Nope, not me. Nuh uh. Never would. Nope.
 |
iPod |
| Send FReepmail if you want on/off iPing list | |
| The List of Ping Lists | |
Posted on 08/26/2005 8:49:21 PM PDT by wagglebee
Two and a half years after the music business lined up behind the chief executive of Apple, Steven P. Jobs, and hailed him and his iTunes music service for breathing life into music sales, the industry's allegiance to Mr. Jobs has eroded sharply.
Mr. Jobs is now girding for a showdown with at least two of the four major record companies over the price of songs on the iTunes service.
If he loses, the one-price model that iTunes has adopted - 99 cents to download any song - could be replaced with a more complex structure that prices songs by popularity. A hot new single, for example, could sell for $1.49, while a golden oldie could go for substantially less than 99 cents.
Music executives who support Mr. Jobs say the higher prices could backfire, sending iTunes' customers in search of songs on free, unauthorized file-swapping networks.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
iPod ping.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The recording industry is going to destroy iTunes. Watch for iPods to start being siezed for "evidence".
Yes, but these are the same idiots that supported Michael Moore and Algore. They *are* fools.
I loaded a couple hundred CDs I already owned on my iPod because I was sick of having to keep track of them, I've never downloaded anything from iTunes, they aren't getting mine.
No, this is just part of the negotiating process. Apple has done great things...dragging the record industy behind it. I have no problem with either proposal as outlined. Pay 1.49 for a new song or .70 for an old one. I buy the older ones in general. The invisible hand of market forces will result in higher quality songs on each CD, unlike the filler songs we have seen in the past few dacades.
.99 each == music as a service
Variable pricing == music as a product
A product, which has no value as demonstrated by modern file-swapping.
Nope, not me. Nuh uh. Never would. Nope.
|
iPod |
| Send FReepmail if you want on/off iPing list | |
| The List of Ping Lists | |
If the RIAA wants to let their greed get the better of them, fine and dandy. I'll stop buying their music and just go get the latest version of Lime Wire.
Anyone interested in podcasts, or podmails should check out a cool new site at www.podomatic.com. You can record and send voice messages called podmails that can be opened just like an email but with audio and/or you can download the messages onto an ipod. You can mix these with music too. You can also set up downloading of podcasts there.
I think the podmails are really fun.
If I pay 99 cents for a single song, I would like to be able to play it forever. Maybe I'll go back to recording songs off the radio with cassette tapes.
That is exactly how iTunes works.
Apple is coming to have the same place in the distribution chain that record labels had, and that confers some big advantages. Suppose Apple simply said to artists "post your music on iTunes. We'll pay you 25 cents for every $1 song sold." That's a much better share of revenue than the record labels provide to artists.
The artists would be giving up the promotion that the record companies provide, and they'd give up advances. But they'd get a higher percentage of the take.
The labels major advantage is their back catalog, which is a goldmine of intellectual property. Lack of that back catalog can cripple a service.
Apple would not necessarily have to take on the talent spotting/editorial function that the record labels currently provide. Disk space is cheap. Put it all up! Trance accordian group from Sandusky? Why not! It costs nearly zero, they don't have to press any CDs, and they don't really even have to guess whether they're good or not. If they're good they'll sell. If not, they'll take up fifty cents worth of dsk space.
The RIAA will never learn. The reason for song swapping was the fact that you had 19 dollar cds with one or two good songs on them....no one wanted to pay that much for two songs. Then along came iTunes and let you buy only the songs you wanted for a decent price....now they are getting greedy again and going with their dinosaur model of doing business....and driving more people back to swapping over the Net.
The RIAA is filled with complete and utter fools.
Very good analysis, thanks. Makes me lean towards buying Apple once the upcoming correction takes place.
Also, I think it would be a great idea if Apple bought TIVO. A great match, in my opinoin . Cheap too.
They'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands!
There's already some motion in the direction of the record companies. I tried to buy the tune from the last segment of the Six Feet Under finale. I found it just fine, but they would only sell it with the 12.99 album.
I didn't want it that bad.
Can you help with a "discussion" we were having the other day? A friend insisted that "sharing" via Limewire is "illegal", and we were unaware that it is.
I thought that downloading for profit was illegal, but sharing wasn't. But, I am worried that I am wrong. What do they do when they come for you, if it is illegal?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.