Sony's efforts in the electronics market are inherently handicapped.
I agree that there will be some kind of an agreement because it will be better for both to stay. My main point was a disagreement that it would be worse for Apple if Sony pulled out than it would be for Sony. And therefore Apple would be stupid to not give in.
I also think that many people use iTunes as a way to discover music. You are right that if I am looking for a specific title and can't find it I may go elsewhere, but I might just be interested in cool jazz. So, I browse through and don't even realize that Coltrane isn't there because, uh he isn't there. I find another artist that is also good and download that instead.
It sounds to me like you are also an album buyer (as am I) and a lot of what makes iTunes great for a lot of people is singles downloading. So, if I can't get the song I want because it's Sony and my only choice is to buy the whole album, then I'm likely to head to the bit torrents. But again, I agree, they will work this out.
I do both albums and singles. I often buy singles when I hear a song from somewhere, use either Shazam or Soundhound to identify it, buy it and download it to my phone. Or when a song gets caught in my head and I must satisfy that immediate need.
I don't use itunes to look for new music. Pandora often introduces me to music I haven't heard before or haven't heard in a long time.
IF you think about it, Apple's behavior here isn't that much different than MS telling PC manufacturer's that they must pay for a license to install Windows on every PC they sell, even if the customer only wanted Linux and not Windows on their computer.
Apple still allows purchases outside of iTunes, as long as the iTunes option is also available. That's the only thing keeping them out of hot water...but they are dangerously close to getting the attention of regulators and losing the trust of developers and customers. (In my opinion.)
Imagine this scenario. I create a magazine app and put it on the app store for free. Then I sell issues every month to all the people who downloaded it via a web link. What has Apple gotten from it? Nothing. What did Apple provide me with? A distribution channel where my customers can buy things from me that I don't have to pay for. Apple pays for the servers, the maintenance, associated with the app store and got nothing out of it.
So, they say, "hey since we are providing you with new customers and incurring expenses on your behalf, how about you make it an option for your customers who want to, to buy in app?". We will take our usual cut, but if they want to go to the browser and use extra steps, we won't worry about it. Just how is this unfair? What is unfair is companies making money of the back of Apple and not wanting to pay them for the new revenue that they are sending their way. If you don't like it, then just don't have a purchase option in the app at all. Have customers purchase it from their computer and Apple won't care. These publishers should be happy that there is some mechanism to save their dying print business not biting the hand that is going to feed them.
Imagine this scenario. I create a magazine app and put it on the app store for free. Then I sell issues every month to all the people who downloaded it via a web link. What has Apple gotten from it? Nothing. What did Apple provide me with? A distribution channel where my customers can buy things from me that I don't have to pay for. Apple pays for the servers, the maintenance, associated with the app store and got nothing out of it.
So, they say, "hey since we are providing you with new customers and incurring expenses on your behalf, how about you make it an option for your customers who want to, to buy in app?". We will take our usual cut, but if they want to go to the browser and use extra steps, we won't worry about it. Just how is this unfair? What is unfair is companies making money of the back of Apple and not wanting to pay them for the new revenue that they are sending their way. If you don't like it, then just don't have a purchase option in the app at all. Have customers purchase it from their computer and Apple won't care. These publishers should be happy that there is some mechanism to save their dying print business not biting the hand that is going to feed them.
The original cost to Apple is the hosting of the original app. That cost exists only because Apple curates the store. No subsequent costs exist.
Imagine this scenario.
1) MS, in a copying of the iPad, makes Windows a curated environment.
2) Sales are only though the Windows App Store.
3) Itunes is free so it does not pay 30% to Windows on download.
4) Every song, album, movie, or other digital content purchased from within iTunes ( forced to use the Windows IAP) sees 30% go to MS who dont host, own or distribute the content. Fair?
Quote:
If you don't like it, then just don't have a purchase option in the app at all. Have customers purchase it from their computer and Apple won't care. These publishers should be happy that there is some mechanism to save their dying print business not biting the hand that is going to feed them.
Not true. The very existence of a website puts you in violation of the new reading of IAP.
Of course.... someone at Sony could be a complete and utter moron...
Well, these days the witty remark is "Of course.... someone at Sony could be NOT a complete and utter moron.. " Yes, but he's busy mopping the floors at night.
That's not a problem, they pull they're stuff from iTunes and more people will pirate it. They'll do great from that won't they? Sony lost the plot years ago.
I think Sony I counting on google to provide an iTunes knock off so. They can jump ship
I think Sony I counting on google to provide an iTunes knock off so. They can jump ship
Just like how Time and others are going to do
Alright, so Android will have Sony, Kindle, Skype ( also in violation), and any other content owner who has an app for content, funtionality, or service using their own IAP; and a google iTunes type store
Comments
[...]
It's not downloading that's killed the industry as much as the return to an industry based upon sales of singles. There's a lot of blame to be passed around for that, but it doesn't matter - it's killing the music business.
[...]
You mean we were better off buying whole albums with lots of crap "filler songs" instead?
...except, apparently, when they sell through the Ubuntu Store or Amazon.
Yeah, true enough.
Jobs has an Open Letter on this where he makes his opposition to DRM clear, though. Its well worded.
Its related to the fact that they also said ( maybe in that letter) that only 3% of content on an iPod was DRM anyway. Apple have that bit right. iTunes is clearly not the only way to get music for the iPod ( as opposed to get it onto the iPod) and Apple dont, and shouldn't care.
Same with e-Books. iBooks is a nice to have, maybe a small earner. Kindle and Sony E-Reader cost you nothing and may sell hardware.
My "crappy" MP3 player has an FM radio built in, and cost less than half the price of an iPod.
And because it doesn't support Apple's proprietary DRM, I buy my music through the Ubuntu Store or Amazon, where I get DRM-free MP3s that I can use with any player, often for a little less than the iTunes store price.
I like my MP3 player, and feel it offers a good value.
Use what you enjoy. But don't fall into the trap of believing that anything that doesn't sport an Apple logo is necessarily crap. If you've bought as many Macs as I have you'd know that Apple doesn't make perfect products any more than anyone else in this imperfect world.
iTunes hasn't used DRM for quite some time. Obviously, you haven't used it in a long time (if ever.) On my iPhone I have material that I purchased through iTunes, stuff from Rhapsody and stuff that I ripped myself. I can play my iTunes purchased music on any player I want. I also bought my mom an iPod nano which also has an FM radio in it, so I don't know what it is that is making you feel so self-righteous. As you said, use what you enjoy. Plastic electronics feel crappy to me and I am willing to pay more for something with a high build quality and a solid feel.
That is Sony's exact point, there are other methods. You buying it somewhere else takes that $ out of Apples hands. Sony still gets paid. So I think they do get it.
If they 'got' it, they'd make it easier to buy the books/music through their own online service in a way that's integrated into their e-reader app - easier than clicking for an in-app purchase. If they make it harder, then it's not really surprising that they're afraid that people will click for the in-app purchase and they lose 30%. Hell, they could probably put the in-app purchase further down on a screen / on another sub-screen and not violate the policy since it's still available, while making their own purchase more visible. But then there's a good chance they're pushing their own web site into the interface in a way that makes it harder to do that GUI - so fix it. Do some markup on your site so that the e-reader app can insert a link back to the app. Whatever.
But you're right that they do get the $ part - they always have, whether trying to make a closed environment where they get royalties for betamax, Blue-ray, their strange proprietary flash-RAM formats, etc. Funny they don't like other companies building the same types of walls.
Apple still allows purchases outside of iTunes, as long as the iTunes option is also available. That's the only thing keeping them out of hot water...but they are dangerously close to getting the attention of regulators and losing the trust of developers and customers. (In my opinion.)
My "crappy" MP3 player has an FM radio built in, and cost less than half the price of an iPod.
My "iPod" has a phone, a portable game console and many more things built in! And it costed just right IMO.
And because it doesn't support Apple's proprietary DRM, I buy my music through the Ubuntu Store or Amazon, where I get DRM-free MP3s that I can use with any player, often for a little less than the iTunes store price.
I like my MP3 player, and feel it offers a good value.
Use what you enjoy. But don't fall into the trap of believing that anything that doesn't sport an Apple logo is necessarily crap. If you've bought as many Macs as I have you'd know that Apple doesn't make perfect products any more than anyone else in this imperfect world.
Cool down, I only said that the iPod is the de-facto mp3 player. That is, most people evidently think Apple's mp3 player is the best game in town (incidentally, me included)... Sorry if the "crappy" part offended you. I'm sure that, despite not being "sexy", Sony's players are of excellent quality.
I'm also sure as a manufacturer, Apple has lots of examples of failure/poor build just as anyone else. But these 10 years or so nobody really seems to design attractive products. Most everything seems to be inside the "Windows/DOS" mindset. Made by engineers, for engineers. It's not that I'm a grandma who can't install a printer's driver; I can. But it annoys me that I have to go over that time and again when things should "just work" out of the box so I can dedicate my energy to my main task.
Have fun with Ubuntu.
If they 'got' it, they'd make it easier to buy the books/music through their own online service in a way that's integrated into their e-reader app - easier than clicking for an in-app purchase. If they make it harder, then it's not really surprising that they're afraid that people will click for the in-app purchase and they lose 30%. Hell, they could probably put the in-app purchase further down on a screen / on another sub-screen and not violate the policy since it's still available, while making their own purchase more visible. But then there's a good chance they're pushing their own web site into the interface in a way that makes it harder to do that GUI - so fix it. Do some markup on your site so that the e-reader app can insert a link back to the app. Whatever.
But you're right that they do get the $ part - they always have, whether trying to make a closed environment where they get royalties for betamax, Blue-ray, their strange proprietary flash-RAM formats, etc. Funny they don't like other companies building the same types of walls.
Nobody has even seen the Sony e-reader. It probably links back to the app - kindle does.
The problem is that 11.2 used to ban people like Sony and Kindle from doing their own in-app purchases in the app UI ( not a huge technical challenge) so companies got around it by linking out to a website, and linking back it when bought.
Now Apple have demanded that Sony ( and others) have a UI which uses Apples In App Purchasing, but have made nothing else clear about how many buttons the UI can have, can the app even link outside to the website via a button, can there be differential pricing.
Its simultaneously amateur and sinister.
IF you think about it, Apple's behavior here isn't that much different than MS telling PC manufacturer's that they must pay for a license to install Windows on every PC they sell, even if the customer only wanted Linux and not Windows on their computer.
Actually, it is way better because Apple still allows you to sell through other channels as well.
Never buy your customer.
Apple should stay out of the content business altogether.
That is one reason that I think iAds will fail. It doesn't support hardware sales. No one buys a device so they can watch ads.
I'm not sure about that, but I do think this points to part of Sony's problem. They should divest their content business and focus on the electronics. Competing labels and studios are unlikely to form partnership deals with Sony, and thus Sony's efforts in the electronics market are inherently handicapped.
I agree that there will be some kind of an agreement because it will be better for both to stay. My main point was a disagreement that it would be worse for Apple if Sony pulled out than it would be for Sony. And therefore Apple would be stupid to not give in.
I also think that many people use iTunes as a way to discover music. You are right that if I am looking for a specific title and can't find it I may go elsewhere, but I might just be interested in cool jazz. So, I browse through and don't even realize that Coltrane isn't there because, uh he isn't there. I find another artist that is also good and download that instead.
It sounds to me like you are also an album buyer (as am I) and a lot of what makes iTunes great for a lot of people is singles downloading. So, if I can't get the song I want because it's Sony and my only choice is to buy the whole album, then I'm likely to head to the bit torrents. But again, I agree, they will work this out.
I do both albums and singles. I often buy singles when I hear a song from somewhere, use either Shazam or Soundhound to identify it, buy it and download it to my phone. Or when a song gets caught in my head and I must satisfy that immediate need.
I don't use itunes to look for new music. Pandora often introduces me to music I haven't heard before or haven't heard in a long time.
By the way, Amazon does singles as well.
IF you think about it, Apple's behavior here isn't that much different than MS telling PC manufacturer's that they must pay for a license to install Windows on every PC they sell, even if the customer only wanted Linux and not Windows on their computer.
Apple still allows purchases outside of iTunes, as long as the iTunes option is also available. That's the only thing keeping them out of hot water...but they are dangerously close to getting the attention of regulators and losing the trust of developers and customers. (In my opinion.)
Imagine this scenario. I create a magazine app and put it on the app store for free. Then I sell issues every month to all the people who downloaded it via a web link. What has Apple gotten from it? Nothing. What did Apple provide me with? A distribution channel where my customers can buy things from me that I don't have to pay for. Apple pays for the servers, the maintenance, associated with the app store and got nothing out of it.
So, they say, "hey since we are providing you with new customers and incurring expenses on your behalf, how about you make it an option for your customers who want to, to buy in app?". We will take our usual cut, but if they want to go to the browser and use extra steps, we won't worry about it. Just how is this unfair? What is unfair is companies making money of the back of Apple and not wanting to pay them for the new revenue that they are sending their way. If you don't like it, then just don't have a purchase option in the app at all. Have customers purchase it from their computer and Apple won't care. These publishers should be happy that there is some mechanism to save their dying print business not biting the hand that is going to feed them.
Imagine this scenario. I create a magazine app and put it on the app store for free. Then I sell issues every month to all the people who downloaded it via a web link. What has Apple gotten from it? Nothing. What did Apple provide me with? A distribution channel where my customers can buy things from me that I don't have to pay for. Apple pays for the servers, the maintenance, associated with the app store and got nothing out of it.
So, they say, "hey since we are providing you with new customers and incurring expenses on your behalf, how about you make it an option for your customers who want to, to buy in app?". We will take our usual cut, but if they want to go to the browser and use extra steps, we won't worry about it. Just how is this unfair? What is unfair is companies making money of the back of Apple and not wanting to pay them for the new revenue that they are sending their way. If you don't like it, then just don't have a purchase option in the app at all. Have customers purchase it from their computer and Apple won't care. These publishers should be happy that there is some mechanism to save their dying print business not biting the hand that is going to feed them.
The original cost to Apple is the hosting of the original app. That cost exists only because Apple curates the store. No subsequent costs exist.
Imagine this scenario.
1) MS, in a copying of the iPad, makes Windows a curated environment.
2) Sales are only though the Windows App Store.
3) Itunes is free so it does not pay 30% to Windows on download.
4) Every song, album, movie, or other digital content purchased from within iTunes ( forced to use the Windows IAP) sees 30% go to MS who dont host, own or distribute the content. Fair?
If you don't like it, then just don't have a purchase option in the app at all. Have customers purchase it from their computer and Apple won't care. These publishers should be happy that there is some mechanism to save their dying print business not biting the hand that is going to feed them.
Not true. The very existence of a website puts you in violation of the new reading of IAP.
Of course.... someone at Sony could be a complete and utter moron...
Well, these days the witty remark is "Of course.... someone at Sony could be NOT a complete and utter moron.. " Yes, but he's busy mopping the floors at night.
That's not a problem, they pull they're stuff from iTunes and more people will pirate it. They'll do great from that won't they? Sony lost the plot years ago.
I think Sony I counting on google to provide an iTunes knock off so. They can jump ship
Just like how Time and others are going to do
I think Sony I counting on google to provide an iTunes knock off so. They can jump ship
Just like how Time and others are going to do
Alright, so Android will have Sony, Kindle, Skype ( also in violation), and any other content owner who has an app for content, funtionality, or service using their own IAP; and a google iTunes type store
This iPad will have iTunes.
Good move Apple.